Reality Culture

I watched Stagecoach on Tubi TV. Note that you need to sign up (free, supposedly) in order for it to save your progress. That's a bother.

But the quality of the print they have is good. I think I started this movie several years ago and never finished it. Sometimes that happens. You either forget to pick it up again or, when you do, the service you had been watching it on has dropped the movie.

It's interesting knowing this is a John Ford film because he's a real son-of-a-bitch. Interesting as well that Claire Trevor has top billing, even over Wayne. But she plays a good role.

She plays counterpart to the virtuous women of The Morality League (or whatever they're called) who are shown as petty and small-minded while the hooker (Dallas) is played as the truly virtuous woman when it comes to helping others. All in all, it's more likely you'd get real help and compassion from a church-going woman than a hooker. But it's a movie and it was a chance for someone in Hollywood to thumb their nose at the righteous (or self-righteous).

I suppose this picture could be seen as the forerunner of all the Irwin Allen disaster films. You have several people thrown together, usually traveling. You learn a bit about each of their stories. Disaster (or Injuns) strikes and you find out who is good in a crisis and who is a villain.

Certainly with Thomas Mitchell as the drunk Doc Boone, and Andy Devine as Buck, you have plenty of character actors in this. Could anyone play the slimy-slick gambler as well as John Carradine does? Even Louise Platt is superb as the pregnant Mrs. Lucy Mallory, wife of the cavalry officer.

The finale is the battle with the Indians. And not for the first time has it occurred to me that the Indians pretty much wrote their own death sentence because of how savage they were. I know this goes against the modern libtard "Dances with Wolves" conception that they have been misunderstood and demonized. And I do think there were many relatively peaceful tribes who unfortunately paid the price by being mixed in with all the rest.

But many of the tribes were truly savage in a way that was shocking. As accounts went around of what the Indians could do, it would have very quickly led to the idea of "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." But even some of Wayne's films (I forget which ones) try to balance this out, as do some of Jimmy Stewart's.

But I do think the savages made it extremely easy for the whites to overrun and displace them. Many truly were savages and deserved what they got. It's interesting to note that there were Indian tribes who immediately allied themselves with the Pilgrims as a way to protect themselves against hostile neighbors.

Yes, it's too bad that we couldn't distinguish better between the good Indians and the bad Indians. But it does nothing to correct history to just suppose they were all good Indians. They were not. And, if memory serves, the tribe that Kevin Costner was protecting in Dances with Wolves (from what I read) were actually typically the aggressors against the tribe they were fighting against in the film.

Here's Fil again with another video.



Mr. Kung may appreciate this, although it may run a bit slow and be too detailed. But I'm tickled pink (or at least a nice warm sienna) to hear some yute proselytizing for quality instead of fake. Did you ever?

Listening to Lanza sing, you can't help but be in awe of his skill and talent. I had never heard of "head voice" and "chest voice" before. But Fil does a good demonstration on how relatively easy it is to hit a higher (though thin) note in a "head voice" but it lacks the power and fullness of those who can do it in the "chest voice." I'm not sure that's the terminology that is accepted and common for singers, but that's how he described it.

Lest we forget the great Al Jolson


www.youtube.com/watch?v=epYlaD5yXbo

That's a real nice version of the song by Jolson. I'd never heard that one before.

I've got a bona fide "album" of his with a date of 1946 on it. My younger brother found it for me at Goodwill a few years back and thought I would like it.

I do believe this is why they are called record "albums" because this is like a photo album. It has four records inside in nice page-like sleeves.

That was an interesting video the way he showed the harmonics. But I disagree with the namby-pamby secular-atheist coining of it as "It's not magic, it's science."

There's nothing "scientific" about it. Yes, you can quantize, explore, and make graphs via "science." But singing itself is contained in no scientific theory. Science in no way predicts or explains singing or the ability to hear.

Because this stuff is indeed magic of a type, the namby-pamby secular-atheist mind must try to demystify everything...until he or she can sit back and pronounce something as "science, not magic."

This is a gross misunderstanding of the purview of science….which is the predominate understanding of science.

He should have said, "Behind the mystical, even magical art of harmonics and singing you can make measurements. But these measurements are not the same thing as the art, the act, the voice, or the hearing. Why or even how they can exist is beyond the realm of mere measurement."

Much easier to be smug and say "It's not magic. It's science" as if you've explained anything. What he showed (not explained) is the complexity and multifaceted nature of a singing voice. This is good. But it is not then owned by "science." Everything that exists is conducive to numbers and measurement. But the numbers and measurements themselves are not the thing.

It's sad to see such wonders reduced to this bland secular-atheist concoction of "It's not magic, it's science." I really get tired of this, as you can tell. Still, a useful and interesting video by this guy.

I'll bet you were a marvelous singer. It would have been fun to hear you in your prime.

Over fifty years ago, I was discussing something along these lines with my voice professor. Musical notation took some centuries to evolve. Changing instruments might have had something to do with this. (My idea, not discussed with my prof) When discussion musical notation, he pointed out that modern rock, pop or whatever one wished to call the music of our generation could not be properly notated. The old notation used for music up to that time simply did not work for people like Jimmy Hendrix, et. al. 

Even classical notation is not exact. Fortissimo and piano can be, and are, interpreted in different ways. This is one reason a person can notice the difference in orchestras playing the same piece. That's one reason people say that musicians "interpret" a piece. 

Real music, not the grey synths of most popular music, goes beyond the rational and touches the realms of supernatural. That is why every culture has music that is in tune with their religion. Even those Christian denominations that eschew instruments have very good congregate singing, Church of Christ for example. All acknowledge a moment when the music makes a connection in worship. Some music transcends the realm of mere living and touches the face of G-d. A Johnny Cash guitar riff and a Brandenburg concerto can have the same effect as a powerful sermon or a political speech. In this regard the human race is exceptional, not necessarily unique as whales, dolphins and some other species seem to have their very own songs. Dogs communicate they have different barks for different occasions, and they play, but do not at least in my observation sing or listen to mans music. Perhaps with their superior hearing they hear a different drummer. 

Not everyone can make music. I learned early that no matter how quick my ten fingers, piano was not my thing. I could read music and bang out a tune, but the essence, the soul, was not within my skill. I can recognize the talent and skill. The sad part of most modern music is the absence of soul.