Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for October, 2004

What Will it Take? Why Undecided Voters Who Hate Bush Hesitate in Voting for Kerry

Sunday, October 31st, 2004

This American Life broadcast an unintentionally hilarious (if it wasn’t so incredibly sad) segment, Swing Set, about undecided voters in swing states who hate Bush but can’t seem to bring themselves to vote for Kerry.American_life_logo

Ira Glass follows the electoral mood swings of Dr. James Hackett, a medical doctor from rock-ribbed Republican Cincinnati, OH. Hackett, known to his friends as “Gig,” is an affable, intelligent, but clueless undecided voter. He hates Bush and says so clearly. Doesn’t agree with him on the tax cut; doesn’t agree with him on the prosecution of the Iraq War. The only good thing he has to say is that Bush clearly has the courage of his convictions. Glass points out the irony that Hackett agrees with virutally none of Bush’s convictions. Hackett himself understands the inherent contradiction and doesn’t even attempt to explain it away.
This American Life: Lies Sissies & Fiascoes

Hackett has serious problems with Kerry. He says Kerry is “the most liberal senator.” When Glass asks him to state a particular Kerry “liberal” position with which he disagreed, Hackett replies that he doesn’t know Kerry’s record well enough to say. Later in the interview, when Glass points out a Los Angeles Times article which declares that Kerry is the 10th most liberal senator, Hackett responds incredulously: “then why are they saying he’s the most liberal?” He says this with the most piteous tone as if he’d been betrayed by whoever the “they” is. Of course, he never stops to consider that George Bush and Dick Cheney are the ones who told him this white lie.

Even more incredulously, Hackett looks back nostagically at the Clinton presidency and believes, in retrospect of course since he disliked Clinton while he was president, he was a great president. Glass points out that the reason he likes Clinton so much is that Clinton was a “suck-up.” If a poll told him the majority of the American people believed one way on an issue, then Clinton adopted that position. Didn’t matter if that position went against his own personal views. Clinton was a “suck up” to the American people, while Bush on the other hand takes few positions that Hackett or the majority of the American people agree with. Then Glass goes farther in stating that this is precisely the type of candidate John Kerry is. Unlike Bush, Kerry will take positions based on what most Americans want. Kerry, like Clinton, will conceal his own views on the issues because he wants to “suck up” to you, the American people.

Hackett told Ira that he had a good point. During their various discussions, he admits to Glass that there is little or no logic in his refusal to embrace Kerry. When it comes down to it, Hackett tells Glass that the reason he will vote for Bush and Glass for Kerry is that he has been a life-long Republican and Glass a lifelong Democrat. But in the same breath, Hackett says he is not refusing to vote for Kerry out of party loyalty. Go figure.

If that isn’t a confused, befuddled and hopelessly at-sea voter, I don’t know what is. And if Bush wins the election (God help us, I hope it isn’t so) it will be because of voters like Dr. James Hackett, who know Bush is a disaster but can’t bring themselves to vote for the other guy. And they will get the kind of disastrous government they deserve dragging the rest of us, kicking and screaming, along with them.

The Twins are Coming, the Twins are Coming!

Saturday, October 30th, 2004

My wife is nearly 34 weeks pregnant (unbelievably pregnant!) with twins conceived at the NYU fertility clinic using a donor egg procedure. Two weeks ago, we had a special ultrasound that allows intricate measurements of fetal growth and health.

Our OBGyn, Dr. Robert Levine at Swedish Hospital, told us that it is natural for the one twin to grow at a faster rate in the final weeks before delivery and for the other to lag somewhat. The ultrasound results two weeks ago caused some minor alarm because our boy (whom we’re planning to call Adin Chanan) weighed 3 lbs. 11 oz., while the girl (who we’re planning to name Miriam Rose) weighed 3 lbs. 3 oz. The boy was in the 46th percentile and the girl around the 14th. There was an approximate 13% weight differential. Dr. Levine told us to do another ultrasound in two weeks and that if the differential increased to 20% or if she decreased to the 5th percentile that we might consider delivering early or other precautions to help the little girl.

In the interval, my wife and I gave our girl a pep talk, telling her not to let her brother intimidate her. We told her to make sure she got her own. We probably should’ve played Billie Holiday’s, God Bless the Child: “God bless the child who’s got her own, got her own.”

