MySpace
myspace music


Stephen Estep, Composer (L-OH)



Last Updated: 7/15/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Status: Single
City: XENIA
State: Ohio
Country: US
Signup Date: 7/5/2007

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Monday, December 29, 2008 
While waiting for Morpheus to stop by, I figgered I'd write this, some stuff I've learned about Boaz through study over the last nearly-four years. I haven't read Ruth in a couple of months, and I wanted to go back through it and get some of this written down semi-coherently. And while I'm at it, I do want to say thank you to all those who actually read my blatherings. Boaz is my hero, and I want to point out some things that have changed my life, or at least given me the goal to aim at.

Too often we forget that the people in the Bible were real people, and we think of them only as impossible heroes or types of Christ, instead of the flesh-and-blood humans with personalities. Sometimes the Bible is a little light on some things, and imagining a whole person from what you're given can be like reconstructing a dinosaur from two legs, or a piece of an ear. You've gotta be careful not to make the text fit what you already have in yo' head. But these are some characteristics of Boaz that God showed me, mostly throughout 2005, and I've been chewing on them a lot since then.

If you don't know the story of the book of Ruth, here's the Cliff Notes: Elimelech and Naomi left Israel during a famine, taking their sons, Mahlon and Chilion, with them to Moab. Mahlon and Chilion married the Moabites Ruth and Orpah, and then Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion died in Moab. Naomi left to go back home; Orpah stayed in Moab, and Ruth stuck with Naomi, saying, "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

In chapter 2, Ruth told Naomi that she was going out to "glean ears of corn after him in whose sight I shall find grace." God had sent a famine to Israel as punishment for not obeying his law (Deuteronomy 28:15-68); but Ruth trusted that she would find somebody who had been doing right (Deut 11:13-14). She happened to come onto Boaz's field; Boaz was a relative of Elimelech.

Boaz came back from Bethlehem and greeted his servants: "The Lord be with you." His reapers said, "The Lord bless thee." Boaz wanted God's presence; the servants wanted the physical blessings. Job 22:21: "Acquaint now thyself with him, and be at peace: thereby good shall come unto thee." Job 7:2: "...a servant earnestly desireth the shadow, and...an hireling looketh for the reward of his work."

Then Boaz asked who the babe was. But notice he took care of his obligations first, checking on his reapers. The reapers explained who she was, and that she had worked from the morning until then, and had "tarried a little in the house". Maybe waiting around to meet the man who had been blessed: The house is the place of fellowship and communion, not labor.

I believe Boaz had been in Bethlehem taking the tithe from his crops there, as was required by the law. Proverbs 3:9-10: "Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall they barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Malachi 3:10-11: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat (food) in my house, and prove (test) me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground...."

Leviticus 23:14: "And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brough an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings." Note the term "parched corn", because that figures later in the story. And maize, corn as we know it, was unknown in Israel in Bible times; 'corn' is a generic term for grain, and is still used that way in some parts of England. If Boaz was doing right, he wouldn't have touched the corn until he had tithed off of it.

Boaz had apparently been following the law, because, best I can tell, he flourished enough as a farmer to survive a famine, and had enough work to hire servants. He could afford to tell Ruth to not to worry about having to go to another field, but to stay by his servants, and told her that he had charged his reapers not to bother her. He also allowed her to drink of the water they had drawn for themselves.

She asked why Boaz "took knowledge of her", because she was a foreigner, and he told her that he knew the hard decisions she had made, leaving her home and following Naomi to a strange country, taking her God as her own. He also told her that God would give her a full reward for her work. She thanked him for comforting and speaking friendly to her, though she didn't have the status that even his servants had.

Boaz invited her to eat with him and his reapers. 2:14 says, "And she sat beside the reapers; and he reached her parched corn...." He showed that extra care by serving her himself, instead of leaving her to fend for herself among the reapers. Through the whole book, Boaz goes the extra mile to treat her well, with kindness and comfort.

After she left, Boaz commanded his reapers to let her glean from the crops themselves, and not from what the reapers happened to drop on the ground, or leave in the corners of the field. Leviticus 19:9-10: "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of they field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. [T]hou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger." He even told them to "accidentally" drop "handfuls of purpose" for her. Boaz went above what the law required to show her extra kindness. Ruth worked the rest of the evening and went home with over a bushel of barley.

Naomi was surprised at how much she had gleaned, and asked whose field she had been in. Ruth told her it was a man named Boaz. Naomi praised God and told Ruth that he was a kinsman. She also gave Ruth one of the best pieces of advice: "It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens, that they meet thee not in any other field." After all the kindness Boaz had shown her, it would have been rude and ungrateful to seek sustenance elsewhere. When God is meeting your needs in one field, don't go to another. Ruth was satisfied with what he had to offer, and showed respect and consideration for how he had supplied her need. She stayed through the barley harvest and wheat harvest.

Naomi had told Orpah and Ruth in 1:9, "(May) the Lord grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband." In 3:1, Naomi says, "Shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?" She told her to pretty herself up and go down to the threshing floor and wait until Boaz was done eating and drinking, then to go where he was lying down and uncover his feet and lay down also. When Boaz's heart was merry (Deut 14:26), he went to lie down at the end of a heap of corn. She uncovered his feet and lay down.

'Round midnight (had to slip a Thelonius Monk reference in), Boaz had a start and woke up, and noticed somebody was there, and demanded to know who it was. She said, "I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt (of his robe) over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." If you compare this with Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20, she is actually proposing to him. So much for quiet, bashful women in the Bible. Lol, indeedy.

Since Boaz was a kinsman of Elimelech, he could redeem the fields Elimelech owned, to keep them in the family. In 4:5, it states that Ruth would come with the field. I'm a little fuzzy at this time of night on all the details, but land was supposed to stay in the family of those who had died, and by redeeming the field and marrying Ruth, Boaz would keep it in the family. This would also keep the name of her deceased husband alive in the land by proxy, instead of his lineage dying out. See Deuteronomy 25:5-6 for more.

In 3:10, Boaz compliments her, because she had shown "more kindness in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as thou followed not young men, rather poor or rich." This indicates to me that he was a noticeable bit older than her, and he thanked her for considering him rather than going for somebody close to her age. Boaz sowed kindness to Ruth, and reaped much more than a bushel of grain. He showed her respect and admiration for the right choices she had made, and she reciprocated by putting enough faith in his uprightness to marry him.

In 3:12-13, Boaz told her that, though he was a close relative to her deceased husband, there was somebody else who was closer, and that he had first dibs on the land, and, by extension, her. He promised to go to the man the next day and tell him the situation. "...if he will perform unto thee the part of the kinsman, well; let him do the kinsman's part: but if he will not do the part of a kinsman to thee, then will I do the part of the kinsman to thee...." Boaz wasn't about to go against God's commands, even though he had invested in her and there was a mutual interest.

Ruth lay at his feet until the morning, and before she left, he gave her six measures of barley, and she went home. I don't get all crazy about numerology, because so much of it is circular reasoning, but if I were God, I would certainly delight myself in having fun with numbers in the Bible, tucking them away in places where people wouldn't often notice them. But in Biblical numerology, six is the number of man. Usually it's not in a good context, but in this case, I think the number represents that Boaz was again showing his manhood by supplying her needs. Not by sweet talk and flirtation, but by giving her something real. He was willing to feed her physically and spiritually with kindness and the fruits of his obedience, and he proved it over and over.

Boaz went to the gate of the city, where the elders would sit and adjuticate, and called ten of the elders together, and found the nearer relative, who remains unnamed. He explained the situation, that Naomi had come back and needed to sell the parcel of land that had belonged to their brother, Elimelech. Knowing how the Bible uses "relative terms" (yuk, yuk), the kinsman was probably a brother, and Boaz a half-brother or cousin. Just a guess.

The kinsman said he would buy the field, and then Boaz pulled the ace out of his sleeve and said, "This chick Ruth comes with it, and you'll need to have kids with her to raise up our brother's name from the dead, so his descendants can have his inheritance." The kinsman reneged, saying that he didn't want to damage his inheritance, probably by having to split it with any kids he already had. Boaz then bought all that was Elimelech's, Mahlon's, and Chilion's from Naomi; in doing so, he bought Ruth as his wife, and would raise up the dead brother's name. This was her wedding ceremony.

Of course, Boaz is a type of Christ, redeeming a Gentile bride and putting her in the line of Christ.
In 4:14, the women of the city said to Naomi, "Blessed be the Lord, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that HIS name may be famous in Israel." Under the law (Deuteronomy 25:6), the dead man's (Elimelech's) name should have been the one that was kept alive. But in this case, the name of the redeemer, Boaz, was preserved. It's not about the redeemed, but about the Redeemer. Every time someone calls someone else a Christian, the name of Christ is preserved, and the emphasis shifts from the name of the redeemed to the name of the Redeemer.

Boaz had seen how his father, Salmon (also referred to as Salmah) had taken a prostitute named Rahab, and rescued her from death (Joshua 6:17) and married her (Matthew 1:5). He knew the power of redemption quite well. He also knew the benefits of following what God had commanded, instead of what the culture around him taught. Incidentally, Rahab, a Canaanite (descendant of Ham), was black (as was Moses's wife). Boaz was half-black; David was 1/16th black, and Jesus had more black blood in his line than white blood. So much for the Bible being against interracial marriage. You really do find the most interesting things in your Bible when you study it.

This story gives more press time than any other in the Bible to a man and a woman finding and marrying each other. And it's interesting that no flirtation is involved, but neither is an extended period of friendship. I'm not saying that a relationship founded on friendship is wrong at all, but in this story, the man was doing what God wanted, and God brought the woman to him, and it was their mutual respect for the right choices that each had made that attracted them to each other. I like what Miss Donna told me that Marvin had said to her: "The God in me loves the God in you."
Wednesday, December 24, 2008 
1) Here I stand head in hand
Turn my face to the wall
If she's gone I can't go on
Feelin' two-foot small

2) Everywhere people stare
Each and every day
I can see them laugh at me
And I hear them say

Chorus) Hey you've got to hide your love away
Hey you've got to hide your love away

3) How can I even try
I can never win
Hearing them, seeing them
In the state I'm in

4) How could she say to me
Love will find a way
Gather round all you clowns
Let me hear you say

Chorus) Hey you've got to hide your love away
Hey you've got to hide your love away

If you want to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNMhPQoEbJE

This was written and sung by John Lennon. A man needs advice: He's afraid of losing someone, and people are laughing at him and telling him to play it cool, to hide what he knows, to deceive her to win her. He knows (verse 3) that he won't get anywhere with their advice, and the change of tone from verse 3 to verse 4 indicates that he took their advice, and all she said was "love will find a way". He then calls them clowns and basically says, "Yeah, THAT worked...NOT. And all you can do is tell me the same thing again."

Why did he take advice that he knew wouldn't work? My guess is that nobody else gave him any answers, and I think this is endemic to what young people were going through in the 60's. This is just my opinion, but I think it bears consideration before you reject it. The "rebellion in the 60's by the hippies" was the natural fruit of dead religion. People who believed the Bible and sought answers in it have ALWAYS been in the minority. There may have been a general respect for some Biblical principles through much of America's history, though I doubt that, but there was no "Golden Age" where everybody was saved, living right, and there was no crime because there were no black people.

When the "hippies" rebelled (and I'm making a generalization here - most people at that time weren't hippies), they were rebelling against a political system that they had seen destroy lives and enslave and disenfranchise human beings, the same humans created in God's image. And since the church has always claimed that America is a Christian nation, they saw them as part and parcel.

The churches in general should have been in the lead to preach against oppression of any kind. This is what the Old Testament prophets did; they did not get involved in politics, because that would have sqaundered the higher calling of God on their lives, but they stood outside of politics and pointed their fingers at the kings, priests, and leaders and thundered, "Thou art the man!" Although it isn't the theme of the Bible, there's a lot about standing up for the oppressed and enslaved in the prophets and in Matthew. Yeah, dispensationally, the church is not a social organization, but these things were written for our learning and admonition. And it doesn't help when a large part of the American church has been willingly put on a leash by a certain party because it wants its votes.

On a more individual scale, I would argue that most churches weren't giving young people the answers to things like how to deal with love, how to honor God in their lives, why they need to submit to God, etc. I'll wager that, if any of the youth who rebelled had grown up in church, it was an apostate one that was no glory to God to begin with. Big loss.

When they wrote songs like "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" or "Blowin' in the Wind", they were looking for answers and hadn't gotten any from their leaders, parents, teachers, or pastors. If there was a general sense of respect for some Biblical principles among unregenerate people, then it was empty religion, without a converted heart, and definitely without the power of God. It was idolatry, and a mockery Christ's death and resurrection. No wonder they rebelled.

Francis Schaeffer recognized this and began telling Christians to be observant of the culture around them, because it was asking questions that only the Bible had the answer to. Yeah, I know I haven't had kids yet and "I'll understand it then", but I wonder if many parents would have kept their kids from the world's disastrous advice if they had listened to some of these songs and realized what they were asking. Or better yet, WHY they were having to ask.

In the blogs I've been writing lately about romance, I've said often that this is stuff I've needed answers to and haven't heard from the pulpit. And I've got several preachers, some of whom are on Facebook, that I'm good friends with, and who preach the truth and help people. I don't mean to come down on them, or lump them in with people who are only in it for the money or power. But, the fact remains that I've sat through thousands of sermons and haven't heard anybody preach what God's been showing me. And it's not that I'm anything super-special; it's just that I've LOOKED for it.

