Must say, I'm glad he was.
Now off back to CD 3.
An attempt to convey a few of the thoughts & feelings of an expatriate teacher in sunny Singapore (and adjacent spots on occasion.)
Must say, I'm glad he was.
Now off back to CD 3.
Alas, this was not to be. In the mornings I now watch Sky News (since moving to the Hall) as BBC World only offers the rather tedious World Business Report at the time I'm preparing to leave, and it's very oriented towards news of events back in the UK. Normally this is palatable, if parochial (though the sports news is very good) but this week it's been wall-to-wall royal tedium. And then arriving home this afternoon, what do I find? The missus actually watching the whole thing on the goggle box. Fortunately I got her out into the real world for a cuppa - but I was forced to record the bit she missed. And now she's back in front of the screen drinking the whole sorry occasion in.
Fortunately I've been able to vent a bit by evincing violently republican sentiments in front of several bemused classes this week, and that's been fun. But otherwise what can I say, other than: the horror, the horror!?
In fact, if anything I think it got better towards the end. This surprised me as I half-expected the high energy narrative to run out of steam (a feature of a number of recent novels, I feel, especially American ones.) But the more I found myself understanding the Lambert family and their dysfunctionality, the more I felt emotionally engaged in their story. And father Alfred's deterioration over the final third of the novel was wonderfully, tenderly done.
Anyway, praying alongside the boys was a powerful reminder of how fidgety kids are. Both of them were doing their best to maintain the necessary stillness when standing, bending, kneeling and the like, but were failing quite spectacularly. I found myself envying them their inability to contain the abundance of life they each contained and was reminded of the admonition I regularly heard as a youngster, part question, part accusation: Why can't you keep still?!
Now I can keep still, but something has been lost, and I was glad those kids still had that something.
So, as usual, I am behind with my reading. And, as usual, I'm finding it very difficult to be bothered by that fact. It's not a competition, you know! (Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if, one day, someone, somewhere, turns it into one.)
There are places in the mind that are not too much fun to visit.
But since this is the last thing I'm intending to write about a great night it seems churlish to leave things on a critical note. So I'll just mention how powerful it was to see Dylan centrestage pretty much alone, with no guitar or keyboard for a shield, on three songs (I think, though I may have lost count - certainly on Tangled Up In Blue and Ballad of a Thin Man.) Framed by a back light, stance slightly side-on to the audience, his white hat shrouding his upper face, he looked for all the world like a distinctly untrustworthy gambler who intended to take you for everything he could.
It was theatrical in the truest sense. It was commanding in a deeply powerful way - fuuny-serious, like so much of his recent material. Something was happening and I wasn't quite sure what it was. Vital. Something alive.
This had an odd effect. Most of the folks up front were old gyppers (like myself) who could afford to shell out the green stuff (unlike myself) on a bit of exclusivity. So whilst there were quite a few who abandoned their chairs and pushed up to the stage to groove, quite a number, who seemed to be there for the alcohol or just to tick off a Dylan concert as one of the items on their itineraries of things that should be done in life to prove you actually lived, hung back and paid precious little attention of any sort to the actualities of the concert. I think they regarded the music as background to the fascination of whatever it was they were rabbiting on about.
Then behind then were the mad enthusiasts like myself (but generally quite a young crowd I'm pleased to say) hanging on Dylan's every last rasped syllable and fixated by the brilliance of the band. Unfortunately right in front of us were those odd souls who didn't seem to understand that in order to enjoy a concert it's useful to listen. It's a strangely dislocating experience to be plunged into aural ecstacy whilst a chap stands two metres in front of you doing odd things with a handphone oblivious to it all.
18.40
We got a good mixture of the old and the new last night, though the old sounded newer than the new. This was the vital Dylan. No signs I could see of just going through the paces, though he looked extremely relaxed.
The more recent stuff, which was in the majority, included Beyond Here Lies Nothing, Thunder On The Mountain, Tweedle Dum &Tweedle Dee and an outstanding Love Sick. It all sounded right there, totally in the pocket.
Older material: Tangled Up In Blue, Simple Twist of Fate, A Hard Rain's Going To Fall, Highway 61, Ballad of a Thin Man, Like A Rolling Stone, Forever Young. Only Thin Man wasn't altered beyond recognition and it was on fire. Tangled was stunning. And I'm running out of superlatives for the rest.
Yowza!
And Dylan is due to appear at 9.30 this evening. And may cancel if it's raining.
And I am one seriously worried Dylan-freak.
I have two worries now. The first is that the great man will be rained off - the venue is open air. The second is that his motivations for coming over here will not necessarily be associated with making music for its own sake. If he's here on a sort of nostalgia, greatest hits, trip I'm going to feel a bit let down. So I'm hoping we're in for some vital, living material relevant to him now. (If he plays nothing except what's been on the last four albums I'll be more than happy.)
So I'm staying calm and not thinking too much ahead. At least, I don't think I am. Not really. Not if I can help it.
