Here is the lowdown on CYCLONE ITA [Butrose I believe] which hit the Far North Queensland coast on Friday 11th and Saturday 12th April 2014.
There are 2 versions, the first with Zarathustra's guidance and the second with a touch of the Valkyries ["get your men down, this is gonna be a big one, with the smell of Napalm in the Morning - Big Duke Six to Major Tom, to a Romeo Foxtrot shall we dance"].
In 2014 we are 44 years from the small f feminist takeover of the Western world [though mostly in Australia and america] and 15 years on from the "monitoring" OF the Beauty in American Beauty.
In that time the leader Germaine Greer completed [bit by bit] a 180 degree flip from her original Female Eunuch stance, in fact the first flip was to allow the male species to actually LIVE [but be morphed into SNAGs], but the overwhelming mantra of bossy/bully [but WITHOUT responsibility/blame] by the feminist has never waned
Beethoven's so called "Ode to Joy" [but perhaps always Ode to Freedom, even before 1989] is possibly the most famous, best loved, music of all time.
It is the 4th Movement of the 9th Symphony, where Beethoven resorted to choral expression using the words of Schiller to get his message out there.
But in getting there it seems Beethoven saw that he first had to "sack" certain other music, and the controversy rages to this day as to WHICH other music had to go. All of this would appear to happen in the first 6 1/2 minutes at which point a soloist proclaims Beethoven's OWN words:
"Oh friends, not these tones!
Let us raise our voices in more
Pleasing and more joyful sounds!"
The controversy would seem to center upon a determination of "these" and it seems to me the matter is confused by the fact that while he sacks all three of the initial Movements of THIS Symphony by about 2:43, he does not make his proclamation until about 6:30.
It seems totally understandable that he wanted to keep all the choral parts together [and other reasons], and who would dare question a genius, but for the benefit of us mere mortals I have made a variation below where as soon as he does his famous fist pump at 2:43 to say "YES, I got rid of my demons", he goes straight to his proclamation.
That means that the ORCHESTRAL Ode to Joy theme that then takes over blends seamlessly into the choral improvements of the theme that continue to the end of the Movement.
Please take a listen how this might have worked [with Beethoven of course making smooth transitions].
Here are the only discussions I have seen on this matter:
1. from Timothy Judd
"In the final movement of the Ninth, Beethoven quotes the themes of each preceding movement, musically rejecting each and moving forward with the transcendental “Ode to Joy.” "
2. from Henry Feldman
"Could a soothing Adagio end this symphony, so stentorian at the start?
Not on your life! Beethoven begins the Finale in turmoil, with an
operatic-style uproar that the Germans call a Schreckensfanfare
('horror fanfare'). Thus announced, the cellos (with basses in
unison) step forward to sing recitativo. Offered tiny samples from
each earlier movement in turn, they interrupt and apparently reject
the recent music. Clearly the cellos are trying to say something, but
they lack the words.
Now a breath of new melody--you all recognize it, but somehow it
would seem familiar and welcome even if you didn't--is whispered and
seemingly accepted. The cellos close their recitativo and take a
first try at this little D major tune, without harmonization. More
instruments drift in on the next verse, and a blaring tutti seems to
settle matters: this will be our theme.
Flute and oboe sound a doubtful note, and suddenly we are plunged into
the Schreckensfanfare again. This time a baritone steps forward, and
he says it in words: Not these sounds! Something more joyful! And
off he goes with Schiller's stirring poetry, the Ode to Joy. The
chorus joins in with enthusiasm, and the solo quartet performs some
strenuous variations, still in the key of D. Swelling, the chorus is
on the road to a conventional modulation into A, when without warning
it veers into the ditch on F major ("vor Gott!"), leaving us flattened
and gasping for breath. What could possibly come next?"
3. from Agamemnon Basileus
"O Freunde nicht diese töne is an exceedingly enigmatic, ironic
utterance. Critical opinion, for the greater part I believe, is that it
refers to the so-called Schreckensfanfare (and I also believe it
was Wagner who so called it). Others consider it to refer to the
preceding movements, or all purely instrumental music. Still others take
it to refer to all three things.
I take it as most obviously referring to the Schreckensfanfare
and the quotations from the preceding three movements, doubly ironic in
that the clouds of at-times severe, elusive music in an instant are
dispelled by the sound of a narrative voice, which promises clarity, and
in that the meaning of the words uttered by the narrator are just as
elusive."
