Ed Hudgins

Robert -- Thanks for your email! I have Solti doing all of the Mahler symphonies with Chicago, except for the 1st, which I have with him conducting London. All are fine. I like the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 9th best. The opening of Solti's 5th is especially powerful, with the opening trumpet and strings coming in. It's a great disc with which to test speakers. I'm not familiar with the Leinsdorf/Boston 5th but will need to check it out. I also have an interesting Mahler 6th with Barbirolli and the New Philharmonia. The pacing is very slow, different from the Solti and most other interpretations of that piece. It works though I prefer the faster pace. Also I have Bruno Walter doing the best "Das Lied von die Erde" that I've heard, with Ernst Hafliger as tenor. The opening is one of the greatest first 30 seconds of any piece in the classical repertoire. I should check out Walter doing the 1st; it sounds from your description -- and from my own experience with Walter -- that it would certainly be worthwhile. (I heard Slatkin do the 1st last summer with the National; he's brought a lot of live Mahler to D.C.!) I've heard a Mahler or two with Karajan and recall them being okay but for me, Karajan is best at Wagner and Beethoven, especially his earlier set of symphony recordings. I've never heard Ormandy do Mahler but I really like his Tchaikovsky later symphonies. (Speaking of Tchaikovsky, if you don't know the 1st Symphony, the Winter Dream, check it out. It's beautiful and not as well known as 4,5 and 6. I have Mutti doing it.) But you're right, for big symphonies like those of Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Brahms, Rachmaninoff and such, it's really best to hear them live. I find that my ear is far better at picking up sounds that way. On many recordings, when the music goes from a loud to soft passage, I need to turn up the volume, for example, when the bass strings coming in with the first statement of the Ode to Joy in Beethoven's 9th. But live, I can hear it just fine. Bottom line: Head to the concert hall when possible! Best, Ed

[My piece from the Washington Times, 6/26/06. Enjoy! -- Ed] http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...12607-8075r.htm ------ Fat cup of trouble By Edward Hudgins Published June 26, 2006 Starbucks, of all enterprises, is the latest victim of food fascists. It is ironic that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is attacking the politically correct, rainforest-friendly, self-styled socially responsible Seattle-based corporation for clogging the arteries of Americans. Starbucks, of course, is famous for offering its customers many choices. It's impossible to order just "a cup of coffee." There are two or three coffees of the day chosen from some three-dozen blends from around the world. You can get them in regular, decaf or half-caf and three different sizes: tall, grande and venti. Maybe you want a latte, cappuccino, Frappuccino, Macchiato, Americano or straight espresso? Perhaps you want it extra hot or with ice? Or with one of a dozen favors, malts, mochas or toppings? Or go for their teas. It's a consumer's dream. But Starbucks is very conscious of its customers' health concerns. That's why it offers whole, skim or soy milk. Watching carbs? Try your drink "breve" with half-and-half. Watching calories? Order your latte "skinny" so you won't fill out when you ask for "extra foam." Or forgo the whipped cream on the more milkshake-like beverages. Or order sugar-free vanilla or hazelnut syrup. And just skip the many cake offerings altogether. Critics charge many Starbucks products are high in calories and high in fat, especially those tasty trans-fats that are really bad for us. So what? Starbucks offers everyone a choice. If you don't like the venti vanilla caramel Macchiato with extra whip, don't order it. In any case, Starbucks lists on its Web site and brochures in its stores the nutritional information about its products. But that's not enough for the self-appointed health police. They're trying to shame Starbucks into putting all of that information on menu boards in their cafes which, aside from being redundant, would make those menus, crowded with numbers, look to most people as confusing as the big board at the stock exchange. In any case, come on people, we all know whipped cream and cakes are fattening. Starbucks' upscale clientele is certainly educated enough to figure that out. Critics also want Starbucks to "voluntarily" cut down on the fat stuff in their fare. Normally, boring biddies can natter at us all they want and we're free to take their advice or tell them to take a hike. But that's not what the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants. They and their kind are bent on stopping us from being unhealthy -- by their definition -- no matter what. For example, that Center recently filed suit against KFC to stop it from frying chicken in high-fat oil. (Perhaps anything short of Kentucky Steamed Tofu just won't do.) They sought to ban olestra -- a fat substitute -- from potato chips because it gives some individuals slight digestive problems. (Hint: If a food doesn't agree with you, don't eat it.) These guys aren't just interested in educating us. They're interested in controlling us, not just taking our coffee and cakes but our freedom. They are part of our social order's degeneration: pretentious paternalist prudes who believe they have a right to run our lives and we have a duty to obey. In its pamphlets, Starbucks touts itself as socially responsible. It signs onto every nice-sounding environmental, energy, labor and global standard. It's the epitome of PC. While it's questionable whether we're really endangered by a lack of recycling or the loss of animal habitat, there's no question that the greatest danger to all Americans and the citizens of all other countries is the lack of individual freedom and the loss of liberty. I grant that many Americans would do better to order carrot sticks rather than carrot cake and to plant themselves on an exercise bike rather than a stool at the eatery in the local mall. I myself am a jogger. I usually order my Starbucks sans the high-calorie, high-carb additives, though as I write this piece I'm sipping a banana-coconut Frappuccino (damn, it's good) in solidarity with my broad-at-the-hips brothers and sisters and with a successful business under siege. Personal autonomy and our freedom to run our own lives are really at stake here. Enterprises should be free to offer whatever goods and services they want and to advertise them as tastier or healthier, better priced or better quality, utilitarian or stylish, indulgent or eco-friendly -- whatever. But all enterprises and citizens must recognize that the ultimate value in a society is individual choice, based on mutual consent of the parties involved, free from government interference. To defend this freedom is the highest act of social responsibility. --------- Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrates human achievement.

MSK -- Thanks for your response. I'm quite impressed not only by your musical background but by the fact that you were in brass sections playing Mahler. This is where the term "kick ass" can truly be applied! Certainly from his subjects Mahler's works can be on the depressing side. I found your comments on the affects of playing Mahler on the orchestra to be interesting. But as I mentioned, I find in them strength and incredible musical sounds. By the way, other favorite Mahler first movements of mine are the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth. And he had one of the best First symphonies of any composer, which I heard live last summer. By the way, in terms of the "best opening 30 seconds" of a musical work, among my top few favorites would be "Das Lied" and the Mahler's Fifth, which is great for impressing people with your stereo system. (Another would be Puccini's "Turandot.") Ellen, glad you like Mahler too. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that a smaller orchestra did the 4th, a nice piece. I guess you'd need to go down to New York to get the larger, hardcore stuff!

Gustav Mahler’s Second and Eighth Symphonies Are any of you Mahler fans? On Friday I saw the 2nd Symphony, the "Resurrection," with the Baltimore Symphony under Yuri Temirkanov in his farewell concert, and Saturday I saw the 8th, the "Symphony of a Thousand" with the National Symphony under Leonard Slatkin. Incredible! The first movement of the 2nd -- one of my favorites -- is one of Mahler’s strong struggle with death themes, starting with low strings, slowly adding instruments and pace, building -- with contemplative, longing and occasionally peaceful passages -- to bold pronouncements by the brass – characteristic Mahler! Temirkanov started slower than in my favorite recording of this work by Solti but built it up well. And the brass truly rose to the occasion of a piece that’s a brass-lover’s dream. The second and third movements are like the somewhat peaceful reflections of someone at the end of a life. The final movements are strong Mahler, with a soloist and then large chorus on the theme death and rebirth. Mahler’s use of instruments and orchestration give a unique, individualistic and unmistakable sound. There are passages in this symphony that I queue up on my CD to listen to, to savor! Some Objectivists might argue that the 2nd (as well as other Mahler works) are simply too tragic, with too malevolent as sense of life, and with the only respites coming only from religion. But what you hear in the 2nd is power, passion and strength. You don’t have to have a malevolent sense of life to appreciate that and you will find no better place for such an experience than Mahler. The 8th Symphony is called the "Symphony of a Thousand" for the size of the ensemble. Being in a concert hall where this is being played is an experience in itself that you will rarely have and should never pass up! I counted at least 350 chorus members and soloists. They were not only arrayed behind the orchestra staked to the huge organ pipes near the ceiling, they were arrayed in the special box seats on the sides of the stage and in all of the third tier seats on both sides of the Kennedy Center concert hall. (No wonder tickets were hard to come by! Condi Rice, did manage to get a ticket; she was there in the box where, years ago, I saw Henry Kissinger at a concert conducted by Karajan. I guess secretaries of state have good taste in music!) Slatkin even put eight of the brass up there in the left rear third tier. There was a soloist up in the fourth tier as well. There were about 150 musicians manning the instruments. Talk about a stereo effect! This is something that no sound system could ever reproduce. You really need to be there. By the way, no one could fall asleep during this symphony. If you could, it’s because you have serious ear or neural damage and should see your physician immediately. Of course some would say that the volume of this work will create such damage in any case! This has to be a tough piece to conduct because of its size as well as the complexity of Mahler’s score. But Slatkin, the best conductor NSO has had, pulled it off well. The symphony itself is Mahler’s only one that is completely joyous and triumphant. It is choral throughout with a few purely instrumental interludes. The first part is to the text of a Medieval Latin hymn "Veni creator spiritus" ("Come creator Spirit"). The second part is to the German text of the end of "Faust" with various choirs of angels and other powers declaring the hope for a shining eternity. Objectivists should not get too hung up on the religious themes. If you don’t understand Latin or German, just listen to the beautiful voices and powerful, triumphant music. Back-to-back evenings of Mahler, each symphony an hour and a half long: Too much Mahler? Never! I’d like to try all nine symphonies, one each for nine nights in a row. That would separate the true from the fair-weather fans!

Kat -- Just happened upon this on your site. Beautiful piece!

Hi Cindy! Welcome to the website. You also might check out The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be in Orange, CA the first week of July. Here's a link to the information on our website: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-61-14...7-SumSem06.aspx We'd love to see you there! Ed Hudgins

And for those who don't read Latin, it's: "Who, therefore, is free? The Wise, who are in command of themselves." That's Horace. My favorite Roman and personal hero is Marcus Tullius Cicero. I did a talk about him at last year's Summer Seminar, available on CD from our bookstore, of course!

Dragonfly, you're a true Renaissance man. Why the way, one of my favorite Latin quotes is: Quis igitur liber est? Sapiens -- qui sibi imperat!

Sehr gut! Ich hatte fur ein jahr in Munchen gewohnt, von 1980 bis 1981. Ich war ein lehrer fur die Universitat Maryland. Das war ein Americanische schule fur die Americanische studenten. Ich lehrtet auf Englisch aber ich lerntet ein bishen Deutsch. (Ich habe gern die Deutsche Kultur, zum beispiel, music und opera.) Tschuss!

Nick -- Wo hatten Sie in Deutschland gewohnt?

Everyone's discussing this on other sites so let's bring it into the Objectivist Living Room! By the way, the phones at Lionsgate apparently are ringing off the hook because of this story. A very good sign! -- Ed Hudgins ----------- April 27, 2006 -- The effort to film Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has just taken a big step forward. Daily Variety reports a leaked story that Lionsgate, the independent studio whose movie "Crash" recently won the Oscar for best picture, will be distributing the film. We've confirmed today that a deal is going forward under which Lionsgate will take an option to finance and distribute the film. The executive producers are John Aglialoro, a Trustee of The Atlas Society and The Objectivist Center, and Howard Baldwin, whose movie "Ray" won an Oscar for best actor (Jamie Foxx). Lionsgate will put around $35 million into the film. The film will be based on a script of the first part of the novel, written by Jim V. Hart and reviewed by David Kelley, founder of The Atlas Society-The Objectivist Center. Hart also penned the script for the film "Contact," based on the novel by astronomer Carl Sagan. It is anticipated "Atlas" will be a multi-part film. So far no actors have been cast; that will be done by the director, once one is chosen, in conjunction with the executive producers and Lionsgate. Variety also reports that stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are interested in parts in the film. This will come as no surprise to subscribers of The New Individualist. The current issue features the two on the cover, and in an article by the publication's editor, Robert Bidinotto, which looks at the interest in Rand's works among Hollywood's elite. We will keep you apprised of further developments.

Hope you all are having a happy holiday! Here's my piece from the Christmas day Washington Times. (Sorry I didn't post earlier but I've trouble accessing this site from my home computer.): http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...83632-5710r.htm --------- Gifts... by Edward Hudgins One year I gave my then-young nephew who was in the first years of elementary school a rock for Christmas. Not just any old rock but a piece of sandstone from a science store. In it were embedded fossils, shells and other little surprises. But you couldn't just take a hammer, smash it to pieces and extract your prizes. The rock came with little scraping and brushing tools and, like a paleontologist, you had to slowly and methodically scrape away the rock. It was exciting for me over the next weeks to get my nephew's excited phone calls telling me he thought he could see a little white piece of bone sticking out and he would keep me informed on his progress. I was watching a curious mind and a fired imagination learning patience and perseverance. One Christmas season tradition that makes this holiday stand out from all others is gift-giving. Crowded malls lead to brightly wrapped packages and then to bright eyes and smiles as the surprises are revealed to their recipients. Inevitably this tradition is criticized as too commercial, though it seems strange anyone should complain about living in a society of productive individuals, which allows us to purchase all the material comforts that make life pleasant. In any case, we need to produce before we can give. Some suggest it is more blessed to give than to receive. Is this true? Is this pure altruism or is there something in it for us the givers? This is a good time to ask about some of the reasons why it is of value to us to give gifts. The valid reason for giving gifts to others is that others are of value to us. Sometimes we might give to others because of the continuing services they render to us. We're happy for good co-workers, for the folks who park our cars, cut our hair, deliver our mail or have principally commercial relationships with us. Sure, they were only doing their job. But it's still not a bad idea to remind them we appreciate both the specific services they render and their virtues -- fortitude, focus, productivity -- that allow them to provide those services to begin with. We give gifts to children not only because, obviously, we love them but also for the joy of exciting and delighting them with their holiday surprises. Of course, we also want them to understand that as adults they must work for most things of real value to them. But we want to instill in them the notion the universe is ultimately benevolent and there is a world of beautiful and wonderful things worth working for. And we also get a special pleasure if we manage to pick out an educational gift -- my nephew's rock -- that actually delights and engages a young mind. Sometimes, if we're really creative, we can pick just the perfect gift we know will have special meaning to the individual we value -- a book or music CD that they've been looking for but can't find or perhaps something of which they are entirely unaware. It gives us a particular joy when we manage to pull off such a present because it's actually a case of "to love them is to know them." It's our recognition of their interests, values and emotions -- the things we love about them -- that allows us to anticipate the joy that will come both from their gift and from their recognition that someone really sees and appreciates what is essential about them, that they are visible to another's understanding mind and soul. Even when we can't find that perfect gift, we still take joy in giving a little something because of what parents, siblings, children, relatives or friends mean to us. So as you sit around handing them even just a token tie or box of chocolates, think of what they mean to you and why you're giving them the gift. Think of what they've meant to you in recent weeks, months, years or all your life. Or better still, tell them. Both giving and getting are great. But the gift is not just in the box given or received but in the hearts and minds of givers and receivers as an affirmation of the persons they value. Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center and its Atlas Society, which celebrates human achievement.

Marsha and John Enright do hold events in the Chicago area. Here's a website: http://www.newintellectualforum.com/ I'm told the last meeting, which is not listed, had Michelle Fram-Cohen discussing aesthetics or something of the sort, and received mixed reviews. But just the chance to talk to John and Marsha is a pleasure in any case!

Kat -- Glad you noticed the changes even before we sent out the email announcement and that you like them! That's four new or redesigned Objectivist websites in the past 10 days. At this rate we'll soon dominate the world wide web!

Hi Kat and MSK! Congrats on your new website; three Objectivism sites in three days. Wow! Soon we'll dominate cyberspace. Kat, good to see you on your visit to D.C. recently. Feel free both -- both of you -- to see us if you get to D.C. Regards, Ed Hudgins