A few days ago, we went in for the subsequent ultrasound and thankfully all is well. She weighs 4 lbs. 2 oz and he weighs 4 lbs. 10 oz. He is still in the 46th percentile, but she’s risen to the 16th. The weight differential is now 11%. Everyone’s breathing a sign of relief.

Our doctor says that he’d like Janis to get to 38 weeks before delivering (this is considered full term for twins). But the awful symptoms of pregnancy are weighing down upon her heavily. I’m betting on her getting to term, but I sure don’t wish the suffering she’s experiencing on her or anyone.

I’ve uploaded ultrasound images of the twins in the past, but our technician didn’t seem to come up with images that looked good enough to me to print. So no images this time around.

Slate.com Considers Elizabeth Edwards’ Infertility

Friday, October 29th, 2004

My wife and I suffered from infertility for two years. We turned to egg donation and successfully conceived a son, Jonah, who’s now 3 1/2. Since that first attempt we decided to try again and my wife is expecting twins in early December. I’ve written fairly frequently here about our experiences.


When John Edwards was chosen as John Kerry’s running mate, the New York Times and other publications noted that Ms. Edwards had “used hormone injections” in her efforts to become pregnant with the two children they share. I wrote a post, Elizabeth Edwards and Infertility, declaring that it was highly likely Edwards used egg donation to become pregnant and that I hoped she might speak publicly about her experience on behalf of the millions of Americans who are infertile and have used egg donation to create families of their own.Elizabeth Edwards & family

When I visited the John Edwards blog to mention the post I’d written, I received a torrent of abuse from people saying I had no business invading Edwards privacy, that I was diverting people’s attention from the far more important issue of the election campaign, and even worse personal insults. I understand that there is a tremendous level of ignorance and even hostility toward the infertile in this society. But I was still taken aback by what I read in this forum.

Last week, Suz Redfearn sent me an e mail saying she was writing an article, Did Elizabeth Edwards Use Donor Eggs? for Slate.com on just this subject. She interviewed me and to tell you the truth most of what I said ended up on the “cutting room floor.” I also felt the article’s tone was a bit breathy and breezy considering the gravity and complexity of the issue. But I still feel that Redfearn wrote an important piece that deserves the attention of the everyone, whether infertile or not.

Slate published the article today and there’s been a similar torrent of hostility in the Slate discussion forums against Redfearn for writing the article, and against Slate for publishing it. These commenters are irate in feeling that Elizabeth Edwards’ medical issues are no one’s business but her own. They are irate that someone like Redfearn even feels this is an issue worthy of discussion. Here’s a non-representative sampling of responses:

“Who, has put you in charge of butting your nose into, this womans life. How dare you question this personal part of her life. You should not even care, let alone ask others into this very private choice in this person’s life. SHAME ON YOU.”

“I’m appalled by this piece. It is irrelevant and mean spirited. And I’m disappointed in a publication that I have always found a place for refreshing views. I find it highly questionable that such an article would be published four days before the election about something so personal.”

“Suz has obviously grown up in the climate where corporal punishment was not practised. A pity. Her attitude and convolute mind deserve a big double smack on her derrier.”

“I cannot believe anyone would have the audacity to publish such nonsense. This is truly deplorable and I cannot fathom that 1) the authors of this article are so heartless as to actually put these accusations in print and 2) that Slate allowed them to be published. This shows the authors’ desperate and futile attempt to “make news” and a shameful lack of judgment and credibility. The classless people who wrote this should be utterly humiliated and disgusted with themselves.

A note to the authors: to charge that a mother’s children are not her own is a gruesome crime.”

Not once does Redfearn contend that Edwards’ children are not “her own,” even if she used egg donation to create them. I know. My wife is more the mother of our son than the blessed woman who contributed the eggs to create him. My wife bore him in her womb for nine months. She breastfed him when he was an infant. She has been every bit the mother that any woman would be who used her own egg to create her child.

Where do people come up with these ridiculous imputations. Why are they so ignorant? Why are they so hateful?

Redfearn’s article merely suggested that Edwards, should she choose, could educate the nation about the scourge of infertility. She could do enormous good for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of couples who suffer from it. She could use her bully pulpit to speak of the injustice of the infertile not being able to get health insurance coverage which would enable them to use fertility treatment to conceive. She could speak of the injustice done to the poor woman, desperate to have a child and family, but who cannot afford the enormous expensive of these treatments.

