How God Saved My Soul Through Music

I was inspired to transfer my brain goo to the computer screen over the last couple of hours. Here are the results.  Here’s to a more fruitful discussion.

I haven’t talked extensively about why I rejected atheistic communism and made my way back to Catholicism. There were a number of reasons; being shown the logical and moral bankruptcy of materialism, the corruption I personally witnessed in the movement, the fact that I could never bring myself to really embrace any of the tenants of the cultural agenda, and so on. The idea of fighting for anything in a universe that did not, and could not care about the outcome of human events could no longer captivate me. I suppose some people are able to convince themselves of the possibility, even the certainty, of “goodness” in a reality that owes nothing to consciousness and will; to me, such a belief, no matter how comforting, would be a lie. And I cannot live a lie.

These arguments were the building blocks of my rejection of materialism, but there was a mortar running through them, one that appears to be wholly subjective, but is not upon further inspection. That binding agent was music. And not any music, but the greatest music ever written, the religious music of Western civilization, of the Catholic Church. No, I don’t mean the uninspired hymns that resound throughout Novus Ordo auditoriums every Sunday, but the music of the 16th-18th centuries, and some beyond (such as the Vespers I am listening to as I write, by Rachmaninoff, which words cannot describe).

I have been a fan of “classical” music since high school, as I grew out of a phase during which all I would listen to was loud, violent, heavy metal music. I would listen to no other genre because no other genre (that I knew of  then) still embraced virtuosity as metal did, through its solos. A lot of metal soloists would not only play fast and with great skill, but would incorporate classical motifs in their playing. This was my first contact with sounds above the mundane. A lot of kids my age liked music that “had a good beat”, or that had angsty lyrics to which they could relate. Well, of course I wanted those things as well. But I wanted something more because I knew there could be more. Why would anyone listen to punk or alternative songs with the same three chords over and over again when they could listen to something with multiple layers of harmony and amazing technique?

In other words, I knew that music was not something entirely subjective, it’s aim was not merely to set loose raw animalistic passions, to promote political agendas, to “speak to me” as a member of some cultural, racial, or socio-economic demographic (though metal does all that), but to appeal to my capacity to recognize objective truth and beauty, even if only for a moment in a genre that is usually brutal and immoral (which, among the music the kids listen to, only metal did).

I was not raised in a culture of classical music. I didn’t hear it growing up, except perhaps in cartoons. For some reason I still don’t fully understand, my mother bought a bargain set of classical CDs when I was about 17. There were 12 of them, and I still have them to this day. The first time I heard Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et. al, I could only ask, “where have you been all my life?” It took very little time for me to forget about the existence of other genres, even the metal I used to love (though I’d still pop in Megadeth every once in a while because the lead guitarist really was great). I built up a classical music collection that soon dwarfed my metal collection. While other kids were out partying on the weekends in college, I was at the music section of Boarders, looking for my next purchase in what used to be a wonderfully large classical music section. The last time I went there it had been so pitifully reduced that it hurt to look at it.

In a certain way, the Marxist philosophy with which I had become entangled established a truce with my love of classical music. The group with which I was involved was throughly modernist, priding itself on the Enlightenment heritage of Marxism instead of shunning it as do so many other groups, in favor of post-modernism, identity politics, etc. Classical music was an acceptable indulgence. Mozart was a genius, Beethoven, a revolutionary. We could admire their work the way Marx admired Shakespeare or Greek mythology. They were milestones journey out of the muck and filth of primitive times into the light of science, democracy, and eventually socialism.

But I understood more fully the limitations of, and inevitable conflicts with, this humanistic, historicist, and humanist view of music when I mentioned Rachmaninoff, my favorite composer, to a ‘comrade’ one day, only to be informed of how reactionary he was. Of course I knew he was a reactionary; his family fled Russia during the Revolution. His music was denounced as “backward looking.”  Commie favorites were Soviet composers such as Shostakovitch or Prokofiev.

The deeper I dug into classical music, the more I realized how profoundly drawn I was to every sort of “reactionary” form, and how repulsed and disgusted I was by all things modern. Modernity has cured physical diseases but poisoned the well of human creativity. It enables billions to be fed and clothed, but fills their minds and adorns their spirits with mediocre filth. I saw the contrast quite clearly in two separate symphony performances one year. One week, we were treated to a choral performance of Morten Laurdisen’s rendition of “O Magnum Mysterium” – an amazing, beautiful religious piece that so struck me that I bought the album the next day. It was an unusual performance, in that the choir filed in through the isles and surrounded the audience instead of taking the stage. I don’t exaggerate when I say it almost brought a tear to my eye.

Another week, we were subjected to a “modern” composition by a modern composer. It was a horrific, frightening experience. The music was absolutely brutal in its ugliness. It was as if someone took a perfectly fine score and smashed it repeatedly with a sledgehammer. I had no idea what I was in for when I went to the concert hall that night. Throughout the entire painful ordeal I was tempted to stand up and leave in disgust. Not wanting to insult an otherwise fine symphony orchestra, though, I held myself in check and listened to every ear-stabbing, soul-wrenching sour note.  But I couldn’t bring myself to applaud.

It was after those performances that I believe I truly began understood the full power of music, the spiritual heights to which it could elevate, as well as the nihilistic depths to which it could depress. Intellectual conceit may prompt a person to mouth words of praise for a violent assault on their senses, but it would be impossible to describe what I sat through as anything else. It was then that I began to explore, a little more, the area of classical music I had willfully avoided as a Marxist – the religious music. Until then I had only known Mozart’s Requiem, and I had always loved it. I began to acquire works such as Vivaldi’s Gloria, Handel’s Dixit Dominus, Bach’s Magnificant (with the amazing “Suscepit Israel”).

There was also another genre of music that I was into, though, and it deserves mention here as well – traditional folk music of different cultures. As a nerd, I am interested in this sort of thing. Because I was a Marxist, I wanted to connect culturally with revolutionary Marxism; this lead me to the work of the Red Army Choir. The military hymns and marches were exhilarating, the renditions of popular Russian folk tunes was exciting.  But in my exploration of Russian folk music, I came across the music of Zhanna Bichevskaya, who is quite popular in Russia. This was another one of those moments where the contradiction crept in; I immediately fell in love with her music, which I learned (on the Internet, since I don’t understand Russian), was not only politically reactionary, complete with White Guard battle hymns, but also deeply religious. As a member of a party that prided itself deeply on a linage it traced back to Bolshevism, I was not supposed to like this music. But I did, and to a much greater degree than anything they liked or would recommend.

Through these experiences I realized I had a spiritual connection to music. I could not sit and listen to Bach Masses or Orthodox Russian folk hymns, absorb fully what they were conveying to me, and remain a faithful and ardent materialist. One can tell one’s self whatever fantasies one wishes; in a universe that owes nothing to a conscious, creative force, music is nothing. It is a sort of accident that just as well may not have been possible, a fortunate by-product of some long-forgotten twist or turn of random evolutionary development. And yet since Plato we have known that music, which man did not “invent” but only discovered, can and does affect our souls. We know it, we feel it, we affirm it with every movie or video game soundtrack we create and listen to, and yet, in our culture, we deny it.

For to admit it freely and openly, is to then, for some people, to be bound to a program of censorship. If music affects us deeply, for good or for ill, then it follows that we ought to have policies to promote some kinds of music while prohibiting others. A recognition of the objective effects of music (especially the negative ones) threatens its status as a medium through which everyone, no matter how disordered, rotten, or evil, can “express themselves” or live vicariously through a corporate-generated fantasy. Music is now a product, it now belongs to the consumer, who alone decides its “utility.” Whether or not this is true doesn’t matter, as long as someone can make money and someone else can satisfy their carnal urges.

This is why the degeneration of liturgical music grieves me. It is not about subjective preferences. The choice between Gregorian/polyphonic chant and some dude playing the guitar and singing about rainbows is not the choice between Coke or Pepsi, but the choice between an authentic spiritual experience transmitted to us through an art form perfected over centuries, and a cheap gimmick that a perverted criminal deceived America’s priests into implementing in their parishes (see this excellent summary). It grieves me because when the doubts that inevitably rise from the restlessness of the modern mind assail me in moments of weakness, it is the beautiful religious music of traditional Christianity, Catholic and  Orthodox, that draws me back. And I know I am far from alone on this matter. I know there are many people who are affected in the same way.

And that means there are many people who were once like me, wandering blindly through a cultural wasteland when just over the hill is a treasure trove of majesty and grace that they can’t imagine. They won’t hear this music on television, at their favorite websites, or at their schools. They should hear it in their churches, if they even go to them, but they don’t. When they go to church, they hear music that sounds, more or less, like music they would hear anywhere else. The words are different. Like Cartman in Southpark, anyone can switch the word “baby” to “Jesus” and have a hit Christian single. But the sounds are the same, or in many cases, if we’re honest, much worse. Novus Ordo Catholic music is God-awful next to Protestant music, which itself is God-awful next to 90% of secular music.

And it is, finally, a tragedy that so many people who recognize the dangers of consumerism, inside and outside of the Catholic Church, fail to see how it is the very force behind the corruption of the liturgy. The argument that “music is just music”, that it is a commodity to be dispensed in accordance with what is profitable to producers and useful to consumers, comes to us in a very specific form from Ludwig von Mises. Not a Catholic, not even a theist, von Mises in one of his works engages an objection to capitalism’s corrosive effect on culture by resorting to relativism. Who can say what is objectively good? Mises doesn’t think anyone can. Supposedly, each generation rejects the new music, only to have the next generation embrace it and validate it.

Well, that is simply, and plainly, a load of nonsense. Aside from the fact that there are certain aspects of music which are measurable and quantifiable, thus making objective comparisons of music scientifically possible, there are also objective studies that confirm what Plato only theorized about, the effects of music on various areas of the brain. Then there is what I clearly see in my own experience – a longing on the part of so many people to recognize and fully embrace what is timeless, which cannot be reduced to a historical setting or to personal preferences, to materialism of either the individualistic or collectivist kind. Only the most intellectually and culturally starved dimwits think that the garbage pumped out by mass media is “good” in some sort of objective sense. I’ve never met a person with even a glimmer of intelligence who could not, in turn, recognize a glimmer of objective beauty. And it only takes a glimmer to eventually become an overpowering glare, if one is willing to push further.

Because the von Mises types present a narrative that could be true, that appears to fit with the known facts, so many of these people will never quite feel at ease in their search. But music is such a powerful argument that its use absolutely must be scrutinized. Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy that through the music composed at the high-mark of history, the works of Bach and Mozart, one might even see the image of God. If this is so, then we must learn to communicate, to evangelize, through the promulgation of such music. We must learn how to listen to it religiously, and how to instruct others likewise. We must give ourselves musical educations. The era of “rock” is dying, and today’s popular music is more shallow than ever. And we must take up the spiritual sword against liturgical abuse, especially in the sphere of music, and drive the innovators and charlatans out of the temples, even those who think they are doing well.  We must make it easy for people to fully explore and articulate what they know to be true – that some music elevates, while other music is a frivolous distraction, harmful to one’s intellect and faith, worthy of ridicule and rejection.

About these ads

72 Responses to How God Saved My Soul Through Music

  1. Joe Hargrave says:

    I’m on a very strange sleep schedule at the moment, so I won’t be responding to comments probably until mid-afternoon.

    Also, I’m just going to throw this out there for any of my co-contributors – I was tired as a wrote this, and I’m fairly certain there may be some slight grammatical errors. Feel free to edit them as you find them.

  2. Joe Marier says:

    Irony: the guy behind musicasara.com, Jeffrey Tucker, is also the web editor of the Ludwig von Mises institute.

  3. Blackadder says:

    Wonderful post, Joe.

    I would agree with you that the von Mises argument doesn’t make sense. There is such a thing as objective beauty, some artistic creations are better than others, etc. However, while I would agree that beauty is objectively more present in some musical compositions than in others, I think that the ability to perceive and appreciate this beauty varies a lot from person to person. The sad truth is that most people cannot see the beauty present in classical music (to the point that simply playing classical music is a fairly effective anti-loitering device). A world in which only classical music existed would not, therefore, necessarily be a world in which classical music was appreciated by the majority, but a world in which the majority did not appreciate any music whatsoever.

    I would also argue that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, capitalism’s effect on high culture has been beneficial, rather than corrosive. Consider, for example, the pivotal event in your story: your mother, appearance on a whim, buys a set of 12 “bargain” classical CDs. That would never have happened absent the market mechanism. There are undoubtedly more people who appreciate the beauty of classical music alive today than at any prior point in human history, and the accessibility of the music has also never been lower.

  4. Pinky says:

    Wow, Joe, great article. There are so many things to comment on.

    I went through a phase where I considered some of the same questions you did. For me, it was an interest in French existentialism. The writers struggled with the question of moral meaning in a universe without meaning, or as Camus put it, how to be a saint without God. Fortunately for me, Aquinas stopped by and reminded me that there is a God.

    It’s been years since I read C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy, but you reminded me of a scene where the evil organization is trying to indoctrinate a new member. They expose him to a field of random dots. He recognizes this as an attempt to weaken the natural instinct toward beauty, and rebels against them.

    The last hundred or so years have seen a concentrated effort to rid the world of beauty. Art has to be provocative and challenging (in other words, ugly) to be respected. When we put up a 30-foot sculpture of a paper clip and call it downtown beautification, we’ve clearly lost our minds. I am optimistic about the incredible increase in media, which gives everyone a better chance of encountering real art amidst the noise.

  5. Tito Edwards says:

    Excellent post. I fixed the tags.

    Learning a whole lot more about classical music and I appreciate the posting and the comments on this.

    Thanks everyone.

  6. Joe Hargrave says:

    Joe M,

    LOL. That IS ironic.

    I’d much rather talk about this than liberation theology.

  7. jonathanjones02 says:

    I would also argue that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, capitalism’s effect on high culture has been beneficial, rather than corrosive.

    This strikes me as very conditional, and conditional on the “quality” of the population (by which I refer to behavior and humility).

    This is the reason I can never be a libertarian: populations matter far more, for the general socio-economic health of a political sphere, than the structures of law and policy. The spectacular rise of Singapore and Hong Kong, achieved by very different means, attest to this most arrestingly.

    The “market mechanism,” this is to say, depends upon morality. Culture is more important than politics.

  8. Joe Hargrave says:

    And, BA,

    I can’t deny all of your points – industrial technology made possible my exposure to the music, that is undeniable. The CDs were bargain basement prices because they had given up trying to sell them for anything more.

    I also don’t “necessarily” need to see a world in which only classical music exists, or sacred music. As I said, too, I enjoy folk music from around the world, music deeply rooted in a culture – though to be absolutely clear, I don’t believe it should play anything other than an extremely minor role, if any at all, in the Mass. It is the music for secular festivals and every day life.

    But the development of the popular genres, such as rock, rap, and now “pop”, which has mutated into laboratory-like corporate creations, fine-tuned to psychologically captivate and subsequently empty the wallets of America’s children and their parents; this is a very disturbing development which has destroyed the art of music.

    Obviously I am not calling for some sort of command economy to determine what music gets made and which does not. Coming to terms with the market is something I must continue to do. The task is to build spiritual levies that hold back the corrosive influence of consumerism, which is as much a part of industrial capitalism as hydrogen is a part of water.

  9. Blackadder says:

    the development of the popular genres, such as rock, rap, and now “pop”, which has mutated into laboratory-like corporate creations, fine-tuned to psychologically captivate and subsequently empty the wallets of America’s children and their parents; this is a very disturbing development which has destroyed the art of music.

    Except Megadeth, right?

  10. Blackadder says:

    I would also argue that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, capitalism’s effect on high culture has been beneficial, rather than corrosive.

    This strikes me as very conditional, and conditional on the “quality” of the population (by which I refer to behavior and humility).

    What would be a counter-example?

  11. Blackadder says:

    I would recommend this lecture series (ironically enough, also sponsored by the Mises Institute) on the interaction of commerce and culture throughout history. I found it fascinating, and it also helped convince me that a lot of cultural declinist thinking is ahistorical.

  12. I really enjoyed this post, Joe. (Indeed, it was striking me that the part which music played in your conversion might actually make a very publishable article, for the right magazine or website, if you were so inclined.)

    Though I might have to disagree with you about Bach and Mozart being the summit of sacred music. Palestrina will always hold that place for me:

  13. Donald R. McClarey says:

    My wonderful parents, and I say that without a scintilla of irony, were country and western fans, never my favorite musical genre. Our local radio station WPRS (nicknamed by we kids World’s Poorest Radio Station) played nothing but country and western. My first exposure to classical music– wait for it — came from watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons, and I immediately fell in love!

    “Novus Ordo Catholic music is God-awful next to Protestant music, which itself is God-awful next to 90% of secular music.”

    Preach it Joe!

  14. e. says:

    “My first exposure to classical music– wait for it — came from watching old Bugs Bunny cartoons, and I immediately fell in love!”

    Uhhh… I believe that Bugs Bunny cartoons were originally meant for adults and, hence, the cultural dimension that it occasionally exhibited. Blue Danube was a personal fav.

    “Our local radio station WPRS (nicknamed by we kids World’s Poorest Radio Station) played nothing but country and western.”

    That’s why WKRP remains Numero Uno — quite simply, it rocks!

    “Novus Ordo Catholic music is God-awful next to Protestant music…”

    What a joke — can somebody kindly inform this seemingly mal-educated commenter that the music of the Novus Ordo Missae is actually Protestant?

    Just one more reason why Tradition must be restored and should have remained part and parcel of the Catholic identity; a patrimony such as that should have never been squandered and, ultimately, thrown out as if rubbish.

    No wonder the negative repercussions that continue to tear the Church asunder.

    The modern-day Catholic is practically nothing more than a bastard of Luther.

    Congratulations. Seriously.

  15. Joe Hargrave says:

    Don,

    The comment about Bach and Mozart comes from Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.”

    I don’t think he would have excluded Palestrina from the list, or jumping ahead even to the 20th century, Rachmaninoff.

  16. Elaine Krewer says:

    Ah yes, the Looney Tunes cartoons like “What’s Opera, Doc”, with Elmer Fudd running around singing “Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit” to the tune of Wagner’s “The Ride of the Valkyries”…

    Joe, have you ever read “The Romantic Manifesto” by Ayn Rand — which is the ONLY Rand book I ever read all the way through and actually liked? She expresses some of the same ideas about art and its purpose and explains why “modern” or “abstract” art just doesn’t touch people the way classic art does. Rand was way off base on a lot of her social and economic ideas but I think she scored a solid base hit with this book.