One thing that's not a problem though, has been the look and feel of the edition of the novel I'm reading. It's one of those small but chunky little paperbacks the American market seems to favour - you can get a lot of Steven Kings in this format. The great thing about them is that you can handily take them anywhere to read. As well as being cheap they look cheap and I like that for some reason. I particularly like the cheerfully gaudy cover of The Corrections.
This isn't to say I don't like a touch of class sometimes. Those lovely Library of America editions are held in regard at this Place. But, on the whole, I suppose it can be said that I like a bit of rough.
Now I can't honestly say I was heartbroken. I'm not a huge fan of Wagner. I bought the Solti Ring cycle on CD a few years back essentially to educate myself, to see, or hear, what all the fuss was about, and I think I've only played the whole thing through a couple of times I sort of have enjoyed it, but it's been a bit of a labour. In fact, I haven't yet bothered to check the rest of the CDs and really don't know if I care enough to replace what's been lost.
But the incident set me to thinking about the publicity given to the CD format when it first came out. The claim of the record companies promoting the things was that they would last a lifetime, though immediately a fair amount of scepticism ensued. But now we're getting to a position to judge, I suppose. Most the stuff I bought in the middle 80's when I moved on from vinyl has lasted I'm pleased to say. I played my first ever CD purchase - a collection of Respighi's tone poems on Roman subjects - just this afternoon and it sounded and looked in pristine condition. And over the years I've lost very few disks to decay - curiously nearly all 'classical' recordings - Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony and Robert Simpson's 9th (this one a keenly felt loss - you don't see it around all that much). I say 'curiously' because back then rumour had it that classical recording were being given a superior treatment in terms of the qualities of the pressings of the CDs compared to that afforded to more disposable forms.
Anyway the point of all this is that I'm not complaining. That the vast majority of my recordings have lasted is something I never really expected and feel generally grateful for. If anything it's slightly troubling to think that the Respighi may last a lot longer than me.
I could only watch a couple of minutes yesterday but I quickly and excitedly checked the listings to ascertain they're being shown again (on the MGM channel this Sunday and Tuesday) so as to be able to programme the recorder. Trust me all you right thinking folks out there: this is one not to be missed - the real deal - almost the thing itself.
I am resolved to rectify this stunning misapprehension. I am not sweet in any sense, nor ever have been. Though there was a time I was distinctly cute. Thankfully long ago and forgotten. So there.
Some years ago this would have conjured some degree of alarm. Now I am aware of a mild interest, a sense of gentle amusement, something suspiciously akin to accomplishment.
(That said, it will be a relief when the mechanism heaves itself out of bed on the morrow and gets the show on the road again - a state of affairs by no means guaranteed.)
I finished the Tolstoy this morning and was struck by the last theological question posed by Levin. I'd never noticed its precise nature before. I think I know the answer implied but I must look a bit further into this one. It seems to me, by the way, that we leave Kostya in the same place we leave Pierre in War and Peace: his journey is far from over. And mine continues into Ackroyd's biography of Shakespeare, which I picked up a few days back but which just got overwhelmed by my engagement with the Russian master, and Franzen's The Corrections, which strikes me as being distinctly over-written, or at least the first section does.
Meanwhile we're off to Arab Street in a few minutes for the cup that cheers and I can routinely, but thankfully, state: it just doesn't get any better.
19.30 - A Correction
Did Mr Franzen a disservice earlier. Now on the second section of his novel and it's hilarious. I'm in for a very jolly read, methinks.
The fact that I didn't, I find of interest on two levels. First of all, in what it suggests about me as a reader. It's no real news that I easily forget what I've read, especially when it comes to details of plot. I've mentioned this here before and find it of sterling advantage to me as everything remains so wonderfully fresh. The fact is I never feel I've finished reading anything as within six months I want to read it again. And the truth is I was given an excuse to reread Tolstoy's masterpiece in unusually quick time and took it. As I've been reading I've been experiencing the pangs of wanting to re-experience War and Peace and the other lesser fiction. I brought back an old copy of Resurrection from the selves at Maison KL and can hardly hold myself back from it. I suppose this is a mild echo of the way junkies feel.
On another level, I find myself considering the experience of fiction, especially in the form of the extended novel, as art. Going back to the idea that I could easily have glanced over a few key sections of the novel to prepare myself for the classroom, I find a sense that anything other than actually reading a text is a form of somehow avoiding the experience of the actual work of art. No matter how good the discussion, or how insightful the criticism, it is not the thing itself.
But you can never get to the thing itself with a novel as it's impossible to read the whole thing at once, as it were. You're always missing something. A novel like Anna Karenina is a fierce reminder of this. It is so beautifully patterned, such that each section has weight and resonance within the design of the whole, yet you can never quite hold the entirety in mind at one time - unlike the total impact of a painting, say. The novel unfolds in time and cannot, therefore, transcend time. At best its art is fallen, sullen. But that will do for me.
Said by a madman, of course. A supremely sane one.