My theory is that, since most of the preachers in my circle got married before they were saved, they did things the world's way and it worked out for them, because they were of the world. I'll wager that most haven't had to think about what it's like to grow up in church, where some of the youth actually do try to do things right. Frankly, most of the preaching to the youth I remember was this: "You're all listening to rock n' roll and you're wicked and it's going to make you take heroin and ax-murder your parents. And don't have sex because you'll get pregnant and die."

I hate to be that cynical about it, but that's IT, man! I've learned more principles about how to treat single sisters from listening to series on the family, because nobody is telling us this anywhere else! Maybe things are changing now, and I'm sure things are different in some churches, but I've been to dozens of churches and sat through hundreds of different preachers, and actually LISTENED (following was sometimes a different story), and I'm having to dig this stuff out for myself at the age of 33. Maybe God knew that I, personally, wouldn't have been able to absorb it all until now, but if something is the truth, it should still be preached, to people of all ages.

---

I've also puzzled for a long time on why so many young people leave church in their late teens and come back when they get married. Maybe for some of them, they left because they weren't getting answers they needed, or, at minimum, advice that would counteract what they're getting from the world. When they get married and have kids, it could be that they have so many problems because they've built their romantic relationships on the wrong foundation, and then left the house of truth on top of everything else. But they know many churches make an effort to minister to young families, so they go back, knowing they'll get advice.

How much heartache, misery, depression and selfish behavior could be avoided? Sure, not everybody is going to listen and follow, but you'll have that no matter what you do. God gave pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body of Christ.

I'm hoping preachers will read this, and consider it, and comment on it. You may think I'm way off on some things, but consider what I say. And please remember, that my dad was a preacher, and I've grown up around them, counted many as good friends (Marvin Clanton, Richard Sandlin, Phil Schipper, Cliff Parks, Bob Nogalski, Steve Brogden, Harry Nix, Chuck Coulson), and I do occasional preaching myself. I love preachers, and I'm not attacking you; but I think there's some teaching that's generally not being done. Courtship is just a structure. Some of the preaching on betrothal I've heard covered some principles on treating each other with honesty. But I think there's a whole lot more that could be said.
Currently listening:
Ansermet Conducts Stravinsky
Release date: 2000-11-14
Saturday, December 13, 2008 

Current mood:Dixieland!
I recently bought and read (rather than stole and read) Joshua Harris's Boy Meets Girl. His first book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, was a timely read back in my undergrad years. Not that I was overburdened with dates; it clarified a lot about the proper relationship between a man and a woman. Our first priority to each other is as brothers and sisters in Christ, not as friends, lovers, or business partners.

So, I'll have a huge blog, probably next January. After I get done with a crapload of Haydn. But thinking about it has revealed all kinds of rabbit trails that I don't want to distract me when I'm going for the main course.

Anyway, I've been thinking the last few days about the whole "just friends" thing. Any male old enough to like females knows that if you become friends with one, you'll never be anything but. One of my favorite movies, Just Friends, ends up supporting that belief in the end. Once you're in the "friend zone", you're done for. And I can attest to you, it's true.

Several years ago, I liked a girl at church. We had become pretty close friends, but I don't think she realized I liked her. Another friend asked her out (and every signal she gave him pointed to being interested in him) and got shot down. I don't remember how it came up, but I remember her looking directly into my eyes and saying, "Stephen, we're such good friends; please don't ever ask me out."

I consider that the greatest insult I've ever received.

Knowing how the world teaches boys and girls to act, and seeing the vacuum of Biblical teaching from preaching and parents, I'm issuing a challenge to all who want their relationships to line up with the Bible and glorify God:

Men: If you're in a situation where you can give a woman godly, needed advice, and you withhold it to keep yourself from getting stuck in the friend zone, you're being selfish. If it will help her make a right decision or make her a better Christian, you owe it to her as your sister to help her. Jesus said, "If you love me, feed my sheep." Proverbs 3: 27 says, "Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it." Christ sacrificed his life and his love for billions of people who rejected it. Are you willing to sacrifice your desire to help another Christian out? She may treat you second-class because you're being a friend, instead of being mysterious, aloof, slightly dangerous, or loverly, but that's her problem, and God will deal with her about it. It all comes down to whether we're living in thrall to our flesh, or whether we're more concerned with the fruits of the Spirit in our lives.

Women: Are you willing to recognize that a man who wants to help you may be more Christlike, at least in one area, than somebody who makes your spine tingle when he walks into the room? We all want to be liked, and for somebody to sacrifice that God-given desire is no small thing. If you find a man who shows that he is willing to help you spiritually, he's worth considering. When Ruth came back from Boaz's harvest the first time, with a large amount of wheat, she had the wisdom to tell her to stay in his field, and that it wouldn't be good if his servants saw her in somebody else's. If a man is trying to help meet your spiritual needs, that is a mark of a leader and a shepherd, and is something to be commended and rewarded, not thrown aside. "He that rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house." "A wise woman buildeth her house, but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands."