    While I do like classical religious music and Gregorian chant and think there needs to be more of it in liturgy, I’m not quite so ready to condemn ALL modern liturgical music; I actually like some of the songs, probably because I got accustomed to hearing them in my “younger years” and they now have personal/emotional associations for me (e.g. “Be Not Afraid,” “I Am the Bread of Life,” “Our God Reigns”).

    Yeah, I realize there’s a lot of crappy stuff out there (“City of God” and “Ashes” are my two least favorites, particularly since the latter tune claims that we “rise again from ashes, to create OURSELVES anew”). Call me a closet hippie or modernist or whatever, but I’m not ready to throw out the entire Glory and Praise catalog just yet.

    Finally, I agree that guitar virtuosos like Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eddie Van Halen, and Joe Satriani should be respected for their talents every bit as much as the famous violinists (Paganini, Perlman), drummers (Krupa, Rich), trumpeters, etc.

  17. Tito Edwards says:

    Novus Ordo Catholic music is God-awful next to Protestant music, which itself is God-awful next to 90% of secular music.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    If Protestant music were labeled as simply “pop”, then I might like *some* of the music.

    Novus Ordo music?

    I think it would make appropriate elevator music.

    Don,

    Yes, that was one of my first exposures to classical music as well!

  18. The comment about Bach and Mozart comes from Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy.”

    Ooops. Here I go questioning the Holy Father’s musical taste. I do not think I’ll try to argue that Benedict XVI hasn’t truly understood Palestrina — I think I’ll just assume that this is an allowable difference between faithful Catholics. :-)

  19. Pinky says:

    I still prefer monophonic chant for liturgical music. Next would be Bach, then Palestrina, further down the list is Satriani and Hendrix, then Glory and Praise, then the Protestant stuff. Don’t fool yourself, we Catholics might be trying to bring Novus Ordo music down to the level of other Christian worship, but the evangelicals are digging faster than we can keep up.

  20. Tito Edwards says:

    Pinky,

    but the evangelicals are digging faster than we can keep up.

    LOL
    :)

  21. Joe Hargrave says:

    As for this……….

    “Except Megadeth, right?”

    I’d say, except for a lot of music from the ‘underground’ sub-cultures, including metal, punk, rap, etc.

    These cannot be compared with corporate creations such as the boy bands and now the little princess pop stars.

    But it is all a qualitative step down from the high point of the West’s musical heritage.

  22. Joe Hargrave says:

    Elaine,

    Ayn Rand! Really!?

    It is amazing to me that one atheistic apologist for capitalism is a relativist while another is an “Objectivist.” Perhaps I will see how she comes to her conclusions.

    As for the new Church music, ok, I’m sure there are a couple of hymns which are good.

    The idea, though, is to bring back chant for the sung prayers of the Mass: the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc. There are still hymns sung during the Latin Mass, though – entrance and exit, during communion, etc.

    Having people say the Creed every week doesn’t really seem to etch it into their hearts and minds. Maybe hearing it like this would?

  23. Blackadder says:

    As for this……….

    “Except Megadeth, right?”

    I’d say, except for a lot of music from the ‘underground’ sub-cultures, including metal, punk, rap, etc.

    You realize you put rap in both your good and bad lists, right?

    Seriously, though, do you think that the people who listen to Hannah Montana or whoever would be listening to Bach if she didn’t exist? I don’t think so. Personally, I think we are in something of a golden age when it comes to subculture genres. I for one am constantly amazed at the number of good bands there are out there. Someone mentions a cool band they heard in Albuquerque and five minutes later I can be listening to them, all at a cost of 99 cents a song. And if you don’t think the new stuff measures up to prior ages, well, the older stuff is just as available and at the same low price.

  24. Tito Edwards says:

    BA,

    So you’re a Hannah Montana fan? ;)

  25. Personally, I think we are in something of a golden age when it comes to subculture genres. I for one am constantly amazed at the number of good bands there are out there. Someone mentions a cool band they heard in Albuquerque and five minutes later I can be listening to them, all at a cost of 99 cents a song.

    That’s an interesting point.

    One of my uncles is an independant musician, and frequently tells me about how he feels like the “music industry” has entered a dark age, in that the major labels are only searching for the next million unit hit, and maintream pop is populated by manufactured stars rather than real bands like the Beatles or Rolling Stones.

    On the other hand, without having a label, he’s able to record his albums at a professional studio or do solo work at home using his Apple and some fairly affordable professional software. He’s got his songs on iTunes, has CDs pressed at CDBaby, and runs his solo music act at enough of a profit to provide a serious portion of his income (though he also works a “day job” at a phone bank.)

    Similarly, while he complains about how all the radio stations are boring ClearChannel cookie cutters, he has his own music review blog and YouTube channel where he and another musician talk about artists they think are worth checking out.

    I think there’s some truth to both ways of looking at things. What I think a lot of independant musicians notice when they talk about the problems with the music industry is that it’s very hard to become a big name artist, with the contracts and the radio distribution and such. (Not that it was ever easy.) And that many of the “big names” are very manufactured. On the other hand, it seems like things are actually much better than the 60s and 70s for independant musicians to the extent that it’s become much easier for independant musicians to get their work out to people all over the world.

    It’s as hard as ever (perhaps in some ways harder) to become really big as a musican, but the base of the pyramid has broadened a lot.

  26. Rick Lugari says:

    I don’t really listen to classical music, but I will give props to the great composers for having given the world some decent music to appreciate before the prog-rock greats like Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Supertramp came along.
    ;)

  27. Joe Hargrave says:

    Oh for heaven’s sake, BA.

    “You realize you put rap in both your good and bad lists, right?”

    It’s never on my “good” list – I’m just willing to acknowledge that there are, in these genres, musicians who don’t “sell out” and have their careers and artistic output guided by corporate executives.

    “Seriously, though, do you think that the people who listen to Hannah Montana or whoever would be listening to Bach if she didn’t exist?”

