February Classicals

Everyday I wake up wishing it were spring. I feel as though this winter has gone on too long this year.

But a cold, blistering month doesn't mean a dull one - in addition to Vancouver 2010 shenanigans (which is still happening - details to come soon) and Chocolate Appreciation Day, London's three symphonies (plus Philharmonia Orchestra, resident at the Southbank Centre) will be hosting a handful of wonderful concerts.

Now, to set the record straight, in my frank opinion last night's London Philharmonic playing Sibelius' 2nd symphony was possibly the best concert of the year. You can't get any better. Whenever an orchestra has Sibelius 2 lined up in the season, there are very few other shows in the year that top it - it's always been that way. I won't go into the details of how and why the symphony is so great, but an immediate standing ovation for four rounds of clapping should be proof enough that somehow that symphony strikes a chord - no pun intended - to all those present.

I say 'possibly' though, because - lucky London in 2010 - it seems like everyone is playing Sibelius this year. A rarity, because Sibelius is not easy to play. London Phil is at the moment in the process of playing Symphonies 1-7 by Sibelius. And fortunately for all who missed last night's show, Philharmonia Orchestra will be hitting up Sibelius 2 at the end of May. And now that I look at May's schedule, that's going to be a very exciting month for classical music..

But back to February. As usual I attach short commentaries on the pieces, and make an X stars out of 5 recommendation - obviously the more stars, the better. No need to reply unless you are buying tickets. I've found my favorite seat at Royal Festival Hal though - row Z in the left or right Side Stalls, so that is where I'll be buying most of my tickets going forward.


1. 11 February 2010 7:30 pm

Philharmonia Orchestra @ Royal Festival Hall
Mahler's 2nd Symphony

MAHLER: Symphony No. 2, "Resurrection"

Tickets: £8 - £38
Available on Southbank Centre website

Recommendation: 3.5 stars out of 5


2. 14 February 2010 3:00 pm (OR 17 February 2010 7:30pm, see below)

Philharmonia Orchestra @ Royal Festival Hall
Valentine's Day Gala Concert

TCHAIKOVSKY: Fantasy Overture, Romeo & Juliet
BRUCH: Violin Concerto No.1 in G minor
KHACHATURIAN: Spartacus - Adagio
DVORAK: Romance in F minor for violin, Op. 11
BIZET: Carmen Suite

Tickets: £8 - £38
Available on Southbank Centre website

Recommendation: 3 stars out of 5


3. 16 February 2010 7:30 pm

Steve Reich @ Queen Elizabeth Hall
Reich Drumming - International Chamber Music Season

Lots of drumming - of all sorts, I imagine.

Tickets: £9 - £25
Available on Southbank Centre website

Recommendation: 3 stars out of 5


4. 17 February 2010 7:30 pm (OR 14 February 2010 3:00pm, see above)

London Philharmonic Orchestra @ Royal Festival Hall
Romeo & Juliet

TCHAIKOVSKY: Fantasy Overture, Romeo & Juliet
PROKOFIEV: Piano Concerto No. 1
PROKOFIEV: Romeo and Juliet, Op. 64 - excerpts

Tickets: £9 - £38 (going quickly!)
Available on Southbank Centre website

Recommendation: 3 stars out of 5


My Two Pence:
I was also going to add to the list an LSO concert on 24 February, playing Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique as it's a really nice one to listen to, but unfortunately tickets are totally sold out for that show. It's coupled with Mendolssohn's Violin Concerto and I didn't think that people would know about Berlioz, so the "SOLD OUT" sign came as a surprise. Sorry, guys.

The month, however, kicks off with Mahler's Second Symphony. This symphony, called "Resurrection," is probably one of the most famous of Mahler's symphonies. It was his first big piece, and ponders the meaning of life, death, afterlife, you get the idea - hence the title. It's a big piece - Mahler usually likes to take it to a larger level - and requires an expanded orchestra plus a choir. 10 French horns and 8 timpani! There's even an organ involved, plus a brass and percussion ensemble off stage. Fun stuff. Tickets are flying out the door for the good and cheap seats, so get one fast - my favourite seat in the house has been taken, so I will be retreating to the balcony level. £8 tickets are still available!