Help a brotha out.
Currently reading:
Cato Supreme Court Review 2007-2008
By Ilya Shapiro
Sunday, November 16, 2008 
I think I'm about ready to write a huge blog about love, honesty and romance - probably in a few weeks once Cedarville lets out and I've got a little more time. I've been thinking about it for about 6 months, and I've got several pages of notes, Scriptures, and thoughts that I need to organize and trim. And I'm going to want comments and discussion, especially from those of my friends who are Christians, and even more from those who are pastors, pastors' wives, ministers of some sort, etc.

Fade to:

Arthur Koestler. His book "The Act of Creation" has been a HUGE influence on my thought processes, especially when it comes to creativity. But only in the last week have I started his most famous book, "Darkness at Noon". Between this book and "The God that Failed", a collection of essays he edited, he was greatly responsible for starting to discredit communism among lefties in the West in the 40's and 50's. I'd like to go into more detail on him, but I want to keep this short. Anyway, I've been reading "Darkness" this week, and he began a chapter with two quotes, one from Machiavelli, and one from Jesus, and I'd like to present them for your consideration:

"Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But this must happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately."

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

I leave you with that for now.
Currently reading:
Darkness at Noon
By Arthur Koestler
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 
I thought of this not too long ago, after reading Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, a book about murders commited in the 80's by Mormon fundamentalists.

There are Republicans and conservatives who think that Obama is a closet Muslim, and harp on him for having a common Middle Eastern name. Never you mind that his first name, Barack, is the same as the Hebrew Barak, a judge in the Old Testament.

Yet many of these same people unblinkingly supported the only-less-slightly-liberal Romney during the primaries. Romney is a Mormon, and Mormons have caused much more trouble and shed more blood on American soil than Muslims have. Can we at least have a little consistency on whom you're going to vote for, if one of your arguments is purported associations with terrorists? (And for now I'll ignore McCain's dealings with Cuban terrorists - that's for another note).

As Martin Luther said, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk (Muslim) than a foolish Christian." I'm not saying Obama is wise; intelligent, yes; wise, no.

We've had eight years of leadership by a foolish (so-called) Christian, who, even with a Republican-dominated Congress and 7 of 9 Republican-appointed Supreme Court nominees, has not even managed to overturn Roe v Wade (which McCain himself has stated that he would NOT overturn); has foolishly cut taxes while involving us in an unconstitutional, unBiblical, unneccessary war; and, has doubled the budget of the federal Department of Education, that abominable bureaucratic Leviathan.

And don't get me wrong - I'm all for lower taxes, even no taxes at all. But anybody with any sense knows that you can't have your precious wars, and grow the government bigger than anybody since that welfare-o-crat Lyndon B Johnson, without robbing the people in the process.

Maybe we should give a wise Turk a chance. Too bad Obama is neither.
Saturday, July 05, 2008 
An horror of a companion piece.

Abraham Triptych. Sounds nice and pompous, doesn't it? A triptych is originally a work of religious art, usually an altarpiece, in three panels, with the middle panel being the largest. Yes, I knew most of that before I Wikipedia'd it. This: William Schuman has his New England Triptych. Also this: I can has precedent.



I've got "An Horror of a Great Darkness", an 8-minute long piano piece based on God's appearing to Abraham in Genesis 15. The piece is good, but I couldn't decide if it needed expansion and development, or companion pieces. I played through it again for the first time in several months, and decided against expansion: It's not about thematic development, so why force things?

In Genesis 15, Abraham makes a sacrifice to God, and divides the carcasses in two. In Semitic cultures (I need to do more reading on this), people would sacrifice, divide the carcasses, and walk figure-8's around them. Which reminds me of the Holy Modal Rounders (viz. Easy Rider soundtrack):

"You just glide there in the clear air
Making figure eights through the pearly gates
Where the soul and the universe meet".

Anyway, I was thinking of writing companion pieces about other living things that got divided, specifically the Levite's concubine in the book of Judges. For those who don't know, the concubine got left out all night and abused, and when the Levite priest found her dead on the doorstep in the morning, he cut her into 12 pieces and mailed her throughout Israel to draw attention to the misdeeds of the townspeople. It's one of the most bizarre and depraved things ever recorded.