    I don’t see why you have to set up this false dichotomy, or why you think it would follow from anything I wrote.

    I don’t think anyone should be listening to Hannah Montana. I think it if it didn’t exist, and all students were given a rudimentary education in music and aesthetics, they would appreciate Bach and other composers more, even if they didn’t listen to them every day or for recreation – though I suspect more would do exactly that.

    There have always been divisions in music, in the music of the peasants and the music of the wealthy, the music of villages and the music of cities, the music of the vulgar and the music of the sacred. I am fully aware that even as the great works of Western civilization were being composed, drunken buffoons in taverns were dancing around to the frivolous music of their own times.

    The difference between then and now is that, back then, virtually everyone understood the PLACE of each kind of music, where it ranked in the hierarchy of objective beauty and reverence, where it belonged and where it did not belong. It had absolutely nothing to do with what was more “popular”, and because there was no real market for music, it had nothing to do with what was more profitable.

    The logic of the market is to elevate what is vulgar and common to the highest status, while relegating what is inherently beautiful to a secondary status. This is because it takes a certain amount of effort to fully appreciate the richness and complexity of objectively good music, while the other kinds appeal to raw emotions, raw passions, things that are instantly accessible and in fact take control of us before we realize what is happening. This is why marketing and psychology go together, why people like Edward Bernays were able to generate such success through their advertising campaigns.

    But go ahead, find a few other irrelevant things to nitpick, please.

  28. American Knight says:

    What’s wrong with Megadeth?

  29. Joe Hargrave says:

    Well, there is nothing that is wrong with Megadeth that isn’t wrong with virtually every other modern music group.

  30. Rick Lugari says:

    Well, there is nothing that is wrong with Megadeth that isn’t wrong with virtually every other modern music group.

    Their drummer died too?

  31. American Knight says:

    You can’t possibly lump Megadeth in with say New Kids on the Block or Hansen.

    I agree that most that passes for ‘art’ these days is corporate and Madison Ave. crap designed to promote immorality and servitude to the god-state but Dave Mustaine actually plays the guitar. Some how while he was going through one of the incarnations of the band between heroin and alcohol he found Christ – not the Church, but at least he’s a headbanger with the Lord in his heart.

    Gene Simmons stated it best: He claims that Rock and Roll is like sugar. It is fun and entertaining but ultimately worthless and it will let you down – or something like that.

  32. American Knight says:

    Rick,

    We are talking about Megadeth not Spinal Tap. :)

  33. Joe Hargrave says:

    AK,

    I wouldn’t lump them together musically – DM is a guitar genius, in fact I think he’s been voted number 1 metal guitarist many times in different polls. I also loved Marty Friedman.

    I have admiration and respect for any true art form, and certain metal bands and performers are true artists, true virtuosos.

    A lot of other bands are just poetry or politics (or both) set to sub-standard music. Rap, punk, a lot of mainstream rock, etc.

  34. e. says:

    “The logic of the market is to elevate what is vulgar and common to the highest status…”

    It would seem that somebody is unfortunately unfamiliar with much of Classical Music’s history.

    “…maintream pop is populated by manufactured stars rather than real bands like the Beatles or Rolling Stones…”

    Beatles? Rolling Stones?

    There is one Grateful Dead chick that would classify such “real bands” as nothing more than manufactured creations of commercialized music and not “real”. at all.

    “…the problems with the music industry is that it’s very hard to become a big name artist, with the contracts and the radio distribution and such.”

    Check out the Wall Street Journal… some years back, there was an article that talked about how the music industry has opened up quite immensely due to the Internet where unknown artists have been able to distribute their music and develop a following. Before this age, such folks would not have been able to do so as their entry into and climb to fame typically depended on the record giants that controlled the music industry.

    Not any more.

  35. Joe Hargrave says:

    “It would seem that somebody is unfortunately unfamiliar with much of Classical Music’s history.”

    For much that history, there was no market in music. What are you talking about?

    Explain what it is you think I don’t know. I want to learn.

  36. Tito Edwards says:

    Rick Lugari,

    but I will give props to the great composers for having given the world some decent music to appreciate before the prog-rock greats like Pink Floyd, Genesis?

    Now we’re talking! Genesis one of the greatest pop bands of the 80’s, ipso facto, best ever since the 80’s (sorry music after the 80’s pretty much *bites*)

    AK,

    How dare you compare New Kids On The Block to Hansen.

    NKOTB had many more hits than Hansen, without hair extensions!

  37. e. says:

    Joe:

    I am not about to transcribe the entire text of a hard-copy from a once-read (although admittedly wonderful) Hutchings article I had the pleasure of researching back at university.

    However, for your pleasure:

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/919164

    Great stuff.

  38. Joe Hargrave says:

    E,

    I must not be as intelligent as you.

    Because I have absolutely no idea what this has to do at all with my point about music and the market.

    This is the statement you took issue with:

    “The logic of the market is to elevate what is vulgar and common to the highest status…”

    Somehow, this article is supposed to challenge it? I just don’t see it. Nor am I certain that someone writing in 1934 could appreciate the full scope of the problem, which needed certain technological and commercial prerequisites to fully manifest.

    We don’t see massive advertising campaigns to promote objectively good music. We see massive advertising campaigns to target impressionable children by appealing to raw emotions and sexual passion. Children should eat their vegetables, but instead they are being served McDonalds by their schools. Children should listen to music that edifies their souls, strengthens their intellect (as classical music does, according to scientific studies), but instead they are served up MTV and manufactured Disney pop icons.

    What is cheap, dirty, vulgar, and unhealthy will always be more immediately desirable, especially in an age where it is possible to scientifically calibrate filth to overwhelm the senses. What is good, clean, uplifting and healthy for the body, mind and soul are, in some cases, acquired tastes. It takes a lifetime to understand what it means to be, and actually be, good – it takes a few seconds to indulge in something stupid and poisonous.

    The previous points made about the Internet are well taken though. It isn’t as easy to control art when everyone has access to the tools of self-promotion. Perhaps a truly “free market”, in which monopolies and oligopolies and duopolies become more difficult to establish and maintain, we will see a reversal.