As you may have noticed, the groups are taking advantage of Universal Chocolate Appreciation Day this year (do they do this every year? I don't know) and embarking on two separate compositions of our beloved Shakespeare's mother of all cliches, Romeo & Juliet. Don't ask me what the link is between chocolate and Shakespeare. Between Tchaikovsky's and Prokofiev's versions, I prefer Prokofiev because it's more subtle and delicate and moving, but Tchaikovsky's is, as he always is, quite bold and complex. I know this is starting to sound like a wine tasting class but perhaps this will be a good opportunity for you to settle the preference once and for all - you'd never do such a thing otherwise. I will warn that LPO's Feb. 17 show is selling out quite quickly - people love cliches - but like all cliches there's some truth and value in them and I'd definitely say either the Feb. 14 matinee or the Feb. 17 evening show (but not both, that would be too much) are worth a visit. Call me a scrooge but I will most likely take the Feb. 17 show because I don't want to be surrounded by smooching, chocolate-smothered couples on Feb. 14, and prefer enjoying my own Green & Black's dark chocolate bar cleanly sans tongue and saliva, thank you very much.

I know that one guy and a percussion ensemble doesn't count as an orchestra. But Steve Reich is possibly one of the greatest composers alive at the moment, and for us percussion students, he's pretty close to an idol. He'll be putting on a show of contemporary percussion music (which could get crazy, I admit) with a very strong group of percussionists and a voice ensemble, but if you want a taste of something different this month - this is like taking a vodka martini amidst all the chocolate - this might be for you.
Read more!

Because we wanted to have the cake and eat it, too

Monday morning was subdued because North America was still on the beaches for Labour Day. That didn't keep media coverage off the meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bankers held in London over the weekend, ahead of the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh later this month.

The FT outlined the agreements attained at the meeting:

The G20 meeting agreed [on] three main points: banks must raise much more capital once the financial crisis has passed; complex financial institutions should develop “living wills” to plan for their unwinding; and banks should be required to retain some portion of loans they repackage and sell as asset-backed securities.

Allow me to quickly rephrase that in simple English.

The second point mentioned is simple enough: in case a financial institution goes bust, they should outline the ways in which various instruments and deals should be cleaned up, or in financial jargon, "unwound."

The third point, while it may sound the most complicated, is also quite simple: banks should have the actual stuff they sell, deal, and work with (in this case, loans).

The most complicated of the three is actually the first point regarding raising more capital, which deals with the amount of debt (capital structure) financial institutions have. Of a given bank's debt, about 92% of it is made of bonds and other debt instruments. About 4% is made of stocks (shareholders' equity), and is there as a 'cushion' as deemed by regulation. The remaining 4% is what is called bank regulatory capital in Europe (in the US, it's called trust-preferred securities, or trups). This stuff has both debt- and equity-like characteristics.

Without going into too much more detail, the basic point of note here is that bank regulatory capital was categorically created and adopted in order to at once appease regulators' concerns about how well-capitalised banks are, and appeal to investors. In other words, everyone wanted the cake and eat it, too.

To be grossly simplistic, one could quite easily argue that most causal elements of the current financial crisis came down to this one, cliche statement about having the cake and eating it. To be more specific, it was about having the cake - not paying for it - and then eating it - and then getting away with it.

Take mortgage borrowers, for instance. A telling article in the Valentine issue of the New Yorker this year illustrated the literal foreclosure of the state of Florida. A university professor aptly described the situation as a "Ponzi scheme" where the US' hottest real estate market spiraled into a disaster. People bought homes with easy money from the banks, but when property prices fell off the cliff and people lost their jobs, no one was able to repay the mortgages. Apparently, convincted criminals were running around the market scene as well. Hence,

Fort Myers real-estate agent named Marc Joseph tells the writer, “Greed and easy money. That was the germ.”

Of course, the mortgage lenders are to blame as well. Loose credit history checks - or even none at all - and financial unplanning from irresponsible financial advisory allowed borrowers to get away with terms that defy what I would think of as common sense. You don't spend beyond what you don't have or earn - having been on a $1 per month allowance up until the age of 15, financial prudence was something my mother was very strict about. But, given high incidences of credit card spending - combined with the so-called American Dream of home ownership with white picket fences, lush-green front yards and a golden retriever puppy - perhaps the average American consumer is far from prudent.