I came to some conclusions about the meaning of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah 7 years ago when I first saw his video [under] but recently I re-watched [after 43 years] Ryan's Daughter [1970] and it became fairly obvious to me that Cohen had used that epic movie as a "template" for his song.
To clarify, my viewing of the video was the first time I had actually heard the song, so my appreciation had not been tortured by Jeff Buckley murdering the song shortly before killing himself or K D Lang giving birth on stage to a Hallelujah "with no attempts to shovel the glimpse into the ditch of what each one means" - Dylan, Gates of Eden.
As Ryan's Daughter in fact fortified my earlier conclusions I have set-out anew in this blog how I see the song should be interpreted. Here is the video.
Let's see the first verse:
"I've heard there was a secret chord That David played, and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do ya? It goes like this The fourth, the fifth The minor fall, the major lift The baffled king composing Hallelujah"
There is little mystery that the THEME of the song is as old as Adam and Eve - in fact it IS about Eve Syndrome, that "secret chord" in the female of the species that activates inexplicable acts according to "metronome marks on the biological time clock", enhanced of course by such sensory exciters as Big Fly Wheels in the case of Rosie.
Add to that from bloke's side "there is no fool like an old fool" and we are right in the picture as Cohen walks out in front of a bare Marble Arch to explain what is his "HOLY" Hallelujah.
The "Fourth, the Fifth" and next line scream out Beethoven and can be very simply explained as:
It goes [after the Third] like this [via] The Fourth, the Fifth [to the Ninth with] The minor fall [of the Third, and], the major lift [of the Ninth].
The minor fall is of course the fall-out Beethoven had with Napoleon over "Naming Rights" for the Third [Eroica, but not for Napoleon], which Beethoven brushed off as "minor", and the major lift was of course the ecstasy Beethoven claimed once his "Ode to Joy" came together, combining the words from Schiller.
So we have established continuity of story from the Third to the Ninth and that is further confirmed by:
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Which is a very easy clue, as above, to the battle Beethoven had composing his Ode to Joy [which Cohen is claiming as his (Holy) Hallelujah, and who could disagree?].
So back to the secret chord and we have 2 clues already that this is about the Third but, even without those, if one was to ask what is the most FAMOUS chord in music, the answer would surely be the opening chord [played twice] in the Third, and repeated 3 times in the first movement, as 6 chords each.
Here is a very good article that explains these "hammer blows" or "forks in the road" - timothy judd violin.com
As for "secret", I don't propose to spend time here investigating this right now as I don't think it is vital to the task at hand, but I will leave you with two thoughts.
1. David Lean certainly "had the vibes" in Ryan's Daughter as he dramatically starts his beach scene of the virtual discovery by Charles of his wife's SECRET affair with one of these "forks in the road", and it continues once back home in the "flower pressing" scene. It certainly was his fork in the road.
2. Beethoven's SECRET Heiligenstadt Testament was written AND acted upon at this time with the Third being his OWN fork in the road on his long lonely SILENT journey to his ultimate goal the Ode to Joy.
Finally, the line:
But you don't really care for music, do ya?
does not really need much explanation except by comparison to the deja vu line from Charles in Ryan's Daughter:
You don't really care for my flowers, do you?
The HUGE change in the world by 1984 when Cohen wrote Hallelujah is that the 1970 small f feminist revolution of The Female Eunuch [initially called "Wimmins Liberation"] WAS firmly in control and remains so to this day. So the flower comment in 1916 was without malice as Rosie's affair was also without malice, but by 1984 we had the full scale gender WAR as Cohen continues to stress as the song progresses [and the REASON for the Marble Arch].
By the way, check the similarity between the style of hat Charles [played by Robert Mitchum] wears and that adopted by Cohen about this time.
And THAT also provides a useful interpretation of line 2 if one imagines Cohen [or David in Biblical parlance] doing as Charles does when Rosie comes to his home to snare him, ie he puts on his Beethoven Fifth record and proudly announces "that's Beethoven", surrounded by his many busts of Beethoven on his mantlepiece. Rosie nods approvingly but once she has snared Charles her interest is seen to wane for "fleshier pleasures".
So if you go back and listen again above but assume "the Lord" is Cohen admitting his own defeat and that his own Rosie has taken over [as we see in Verse 2] and IS Lord [or "she who must be obeyed"], then that fits beautifully with the "you/ya" in the next line. It also softens the blow of a sudden "you" being introduced in line 3, if "you" is already known from line 2.
Listen again but this time assume "Lord" is Cohen's "Significant Other" [who for convenience and by convention we will call Cupcake, or MS. Cupcake]. Listen to the way he pronounces "pleased". OK, we are off to Verse #2.
"Your faith was strong but you needed proof You saw her bathing on the roof Her beauty in the moonlight overthrew you She tied you to a kitchen chair She broke your throne, and she cut your hair And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah"
This is simply a CSI [or I think it is now just CI] about "no fool like an old fool" [boo hoo, woe is me] and the resultant position of our Hallelujah toting hero [who also goes by a generic name of "bloke"].
By 1984 the well known term for the position of bloke was SNAG, ie Sensitive New Age Guy, and by 1999 in American Beauty simply "in a coma", having voluntarily lost his balls and with his "dick in a mason jar under the sink". As alluded to, Cohen continues to use the Biblical facsimile of David for bloke [and Bathsheba as Cupcake] giving weight to "Lord" also being Cupcake as set out above. Rosie is off the radar now as this small f feminist Domestic Violence did not exist in civilized 1916 Ireland.
But I need to explain the last line, ie "and from your lips she drew the Hallelujah"
On the rare days SNAGs might get day leave to play a little sport, a bloke might say to another bloke "this is better than sex". Of course it is a red rag to a bull from Cupcake's side of the fence. Her whole Action Plan is to get bloke to say "this [sex] is better than Beethoven" then having broken his throne, his dick goes in the mason jar and she grabs her flag and heads for the Marble Arch [Facebook these days, and save the Tube fare].
But it gets worse folks with Verse #3
"You say I took the name in vain I don't even know the name But if I did, well, really, what's it to you? There's a blaze of light in every word It doesn't matter which you heard The holy or the broken Hallelujah"
Cupcake has returned from her Marble Arch celebration and now just wants to turn the knife - "so where is your precious Beethoven now, all I had to do was flash my tits and you threw him overboard faster than John Howard chucking kiddies".
Bloke has totally lost it by now, tries to take the Fifth [Amendment that is, not Symphony] but takes the First instead and makes a botch of his little speech, and heads out to the pub to drown his sorrows - "marry in haste, repent at leisure" - and so it goes to Verse #4
"I did my best, it wasn't much I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you And even though it all went wrong I'll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah"
This simply says that safe from Cupcake, and with other similarly inflicted blokes, he pours out his heart to an understanding audience, ending with his "Bloke Testament" to Beethoven [the Lord of Song] re-affirming his faith in the Hallelujah.
And I leave it to you dear folks as to which Hallelujah he meant.
But finally an explanation of the Marble Arch verse. It seems Cohen was limited to 4 verses in this performance so he has very cleverly included the verse below visually.
"Baby I have been here before I know this room, I've walked this floor I used to live alone before I knew you. I've seen your flag on the marble arch Love is not a victory march It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah"
Wiki explains about the Marble Arch [in London UK]:
"The arch was designed by John Nash in 1828 based on the triumphal arch
of Constantine in Rome. Some sculptures intended for the arch ended up on the façade of the
National Gallery due to Nash's financial problems. In particular are
those high up on the east façade, opposite the Edith Cavell memorial
(Britannia) and above the old main entrance under the portico. These
last two were originally intended to represent the campaigns of the Duke
of Wellington, these sculptures include reclining personfications of
Europe and Asia/India, with a blank roundel in between. Had the arch
been completed as planned, the Duke of Wellington's face would have been
depicted in the roundel"
So Cohen is drawing attention to the exigencies of 19th Century Political Correctness where the glorious military efforts of Wellington in defeating Napoleon [notice the cross reference to Beethoven's "minor fall", ie the Third Symphony] have been totally forgotten and his sculpture replaced by our very own Cupcake facsimile, reclining barebreasted and triumphant on a horse, fresh from "bathing on the roof".
So first 3 lines are simply the old 1955 song "got along without you before I knew you ...", then as stated above he simply says it may well be that "all's fair in Love and War" but it is just plain sick to make Love INTO a War, complete with trophies and celebrations.
But the real artistry is in Cohen's design and population of his "Marble Arch" which depicts the small f feminist concept of a Chook Perch with such feminists totally dominating the top perch and a few stupid looking blokes [Femi-men] allowed on the bottom perch [in the chook poo].
I won't even think about commenting on the PC charged distinction [chook shelf wise] between white and black women, but please observe what Cohen does there.
And once they start their "wall of sound" hallelujahs we see they are in fact pairs of ugly feminist pedantry sexless virgins taking great glee in admonishing our bloke for his deeds against "the poor defenseless Cupcake who was simply exercising her female rights to bathe naked on a public roof". And we see that as they quack out their "I am woman hear me roar" flag-waving Hallelujahs, Cohen has them waddling like a row of ducks. Nice one Lionel.
Pronking refers to the American device of getting out of any situation at all by simply inventing a word, eg we did not LOSE Vietnam, we just DE-ESCALATED.
At the American Beauty Forum people ask the question re if the titular [npi] movie "holds up" 10 years later.
Now we see the wonderful boobs of Thorny Bush at the window just holding up and we might well ask how long gravity may be so kind, but maybe that is not the question and maybe the question is if the BEAUTY has held up.
Well in my book [literally] Age 7 says no, per:
Age 6.
American Beauty (circa 2000)
6.1. American Apple Pie is Melting
6.2. About Happiness?
6.3. About Drugs?
6.4. About Pedophiles?
6.5. About Gays and Closets?
Age 7.
Pandora (circa 2010)
7.1. The End
7.2. Resolve for Apocalypse
7.3. Post Apocalypse and Survival Genres
Doespeare, John (2012-02-16). Seven Ages of America (Kindle Locations 81-87). . Kindle Edition.
The REAL answer rests with HAL as the advertising God, the "whore" Lester was so keen to put behind him [also npi], and his brilliant one-liner summary OF the Beauty "nope, our marriage is just an ADVERTISEMENT for how normal we are". The movie was about how that HAL totally controlled the American Beauty, even fooling Lester himself who was so much "in it" up to his neck he couldn't distinguish the REAL Angela from his IMAGINARY Angela till it got all "up close and personal", and even the actual boobs were but a shadow of those CLOSETED behind rose petals, with the jingle-jangle music on overtime.
So back to the question of the Beauty today [ie 2013] and the only way to answer is to go back TO the advertising industry as the trillions of dollars made by corporations per annum totally depends on these "whores" getting it "right".
But "right" does not mean accurate but merely the PERCEIVED right that prompts J Doe [Jnr] to actually BUY the product, and sadly that perceived cardboard cutout is nowhere near to the far less perfect J Doe [Jnr] that buys because he/she WANTS to be the boy/girl in the advert - "same old thing since 1916" folks, ie the rules of advertising have not changed in all of the 100 years since they were gestated.
Generally the advert is "closeted", ie you are not TOLD you are the hero in the advert, but you just "gravitate" that way by the sexual triggers, BUT a new series of KIA ads goes the other way and TELLS J Doe Jnr how he/she SHOULD be.
What is more, the adverts are "bookends" where in each one the subjects collide with each other in mid stream, but keep going. So please watch these adverts to see yourself as the perfect KIA buying profile.
I could spend hours going through the marketing cleverness of each and every perceived attribute of both genders, starting with the fact the 1970 SNAG has shed the [enforced] "S for Sensitive" and is now just a NAG [but has in fact added pram pushing at the other end, so still "under my thumb"], but I will let you ponder on all that. Then the concession by gal is she is no longer "I am woman hear me roar", but she now "vocalizes" [which is still too noisy for my liking - lol].
Notice that it cops out totally by letting BOTH "wear the pants" but as a concession to the Sisterhood only the bloke "wears the blame" [ie responsibility].
Also note that gal takes a look at the girls passing by and bloke actually nods at a "fellow gay", so as not to put any "gay" people out of the profile [ie buy the car].
The cleverness of the ad is KIA [etc] only needs to make ONE car, and has done that by "burying the hatchet" in the Gender War of 1970 so the car "suits" both genders.
The sad truth is that the very "Twittermania" shown above as good [for the corporations] is in fact killing the Beauty, and here is the gal TRUTH of the matter which, while satire, is very close to the mark.
The guy disaster is even sadder because it was "Carefully Taught" [South Pacific - 1958] once the feminists took over the formerly named "education system" in 1970. Here is the video:
Although this creep is below the banana slug in personality and cops out on WHY this happened [ie the 1970s feminists {who actually PAY him}], he is basically correct about why boys too may be more likely to suicide than buy the KIA. And saddest of all is his audience is mostly the so called "Baby Boomers" that CAUSED the problem by not opposing the blatant feminist takeover in 1970.
That endeths the sermon on the American Beauty heading like Lemmings off [of] that TEOTWAWKI cliff.