  39. Joe Hargrave says:

    Let me put it this way; I sympathize with Plato. I don’t agree 100%, but I think there is a lot of truth in what he taught:

    http://www.euphoniousmonks.com/platomus.htm

  40. Joe Hargrave says:

    Call this my musical credo, for the moment:

    “God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed to the perturbed, and that we, learning them and partaking of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries. The same may be affirmed to speech and hearing. They have been given by the gods to the same end and for a like reason. For this is the principal end of speech, whereto it most contributes. Moreover, so much of music as is adapted to the sound of the voice and to the sense of hearing is granted to us for the sake of harmony. And harmony, which has motions akin to the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view to irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of it in our day, but as meant to correct any discord which may have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally in bringing her to harmony and agreement with herself, and rhythm too was given by them for the same reason, on account of the irregular and graceless ways which prevail among mankind generally, and to help us against them.”

  41. American Knight says:

    The Numenor would be very happy with that last post Joe.

  42. American Knight says:

    Tito,

    I don’t know about Genesis being the best. You are right about the 80s – so many things were better back then. Well, not new Coke, but most things. Queen, hair bands, Mr.Mister, Jethro Tull. OK, not Jethro Tull.

    Genesis was the best incubator for artists. How many did we get from Genesis? GTR, Mike and the Mechanics, Collins and Gabriel solo, I know there are more.

    I wasn’t making a comparison between NKOTB and Hansen – they are both manufactured products. Music is not to be manufactured it is created, well, at least it used to be.

  43. Rick Lugari says:

    Sorry Tito, when I mention Genesis I am definitely refering to the time before they became superstars. Their roots are in the cutting edge progressive rock era of the 70’s. The 80’s may have been when they became a great commercial success, but the stuff they did in the 70’s was stuff that raised the bar.

  44. Blackadder says:

    I’m just willing to acknowledge that there are, in these genres, musicians who don’t “sell out” and have their careers and artistic output guided by corporate executives.

    I don’t understand the fixation some people have on whether a musician is “corporate” or “manufactured” or has “sold out” or whatever. Shouldn’t what matters be whether or not it’s good music?

    The logic of the market is to elevate what is vulgar and common to the highest status, while relegating what is inherently beautiful to a secondary status.

    Hannah Montana (or whatever her name is) sold more records than Bach in 2009. But does anyone really think that Hannah Montana’s music is higher status than Bach? Who are you going to impress by saying that you listen to Hannah Montana, aside from a fourteen year old girl?

    Are these irrelevant nitpicks? Or do they go to the heart of our disagreement?

  45. Joe Hargrave says:

    “Shouldn’t what matters be whether or not it’s good music?”

    It just so happens that the cookie-cutter crap really isn’t good music. It is banality incarnate. But sure, if it happened to be good, I wouldn’t deny it on principle. At any rate, that is why people get upset when a band appears to have “sold out” – a decline in quality is predicted, and often happens. The more people you try to please, unless you are at the summit of musical genius like Mozart or Beethoven, the less devoted your original admirers will become.

    I don’t like weird, isolated sub-cultures any more than I do rampaging hordes of tone-deaf children. Some complaints about a musicians new path are unfounded. But when it is clearly and obviously done to simply make more money, it is like a betrayal. Yes, we all need to make money. But the destruction of art (such as it may exist in these genres) by greed is a legitimate thing to get angry over.

    “Hannah Montana (or whatever her name is) sold more records than Bach in 2009. But does anyone really think that Hannah Montana’s music is higher status than Bach?”

    By status I don’t mean the quality of the music itself, but the place it occupies within our society.

    It doesn’t matter if there was more musical talent in Bach’s discarded fingernail clippings than there ever will be in the next 10 Hannah Montana’s put together. If only 10 people listen to Bach for every 10,000 that listen to HM, then Bach’s place in society is negligible.

  46. Rick Lugari says:

    The existance of black velvet Elvis paintings is truly unfortunate. However, God has ways of making good come out of evil. There may be infinitely more gas staion/parking lot Elvis’ than The Last Judgment, but they only serve to make us appreciate the latter more. Similarly, Hannah Montana is like the black velvet Elvis of pop/rock. ;)

  47. Blackadder says:

    At any rate, that is why people get upset when a band appears to have “sold out” – a decline in quality is predicted, and often happens.

    I would offer an alternative explanation. While there is no status in listening to Hannah Montana, there is status in listening to bands that are “edgy” “underground” “counter-cultural” and so on. Being a fan of the “high quality” bands that few people have even heard of marks you as a person of discerning taste and superior knowledge and independence (as opposed to the masses, who only know and like “cookie-cutter crap”). The problem is that a band can only confer this status so long as it’s not popular. As more and more people come to know and like it, the status conferred by being a fan diminishes. This, I think, is the real reason people complain about bands selling out (i.e. for about the same reason that aristocrats used to complain about the Nouveau Riche).

    I fuller description of this process can be found in Joseph Heath’s book The Rebel Sell: How the Counter Culture Became Consumer Culture, which I would highly recommend.

  48. Blackadder says:

    Some complaints about a musicians new path are unfounded. But when it is clearly and obviously done to simply make more money, it is like a betrayal.

    I don’t think today’s musicians are substantially more motivated by money than the great masters of the past. Mozart made music because he wanted to make money. Ditto Beethoven. To try and draw some firm distinction between the pure artists of the past and the money grubbing artists of today is, I think, to overly romanticize the past.

  49. Joe Hargrave says:

    I won’t disagree that a lot of people are motivated by such petty psychology. There are traditionalist Catholics that I know just love being part of a “remnant.”

    However, I would be thrilled if everyone loved Bach as much as I did, and if every Church in the world were filled with people hearing the Mass as it was meant to be heard.

    Rachmaninoff is my favorite composer – a composer that music snobs dismissed because audiences actually liked his work and demanded to hear more of it. Rachmaninoff was an example of a composer who could write music that was both transcendent, glorious, and accessible. Composers such as him prove that there does not have to be a rigid wall of education, cultural upbringing, wealth, or anything else between the average person and objectively beautiful music.

    But then, we are not talking about Rachmaninoff or anyone similar, but garage bands who start out with a nifty sound that appeals to a few people as something fresh and bold, only to gradually ape the popular music that everyone else likes. They weren’t really composing anything glorious to begin with.

