My cultish love for Ange Postecoglou

 

Normally I am only a follower of Adelaide United and the Socceroos. However, this year has finally given me a reason to support an English Premier League side which is Tottenham Hotspur predominantly due to the presence of Ange Postecoglou. It is great to see Tottenham have such a good start to the season and although there have been recent struggles due to the injury crisis of the Chelsea game I am sure it will be viewed as the 3-0 lost to Melbourne Victory moment. The lost that cement Ange style of play and Ange leadership of the club.

 

The first time I saw Ange Postecoglou was on SBS during the TV show The World Game and saw him self-destructing on live TV during his infamous interview with Craig Foster after failing to qualify Australia for the U-17 and U-20 World Cup which led him be unemployable in Australian professional football. My main impression was that Craig Foster was behaving unprofessionally, but Ange lost his cool. I can’t imagine at the time that he will become my all-time favourite Football manager.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWGNPFI-MtE

 

The first time I began to appreciate Ange Postecoglou as a manager was watching my side Adelaide United play Brisbane Roar on 6 November 2010. Adelaide United were a decent side that season and finished 3rd in the ladder. However, Brisbane Roar led by Ange Postecoglou made my team look like a joke dominating the match 4-0 with only 10 players. It was the best football I have ever seen an Australian side play where I was witnessing attacking Tika taka possession-based football. When we were 1-0 down Reinaldo received a red card which gave me hope that Adelaide United could come back from the game but instead of that, Brisbane Roar played better and continued to attack without any fear of conceding a goal and scored 3 more goals to demolish our side. When Tottenham was down to 10 men against Luton, I had absolute confidence that Tottenham would still win the match. Due to the brilliant style of football, I started watching Brisbane Roar play in conjunction with Adelaide United and they became my second team. This was the start of my joining the cult of Ange Postecoglou which was finalised when Australia won the 2015 Asian Cup.

 

Ange Postecoglou has now developed a devoted cult-like following among Australian football supporters. It's not just because he is a successful Australian manager or the first Australian to coach in the EPL. Graham Arnold, Patrick Kisnorbo, or Kevin Muscat would not inspire a similar following. Ange Postecoglou is not just a manager but also a symbol and representation of the hopes and dreams of Australian football fans. He embodies our dream that one day, Australian football will reach its potential, win the World Cup, and dominate the sporting landscape instead of AFL or Rugby Code.

The legendary Australian football figure Johnny Warren had the famous quote, 'I'm sick of us saying, 'When are we going to qualify for the World Cup?' When are we going to win the World Cup?' which captures the frustration and dreams of football fans in Australia. However, this was an expression from a retired player who was now a pundit. Ange Postecoglou is the first Australian manager with any degree of success who represents the ambition, dreams, and, unfortunately, the frustration of that quote. He has tried to fulfil Johnny Warren's dream.

 

To set the cultural context of the Brisbane Roar's success, there is a nationwide inferiority complex regarding Australian football. Australia doesn't win by dominating the game and playing attacking passing football. Australians win with fighting spirit and heart, but not with skill. Beautiful football is what we watch overseas at 4 a.m., not in Australia. Australian football is simply not skilful enough to play like Barcelona. The Golden Generations made some inroads in that belief, it was largely the prevailing belief among Australian football fans.

 

Ange Postecoglou's philosophy, which he maintained throughout his career, is that to be the best team in the world, you must play like the best team in the world. He would show footage of peak Barcelona dismantling Real Madrid 5-0 and tell the Brisbane Roar players that this is the standard he expects. If the team failed and lost playing that style, then the players could learn how to improve to become the best. Ange learns as the manager how to improve the team through recruitment, and later with the Socceroos, he learned how the nation has to improve to develop players to become the best in the world.

 

Ange Postecoglou was considered, quite frankly, naive and insane to challenge the cultural inferiority complex of Australia that Australian players aren't good enough and this showed that in his first season, he finished second bottom and he received significant resistance within the club and criticism from the public. However, he was able to win over the players and prove the critics wrong by becoming the greatest A-League team in history. The quickness of his success in implementing the style at Tottenham is not a surprise to me because it is easier to implement an attacking football style in the elite end of the game compared to the culturally entrenched barriers, he faced with Brisbane Roar. This is what people overlook when dismissing his CV based on the league he is in. While it’s not easier to win the A-League compared to EPL. It is harder getting an A-League side to play like peak Barcelona and win compared to coaching an elite well-resource EPL team. It is of note that whenever he "steps up" in league quality, the time it takes to implement his style becomes shorter. 

 

When he coached the Socceroos initially, he felt that he was part of a movement to reinvent the way Australia plays the game of football and to reach the goal of winning the World Cup by playing like World Cup champions. If he didn't succeed in that goal during his coaching career, at the very least, he would create the framework that the Australian national team can play in that World Cup-winning style. His success would lead to the wider football community in Australia developing players who would thrive in that style so that future generations could win the World Cup.