Here, the role of the mortgage borrower and lender - what I think of as the key trigger to the subsequent fall of already-wobbly dominos - is a microcosm of the greater picture: people had the cake, didn't or couldn't pay for it, but ate it anyway, and for the longest time, didn't own up to it. And this kind of irresponsible behaviour was widespread, from the individual consumer all the way up to the private equity firms and the bulge-bracket banks. So no, the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys of the world did not single-handedly bring down the entire global financial system - such are incredulously outlandish statements made in the blaming game, and completely ignores the fundamental cause of the financial turmoil (irresponsible borrowing, spending, and lending) and more broadly, the essence of how our economy functions. That is, capitalism.

Capitalism, which is essentially what the majority of the financial world operates in, is based on the one basic rule of supply and demand. Unfettered, efficient capitalism has at its core this simple rule that if supply goes up, demand comes down, and vice versa. And for this reason, like it or not, much of how the economy moves is based not just on tangible changes in supply or demand, but also the perception of these changes by the broader market, as well as by individual consumers.

The crux of capitalism is the freedom to supply and demand; that is, no one can tell me whether or not I can buy a pair of shoes, or produce a pair of shoes, over a pair of glasses. An efficient capitalist economy relies heavily on this liberty. But, as much as we'd like to rely upon the individual and collective conscience in maintaining an orderly and civil society, there is something to be said about the fragility of that conscience - whether it be moral, ethical, whatever. Laws and regulations govern human behaviour by permitting and prohibiting certain actions within society. Whether we had hoped too far or unrealistically expected market participants to exercise self-restraint is a mull point; the fact of the matter is, without rules or boundaries - and more importantly, a widespread perception of them - people will always look to have their cake and eat it, too. If laws have been around for most of human history to tell us what we can do and what we cannot do in a social context, it should be obvious by now that something fairly similar should exist in an economic context.

This isn't to say that burdening the financial system with piles of regulation is the solution. Going forward, rules and regulations for this particular industry will have to tread a fine line of optimum efficiency. Not an easy task, at all. But in a system where most of its participants have developed habits of having the cake and eating it without owning up to the costs, some re-training will have to occur.
Read more!

Commodified complacency

Earlier this week, one Google Alert email, among the bazillion of others that bombard my work inbox daily, caught my attention: “The state of dating on Wall Street,” it read. The link led me to a Fortune Magazine article called “Wall Street’s $25,000 matchmaker.” Compared to the other bland (but sometimes exciting in a geeky sort of way) items I read in my morning hours, this one seemed much more entertaining.

As it turned out – entertaining it was, but at the same time, unreal. A matchmaker that costs that much money, to me, seems to undermine the whole idea of a matchmaker, not least because it’s simply idiotic to hash out $25,000 (that’s one year’s worth of university education in some places!) to find someone to date. Doesn’t the fact that you would pay $25K for a dating service say something quite significant about yourself, beyond how much discretionary spending money you have? Or has certain parts of society reached a stage where spending thousands of dollars to find a good match is totally justifiable by reasons such as lack of time available, lack of opportunities to meet people – and what does that say about society itself?

Of all the industries to be considered as consumer discretionary, one would think that third-party dating services would be one of them. But apparently, such is not the case and south Manhattan is by no means the exception to the rule. Because when times get tough, purse strings get tighter but the heart gets looser. Or, at least more amenable to romantic possibilities. Internet dating – Match.com, OKCupid, DatingDirect, eHarmony, and the like – has seen more subscribers, for reasons ranging from more time available to devote to one’s private life, a perceived need for a supportive companion, and a means to split costs.

That’s all well and fine, but a matchmaking service that costs $25,000 seems rather crazy, especially considering the insight Samantha Daniels is giving. To the question, “Now that "I'm a hedge-funder" no longer does the trick, how would you advise bankers to market themselves romantically?” Daniels gave the following answer:

When you meet a woman, you should go back to the basics of who you are as a person – how you live your life, your interests. But it's also good to let someone know that you're doing well and have a stable job in this environment. The number one thing women are attracted to is confidence.