    That’s why I only call them artists with reservation. There is certainly skill in all of the genres, and plenty of innovation, but very few attempts to reach out and touch something beyond what is happening on a subjective or contemporary social level. In other words, background noise.

  50. Joe Hargrave says:

    “Mozart made music because he wanted to make money. Ditto Beethoven.”

    I don’t think the style or substance of their art was dictated by the demands of their patrons. It was the other way around – their patrons subsidized them because they knew that they were musical geniuses.

    At any rate, did I not, BA, did I not acknowledge that we all need to make money? There’s making money, and then there is greed. I thought I made that distinction. I guess I’m such a terrible writer that it just wasn’t clear.

  51. Joe Hargrave says:

    And to even suggest that the only reason Mozart and Beethoven made music is because they wanted to make money – which one might infer when you forget to begin your sentence with “one of the reasons” – is really outrageous.

  52. Big Tex says:

    What’s wrong with Megadeth?
    They aren’t Dream Theater or Rush. :-) Both bands rank among my favorite rock bands. The virtuosity in their music is tremendous.

    The existence of black velvet Elvis paintings is truly unfortunate.
    Personally, I prefer “The Dogs Playing Poker”.

  53. American Knight says:

    Big Tex,

    Thumbs up on those two choices even though Rush is Canadian. Tito, I think Dream Theater tips a hat to Genesis as an influence.

  54. Big Tex says:

    I don’t mind that Rush hails from Canada. :-) I do recollect that the Beatles were mentioned above, and they hail from across the pond. It doesn’t matter so much… they along with Dream Theater produce music that is rather complex, still melodic. Their songs tend to add layer upon layer with each subsequent verse.

    Genesis is another band that I enjoy quite a bit, along with older offerings from Chicago. I’m a sucker for sweet horn section and an upbeat tempo. The fact that they borrow from jazz makes it even better.

    I have lamented the current state of affairs in contemporary music these days. I do see quite a bit of music produced that seems as though its primary aim is to make someone a buck, rather than artistic expression. While it predates me, I listened to a lot of classic rock in my youth (by classic rock, I mean rock music written and recorded in the 70’s or a couple years removed). In listening to Led Zeppelin, The Allman Brothers Band and others of that era, I note an attention to musicianship that I don’t see all too much today. I really enjoy John Paul Jones’ bass riff in The Lemon Song. The groove really gets going about 3 minutes into the song.

    Over the years, I’ve seen similar trends in Country music. Today’s trend is to sing about how country or redneck or small-town you are. I really enjoy the western swing sub-genre, where Bob Wills, Hank Thompson and Asleep at the Wheel do a marvelous job.

    Jazz music really gets me going too. I still have a lot to learn here, but trios and quartets are very enjoyable to listen to. In particular, 1959 was a ground breaking year as Dave Brubeck, John Coltrane, and Miles Davis all released probably their best albums ever.

    When it comes to classical music, I tend towards the Baroque era with a little Renaissance.

  55. Blackadder says:

    I don’t think the style or substance of their art was dictated by the demands of their patrons.

    Then I would say you are in error in this regard (it’s also not the case that the greats relied solely on patronage for support). Both Mozart and Beethoven, for example, made quite a bit of their income selling sheet music and giving subscription concerts.

    And to even suggest that the only reason Mozart and Beethoven made music is because they wanted to make money – which one might infer when you forget to begin your sentence with “one of the reasons” – is really outrageous.

    I don’t think that the only reason today’s musicians make music is to make money either. Human beings are more complicated than that.

    I previously recommended Paul Cantor’s lecture series on the interaction of culture and commerce. Given this discussion, I would particularly recommend the lecture on classical music.

  56. Joe Hargrave says:

    “Then I would say you are in error in this regard”

    How so?

    “Both Mozart and Beethoven, for example, made quite a bit of their income selling sheet music and giving subscription concerts.”

    I don’t think this goes against my argument. Of course they did. I’m not denying that. What I’m denying is that patrons meddled in the artistic process in the way corporate executives do today. How can there even be a comparison?

    I’ll try to listen to the lecture. It’s an hour and a half and I really prefer reading to listening because I can read fast, but am bound by the speed of the speaker while listening (I reserve my dedicated listening time for music :)).

    I did however find a mises.org article giving an overview of his thought. So, let me say, about this:

    “Conceiving of culture as a form of spontaneous order, he argues that market principles such as free trade and competition are as beneficial in the artistic realm as they are in the economy as a whole. ”

    That I did acknowledge this, in part, earlier. The problem is that this mythical “free market” doesn’t exist – an industry that is dominated by a handful of firms is not a free market, and that is what the music industry was until the Internet and file sharing.

    Now it is hard to say whether or not there is a market at all, since technology has made it possible to copy music ad infinitum, rendering its material value essentially zero. It is no longer a scarce resource. So outside of concert venues, I’m not sure how the market even applies. It’s the honor system.

    Honesty keeps me buying original albums, as a Christian, and I want to support performers I think are great – but the honor system is no more the free market than is oligopoly.

    And look, I’m willing to concede that each system has its high points and weak points. Patronage wasn’t perfect, and yes, it did take a certain level of commercial development to make great classical music possible.

    Here’s what I would say: when it happens under the guidance of the Church, who is there to act as a shield against the unavoidable influence of relativism and liberalism that comes with increased commercial activity, then I am alright with it. When it happens without the guidance of the Church, under Protestantism or secular ideologies, then I think the dangerous, corrosive forces are given an increasingly free reign, and a false liberty rooted in relativism erupts and destroys notions of objective truth and beauty.

  57. Joe Hargrave says:

    In other words, I hold to Pius XI’s summary of laissez-faire, and think it applies directly to the arts:

    “Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle.”

    Justified and useful within certain limits. That’s where I stand. And to that end I do support subsidizing classical music, public symphonies, music education, etc. and not allowing competition to destroy the arts, which would be tantamount to allowing vice to triumph over virtue because more people found pleasure in it. No.

  58. Rick Lugari says:

    Tex, dude! If you dig Dream Theater and Rush, try out Marillion (in particularly the stuff with Fish – 1983 – 1987). That stuff is my all time favorite. I actually listen to it more than Pink Floyd, Genesis, Rush, et al. BTW, in 1985 Neil Peart heard Marillion and personally asked them to be the warm up act on thier tour (they agreed to it).