But I got to thinking over the last two nights about taking the other pieces from Abraham's life as well. "Between Bethel and Hai" and "God Hath Made Me to Laugh" are what I have in mind. In Genesis 15, Abraham leaves Egypt and heads back to where he's supposed to be, pitching his tent between Bethel (House of God) and Hai (also Ai, a Heap of Ruins). Later, when God promises a son to Abraham and Sarah, they both laugh. When the son is born, they name him Isaac, which means laughter. Sarah says, "And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me." People usually criticize A & S for laughing at God instead of up and believing (which is, of course, what you and I with our advanced intelligence would have done), but here Sarah indicates that the laughter is to indicate a joyous disbelief, not a disgruntled one.

I have my summer's work cut out for me. And the nice thing is, since "An Horror..." will be the center piece, the other two won't have to be as long. Fewer notes. :-D

Now, here's the other thing: Our piano at church needs the action re-done. You have to work too hard to get the sound out of it that you do. I have intermittent tendonitis, and Abby, our other main pianist, has carpal tunnel syndrome. It would be much easier to play if we could get the action lightened, saving us both strain and stress on hands and arms.

I'm considering getting the piano worked on, then doing a recital as a fund-raiser to cover the cost. I'd like to do the Abraham Triptych, Technical Difficulties, Ives's Violin Sonata 3 (Children's Day at the Campmeeting), Milhaud's Scaramouche (though I haven't talked to Chet about the possibility of that - don't mean to spring anything on him), and another piece or two. Maybe a Beethoven sonata (it wouldn't take too long to relearn op 10, 3, and it would irritate Matt) or a Shostakovich prelude and fugue (the B major is coming along decently).
Or I could finally write Godless Killing Machines and fly TJ down here. I could also get rich enough to do that between now and then.

Now that we have a church building with real acoustics, the idea of doing a recital there is much more appealing. And more people would probably submit to musical affliction if it were for a good cause. And I'm DYING to play Technical Difficulties again. Maybe get some publicity for a local premiere, a plug on WDPR, a review in the Dayton Daily News.....

As Joe Dell'aria would say, "Well, now you got the easy part done!"
Currently listening:
The Best of the Consolers
By The Consolers
Release date: 1995-01-31
Tuesday, July 01, 2008 
This is from a New York Times article on hypocrisy, fairness and fooling ourselves.

"Politicians are hypocritical for the same reason the rest of us are: to gain the social benefits of appearing virtuous without incurring the personal costs of virtuous behavior. If you can deceive even yourself into believing that you're acting for the common good, you'll have more energy and confidence to further your own interests — and your self-halo can persuade others to help you along."

Not that I've been dictionary-diving lately, but that's the best definition of hypocrisy I've ever seen: Getting the look without doing the work. And it's so easy to do that it's nearly irresistable for our old nature. God, help us all.

Currently listening:
Ronald Stevenson: Passacaglia on DSCH
Release date: 2008-01-01
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 
I read this again today. "Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established."

That is a command. Just like "be filled with the spirit" or "husbands, love your wives" or "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel". But when was the last time you did that? When was the last time you pondered where you're going?

If you don't ponder, you could spend a lot of time walking down a path only to find a dead end at best or a trap or disaster at worst.

Things to ponder:

How you're raising your kids
Are you consistently truthful with others
When was the last time you did something nice for somebody
How long has it been since you were happy at work
Would you feel better if you ate better
What will be the consequences of the last conversation you had with someone
Is there something you keep complaining about, but have done nothing to change

You can come up with your own list, I'm sure.

Take two hours to contemplate an upcoming major decision. Give equal time to thinking about all the consequences, good and bad, for yourself and others. If you spend two hours doing that, it may save you from making a bad decision. If it's a good decision, you may think of a better, more efficient way of implementing it.

Taking 5 seconds to spray WD40 on a rusted bolt is better than spending 5 minutes fussing sweating cursing breaking it.

This isn't new age mumbo-jumbo. This is a commandment. God takes time to ponder your heart (Proverbs 24:12), so why shouldn't you take time to ponder? You can make the time if you want. You will do what you want to do.

If you're miserable at your job, isn't it worth taking a relatively small amount of time to think about what could make it better, whether it's you getting a new attitude, telling your boss something that would make your job easier, or considering a new job in a field you like? Tangent: It is worth making less money to get rid of some of the needless crap you're paying interest on, if it frees your mind up.

From Lin Yutang's The Importance of Living:
    "Culture, as I understand it, is essentially a product of leisure. The art of culture is therefore essentially the art of loafing. From the Chinese point of view, the man who is wisely idle is the most cultured man. For there seems to be a philosophic contradiction between being busy and being wise. Those who are wise won't be busy, and those who are busy can't be wise. The wisest man is therefore he who loafs most gracefully."

    "In this connection, I might mention a personal experience. I could never see the beauty of skyscrapers in New York, and it was not until I went to Chicago that I realized that a skyscraper could be very imposing and very beautiful to look at, if it had a good frontage and at least a half mile of unused space around it Chicago is fortunate in this respect, because it has more space than Manhattan. The tall buildings are better spaced, and there is the possibility of obtaining an unobstructed view of them from a long distance. Figuratively speaking, we, too, are so cramped in our life that we cannot enjoy a free perspective of the beauties of our spiritual life. We lack spiritual frontage."

    "It is amazing how few people are aware of the value of solitude and contemplation. The art of lying in bed means more than physical rest for you, after you have gone through a strenuous day, and complete relaxation, after all the people you have met and interviewed, all the friends who have tried to crack silly jokes, and all your brothers and sisters who have tried to rectify your behavior and sponsor you into heaven have thoroughly got on your nerves. It is all that, I admit. But it is something more. If properly cultivated, it should mean a mental house-cleaning. Actually, many businesss men who pride themselves on rushing about in the morning and afternoon and keeping three desk telephones busy all the time on their desk, never realize that they could make twice the amount of money, if they would give themselves one hour's solitude awake in bet, at one o'clock in the morning, or even at seven. What does it matter even if one stays in bed at eight o'clock? A thousand times better that he should provide himself with a good tin of cigarettes on his bedside table and take plenty of time to get up from bed and solve all his problems of the day before he brushes his teeth. There, comfortably stretched or curled up in his pyjamas, free from the irksome woolen underwear or the irritating belt or suspenders and suffocating collars and heavy leather boots, when his toes are emancipated and have recovered the freedom which they inevitably lose in the daytime, the real business head can think, for only when one's toes are free is his head free, and only when one's head is free is real thinking possible. Thus in that comfortable position he can PONDER over his achievements and mistakes of yesterday and single out the important from the trivial in the day's program ahead of him. Better that he arrived at ten o'clock in his office master of himself, than that he should come punctually at nine or even a quarter before to watch over his subordinates like a slave driver and then 'hustle about nothing', as the Chinese say."

And this, from the greatest (?) king in the Bible: "Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still."

    "Now what actually happens in bed is this. When one is in bed the muscles are at rest, the circulation becomes smoother and more regular, respiration becomes steadier, and all the optical, auditory and vaso-motor nerves are more or less completely at rest, bringing about a more or less complete physical quietude, and therefore making mental concentration, whether on ideas or on sensations, more absolute."

And some of you haven't taken the few minutes to read what I just typed out. Shame on you. Your refusal to contemplate is your ticket to a harried, frustrated and unfulfilling life.

And nevermind that God himself finds it easier to speak to you when he doesn't have to scream over the clutter.

Italics mine.

Ponder. It's a command.

I have a decision I need to make in the next few days. so I'm going to take a few hours to ponder. I don't want to screw it up. I don't want to hurt someone. I don't want to hurt myself. I don't want the worry of knowing I didn't take the time to properly think about it. I'm pondering my ways: If I keep walking this direction, where will it take me?

I "need" to spend the time putting stuff on eBay, because I'm 'bout near broke. But I don't have a friendship with my credit card company. Friends are more important, and a man that (already) hath friends must show himself friendly. Not thinking means thoughtlessness, in motives, decisions, actions and reactions. Pondering means concern for yourself, your relationship with God, and your relationship with others.

Currently reading:
The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story (Deluxe Edition)
By Douglas Adams
Release date: 2005-11-01
Thursday, June 12, 2008 
Here's a sample review I wrote for the editor of the American Record Guide. I want to be a staff reviewer, so this is my job application. Hey - buttloads of free CDs, and maybe a little money. :-D

Review of Sergei Prokofiev's String Quartets Nos. 1 and 2, and Zurab Nadarejshvili's String Quartet No. 1. St. Petersburg String Quartet; Delos, 1999.

Click here to see the CD at Amazon.com

It's always been a petty annoyance to me that recordings of unfamiliar pieces require the reviewer to relate the piece to the listener instead of only the performance, but in this case, it's a pleasure. The Nadarejshvili Quartet is a gem. He makes use of Georgian chants and folk songs, illuminating the melodies instead of merely putting them on exhibition. A few places in the Prokofiev quartets bear a resemblance to the Nadarejshvili – the slow opening of the first quartet's second movement; the Kabardinian tunes in the second quartet, especially in the last minutes of its second movement; and the sul ponticello in the third movement.

            I wonder a little if the Quartet recorded the Prokofiev pieces to have the chance to put the awesome Nadarejshvili in people's ears. (If they did, it's OK by me.) The playing on the Nadarejshvili is more polished, unified and detailed; I wouldn't say they treat the Prokofiev like old hat, but the Nadarejshvili is what makes this CD special thing. The Prokofiev quartets aren't exactly buttresses of the repertoire anyway (if repertoires can have cornerstones, they can certainly have buttresses), and the Georgian's quartet deserves to be heard at least as often.

            The Prokofiev First Quartet starts with some slightly wobbly intonation, but the players find their center within a few seconds. The transitions make sense in their hands; the Allegro is played with appropriate attention to tempo and dynamics, and the performers don't get in the way of the music. In the second movement the playing is weaker. I want more warmth and agreement, specifically at 4:10 where the upper strings accompany the cello in the temporarily-F-major section. III should be more emotional; I feel the quartet doesn't play quite as passionately (sufferingly) as the music calls for. The performance is better than acceptable, but not what it could be. And the liner notes irritatingly hint at how Prokofiev reconciled the tonic of B minor with the cello's lowest note being C. I want to know what happened. The booklet designers could have skipped the page and a half of reviews of the St. Petersburg Quartet; there's no need to sell me on a group when I've already bought their CD.

            Sergei's Second melds the vigor of the Kabardinian folk songs with the placing and polish the classical setting requires. I like the Quartet's playing better on this piece -  the cello interjections in the first movement are grinningly played, and the whole ensemble gets the essence of the second movement, for sure. They bring the folk melodies' expansiveness and longing out of the "bleak hotel room" where the piece was written, and into your heart. The third movement's melodic echoes of the first are cunningly presented, as well as the panicked urgency usually associated more with Shostakovich than Prokofiev.

            Then there's the Nadarejshvili. With the slowly descending opening notes, glassy, fragile, tremulous, the piece gently but firmly pulls your soul into a look back at a universe of hardship. (You've heard these tones before; your ears have rung with them in times of hatred and oppression.)  At the halfway point, a small outburst (but one held inside) takes the remembrances from the cello and gives them to the violin's higher register, to a different voice and another's rehearsal of the same time. Though there aren't strict melodies or thematic development, there are thoughts and opinions. Instead of translating emotions into tunes, Nadarejshvili has brilliantly taken squirming coils of notes and transfigured them into memories.

            The intensity of the second movement is contained alternately in the rhythmic attacks, insistent handfuls of notes, percussive playing, and ultimately percussion itself, as the players tap their instruments and bow almost pitch-less notes. One melody escapes skyward, only to be pulled back and dropped on the ground later. Panic, sirens, restlessness, scheming and disintegration are the themes of this movement, enviably well-played by the Quartet.

            The third movement opens with the same sparseness as the first, but at eye level instead of so far above your head. A halting pizzicato tune, starting a minor 7th above the drone, soon blossoms when the other instruments enter and verify what is being sung. All the strings, now arco, hover around that 7th, with sounds that remind me of Kronos Quartet's playing of Tallis's Spem in Alium. The return of the "7th" theme opens up the movement finally and literally (you won't miss this moment), presenting its final tale of suffering, and the inner piece and quietness that can come in spite of it. Again, your attention is drawn to the contentment of the open sky. There is a warmth and reverence to this movement that willingly, lovingly carries the weight of Georgian history.

            This is a must-have for your chamber music collection. The Prokofiev quartets are mostly satisfactory, and the Nadarejshvili is something you simply must hear.


Currently listening:
Before The Flood [Live With The Band, 1974]
By Bob Dylan
Release date: 1990-10-25
Monday, June 02, 2008 
For some reason, I'm remembering a night nearly (or more than?) two years ago. Talking to her in front of someone else's house for a half hour, tops. Then the someone else's mom stuck her head out the door to announce the coming of midnight and the imminent demise of that conversation.

It's a very personal memory, all the stranger because I don't remember a word of what was said. And it's against my better judgement that I even publish this. Then again, my judgement is neither better nor worse, but merely not to be relied upon (viz. Proverbs 3). I don't want to relive the past two years; forget the bridges: entire rivers have been burnt.

But just for a moment, I wonder what would have happened had there been more nights like that. And you can attack the tackiness of Joe Diffie and country music (and two-syllable rhymes) in general, but:

Somewhere down that road not taken
Will forever live the dreams that were forsaken
Just every now and then
I miss a place I've never been
Somewhere down that road not taken.

And there was this, done by two friends whom I rarely speak to any more, if for very different reasons. Once, someone cared enough for me to write on my car. We'll call it Steve. Steve's a pretty name.

Currently reading:
PrairyErth (A Deep Map): An Epic History of the Tallgrass Prairie Country
By William Least Heat-Moon