 

Now the narrative among Ange Postecoglou fans was at the first sign of poor results, there were calls from critics, fans, and board members to play more 'pragmatically,' and he realized he wasn't in a movement but on a personal crusade, which he wasn't interested in and was taking a toll on him. He completed his job of qualifying for the World Cup and then resigned. His replacement by a pragmatic, defensive manager in Bert van Marwijk from the FFA essentially represented the death of Ange Postecoglou and Johnny Warren's dream for Australian football. The intention shifted from developing a framework to win the tournament to merely being competitive in it. Ange Postecoglou became a martyr of Australia’s hope and dream to become a dominant football nation.

 

Although there is truth to that narrative it does obscure the reality that performance had deteriorated towards the latter stint of his coaching period with the Socceroos. The team struggled to adapt to him changing his system middle of the campaign and part of the deterioration of the performance is due to the pragmatism of him having a double pivot of Jedinak/Milligan (essentially two defensive players) and benching the Asian Cup best player Luongo resulting in Australia dominating possession but lacking cutting edge. However, the fact that this narrative persisted represents Ange’s strength in creating a narrative and myth greater than himself. Ange has explicitly stated that it is not enough to win as everyone wants to win. That special team have to play for something bigger than just winning.

So, he creates a narrative that the team is not just aiming to win but to revolutionise the way Australia play football and that one day Australia can not just beat the best team in the world but outplay them. This inspires the fans to accept this narrative and create a myth and legend out of Ange as he is not just a manager but a person who represents the "something bigger” principles which at times can obscure the truth and cover up his flaws. This helps inspire the team but helps relieve pressure and protects himself as well.

 

So, what now for the true believers of football in Australia now that Ange is gone and there is some pessimism regarding professional football in Australia due to the struggle of the A-League and that his dream seems so distant. Ange Postecoglou may have failed to 100% complete his dream, but if he succeeds in the EPL and becomes one of the greatest managers in the world, perhaps this will inspire future Australian coaches to complete his dream. This is why Ange Postecoglou isn't just a manager for Australian football fans but a myth and legend and why Australian football fans will follow him wherever he goes.

Thoughts on seeing Sparks Live

 

Some thoughts and reflections on Spark’s gig at the Sydney Opera House on 31/10/2023 and their career in general.

https://www.setlist.fm/.../concert-hall-sydney-opera...

- While The Beatles and Paul McCartney may have been my pick of the greatest band and songwriter of all time. Sparks and Ron Mael is my pick for my favourite band and songwriter of all time and the band I am most fanatical about. I am one of many Beatles fans out there however Sparks seems like an exclusive cult that very few people know about. Sparks have 26 albums and I like at least 24 of them and that new releases I will be excited to hear.

- Sparks is one of the groups that I always wanted to see live but was somewhat pessimistic about whether I would ever get the opportunity to see them live and that the only possibility to achieve this wish is to travel overseas to watch them perform live. They may exist as a cult band in the UK due to a few hits from Kimono My House and No. 1 In Heaven. They have some cult presence in the United States due to their appearance on Saturday Night Live and their duet with Jane Wiedlin. However, most of their albums and singles don’t even chart here in Australia. Their biggest hit “This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us" was a number 2 hit single in the UK but only charted 69 here and would be an obscure song here. Essentially Sparks presence in Australia is essentially “When I’m With You” which surprisingly charted 17 and noted Russell Mael's reference during the gig that this was a hit here and the rest of the career is obscurity. Sparks is a band that the only people who know they exist are on the internet. There is one person I met in real life who recognised them, but this was a British migrant who heard their songs when growing up in England. I don’t think anyone growing up in Australia would have heard of them and I can’t imagine there is a much business case for them to tour Australia until very recently. I suspect the Spark’s Brother documentary and Annette may have changed things allowing them to tour here. So, watching Sparks live is probably the most exciting I have ever been anticipating a concert even more than Paul McCartney.

- I speculate that the venue at Sydney Opera House is one of the main reasons why Sparks even toured Australia. Russell Mael came here as a tourist and marvelled at the venue. Mentioned that Mael’s brother then dreamt about playing at the venue. It was repeated throughout the concert the sense of awe and disbelief of playing inside such a famed venue and couldn’t resist an opportunity to come here. This brought me back to “How Do I Get to Carnegie Hall?” despite all the time they “practice, man, practice” success eluded them as represented by "All of this I did for you, Still, there is no sign of you". The protagonist of that song (and Sparks ) was unsuccessful in playing at Carnegie Hall, Sparks was unsuccessful in reaching fame and stardom however their “practice, man, practice” got them to reach the Sydney Opera House and I sense that this was very much meaningful achievement and vindication of them persisting in their music career despite their struggles. They were just as (or even more) excited to perform there as I was in watching them. I guess as a local Australian, I never thought of the Sydney Opera House as anything special and took it for granted.

