Stephen Holden Bitches About Not Getting Everything He Wants Exactly How He Wants It

by o on October 10, 2006

We know both sides of this argument: a concert is for music, there is no room for politics, people paid to hear the music; and, then: it’s an artist’s job to speak up about the corrupt government, issues that effect human beings; and it’s the artists choice to do whatever they please, it’s their show and they are not bound to the expectations of their fans.  And then the argument can spin off into HOW these things should be done.

I’m not a fan of Barbara Streisand or the democrats or politics.  Nor am I fan of the New York Times, but I end up reading it; it’s like a form of intellectual masochism.  The varied views it expresses all stem from a cynical worldview.  What fascinates me is the moebius strip relationship between the writers and the readers.  The writing reflects the readership and the readership is informed by the writing.  It’s a codependent relationship, each one supporting the other’s cynical, hopeless, worldview, in the guise of intelligent reporting and culture.  The quiet, all pervasive doubt that anything has any meaning; fanatical secularity posing as cultured intelligence.

You may wonder how I got here from there.  I do to.  I was just having a quiet morning up here in the woods of Vermont.  I turned on my computer and looked at the news, mainly to see how the world was responding/reacting to the North Korean nuclear test.  Then I read Holden’s headline (which probably wasn’t his anyway, but definitely reflects his attitude): Music Overpowers Streisand’s Many Missteps.  And before reading the article I knew what had happened:  Barbara had marred a concert by reminding people about the nonsense in the White House.  This is where my masochism comes in to play: I read the article.

Apparently the show was pretty good.  Barbara’s voice is in great form, she sang some great songs, saved the best for last, etc…  But there was the ‘misstep’ of having the ‘operatic boy band’ Il Divo as here guests.  But the big problem: she brought up George Bush.  "The biggest miscalculation was the appearance, late in the show, of a George W. Bush impersonator (Steve Bridges) who Ms. Streisand, an ardent Democrat, interrogated in a tone that tried to be witty, and failed."  There was this cliché criticism, "When Ms. Streisand stopped talking and started singing, she was her old self."  Yet, of Streisand’s voice he writes, "She should realize that sounding like an imperfect human being is more expressive than trying to sound like God, and her singing last night was frequently magnificent."

Holden has some very specific and conflicting demands of Ms. Streisand.  Mostly, he wants her to be herself, but not talk; especially about George Bush.  "She tried to be witty and failed."  He is intolerant of Streisand performing her civic duty, as she perceives it.  Maybe she did ‘fail’ in her comic sketch, but more than that he perceives the presence of politics as a point of failure for the show.  How dare she bring that into what could have been a wonderful performance, minus Il Divo.  Holden isn’t missing the point (that it is important for artists, especially in the west, whose governments are perpetuating violence abroad in the name of freedom), but making a definitive statement about the role of the artist:  shut up and sing.  His message, though bogus to some, exemplifies the ‘cultured’ west’s intolerance to matters of human importance.  Human entertainment rules.  We are responsible for the world we live in.  Someone once told me thoughts don’t matter, it’s actions that do.  Thoughts, ideas, do matter.  Action is born of thought.  If we the people want to enjoy a show free of ‘tepid’ comedy about relevant political/human issues, we must, dare I say, EARN it by protecting and upholding principles of nonviolence.

"No political system will ‘work’ without humans who ‘work.’ And humans won’t ‘work’ until we recognize our threefold nature of mind, body (we recognize the first two), and spirit. And the last is not least. In fact, the first two are grounded, rooted, built upon the foundation of the third. But no ONE of the three is of more importance than the others."   

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: