GOP Blames Pelosi For Bill Failure

Dem - 140 yea, 95 nay
Rep - 65 yea, 133 nay

What bullshit. I am completely appalled by, not only Republican representatives (minority leader & whips), but all leadership in the House. There is absolutely no hesitation on either side to blame the other for the failure of the bill today. GOP leaders (particularly Eric Cantor) are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the failure of the bill, saying that something she said in regard to the Bush administration caused many Republicans to vote against the bill. Many of them are covering up their failure to convince their own party members, by blaming her for their votes. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) defended Pelosi by stating that if Republicans felt hurt by what she said, that they were irresponsible to take it out on the country. Of course, he said it in a freaking hilarious way, saying that someone should tell him who those 12 representatives were so he can be "uncharacteristically nice" to them.

Obviously the bill failed because representatives, particularly "free-market" supporters, had already decided against the bill. I am disgusted by the amount of finger-pointing that's occurring. It's just one thing after another on each side and it shouldn't be happening during this crisis.

Roughin' It

So I've got this journal essay to write for music history. I have no freaking clue where to start, so I'm gonna just try to talk about it here.

The aim is to demonstrate an understanding (which I've got, though it might be the wrong understanding) of the evolution and development of polyphony, starting with chant.

So, after the rather large milestone of accepting the consonance of the octave - as opposed to just unison - into Church chant, young boys and men sang same melody. But what about those perfect fourths and fifths?? Well, though the fourths weren't too loved later in the 16th century counterpoint (apparently they're dissonant - who knew?), in the 11th/12th centuries (yes, that's chronologically before the 16th century), the perfect fourth and fifth, started to be considered pretty consonant, and therefore chill with the masses (haha! masses...get it?). So then this whole "organum" thing (note vs. note / 1:1) came into play, especially with those fancy perfect intervals. Called "parallel organum," two voices moved parallel to one another, one singing the melody, the other singing in perfect intervals (P5 or P4) below the melody, thus creating a sense of harmony - or as I like to call it: Early Variations on the Power Chord. Of course, the thing with that is that the so-called "melody" isn't actually discernable through any other means than just the fact that it's the upper voice, so let's give it another name...hmm..how about "vox principalis?" That works. The principle voice was coupled by the "vox organalis," which, like I said before, is that voice that likes to chill at a perfect interval below the principalis.

The development of different variations of organum gave way to many contrapuntal techniques. Once all the types of motion (parallel, similar, oblique, and contrary) came onto the scene in FREE ORGANUM, there was a lot more FREEdom in harmony. (Well, you know, as free as you can be in the 12th century Catholic Church.) Free organum gave way for Florid (yay for Tenors/Tenere!) and Melismatic (yay for melismas/many-notes:1!) organum.

But shit! Here comes the Notre Dame School (which, btw, wasn't actually a school....it was just a crazy awesome group of composers who did crazy awesome shit with rhythmic modality). Leonin (compiler/composer of 'Magnus Liber Organi de Gradali et Antiphonario') and Perotin were a couple of cool cats who helped couple poetic rhythm with musical rhythm, creating the ever-awesome "rhythmic modes." And as much as I'd like to explain this whole thing...it's probably one of the more boring parts, so maybe I'll just touch on it like the teacher did :D Gotta love Parisian Organum.

The thing about the Notre Dame School that's super super important though, is the whole creation of the clausula thing. So, assuming you know what a clausula is, which I won't...so...FINE. I'll explain it: it's a section of organum where all the sections move together in accordance with the modes. Get it? Me neither. "The modes" are those rhythmic modes...like umm...6/8! Yeah that's what the fuck I'm talking about. Clausulas actually used that time signature a lot. There's this one clausula on page whatever it was (99?) in the Anthology that we listened to in class. It was crazy obnoxious, actually...then it got to the Alleluia! and pulled a D.C. al coda on our ass and suddenly sounded cool. What's pretty sweet about all this development is the addition of more voices, which eventually led to the concept of the MOTET! (Finally...I'm getting tired.) So all these voices (the duplum/motetus/vox organalis+text, tenor, etc.) freaking sing completely different freaking things and are completely impossible for a human person to understand unless he/she dissects each line individually. But God can understand all of it at once, so they figured "it's all good."


Now, all this is well and dandy...but, as a musician of the 21st century, I'm very okay with certain dissonances that would normally, in those days, not have been permitted (thank you overly strict clergymen). In fact, I (and this is apparently unusual even today) actually cherish those dissonances. They're raw and human and represent everything good and bad about our race. What's not to like? Listening to this music is surprisingly refreshing. Because I am not religious, I don't hear moral scriptures when I listen to these chants and motets. I hear everything about the time that they're placed in. I hear architecture and art and music of that time, as well as that which it is hinting at in the near future. I hear the common folks who you can't hear in the church while the monks sing. I hear all the crazy shit I learned in history. I can't get over how much I love this music. I mean, it's not dissonance, but it's still fucking gorgeous.