- Setlist is quite surprising in what they didn’t play. Live favourites that were present in numerous bootlegs and official releases were not performed on this tour. There was no “Never Turn Your Back On Mother Earth”, “Amateur Hour, “Suburban Homeboy”, “The Rhythm Thief”, “Dick Around, “At Home, At Work, At Play”. There was nothing from “Indiscreet” and surprisingly less emphasis on their 70’s period. They play a maximum of 1 song per album outside their new album in which they are touring “This Girl Is Crying In Her Latte” with 6 songs and surprisingly “Music That You Can Dance To” with two songs. I think they took the opportunity this tour to play songs that they hadn’t played much from earlier tours. “The Toughest Girl In Town” from Interior Design is a pretty deep cut for them to revive.

- Perhaps it was bad timing the moment that Sparks toured Australia. It was touring one of the 2 albums in their career that I don’t quite get yet. What I like about 00’s era Sparks is that there is superficial repetition that gives the song a hypnotic feel but combined with large-scale variations in arrangement and dynamics that give the song a dramatic arc with an introduction, climax and resolution. In the more recent Sparks album, I do feel there was repetition but although there can be subtle arrangement variation, not to the same degree as the 00’s albums which makes the song somewhat monotonous in feel and there isn’t the same degree of melodicism of the 70’s work to compensate. However, I significantly enjoyed the performances in the live setting compared to the studio release. They pick the better songs in the album to perform live and one of the benefits of hearing any modern album from any band live is that you can hear the song perform without modern mastering practices of loudness wars and removing dynamic range from music (noted judging from the dynamic range database their latest album had the least dynamic range of their career). Hearing it live without the compression mastering, these ‘subtle arrangement” change throughout the songs sounds a hell of a lot more dramatic in the live context compared to the studio version. It was significantly more interesting to listen to and I surprisingly enjoyed the performances of songs from the album that I didn’t care much for before the concert.

- This is probably one of the best concerts I have attended in terms of performance quality (up there with Radiohead and Crowded House). Paul McCartney’s concert evoked a feeling of “Wow, isn’t it great that this 81-year-old legend is still performing live”. Yeah, Paul McCartney's voice sounds aged but it’s cruel to judge him from that. Sparks evoked feelings of “wow, these men in the 70’s are performing with the same level as their 20 yo self”. The Mael brothers look 20 years younger than their actual age. Russell Mael (age 75) is singing somewhat complex vocal melodies line with a heavy falsetto and hitting every note with pitch-perfect accuracy while being energetic on stage and jumping around. Russell Mael can still hit the “I Ain’t going to leave” outro of “This Town Ain’t Big Enough For The Both Of Us”. I think if you listen to a bootleg recording from 2023 and compare it to the 1970s bootleg, there isn’t particularly any significant deterioration in vocal performance.

- Reading the biography of Sparks it seems like the Mael brothers were people who liked both rock music and electronic/dance music but were detached observers of the culture of what the music represents (which is part of the reason why I like them so much as it is similar to my outlook). This often is credited as an attitude that allowed them to make satirical music about both rock and dance music. However, what’s often overlooked is that this also allowed them to avoid the pitfalls of the decadence of what each genre represents and perhaps explain their career longevity. From what I gather, in the 70’s the rest of the band goes out and parties and gets drunk after a gig while the Mael Brothers go home and rest. Both the Mael brothers have reputations as health and gym freaks who treat their bodies like the temple. Most rock and rollers peaked in their 20’s but then when you watch them perform in their later years you will see their vocals affected by aging and likely the effects of substance misuse. Even the milder rock and roll star like Paul McCartney likely had his voice aged by chronic cannabis use.

- One of the highlights was the performance of the title track “Music That You Can Dance To” which I was excited to hear encapsulate this copying the form but maintaining the outside observer perspective described earlier. It can be enjoyed as a straight-ahead dance song and I note that this was the moment in the gig that caused the entire audience to stand up from previously sitting down on the seat and they remained standing and dancing for the rest of the concert (including myself). However, I have always interpreted that song as an annoying person aggressively trying to aggravate someone who is not interested in dancing and prefers to listen to symphony or jazz to get up and dance causing them to scream out in agony (as per the female backing vocalist)

- Some nit-pick. I’m not entirely impressed with them playing Shopping Mall Of Love. I get that it has a functional role in this concert that this is one of the few songs where Ron Mael is the “lead vocalist” and hence gives him a moment to shine and for the crowd to cheer for him but it is one of the weakest songs of their career. It would have been ok if they reworked the song as I think there is potential in the chorus to be a sort of “The Calm Before The Opera” style arrangement, however, spoken words over a minimal arrangement that doesn’t change throughout the song are lazy and there wasn’t any effort to fix the song. If you want Ron Mael a moment to shine just get him to do his famous dance more often or do the “Ron Speaks” version of Suburban Homeboy. I do also wish they performed the “heavenly” part 1 of The Number One Song In Heaven rather than skipping straight to part 2. That song is part of Spark’s detached observer of dance music and its culture but instead of satirical mocking, it states that genre like dance music/disco was capable of expressing transcendence and being a conduit of divine inspiration as any other “more serious” genres of music and Part 1 is a crucial part of that. It’s the contrast between the two parts that make the song great and Part 1 shouldn’t be reduced to a 30-second intro.

- The best song of the night is Beaver O’Lindy. The Mael/Mankey brothers era of the group remains my favourite era of their illustrious career. In that era they were at their peaks as a melodist and I think they were at Lennon/McCartney, the arrangement was interesting with this song as a multipart song with three different contrasting sections with different dynamics and it didn’t always rely on Ron Mael’s keyboard doubling the vocals which became typical of his career (noting that the bass is the most prominent instrument of the song)

Thoughts on seeing Paul McCartney Live

 Saw Paul McCartney probably the greatest songwriter of the rock era. It’s one of the bucket lists of artists I wanted to see in my lifetime and with the artist at his age, you’ll never know if there will be another opportunity to see him play live.
https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/paul-mccartney/2023/allianz-stadium-sydney-australia-63a01a5b.html
Various thoughts of the gig
- Setlist is a fair mixture of The Beatles's career and his solo career (around 50:50) and gives a good cross-section of his career including his underrated 2000/2010 era.
- There was an extremely deep cut Beatles-related song that was played throughout the tour “In Spite of All the Danger” which was The Quarrymen demo only found in The Beatles Anthology Volume 1. It was quite ballsy of him taking the backing vocals and setting up a singalong moment with the audience (ala Hey Jude) considering most people in the audience wouldn’t have recognised the song.
- It was fun hearing him perform songs where the other Beatles take the lead vocals in the studio version. I knew that Paul McCartney liked to sing George Harrison’s Something Live due to its presence in his earlier live albums (It was present in both Back In The US and Good Evening New York City). It was a huge surprise hearing him sing “Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite!” which was a track where Lennon took lead vocals in the studio album. 
- Looking at setlist.fm, he pretty much played the same setlist for the entirety of the Australian tour but surprisingly there was some change in the setlist likely due to him doing two concerts in Sydney to create some variation for people who attended both concerts. The presence of Queenie Eye, Coming Up and A Hard Day’s Night was a welcome surprise.
- “Here Today” was probably the best performance by Paul McCartney that night as there is added value of it being performed live at this age compared to just listening to a studio performance. This is because, for the majority of the gig, it was elderly men playing young people’s music. However, this tribute to John Lennon’s death is far more touching coming from an 82 yo man with an aged voice. It created an atmosphere of a person towards the end of his life reflecting on people who have passed away. His introductory speech talking about the male stoic culture that prevented him from ever expressing his true feelings when John was alive and he was able to express the emotions that come from the wisdom of age.
- My favourite moment is “Dance Tonight” from Memory Almost Full (Probably my favourite solo album) I suspect I was the most excited person in the stadium regarding him playing it
It- Great to see Lennon/McCartney duet with Lennon on the big screen during “I Got A Feeling”. It is noted that Peter Jackson who directed the Get Back documentary was present in the audience and was credited with this idea.
- There was a recognition from McCartney that the audience was predominantly there for The Beatles material. He stated that when The Beatle's songs were being played he saw phone lights and people recording and when his late career solo songs there was darkness producing a laugh from the audience. He then stated that he would still play his more recent song regardless leading to the performance of “Queenie Eye”
- The loud pyrotechnics in “Live And Let Die” with loud explosion/bang was well done and McCartney produced a feign heart attack
- I’m reminded of Lennon’s lyrics of “I seen religion from Jesus to Paul” during the performance of Hey Jude where it’s essentially become Paul McCartney’s hymn. Having the entire crowd singing the “na na na” section became almost a spiritual experience being there in person that can’t be reflected in any bootleg or live recordings.

Robert Schumann’s mental illness through the lens of three composition

(Domschke 2010) from http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/196/4/325

Robert Schumann was a romantic era composer who most likely had bipolar affective disorder and subsequently developed neurosyphilis psychosis. As shown by the above genogram with the arrow pointing at Robert Schumann, he had significant family history of mental health disorder. This post will have a look at his mental illness through the lens of three composition. Two by Robert Schumann himself and one from his friend Johannes Brahms.

Robert Schumann - Carnaval

Robert Schumann was famous for writing music portraits of other people. He would meet people and then composed music based on his interpretation of their personalities. Carnaval is a piano work where most of the movements are portraits of people he knew. For example Movement 13 Estrella (13:59) was a portrait of his then fiancée Ernestine von Fricken and Movement 11: Chiarina (11:52 mark) was a portrait of Clara Wieck which Schumann ended up ending his engagement with Fricken and marrying Clara. Apparently the music already hinted that he was more interested in Clara (although to be honest I don't quite hear it). 

However the most interesting movement from a psychiatric point of view is Eusebius (Movement 5 - 5:57) and Florestan (Movement 6 - 6:55). Robert Schumann gave names to two sides of his personality. Florestan which is the embodiment of Schumann's passionate, volatile side and Eusebius his dreamy, melancholic, introspective side. Florestan was inspired by the masculine bold and assertive hero of Beethoven’s opera Fidelio and Eusebius was a 4th Century Catholic priest who was a historian documenting the persecution of Christian and who he was subsequently persecuted and killed as well. 