Right. In my humble opinion, that there are people out there who need to be reminded that on your first date, you don’t firstly talk about your income level (“I have an annual salary of $100,000 plus a $50,000 bonus”) and your job title (“I’m vice president of ___”) and the company you work for (“I work for JP Morgan, which is one of the few first-tier investment banks left in the world”), seems simply bizarre. Obviously, if that’s your starting point, then you’ve effectively narrowed yourself down to a pool of people who are looking for exactly those qualities, not the ones who look beyond that. So follows the question, “How do you convey financial stability without handing over tax statements?” and the answer, “My clients have a lot of toys and own a lot of homes. But if you tell someone that you own your own plane on a first date, it sounds like you're overcompensating for something.” Hammer that last nail in the coffin, why don’t you.

Of course, if that’s what you’re looking for, then good for you. By choosing a service such as Samantha’s Table, one does filter out those who allegedly wouldn’t be described as “ultra-successful, ultra-busy, ultra-cultured, and the ultra-educated.” But clearly, Daniels’ clients are not all looking to dig gold (or are they?), as the fact that her clients would pay $25K shows that people are doing whatever they can to find a good match, and one of such criteria – not the only – happens to hinge on income level (see “Money – or ambition? – and the City”).

What ultimately really bothers me about the proliferation of ‘exclusive’ dating services is that, it’s another way by which social categorization is effectuated. It’s subversive because it plays on our tendency towards the familiar, our fear of the unfamiliar, and our preference for convenience. It produces, encourages, and glorifies a social structure that is really based on purchasing power but is masked with labels like ‘success’, ‘culture’, and ‘intelligence’.

Surely, there is nothing wrong with someone seeking another of similar social standing, income, education, background, along with interests, lifestyles, hobbies, and the like. Just as our nature to greed, to hunger, and to reason can never be fully satisfied, nor will our tendency to stick with what we know, seek stability, and choose the easier way out. And to be sure, the subject of these actions can vary: we can greed for wealth or for justice, we can hunger for food or knowledge, we can reason with someone or out of a situation. But to put in place purchasable services that banks on people being lazy about human relationships can’t do very much good.

After all, relationships are supposed to require effort, pull you out of your comfort zones, make you think – often both about the other person as well of yourself – and push you to strike a balance for pretty much everything between you and your partner. They are full of prolonged sessions of diplomacy that for some eventuates in years of peace and hopefully, brief moments of turmoil. A service that tries to get you out of doing that will only make one complacent and naïve about what it takes to build human relationships, break them, and find ways to rebuild them.
Read more!

January Classicals

This is part of my resolution this year, to listen to more live classical music and learn more about the music that I listen to. Monthly posts on classical music concerts in London-town!

Let's not talk about how quickly December came and is now going, it's too crazy and scary. The winter holidays can't get here soon enough, because it's frankly too cold to wake up in the morning and the sun sets way too early.

But not all is lost! Some of the world's best orchestras, resident here in London-town, will be playing some awesome tunes in January to quench our thirst for great music - it should go pleasantly hand-in-hand with the stuff-fest upcoming in the next few weeks...

As always, pass this email along to any and all friends who are interested, and respond if you are purchasing tickets. The cheaper tickets often go quickly, so be sure to book a couple weeks in advance!

1. 20 January 2010 7:30 pm

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra @ Royal Festival Hall
Vadim Repin performs Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto

STRAVINSKY: Symphonies of Wind Instruments
TCHAIKOVSKY: Violin Concerto
RIMSKY-KORSAKOV: Scheherazade

Tickets: £9 - £55
Available on Southbank Centre website


2. 30 January 2010 7:30 pm

London Philharmonic Orchestra @ Royal Festival Hall
Sibelius

SIBELIUS: Symphony No. 3
SIBELIUS: Selected songs - "Autumn Nightfall," "The First Kiss," "A Girl Came from Her Lover's Tryst," "A Ballgame in Trianon", "Arioso," "Duke Magnus," "Was it a Dream?"
SIBELIUS: Symphony No. 2

Tickets: £9 - £55
Available on Southbank Centre website


My Two Pence

If you don't intend on listening to classical music for the rest of 2010, read no further - just go to either or both of these concerts, because you really can't top the line-up of what's being played in January.

RPO (Concert recommendation: 5 stars out of 5): There's surely no better way to start the new year than with the Russians! You've all heard my two pence on Stravinsky so I won't add very much there other than that it looks like this piece will not have any strings in it, which is great for those of you who've never heard a wind ensemble play.

Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto is one of the most difficult concertos to play, apparently. The first violinist Pyotr dedicated the piece to, Leopold Auer, refused to premier it, because the solo part was too difficult and (arguably) not musically suitable for the violin. Poor Pyotr was recuperating from his shit marriage to Antonina amidst Swiss fresh air when he wrote this piece in collaboration with Yosif Kotek, a violinist. It's been used quite often in popular culture, so you'll probably recognise it when you hear it, especially the first movement.

Whenever someone wants a good recommendation for classical music, Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade is one of the first pieces I point to. Based on the stories of Arabian Nights, Nicolai weaves the tale of Scheherazade (pronounced: sheh - hera - zaad), a well-read, super-smart Persian queen who herself is the storyteller of One Thousand and One Nights. Don't we like the story already?

Every day, Sharyar, a Persian king, would marry a new virgin, and then the following morning he would have the new wife killed. What a sicko - but you see, Sharyar's first wife cheated on him, and he couldn't get over that anger - so he wed and killed, wed and killed. After wedding and killing 3,000 women, Scheherazade stopped by to say hello and agreed to spend the night with Sharyar. Scheherazade asked Sharyar if she could say goodbye to her sister, Dinazade, who then asked Scheherazade if she could tell a story.

Sharyar was enraptured by Scheherazade's story, but as dawn broke, Scheherazade stopped. "Oh don't stop, go on with your tale," Sharyar insisted. "But your majesty, dawn is breaking," Scheherazade replied. "Oh go on then," the king anxiously said. "Live another day and finish the story." When Scheherazade finished the first story, she started on a second, and so it went, day after night, night after day. After one thousand and one nights, Scheherazade ran out of stories to tell. But after all those nights (roughly equivalent to three years), Sharyar had fallen in love with Scheherazade - and not to mention had three sons with her! The end.

As you listen to the first movement, you'll hear the 'theme melody' for Scheherazade, as well as of Sharyar, and Nicolai has weaved them through the rest of the composition. Scheherazade's theme is heartbreakingly beautiful, and it really is worth a listen.

LPO (Concert recommendation: 5 starts out of 5): I'm not sure why the LPO is playing No. 3 before No.2, but they are (possibly because No. 2 is better - mwahaha). I've not ever heard his third symphony, but I'm more than curious to hear another symphony by one of my all-time favorite composers. Jean is a Finnish composer of the early 1900s and probably considered to be a hero by the Finn's. To show for it, while the rest of the world has obscure fanfares as their national anthems, Finland gets an entire orchestral work - Finlandia - as their 'unofficial' national anthem. You might think of that as a rather snobbish thing to do, but when you hear his symphonies, I think you'll understand why.

Much like Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade, Sibelius' works are those that I usually recommend to anyone who's been reluctant to listen to classical music because they think it's boring or because it might just put them to sleep. They are both highly melodical, very easy to listen and to follow. From what I've read, No. 3 is supposed to be pleasant, clean, and simple (read: 'classical'), unlike his No. 2 which is grandiose and patriotic (read: 'romantic').

Now, I didn't know this, but apparently Jean started writing No. 2 in Italy. That explains my love for this symphony - I have a weak spot for all things Italian! Half kidding.. Whether Jean actually intended for No. 2 to be taken as a patriotic gesture is still debated, but nonetheless the symphony has been dubbed "Symphony of Independence" to commemorate the independence of Finland, which was declared by its Parliament on 6 December 1917. Before that, it was an autonomous region of Russia, and the Russians had imposed a rigid prohibition on Finnish language and culture. The first recording of No. 2 was with the London Symphony Orchestra, but I'm sure the LPO will do a great job performing this piece.
Read more!