I'm back in London but my blog's still on a sabbatical. In the meantime here's what my mp3 players has on offer for you today.
Alice Russell arrived by surprise. One night I was jumping from clip to clip on youtube (as you do!) and I suddenly stumbled upon 'Hurry on Now'. From there I went on amazon and got a couple of her albums. Haven't looked back. She deserves more recognition. Proper British soul.
You know you've arrived at that mid-point in your life, not when your kids grow up and leave the nest, or when you can't tie your shoelaces anymore because of the size of your belly, or when you think of Saturday night and the first image that pops into your head is a pair of slippers and a cup of hot chocolate. No, you know that you've hit middle age when you've come full circle and start appreciating and listening attentively to the music you grew up with and which you unconsciously "liked". You didn't really, it's just that it was there, in the background. That's what happened to me recently with the Brazilian singer Roberto Carlos, the soundtrack of many a Cuban of a certain age. I gave up on his music when I became a teenager, but a couple of years ago I found an album with his greatest hits and a trip down memory lane beckoned. What I discovered that night was that I'd never really gone off his music. Amazing voice and extraordinary arrangements, I began to see Roberto Carlos in a different light. Straight from my mp3 to you, "Qué Será de Ti".
This is one of the few pieces from the classical canon to which I can listen when I'm out jogging without pressing the "forward" button. To hear this melody coming on my mp3 player as the sun rises in London whilst I'm running up a hill is possibly one of the most sublime instances of pure synergy between human sensitivity and nature's delicacy. "Air on G-String" by Johann Sebastian Bach, performed by Sarah Chang on violin.
And we finish this section off,(at least for the time being) with one of the more eccentric frontmen rock's ever produced. There is a handful of singers whose dancing style leaves me clutching my sides, not just out of pure mirth, but also amusement. Prince, Mick Jagger and of course, R.E.M.'s very own Michael Stipe, to name but three. Together with Eddie Vedder's powerful growl, "Begin the Begin" goes up a couple of notches in the scale of musical grandiosity. And this was already a great tune. It just got better. I hope you enjoy it. I'll be back next Sunday. Have a great week!
Next Post: "Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music", to be published on Sunday 11th September at 10am (GMT)
Recently The Observer newspaper conducted an interesting debate on the role of religion in today's world. Under the heading 'Is religion a force for good... or would we be happier without God?', the publication asked five leading figures in the fields of academia, politics and religion for their opinions about an issue that has become highly polarising in recent years.
Based on this - at times very emotional - exchange, I am intending to open up my blog for a similar exercise. But before I lay down the terms and conditions (or the T&Cs, as they're usually spelled out nowadays) for the next public debate I would like to put in my twopence worth. I don't agree with the title of the article.
First of all, religion is an abstract noun that comprises the set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and very often includes the role of a superhuman force. This is the force tasked with the creation of the aforementioned universe. Religion also involves a set of devotional and ritual observances and a moral code by which all believers must abide. To ask the question of whether religion is a force for good or not, is like wondering if the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 was caused by football. Religion has no material form other than the one given to it by humans. The only way I can see it becoming reality is through public worship, ritual, prayer, recitation, meditation; namely, liturgy. My choice of heading would have been, 'Is the use of religion by human beings a force for good?'. But obviously, that long title wouldn't have 'sold' the debate. Which is why I'm not a sub-editor. In my opinion, though, the sub who thought up the heading left the human factor out.
However, he or she tried to include that human element in the second part of the heading with the hypothetical question '... or would we be happier without God?'. Again, in my opinion the phrasing is wrong even if I can understand the intention. We won't be happier without a God because there will always be a God. Let's break that statement down to the bare essentials.
According to the latest figures (The New Statesman, 5-18 April, 2010 issue), in the world today there are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, 376 million Buddhists, 23 million Sikhs and 14 million Jews. I've excluded other religions on purpose due to lack of space, but I guess you get the point. There are an awful lot of people who worship. To contemplate a future where these many believers will suddenly stop practising is ridiculous to say the least.
The other reason why the phrasing of that question is wrong, methinks, is that there was a time when almost every person - if not every person - had religious beliefs. Whether it was an Abrahamic faith or a pagan one, up until the end of the 1700s and the beginning of the 19th century the word atheist (which we now use for someone who neither believes in God nor in evidence of its existence) referred to people who denied pagan notions of divinity, i.e., Jews and Muslims were atheists as they had faith in just one God.
Therefore the idea of a Godless future is as naïve as the notion of science solving all of life's mysteries. Religion, whether we like it or not, taps into parts of the human brain that are connected to, amongst other functions, language, understanding and emotion and its effects can be felt both externally and internally. The same person who weeps at the thought of Christ's virgin birth is not any different from the individual who tries to become aware of his/her inner world through yoga techniques.
Why am I organising this debate now, then, besides the prompt from The Observer? Because we live in interesting times as far as religion is concerned. Secularists and religious believers are at loggerheads over the role religion should play in contemporary societies and whether there's space for mythos in representative democracies. Personally speaking, as an atheist, I would like to see a modicum of decency when discussing religion. It's true that I don't think that a religious body, whether it be the Church of England, the Board of Deputies of British Jews or the Muslim Council of Britain, should be making executive and/or legislative decisions on behalf of the whole country. At the same time, I wouldn't lobby to end R.E. (Religious Education) in schools either.
The other reason for this debate is that when talking about religion, we, atheists, secularists and humanists, sometimes behave in ways that are better suited to religious fundamentalists. For instance, we look at the reaction in Pakistan to the assassination of Salmaan Taseer as an example of Muslim bigotry, but overlook the role played by Islamic parties in Indonesia and Malaysia in ushering in much-needed democratic change to societies plagued by corruption and dictatorship. We like to think of born-again Christians as people with narrow-minded views (and former US president George W Bush perfectly conforms to that stereotype), but ignore the many followers of Jesus and his teachings who go about their business daily without showing off their faith. Recently the journalist Victoria Coren, a must-read for me on Sundays, 'came out of the religious closet' as a Christian. So what if she worships? Does that diminish her intelligence? She still cracks me up everytime she goes on 'Have I Got News For You', the BBC's flagship, satirical, light-hearted, political-themed news quiz.
I hope I have been clear as to why I'm opening the (virtual) doors of my blog to believers and non-believers; people who hold politheistic beliefs and people for whom there's only one God; individuals who think there can be a divine being as long as its existence can be proved and others who don't think there can ever be a deity nor evidence to support such claim. All are welcome.
The terms and conditions are the same as the twopreviousdebatesI conducted on my blog. First, you need to read the article that apppeared in The Observer (the link is included in the opening sentence of this post). If you're interested in participating in this debate, please, send me an e-mail to the address on my profile and I will reply to your message with three questions. Please, enclose a short bio and a photo of you or let me know whether I can use your blog byline image. I am intending to post questions and answers at 10am on Sunday 30th January, that is, next week, so, please, be prompt and send me your responses as soon as possible. In an ideal world, I would like to have a variety of contributors, both religious believers and non-believers. But we don't live in an ideal world, so first come, first served. That also means that previous participants are more than welcome to take part. There's no need for ground rules, as I trust fellow bloggers and readers to treat each other with respect. However, any derogatory remark(s) will be removed and the person(s) addressed by e-mail. If you wish to reproduce the debate on your blogs, you're more than welcome to do it.
I look forward to your contributions. Many thanks.
Last week I had to go to see the nurse at my local doctor's surgery because one of my ears was blocked (well, actually she syringed both of them just to be on the safe side). Now, I know that this column does not busy itself with organs responsible for maintaining equilibrium and sensing sound. This weekly space is about sharing with you music I listen to whilst out driving. So, bear with me, please.
Whilst one of my senses was suffering, my mood changed and a feeling of helplessness kicked in. I felt deprived, especially in the morning when right after waking up a sentiment of despondency overcame me. Finally on Wednesday last week I went to see the nurse and within 30 minutes I was back to normal. Caveat, though, I am not going back to have the same treatment. By law nowadays nurses and doctors must give patients a run-down of perilous side-effects that might occur after they undergo any type of medical procedure. Amongst the ones that cleaning a blocked ear can bring about are partial or total deafness and heart attack. So, next time it will be the olive oil.
However, on this Wednesday morning as soon as I steppped out of the clinic, the only effect I had was that I suddenly felt like the world had opened a new leaf from its ancient book to me and I was skimming through it studiously. True, I walked to work but later on that day and then two days after I was already behind the wheel.
'Do not use any type of personal stereo', said the nurse. Well, I don't need to, I would have replied. I've got me music in the car, luv.
My ears, unblocked once more, transported me through melodic canals as my hands steered the wheel through the streets of London. As the music breezed out of the car stereo my sense organs attuned themselves to the effects of both gravity and motion. The gravity was the outcome of all these musical notes falling softly on my lap. The motion was driver and vehicle choreographing adventurous (but not hazardous!) moves on the road. The result of that polyphony is below for everyone to enjoy.
I'm back in London but my blog's still on a sabbatical. In the meantime here's what my mp3 players has on offer for you today.