He was famous as a music critic at the time to write music reviews where he would sign off his reviews with either Florestan or Eusebius depending on his current mental state at the time. One review of Frédéric Chopin’s Variations on “Là ci darem la mano” by Mozart where he structured it as a conversation between himself and the two personalities. 

Robert Schumann identified his melancholic and exaltated side of his personality to these two characters and they seemed to represent his manic and depressive phase of his bipolar affective disorder.

Robert Schumann developed depression around 1833 where his brother Julius died of tuberculosis, his sister sister in law Rosalie died of malaria and Robert Schumann contracted malaria himself. 

He fell in deep depression and anxiety and was quoted in writing “During the night of Rosalie’s death, the most terrifying thought a person can ever have suddenly occurred to me. The most terrible thought heaven can punish you with, that of losing my mind. It overwhelmed me so violently that I was inconsolable, I could not guaranteed that under that circumstances I would not raised my hand against my own life.”

His depression was severe enough to be in near catatonic state where he was kept in the bed for nearly a week where it was described ‘he resembled a statue” which occurred during his tour to Russia with his wife Clara in 1844

In between his bouts of depression he would have phases of ‘exaltation’ where he would led to impulsive behaviours such as hyper sexuality (where he’ll sleep with prostitute and ended up contracting syphilis that would ended up killing him), over-practicing on the piano (where he ended up injuring his right hand destroying his career as a pianist), poor sleep but also periods of composition binge where he would compose non-stop for several days. 

The Eusebius and Florestan movements are musical portraits of his depressive and manic side of his personality.

Robert Schumann - Geistervariationen

Although Robert Schumann remained functional throughout his life. Around 1850 (40 years old) his mental state deteriorated and he became increasingly psychotic. He most likely contracted syphilis from sex with a prostitute as a teenager that remain latent throughout most of his life and his marriage but became active during this time. He started having auditory hallucination of music where he described as “very strong and painful aural disturbances.”. Initially the auditory hallucination were restricted to a single note where Schumann was quoted in saying ‘I can’t read anymore. I keep hearing the note ‘A’”. Eventually the hallucination became full fledged themes of music that were attributed to angels and ghost of both Felix Mendelssohn and Franz Schubert.  He described the themes he heard as “Magnificent music, with instruments of splendid resonance, the like of which has never been heard on earth before”. He composed these Geistervariationens or  "Ghost Variations" of the theme he heard via his auditory hallucination.

Johannes Brahms - Piano Concerto No. 1 

Towards the end of his life, the auditory hallucination that were initially angelic in nature, became demonish in nature. He believed the variation themes to be turn into devils and took the form of hyenas and tigers. He started having paranoid delusions of being surrounded by evil spirits. He developed delusions of guilt where he was obsessing that he was a criminal and his destine to go to hell and would repeatedly read the bible in hope for salvation. He started having fears that he may harm his wife and children likely due to command hallucination. Robert Schumann was so distressed by these hallucination that he didn't feel safe around his family and believed that he was a danger to his family.

So Robert believed that he must end his life to ensure his family would be safe from him. He went to the Rhine River bridge and jumped off with the intent for suicide (his elder sister Emilie Schumann who most likely have depression or catatonic schizophrenia committed suicide by drowning at the same area earlier in his life). 

However he was rescued by a passing fisherman and he lived the rest of his life in a mental asylum where he died officially from suicide via starvation. Although in reality it wasn't suicide because he wanted to live but refused to eat due to paranoid delusions of the food he was given to be poison. He died from pneumonia after he become severely deconditioned due to his malnutrition brought on by his paranoid delusions.

Prior to his suicide attempt, Johannes Brahms became friends of Robert Schumann and Clara Schumann during his brief period of lucidity during the end of his life and also formed the most famous love triangle in classical music history. He played his Piano Sonata No. 1 and Robert Schumann briefly went back from retirement of being a music critic and wrote an article promoting Brahms to be the next Beethoven and saviour of German music. After Robert Schumann attempted suicide and admission to mental asylum, Johannes Brahms than lived with Clara Schumann and took care of her and her children and helped out with the finances for many years. There are documented letters from both Clara and Johannes that they admitted they have fallen in love with each other. It is unknown whether he hooked up with Clara during this time but he ended up not pursuing the relationship due to possible guilt of falling in love with his best friends wife while his friend was wasting away in a mental asylum.

Johannes Brahms composed the Piano Concerto No. 1 about Robert Schumann attempted suicide, if you listened to the opening theme by the string instruments, you notice the sudden leap in melody which symbolises Robert Schumann leaps into the Rhine river. This concerto is a representation of his despair for his friend Schumann attempted suicide, his love for Clara Schumann (as represented by the tender 2nd movement) and the ongoing guilt this love caused him to feel. It is one of my all time favourite Piano concertos.

Music (Over)Analysis - Symphony No. 5 by Dmitri Shostakovich, the condemnation of Stalin regime and vindication of Stalin's anti-formalism

While Shostakovich is nowhere near my favourite artist, he's by far has the most interesting story. Shostakovich Great Masters Lecture series by Robert Greenberg should be recommended to even people who have no interest in music in general and would be interesting for anyone just interested in history. I'm going to comment on Shostakovich assuming that the "Testimony" biography is 100% accurate (this is disputed). Robert Greenberg believes it was accurate and the Great Masters series is reliant on it's accuracy and apparently the book Shostakovich Reconsidered defended the attacks on it's credibility.Shostakovich Symphony No. 5 is probably the most interesting background story behind a composition in the history of western music.

The background was that Shostakovich who had the reputation as the leading and most talented Russian-based composer in music at that current time. However this all changed when Shostakovich written the opera "Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District". Although that opera was a massive hit in Russia and internationally. One day Josef Stalin personally attended the opera and everything changed that day. Josef Stalin was offended by the sexual explicitness of the opera as well as the modernist dissonance characteristic of the opera that was considered pandering to the bourgeois. The term that was used in denouncing modernist music that doesn't glorify the state was called "formalist" music. Josef Stalin and his officials left the theatre after the first act and was quoted as calling the opera "that degenerate music!" 

Two days later on January 28, 1936, apparently Josef Stalin himself wrote an editorial called "Muddle instead of Music" denouncing the opera and giving an undisguised threat to Shostakovich himself. This is a key quote from the editorial

"From the first minute, the listener is shocked by deliberate dissonance, by a confused stream of sound. Snatches of melody, the beginnings of a musical phrase, are drowned, emerge again, and disappear in a grinding and squealing roar. To follow this "music" is most difficult; to remember it, impossible.

Thus it goes, practically throughout the entire opera. The singing on the stage is replaced by shrieks. If the composer chances to come upon the path of a clear and simple melody, he throws himself back into a wilderness of musical chaos - in places becoming cacophony. The expression which the listener expects is supplanted by wild rhythm. Passion is here supposed to be expressed by noise. All this is not due to lack of talent, or lack of ability to depict strong and simple emotions in music. Here is music turned deliberately inside out in order that nothing will be reminiscent of classical opera, or have anything in common with symphonic music or with simple and popular musical language accessible to all. This music is built on the basis of rejecting opera - the same basis on which "Leftist" Art rejects in the theatre simplicity, realism, clarity of image, and the unaffected spoken word - which carries into the theatre and into music the most negative features of "Meyerholdism" infinitely multiplied. Here we have "leftist" confusion instead of natural human music. The power of good music to infect the masses has been sacrificed to a petty-bourgeois, "formalist" attempt to create originality through cheap clowning. It is a game of clever ingenuity that may end very badly."

After that article was published, Shostakovich became an "enemy of the people" and the public stopped playing his work. the performance of Symphony No. 4 was cancelled due to it's "formalist' nature. Shostakovich fully believed that he would be purged, however that purged never happen. The Russian state believed that Shostakovich could be an asset if he was rehabilitated from his "formalist mistakes". 

So Shostakovich went on composing fifth symphony that would either rehabilitate him or led him being purged. His life was actually in stake with this composition. He was instructed that the composition of music should be accessible to the masses and in the future, the submission of any proposed project was screened by the committee. Immediately before the premier, Shostakovich 5th symphony was performed to party select who would screen it for ideological suitability. Publicly Shostakovich stated that the composition was "a Soviet artist’s creative response to justified criticism." and that the work was about "A lengthy spiritual battle, crowned by victory". 

However no matter how much Shostakovich said publicly that this was about his personal rehabilitation from the formalist composer to the person who is aligned with the doctrine of the state, the audience understood what the piece was about which was about the horror of the "great purges" by Stalin and for the audience who experienced friends and family being purged, emotionally relate to this work and afterwards gave him a standing ovation for hours. Shostakovich seemingly did the impossible, he rehabilitated himself to the state while at the same time tapping into the grief and anger of the public condemning the regime. This is essentially the subversive, underdog version of George Orwell "doublespeak". Instead of doublespeak as a way to subjugate the population, it's doublespeak to rebel against authority.

In fact I have to say it's a miracle that Shostakovich got away with the Symphony No. 5. If I was a party hack scrutinising his work for ideology suitability, I would have easily recognised that this was an attack on Stalin regime and had him executed. The first time I listened to this symphony with absolutely zero background reading, at no point did I felt this was celebratory glorification music but instead it struck me as essentially as an incredibly disturbing dark music.. Shostakovich must have been a brilliant bullshit artist for him to convinced the party hacks this was his rehabilitation.

The first movement is essentially disturbing horror music of people hiding from a terrifying danger and in the development section it morphed into a violent terrifying marched that seems like a violent caricature of the soviet military music and the music ended in a sombre note. The second movement is like a scherzo (a joke) of a scherzo (which is essentially a joke of the minuet and trio). I mean technically it's a waltz but this time Shostakovich tendency to subvert expectation comes to a fore. Where this seemingly accessible dancing melody becomes off-balanced and gets twisted that feels dissonant. It's a grotesque parody of a dance. The third movement reduced the audience members who were suffering under Stalin rule to tears. When I first read that description, you would think this was some melodramatic "sad" music like "Adagio for Strings" by Barber that tugs on your heart string but instead of this tragic depressing sad music, unexpectedly what we get instead was this horrified shock. The music is quite brilliantly subdued that suits the message of the music. The imagery I get is an aftermath of a massacre seeing dead bodies and be in complete shock and numb unable to process what they saw rather than something really depressing. It's a far more interesting and unexpected slow movement that took me by surprised. 

The 4th movement is one the greatest concert closer I have ever heard. As a first time audience was quoted, it was the sound of "The iron tread of a monstrous power trampling man" and the music depicts a military march but portrayed it with extreme brutality. The military march then fades into quiet despair as people react to the consequences of the violence from organised state violence. The highlight of the last movement was the tense and final build up from the preceding despair via a repetitive ascending stabbing strings that initially sounds violent but resolves in a seemingly celebratory major key. It was perhaps the only thing that could have been perceived to be "optimistic" in the entire symphony and perhaps the reason why Shostakovich was able to lie to the Communist party members that this was a victorious conclusion to a lengthy spiritual battle but considering the incredibly violent and brutal build up to that ending and how the repetitive stabbing like string sounds incredibly brutal still remained when the major transition occurs and how the major key ending seems almost abrupt, I can easily dismissed this happy ending as a red-herring and quite frankly it made a hell of a lot more sense to view the rejoicing to be '"forced" as the major key ending was a result of atrocity and violence as depicted in the previous tension. As stated in Testimony by Shostakovich "The rejoicing is forced, created under threat, as in Boris Godunov. It's as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, "Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing," and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, "Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing."

Symphony No, 5 is a great subversive "doublespeak" composition that makes a mockery of Stalin request to write optimistic music glorifying the state. However as you may notice by the heading, It's my view that despite it's subversive nature, it's as much of a vindication of Stalin's anti-formalism as it is a criticism of Stalin enforcing it.

The fact of the manner is that Symphony No. 5 is one of the most accessible works in Shostakovich career. Shostakovich was forced to tone down his modernistic tendency and create work that is emotionally direct that captures the spirit of the population instead of the bourgeois intellectuals. It's what happen when you meet the audience half-way, tempering your self-expressive values and balancing it with accessibility and the desire for the audience to listened to music that is somewhat pleasurable to listen to. The funny thing is that Shostakovich learned his lesson and exactly addressed what Stalin asked "The power of good music to infect the masses has been sacrificed to a petty-bourgeois, "formalist" attempt to create originality through cheap clowning." Shostakovich wrote music with this symphony that was designed to infect the masses and none of the modernist elements of the composition felt like gratuitous and is completely integrated with the emotions of the music. If Shostakovich didn't have the restriction imposed on him, I wonder whether he could have ever created a work that became a cultural milestone even if the piece had the same message as it could have never touched the hearts of the listeners, it would have never reduced the audience to tears and it would have never brought a standing ovation that last an hour. Sure it was music condemning the Stalin regime but it was music that perversely Stalin right on the fallacy of modernist attitude. Stalin may have been extremely unethical for threatening to purge Shostakovich for writing modernist work but without that restriction his work could have never flourished.

Undertale Theory on the nature of the protagonist (Spoilers)

This post is for people who have actually played this game to completion.

Don't read it if you intend to play it and haven't yet

I have been wracking my brain trying to piece together the Chara/Frisk/player connection and this is my working explanation. Feel free to tell me whether I'm on the right track here.

Most people seem to think that you are playing as Frisk and that Chara aka the first fallen child that you name at the beginning is a separate character. The obvious reasoning is the ending of the pacifist run where Asriel essentially told him that he isn't Chara and that Frisk behaved nothing like Chara. Also in the genocide run Chara became a separate entity that ended up attacking the player.

However, the curve ball is at the end of the pacifist run when you then reload Undertale. Flowey had a heart felt plead begging the player not to reset the world and erase all the achievements (and character development from Flowey/Asriel). he directed this message right at Chara not at Frisk.

Trying to fit this all together in a way that makes sense. I'm concluding that the player you are controlling a synthesis of Frisk soul and Chara's determination and this essay is my rationale.

My view is that after Chara died. His body was brought by Toriel back to ruins and buried in the bed of golden flowers. Chara was essentially a soulless being similar to Flowey his soul merged with Asriel and is presumably destroyed after Asriel died. However similar to the way Asriel lived on due to determination in the body of a flower, Chara inhabit the body of Frisk. However they differ in the source of determination as Asriel remnants was injected with determination but Chara's determination was inherent to his personality. 

If you notice the caskets at the basement of Asgore castle, Chara's soul was red as shown in the casket which was the same colour as Frisk throughout the game

If you notice in the snow-golf game. Each colour of the human soul represents different aspects of humanity and presumably the characters of the previous human

Bravery = Orange. Justice = Yellow. Integrity = Blue. Kindness = Green. Perseverance = Purple. Patience = Light Blue.

