06 April 2005
Jazz as Circus Performance
Some have criticized modern Broadway musicals for being less artistic performances than circus acts meant to please the crowd. Whether or not you agree that Broadway productions can edify people and still make money, you have to admit that the most successful shows have been those with high entertainment quotients—visual and audio effects at the expense of acting and singing.
The same values have corrupted the jazz scene. I recently saw an appearance by Pieces of a Dream in which these “crowd pleasers” treated us to a primitive Cage-like bass-guitar solo (not bad), a sax riff featuring an everlasting lung blast from a crouched position (exhausting), a screaming singer brought in from the audience (excruciating) and an electronic keyboard ad lib played from the front of the stage backwards over the instrument’s table (pointless). Jazz has come a long way from the emotive skill of Armstrong and Fitzgerald, the intellectual playfulness of Brubeck and Torme, the orchestral interplay of Ellington and Basie. It has fallen off the edge, however, if its performances can only be remembered for their ability to amaze.
Some have criticized modern Broadway musicals for being less artistic performances than circus acts meant to please the crowd. Whether or not you agree that Broadway productions can edify people and still make money, you have to admit that the most successful shows have been those with high entertainment quotients—visual and audio effects at the expense of acting and singing.
The same values have corrupted the jazz scene. I recently saw an appearance by Pieces of a Dream in which these “crowd pleasers” treated us to a primitive Cage-like bass-guitar solo (not bad), a sax riff featuring an everlasting lung blast from a crouched position (exhausting), a screaming singer brought in from the audience (excruciating) and an electronic keyboard ad lib played from the front of the stage backwards over the instrument’s table (pointless). Jazz has come a long way from the emotive skill of Armstrong and Fitzgerald, the intellectual playfulness of Brubeck and Torme, the orchestral interplay of Ellington and Basie. It has fallen off the edge, however, if its performances can only be remembered for their ability to amaze.
02 April 2005
Originalism and Courage
Justice Antonin Scalia is a proponent of originalism on the Supreme Court. As described in the March 28, 2005 New Yorker, this doctrine holds that the words of the Constitution speak for themselves. Put another way, the drafters and ratifiers of our basic law had plenty of time to consider its meaning: if the nation truly wishes to change the intent of that document, it has adequate political means to accomplish that objective. It is not the role of the courts to change the Constitution pursuant to convincing arguments before the bench.
If standards of equity have evolved since the adoption of certain clauses of the Constitution (e.g. those allowing segregation or the prohibition of abortion and homosexuality), then the appropriate method for correcting the lack of correspondence between them is the amendment process, not adjudication. It takes courage for individual politicians to challenge obsolete laws that have entrenched constituencies. It also takes commitment and energy on the part of individuals to demand action by government officials or to undertake popular initiatives to make those changes. However, it is a lazy man’s choice to leave that battle up to the wits and consciences of an elite of our best legal minds.
Justice Antonin Scalia is a proponent of originalism on the Supreme Court. As described in the March 28, 2005 New Yorker, this doctrine holds that the words of the Constitution speak for themselves. Put another way, the drafters and ratifiers of our basic law had plenty of time to consider its meaning: if the nation truly wishes to change the intent of that document, it has adequate political means to accomplish that objective. It is not the role of the courts to change the Constitution pursuant to convincing arguments before the bench.
If standards of equity have evolved since the adoption of certain clauses of the Constitution (e.g. those allowing segregation or the prohibition of abortion and homosexuality), then the appropriate method for correcting the lack of correspondence between them is the amendment process, not adjudication. It takes courage for individual politicians to challenge obsolete laws that have entrenched constituencies. It also takes commitment and energy on the part of individuals to demand action by government officials or to undertake popular initiatives to make those changes. However, it is a lazy man’s choice to leave that battle up to the wits and consciences of an elite of our best legal minds.