  59. Moe says:

    “When it happens without the guidance of the Church, under Protestantism or secular ideologies, then I think the dangerous, corrosive forces are given an increasingly free reign, and a false liberty rooted in relativism erupts and destroys notions of objective truth and beauty.”

    I love this statement. Often at traffic signals, I’m subjected to a car next to me gyrating with the most dreadful and atrocious sounds which I can only describe as inhuman forces – alien spirits unleased from the deep. Man without God has given himself over to something inhuman. I would enthusiastically agree with you that corrosive forces have been given a free rein in our secular world and men have lost the human power, or spirtual strength, to create the grandeur of the past: the beautiful Italian paintings and sculpture, the music, the Shakespeares, and the architecture.

  60. Blackadder says:

    I’m going to hold off on further comment until Joe has had a chance to listen to the lecture (no presure, Joe!). For now I’ll only note the irony, given all the comments about the dominance of “manufactured” and “vulgar” musicians today, that the second highest selling album of 2009 was by Susan Boyle.

  61. Joe Hargrave says:

    How is that ironic? If anything it is another symptom of the problem. She’s overrated musically because of her interesting life story. The gushing reviews of her performance were actually a little nauseating to read.

  62. e. says:

    Joe,

    E,

    I must not be as intelligent as you.

    Because I have absolutely no idea what this has to do at all with my point about music and the market.

    This is the statement you took issue with:

    “The logic of the market is to elevate what is vulgar and common to the highest status…”

    Somehow, this article is supposed to challenge it? I just don’t see it. Nor am I certain that someone writing in 1934 could appreciate the full scope of the problem, which needed certain technological and commercial prerequisites to fully manifest.

    First, I don’t see how the subject comment made could actually be taken to even suggest such an insult.

    Second, for your information, in my personal opinion, I wouldn’t necessarily associate ignorance with lack of intelligence; indeed, there are eminent scientists I am acquainted with who don’t know (and could care less) about, for example, Plato’s god of the forms or Protagoras’ music of the spheres; no matter how much I try to encourage them to take up such subjects as a form of leisurely (not to mention, enlightening) study.

    Yet, to try to promote the very idea that it was only in our modern age where such vulgarity was elevated (and even commercialized) demonstrates not only a lack of familiarity with the history of Classical Music but even, more generally, the history of almost any aspect of human history itself (fine arts, literature, music, etc.); indeed, marketing for the masses, the elevating of the vulgar and any resulting profit thereto via certain mechanisms, whether ancient or modern, is not really a phenomenon restricted solely to capitalist societies and, indeed, only occuring in our modern times.

    To think thus is something that, more than anything else, reflects that quality of ‘unintelligent’.

  63. Joe Hargrave says:

    An insult? If anything, I was insulting myself. Whatever it is you see, I obviously don’t get it. I’m serious. It really would have to be about intelligence, because I simply do not comprehend what this article, which I found and read in full, had to do with anything I said.

    I do think it was in our modern era that vulgarity was elevated, because our era abolished the very notion of vulgarity through relativism! The very acknowledgement of high and low art, of sacred and vulgar art, automatically places the vulgar lower than the sacred and the beautiful.

    No one, least of all myself, ever ignored or denied the existence of vulgar music in history. But mass marketing is a modern phenomenon.

  64. Joe Hargrave says:

    I’m on comment overload! Too many threads.

    I’ll listen to the lecture later, but I gotta step back for a bit. See ya’ll soon.

  65. e. says:

    As there were prototypical forms of capitalism during even the Middle Ages, there too was something similar as regarding mass marketing very long ago.

    As one insightful fellow put it quite well:

    “The concept of the song as a vehicle for mass marketing has been around as long as humans have been writing lyrics. Hymns, for example, mass-market the virtues of a Judeo Christian ideology. Every religion, every ideology uses songs as carriers of an agenda. Advertisers rediscovered the power of the song with jingles and hooks in the golden age of radio, implanting brand loyalty with melodic refrains.”

    But what do I know?

    Fodder for more sarcastic dismissals I suppose.

  66. Joe Hargrave says:

    I don’t that you can just substitute the phrase “mass marketing” for various methods of popularizing.

    What are we really disagreeing with here? You don’t seem comfortable with the idea that there are qualitatively new problems facing society. Look, I won’t disagree that every modern problem (almost every) has an embryonic form in the past.

    Moreover, I simply would never compare Christian hymns to product jingles.

  67. [...] von Mises regarding the effects of ‘capitalism’ upon culture. This in turn sparked a debate over the role that markets have played in developing truly great [...]

  68. Joe Hargrave says:

    The link above will take you to some of my criticisms of the Cantor lecture, as well as addressing directly this time the arguments of Mises himself – which are at odds with Cantor’s, by the way.

    I have to say, the lecture was something of a let down, the main argument was not very strong, and he seemed to drift off at times onto unrelated tangents. The point about the French national culture is well taken. But as for patronage v. free market, well, see my post.

  69. Dolorosa says:

    The Marxist Minstrels is an interesting book on the communist subversion of music.

    http://www.magic-city-news.com/Old_Embers/Old_Embers_

    for_New_Torches_The_Marxist_Minstrels_-_A_Handbook_
    on_Communist_Subversion_of_Music11632.shtml

  70. Blackadder says:

    Not to restart an old argument, but I was reading Cowen’s In Praise of Commercial Culture today, and came across the following quote from Mozart:

    “Believe me, my sole purpose is to make as much money as possible; for after good health it is the best thing to have.”

  71. Taps Tyrone says:

    Susan Boyle is an immensely talented lady who’s been subjected to considerable criticism in the media. IMHO she deserves every bit of success that she is currently enjoying.

  72. Jim Hill says:

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Blessed Sacrament Parish of Springfield, Illinois is posting a position for
    Director of Music. If you know of anyone who might be interested have them
    go to bsps.org for a job description. The position pays around 40K.

    Blessed sacrament is a rather conservative parish. No guitars, bongos, or
    other such like. They have a Rodgers Trillium 960, a very nice instrument.

    Closing date for this position is June 23rd, 2010

    Thanks for your attention.

    Jim Hill

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers

%d bloggers like this: