You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Music’ tag.
Arvo Pärt – Spiegel im Spiegel
The title translates as “Mirror in the Mirror.” It is a simple phrase, but a strange one. Not a mirror reflecting an object, but a mirror reflecting another mirror: an image repeating inward, becoming quieter and more infinite the longer you look.
Arvo Pärt is an Estonian composer, born in 1935, and one of the most performed living composers in the world. His early work moved through modernist and serialist techniques, but after a long creative crisis he turned toward something much more austere: sacred music, chant, silence, and what he called tintinnabuli, from the Latin word for little bells.
That matters here.
Spiegel im Spiegel, written in 1978 shortly before Pärt left Soviet Estonia, is almost absurdly simple on paper. A piano plays steady broken chords. A solo instrument — often violin or cello — moves step by step through a slow, rising and falling melody. There is no dramatic eruption. No technical fireworks. No grand Romantic struggle. The piece just breathes.
And somehow it devastates.
Part of its power comes from restraint. The music refuses to manipulate you in the usual ways. It does not chase emotion. It waits. The piano gives you a pulse, almost like a clock or a heartbeat, while the melody moves with the patience of someone carrying grief carefully because dropping it would make too much noise.
That is why the piece hits so hard. It creates space around feeling instead of explaining it. The repetitions are not boring; they are devotional. Each return feels slightly changed because we are slightly changed. The music is minimal, yes, but not empty. It is sparse in the way a winter field is sparse: nothing wasted, nothing hidden, and somehow more present because of what has been removed.
Spiegel im Spiegel is often used in films, memorials, and moments of quiet reckoning, which makes sense. It sounds like stillness after language has failed.
Or, more simply: a mirror facing a mirror, and somewhere in that infinite corridor, a human heart trying to steady itself.
I’m an atheist. I do not believe in God, heaven, or some higher intelligence waiting behind the curtain of the universe.
Sometimes that feels like clarity. Sometimes it feels like standing unsheltered in the cold.
Cosmically speaking, we are clinging to an infinitesimal rock circling an ordinary star, drifting through a universe so vast and indifferent that its scale threatens to mock every human urgency. The things that consume us here—war, ideology, political decline, cultural mania, the fate of nations—loom enormous at ground level, yet from any larger vantage they begin to look terribly small, if not absurd.
If you stay in that frame too long, the philosophers are probably right: the line tends toward absurdism, or else toward nihilism. Once the biological imperatives are stripped bare—survive, reproduce, persist—you begin to ask what, exactly, remains, and the answers do not come easily.
Loss is what makes that question hurt.
It is one thing to reject religion in the abstract. It is another to think about the people and creatures you have loved and realize that, if you are right, they are simply gone.
I would love to be wrong about that. I would love there to be a place where what was lost was not really lost, only deferred; a place where I could see again those who were dear to me, where death turned out not to be final after all, where I could hold my cat Fiona again and feel her nose under the covers at bedtime because she had decided, as she often did, that sleep ought to be a shared enterprise. I would love to curl up with her again, give her the scritches she liked, and feel that small, warm, living certainty settle in beside me.
I would fucking love that.
But wanting something to be true does not make it so. Memory is what I have, and memory is not a permanent possession. It erodes. The edges soften. Details lose their fidelity. What once felt immediate recedes, and even love, in that sense, is left to contend with time’s slow vandalism.
So yes, I understand why human beings reached for religion.
A creature capable of love, foresight, memory, and self-consciousness is also capable of a particular kind of suffering. We do not merely lose what we love. We know in advance that we will lose it. We know we will die. We know those we cherish will die. It is not surprising that human beings built systems that promised permanence, reunion, justice, and meaning. Those promises are not arbitrary. They answer real pressures and speak to real wounds.
I do not believe those answers are true.
But I understand the need they answer, and I would be lying if I said I felt no pull from them myself. The appeal is obvious. To be told that love is not finally defeated, that separation is temporary, that the dead are not wholly gone, that all this grief is folded into some larger redeeming order—of course that is appealing. It is appealing because the alternative is so stark.
And yet I cannot make myself believe by force of will. I cannot call a thing true because I find it comforting. That leaves me where many unbelievers eventually find themselves: without eternity, without cosmic reassurance, and still very much in need of something that can be lived on.
When you cannot believe in eternity, you learn to survive on smaller mercies.
You remember what you can, even as memory fades. You invest in people while they are still here. You try to be useful. You try to make or sustain something that matters, however locally, however briefly. You accept that human meaning may not be ultimate and yet refuse, all the same, to treat it as nothing.
For me, a great deal of that has taken the form of music.
I’m a choir junkie. At one point I was singing in five different choirs. I have winnowed it down to four—still more than most people would consider sane—but singing remains one of the few things in life that feels unquestionably real to me. It demands breath, attention, discipline, listening, patience, and a willingness to stop treating your own moods as the center of the universe. You stand among other people and, together, make something that did not exist before. Then, almost as soon as it arrives, it vanishes.
That impermanence is part of the point. Music does not solve death. It does not restore the lost or promise reunion. It offers no metaphysical guarantee at all. What it can do, at its best, is create a moment of such concentrated beauty, order, and shared presence that the void is not answered so much as held at bay. For a little while, meaning is not argued into existence but felt.
The conductor John Eliot Gardiner, writing about Bach, titled his book Music in the Castle of Heaven. I cannot follow him all the way there. I do not believe there is a heaven waiting above or behind the world. But I know the feeling he is trying to name. I know what it is to stand inside a musical moment and feel that another human being, centuries ago, summoned something out of silence that still reaches into the present and gathers us up.
That is heaven enough on earth for me: not eternal life, not divine certainty, but the brief and radiant fact of human beings making something beautiful together in the face of darkness.
I am here at ground level, wanting only to lay a few bricks at the base—to help build, preserve, and share that fleeting experience with others. It is a small pool of light against the void.
And yes, it is small. It does not answer every question. It does not heal every wound. It certainly does not raise the dead. Fiona is still gone. The people we lose do not walk back through the door because a choir sings well enough. The universe does not owe us meaning, and music does not change that. Still, there are moments when a phrase resolves, a harmony opens, or a line of Bach lands with such strange and lucid rightness that one feels, however briefly, less abandoned inside things.
That is not eternity. But it is not nothing.
I criticize religion because it makes unfalsifiable claims about the structure of reality, and I do not think those claims become more credible simply because they are consoling. But my criticism does not cancel the deeper recognition beneath it: religion is trying to answer a question that does not disappear when the answer is rejected.
What do you do with loss?
What do you do with love that has nowhere left to go?
What do you do with the knowledge that everything you build, and everyone you care about, will eventually end?
Memory. Music. Friendship. Work. Service. The quiet dignity of being of some use to other people. The temporary grace of being known, and of knowing others, before the light goes out.
They are not eternity.
And sometimes, for mortal creatures like us, that has to be enough.
Mozart’s Requiem is amazing. This is a dramatization of one of the movements being composed.
“ Mozart’s Requiem is one of the most well-known musical compositions in the world, and Confutatis is a very good example of much of the musical technique that Mozart used that made him and many other musicians so successful. We are in 1791, and Mozart has been seriously ill for over a year. Since he believes he has been poisoned with Aqua Tofana (a very slow poison) and thus sensing his end, he decided to compose his own Requiem.“
Verdi and his day of wrath in your face.
Throughout the work, Verdi uses vigorous rhythms, sublime melodies, and dramatic contrasts—much as he did in his operas—to express the powerful emotions engendered by the text. The terrifying (and instantly recognizable) Dies irae that introduces the traditional sequence of the Latin funeral rite is repeated throughout. Trumpets surround the stage to produce a call to judgement in the Tuba mirum, and the almost oppressive atmosphere of the Rex tremendae creates a sense of unworthiness before the King of Tremendous Majesty. Yet the well-known tenor solo Ingemisco radiates hope for the sinner who asks for the Lord’s mercy.
The Sanctus (a complicated eight-part fugue scored for double chorus) begins with a brassy fanfare to announce him “who comes in the name of the Lord”. Finally the Libera me, the oldest music by Verdi in the Requiem, interrupts. Here the soprano cries out, begging, “Deliver me, Lord, from eternal death … when you will come to judge the world by fire.”
When the Requiem was composed, female singers were not permitted to perform in Catholic Church rituals (such as a requiem mass).[15] However, from the beginning Verdi intended to use female singers in the work. In his open letter proposing the Requiem project (when it was still conceived as a multi-author Requiem for Rossini), Verdi wrote: “If I were in the good graces of the Holy Father—Pope Pius IX—I would beg him to permit—if only for this one time—that women take part in the performance of this music; but since I am not, it will fall to someone else better suited to obtain this decree.”[16] In the event, when Verdi composed the Requiem alone, two of the four soloists were sopranos, and the chorus included female voices. This may have slowed the work’s acceptance in Italy.[15]
At the time of its premiere, the Requiem was criticized by some as being too operatic in style for the religious subject matter.[15] According to Gundula Kreuzer, “Most critics did perceive a schism between the religious text (with all its musical implications) and Verdi’s setting.” Some viewed it negatively as “an opera in ecclesiastical robes,” or alternatively, as a religious work, but one in “dubious musical costume.” While the majority of critics agreed that the music was “dramatic,” some felt that such treatment of the text was appropriate, or at least permissible.[15] As to the music qua music, the critical consensus agreed that the work displayed “fluent invention, beautiful sound effects and charming vocal writing.” Critics were divided between praise and condemnation with respect to Verdi’s willingness to break standard compositional rules for musical effect, such as his use of consecutive fifths.[15]
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…