The infertile need someone to speak for them. Chris Reeve willingly served that role for those suffering from spinal injury. Michael J. Fox serves this role for those with multiple schlerosis. Magic Johnson champions those suffering from HIV/AIDS. What’s wrong with asking someone in the public eye to take up the cause and help those suffering with the same condition as them?

I have gone public about infertility and egg donation because I want to do my small share to educate those who don’t suffer from this as my wife and I did. My son knows he is an egg donor baby. We are open with him about this. We want this to be a natural part of his life. I completely do not understand those who either defer telling their children or say they won’t tell them at all. Being an egg donor baby should be no different than having red hair or green eyes. The longer there is silence, ignorance and fear regarding this subject, the more pain and suffering such children may experience as they grow up.

If you’re disturbed by the comments you read above, I hope you’ll visit the Slate.com Medical Examiner forum and add your two cents worth.

UPDATE: As I write this on November 6, 2004, the Edwards family has revealed that Elizabeth Edwards has breast cancer. I want anyone reading this to know that I wish her a speedy and full recovery. I have a friend and a former girlfriend who have had breast cancer. Both have beaten it so far and I’m hopeful that Edwards will be among these lucky ones.

NY Times Shills for Video Game Companies, Promoting Games for Four-Year Olds

Friday, October 29th, 2004

Just when I was thinking how long it’d been since a New York Times article really got me steamed, Michael Marriott served up a doozy (Weaned on Video Games) in yesterday’s Circuits. Here Marriott serves up a love cocktail to the video game industry by touting the wide-open market for games among the 4 year-old set. I kid you not! Not only that, but amidst all the breathy excitement of the author’s prose, he doesn’t ask or allow a single child psychologist or public interest children’s group to comment on the dubious phenomenon of children as young as two (that’s right, one marketing whiz proudly claimed that his game could be played by a 2 year-old!) playing video games.

Kids_video

3 year olds playing with video game at Toys R Us (credit: Carol Halebian/NYT)

Here’s what another marketer has to say about the promise of this niche for her industry:

“We have been looking at data that shows that kids at an earlier and earlier age are starting to play video games,” said Julia Fitzgerald, vice president for marketing at VTech Electronics North America. “We wanted to know how we could make this phenomenon work for Mom” – and make it educational.

How does it “work for Mom?” By turning Mom’s babies into zombies during the hours spent in front of the game, thereby serving as a lobotomizing baby sitter?

The author presents the disturbing findings of a study about children’s gaming habits:

A report last fall by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research organization, found that half of all 4- to 6-year-old children have played video games – on hand-held devices, computers or consoles – and one in four played several times a week. Of children 3 or younger, 14 percent have played video games.

That last figure sends chills down my spine.

Pardon me for poking fun at Marriott, but I just have to:

Some game analysts and developers also point out that children are getting older faster.

So let me make sure I understand: our children are losing their childhood to violent cartoons and movies; they’re losing their innocence through the brazenly sexual children’s clothing hyped by the fashion industry…all of this meaning that the video game industry is just following a trend rather than making one? Crap, I say.

Let’s hear from another thoughtful marketer certainly not interested in exploiting toddlers for financial gain:

Daniel Hewitt, public relations manager for the Entertainment Software Association, the trade group that represents computer and video game publishers in the United States, said that playing video games “comes really naturally” to very young children.

Perhap Mr. Hewitt would like to take this to its natural idiot extreme? Maybe cigarette smoking could be similarly introduced to the toddler set. Maybe they’ll take to that “really naturally” as well.

Now, let’s let another marketer put his foot squarely in his mouth without realizing it:

“It’s great for us, introducing kids to video games at a young age,” said Joe Brisbois, a game producer for Sony Computer Entertainment America in Foster City, Calif. “Speaking as a designer, it will push us to create more challenging games for this generation of players that will master the basic skill sets earlier than any other in the past.”

This really starts to remind me of Camel’s attempt to coax young people into smoking with its Joe Camel campaign. The only difference is that cigarette smoking eventually kills these children smokers, while video games only stunt their tender brains.

Besides the question of where this journalist’s professional judgment flew off to, I think there must also be an editor asleep at the wheel here. What editor in his right mind working on an article like this doesn’t ask his reporter to go out and get an alternative view on such a toxic social development?

Maybe you’ll say I’m an old fogey. Perhaps, younger parents (I’m in my early 50s) won’t find anything potentially harmful with Jake or Tina spending hours in front of a video game screen. I know I wasn’t born on video games and don’t use them. But I still think that my point has merit. This simply can’t be good for children whose brain function is so sensitive and tender at such an early age. I can’t imagine that a young child who needs tremendous mental and physical stimulation in their play is going to get much by playing such games.

My son is 3 1/2 and he’s playing with wooden blocks; he’s painting; he’s drawing; he’s dancing down the hall and singing his heart out. But he’s not playing video games.

Sam Mangwana’s Rumba Music

Thursday, October 28th, 2004

MangwanaSam Mangwana will certainly enter the pantheon of soukous’ greatest vocalists, which already honors Tabu Ley Rochereau and Franco. But unlike his mentors, he embraced a soukous style that imbibed the gentle, rollicking rumba rhythms of the Caribbean (especially Cuba). Perhaps, his affinity for Angolan music and its Portugese inflections also caused Mangwana to embrace European and New World influences. Unlike his soukous predecessors, his arrangements tend toward a softer, more acoustic and less electronic sound.

Born in Kinshasa in 1945 of Angolan parents, his father was a shopkeeper and his mother sang at a social club for Angolan women. He attended a boarding school run by Salvation Army missionaries and sang in the school’s choir. Almost by accident, he met Tabu Ley on the street one day and before long he joined Tabu Ley’s Africa Fiesta. After singing with Tabu Ley for ten years, he branched out and performed with Franco and other prominent Kinshasa bands. In the 1970s, he moved to the Ivory Coast and teamed up with the musicians who later went on to form another seminal African ensemble, Les Quatres Etoiles. Because of his musical “wanderings,” he is known as La Pigeon Voyageur.Mangwanarumba

Leopardmannen.no characterizes Mangwana’s topical interests in his lyrics as:

He usually sings about love, in songs where he tells a particular story. But his lyrics also have political tendencies. Songs like “Canta Mocambique”, “Soweto” and “Zimbabwe” pay tribute to the struggle against colonialism. A true Pan African, Mangwana’s dream is “an Africa without guns, where democracy will not be submitted to the rise and fall of the dollar.”

Mangwana’s Fati Mata (hear it) is one of the fine compositions on Rumba Music. It begins with Mangwana’s slow, mellifluous melodic line (as one would expect in a traditional soukous introduction). But instead of charging full speed ahead into a blindingly fast and joyful soukous guitar frolic, the song maintains its sweet, lilting tempo adding a touch of that spicy rumba rhythm for which he is so well-known. All told, this is pure joy, pure soul and pure love.

WARNING: This mp3 blog exists to spread the wonder and genius that is traditional music. It does NOT exist to enhance your private mp3 collection. So by all means come, listen, enjoy, then follow the links to buy the music. If you come, listen, download, then leave—you’re violating the spirit behind this blog and doing nothing to support the artists featured here. And if you link to my mp3 file at your own site, then you’re stealing my bandwidth and being pretty uncool. So please don’t do it.

Case of the Disappearing Iraqi Weapons Cache

Thursday, October 28th, 2004

The Bush Administration and the U.S. military have been as good in protecting the looted weapons cache at Al Qaqa’a and tracking down its whereabouts as they’ve been in tracking down Osama bin Laden–which is to say, not good at all. When little Georgie explains to his teacher why he doesn’t have his homework, his response undoubtedly will be: “Sadaam ate it.”

Al_qaqaa_1

1996 photo of weapons bunker at Al Qaqaa (credit: NYT)

John Kerry correctly has taken on Bush for this failure:

“Mr. President, you don’t honor our troops or protect them better by putting them in greater danger than they ought to be. The bottom line is your administration was warned, you were put on notice, but you didn’t put these explosives on a priority list.”

Bush’s response has been more of the same: it’s not our fault; Hussein removed them before we got there; the Russians removed them before we got there (Washington Times), etc. Bush feebly defends against the charges by saying:”Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site.” Note carefully the language, “possible scenarios” and “may have been moved.” Pretty tenuous grasping at straws I’d say. Besides, if you recollect the number of times this president and his minions have told us that their fantasies and theories about Sadaam and Al Qaeda have been a “slam dunk” or “indisputable” then you’ll join me in being entirely dubious of this cock and bull story from him now.

To which, Kerry responds:

“What we’re seeing is a White House that is dodging and bobbing and weaving in their usual efforts to avoid responsibility – just as they’ve done every step of the way in our involvement in Iraq. Three hundred and eighty tons of explosives that could be in the hands of terrorists and he’d do everything exactly the same way? On Iraq, the president doesn’t see it, he doesn’t see it, so he can’t fix it. I do see it, and I will fix it.”

Bush responds by attacking Kerry for making “wild charges” about the looting of the site. Tell me, Mr. President, what precisely is “wild” about these charges? After all, John Kerry didn’t dream this story up, the IAEA did. This is an international arms inspection agency not especially known for spouting wild accusations about anything. The IAEA learned about the story from an Iraqi ministry, part of a government with which we’re supposed to be allied. So I repeat, where’s the wildness in these charges?

The Pentagon has dredged up the U.S. commanding officer whose troops briefly occupied Al Qaqa’a during the war. His interview with the Times only deepens the questions and concern I have about our government’s lack of action regarding the site:

The Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division arrived outside the site on April 10, under the command of Col. Joseph Anderson. The brigade had been ordered to move quickly to Baghdad because of civil disorder there after Mr. Hussein’s government fell on April 9.

They gathered at Al Qaqaa, about 30 miles south, simply as a matter of convenience, Colonel Anderson said…When he arrived at the site – unaware of its significance – he saw no signs of looting, but was not paying close attention.

Because he thought the brigade would be moving on to Baghdad within hours, Al Qaqaa was of no importance to his mission, he said, and he was unaware of the explosives that international inspectors said were hidden inside.

“No importance to his mission” and “unaware of the explosives inspectors said were inside;” interesting admissions–did no one in the Pentagon possess a list of the major Hussein weapons caches inspected and secured by the inspectors? If so (and how can we believe they did not?), why weren’t these potential future weapons bazaars secured by our military? Bush claims this wasn’t incompetence? Then what was it? Brilliant, forward-thinking strategy?

The New York Times has apparently been doing its homework on this story, as they produced four former Hussein-era employees at the site who personally claim to have witnessed the looting AFTER American troops swept through on their way to Bagdhad (4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in ’03):

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters.

The ball’s back in your court, Mr. Bush. Please tell us how Martians visited earth just before the U.S. invasion to haul off Sadaam’s death ray to outer space. I’d really like to hear it.

Bloggers and Journalists: Politics Makes Uneasy Bedfellows

Thursday, October 28th, 2004

Jim Rutenberg has an interesting article in today’s New York Times (Web Offers Hefty Voice to Critics of Mainstream Journalists) about the torrid heat that journalists face from political joggers who dispute their reportage. Rutenberg begins by saying:

Practicing cheap and dirty politics, playing fast and loose with the facts and even lying: Accusations like these, and worse, have been slung nonstop this year.

The accused in this case are not the candidates, but the mainstream news media. And the accusers are an ever-growing army of Internet writers, many of them partisans, who reach hundreds of thousands of people a day.

Journalists covering the campaign believe the intent is often to bully them into caving to a particular point of view. They insist the efforts have not swayed them in any significant way, though others worry the criticism could eventually have a chilling effect.

I’m really of two minds about the article and its perspective. My first and primary response is unsympathetic. To such journalists I’d say, “You’re not used to the rough and tumble of online debate? You’re used to the refinement and civility of discourse within the pages of your newspaper? You don’t like being called names? Well, sorry–but you’ll just have to figure out a way to deal with it.”

Tom Brokaw accuses bloggers of “lying in wait” or “ambushing” Dan Rather and CBS over the Bush National Guard story. Well, excuse me, does the media deserve a bye when they mess up a story? I don’t think so. (Mind you, I believe that the substance of the story Rather reported about Bush’s service is entirely true, except for the actual memos themselves–but that’s not directly relevant to the issue at hand.)

Personally, I don’t believe in ad hominem attacks like those described in the article in which a reporter’s physical features are attacked or they’re called “dumb” and the like. But most discourse short of personal invective or insults is fair game as far as I’m concerned. Here in this blog, several journalists like David Brooks and others have come in for their fair share of opprobrium. But I’ve tried to attack their arguments and not their person.

I have noticed especially at right wing sites (though I’m sure left wing sites may be guilty of this as well) the level of prejudice, racism and downright nastiness against John Kerry and those who support him is very high. I’ve also noticed that attacks on major media like CNN or the New York Times are often redolent of overkill. But Rutenberg neglects to point out that Fox News contributes greatly to this by the savagery of their diatribes against Democrats. Perhaps it’s a case of which vitriol came first, right wing bloggers or Fox. But given Fox’s iconic position in the right wing universe, I’d say that they set a certain rabid tone which the blog world attempts to emulate.

My second reaction to this phenomenon is that Rutenberg is right in pointing out the idiocy of some of this blog “stalking” of supposedly biased journalists. The internet does produce more than its share of nut jobs. Just as I get worked up over them when they leave their do-do on my blog doorstep, I don’t believe that jouralists should be subject to it either.

And lest journalists think that they’re the only objects of hatred, take a look at this lovely piece of dreck left for me yesterday by someone commenting on a critical post I wrote about a Martin Peretz column in the Los Angeles Times:

Since you love the Palestinians so much and were opposed to the Iraq war, why don’t you just crawl out of your hole and go to your blessed Palestine – Arafat’s Hitlerian bunker in Ramallah…or offer your- self up to Al-Zarqari [sic] in Fallujah. There, now, boychik, wouldn’t that make you feel better.

You look like a clueless schliemiel, Silverstein, and sound like one. Arafat walked away from peace – including half of Jerusalem and virtually all of Judea-Samaria, and chose to kill Israeli babies and teenagers instead. If you like that mentality, then go there – after all, you are no better than the hapless Nick Berg or Danny Pearl. They’d love a guy like you.

Nice, huh?

Djivan Gasparyan: Master of the Armenian Duduk

Wednesday, October 27th, 2004
Gasparyan

Gasparyan playing the ancient duduk (credit: Michael Brook Breakdown)

In 1998, Djivan Gasparyan and Michael Brook collaborated on an amazing album of Armenian duduk music, Black Rock. For those who’ve been sleeping under rocks for a decade or so, Michael Brook is the virtuoso guitarist and record producer who earlier created two phenomenal albums with Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.

In these collaborations, Brook brings an ur-contemporary musical sensibility while at the same time extending extraordinary courtesy to the musical genre and tradition from which his co-collaborator springs. In the case of Gasparyan, Brook brings forward the throaty, mournful sound of the duduk, while adding a contemporary musical layer of mystery and etheriality to the audio mix. Here is what Evan Carter has to say about Black Rock at Allmusic.com:

This [Gasparyan-Brook] partnership produces a record of dazzling eclecticism and uncommon soulfulness. Gasparyan’s duduk, an ancient instrument similar to the oboe, has an extraordinary range of expression: It exudes a heart-rending plangency on the mournful “Fallen Star,” seductive sensuality on “Forbidden Love,” and languid serenity on “Together Forever.” Brook’s arrangements — consisting primarily of keyboards, light drums, and evocative ambient electric guitars — bring a contemporary edge to the ancient mystery and emotiveness that characterize Gasparyan’s work.

Black_rock

Fallen Star (here it) begins with a contemplative duduk line backed by all manner of otherworldly sounds. A discreet drum track adds a hint of rhythmic crispness to the song without overpowering it. Finally, Brook’s guitar enters the fray driving the melody forward energetically. Listening to this song and the entire album gives you the sense that you are hearing the sounds of the cosmos right in the comfort of your own home! Miraculous.

WARNING: This mp3 blog exists to spread the wonder and genius that is traditional music. It does NOT exist to enhance your private mp3 collection. So by all means come, listen, enjoy, then follow the links to buy the music. If you come, listen, download, then leave—you’re violating the spirit behind this blog and doing nothing to support the artists featured here. And if you link to my mp3 file at your own site, then you’re stealing my bandwidth and being pretty uncool. So please don’t do it.