As it was established that determination was the source of the power to "save/reload" and Flowey specifically plead to Chara not to used that power. Also the primary used of the save/reload function is to escape death and whenever we die we hear Chara's memory. I'm going to infer that the colour Red represents "Determination" and this determination is from Chara and not Frisk. Frisk who had his own soul but adopted Chara determination (and hence turned his soul red to match Chara) when he fell and landed on the burial site of Chara.

Whenever Frisk died you end up getting flashbacks from Chara memories of Asgore telling him to stay determined that gave Frisk the power to go back in time. Or when Frisk had the temptation to live with Toriel at the ruins and not escape, message came to stay determine from Asgore about how Chara is the future hope between monsters and humans which prevented the player from just giving up the adventure and you get flashbacks from Chara's life with Asriel during the final boss encounter that helped Frisk "save" Asriel. To me it was Chara determination that drove the adventure of Undertale

So what was Chara's determined about? 

Well we know that Chara deliberately consumed buttercup to poison itself so that Chara can merge souls with Asriel to escape the barriers to get 6 more human souls. Depending on your playthrough this can be interpret two ways

1. Chara was a troubled and evil person who hated humanity who poisoned Asgore and laugh about it and left the underground to kill the humans and obtain their souls and become powerful and godlike.
2. Chara was a troubled but ultimately well-meaning person who was willing to sacrifice its own life to allow Asriel to escape the barrier and to bring back six human souls to liberate the monster kingdom. When attacked by humans, Chara wanted to kill them in self-defence. The poisoning of Asgore was a prank gone wrong rather than a deliberate attempt and the laughter was more of a nervous laugher than anything sadistic.

Both are the light side and dark side of Chara's character. However unlike Flowey who was a soulless being, Chara inhabited a being with a soul which was Frisk and hence he had the potential for good and to feel compassion for the characters (this is represented how the players felt compassion to the characters).

In the pacifist playthrough it was Chara's determination to liberate the monster that drove the game. During the final battle when interacting with Toriel's Lost Soul one of the dialogue was "You tell the Lost Soul that you have to go if you're going to free everyone. Something is stirring within her".  This reveals what Frisk actually said to Toriel (we had no way of knowing before the final boss fight with Asriel as Frisk was a silent protagonist) during the section in the ruins when Toriel was spared and Frisk left the ruins. It makes no sense for Frisk to say that as Frisk was a stranger who just fell into the ruins who never met the monster before. However this is consistent with Chara motivation who believed he was the future hope of monsters and humans as shown by the flashback either during death or sleeping in Toriel's house and was determined to exit the ruin and to free the monster kingdom. In a way this was a redemption of Chara's character. In the beginning Chara wanted to kill 6 humans to liberate the monsters but in the pacifist playthrough Chara ended up achieving the goal peacefully without anyone dying. After the pacifist run finish there was one final choice where Chara is place in a similar dilemma to Flowey. Chara can let go of Frisk and essentially rest in peace and essentially leave the mortal coil and let Frisk go or do what Flowey did and reset the world. If the reset option is chose then Chara would mimic Flowey choice as demonstrated by this quote 

"But as I left this mortal coil... I started to feel apprehensive. If you don't have a SOUL, what happens when you...? Something primal started to burn inside me. 'No,' I thought. 'I don't want to die!' ... Then I woke up. Like it was all just a bad dream"

In the genocide playthrough it was Chara hatred of humanity and lust for power that drove Chara's determination. Ultimately the end game of Chara was that it wanted to exit the monster world and destroy humanity. That's the reason why Chara asked the players to reset the game and do a (soulless) pacifist run so it can escape the monster kingdom and kill all the humans. Unlike the pacifist run, the genocide run strengthen Chara's determination as the lust for power is augmented by Frisk behaviour.

The reason why it was revealed the character was controlling was Frisk at the end of the pacifist run and not Chara was because that was the point where Chara's determination has been fulfilled. Asriel was liberated and he decided to break the barrier which liberated the monster. This completely fulfilled Chara's ultimate goal and hence Chara's determination has subsided as Chara achieved its goal. Contrast this to the genocide run where instead of resolving Chara determination we cement his determination by indulging in his anger and hatred and lust for power to an extent where he completely controls Frisk body (as shown by Chara name appearing when looking at the mirror). Once Frisk gets power, Chara becomes more determine for more power and hence reveal itself openly. In the pacifist run liberating Chara is just passively influencing Frisk to lead Frisk to liberate the monsters and to keep Frisk alive.

Now the rebuttal is how do we explain Chara becoming a separate character outside our control in the genocide ending. My view is that is part of the theme of Undertale. When you have the ability to time travel and essentially fix any mistakes you have done and have the ability to shape the world to your vision. A question pops up, is all the things we that we normally consider immoral and unethical such as murder really bad if you can just click your fingers and the consequences disappears? Flowey started to kill for that exact rationale out of curiosity knowing that Flowey was immune to consequences. However, the main theme of the game is that you can't click the fingers and erased the consequences even if you had the ability to time travel. If you were able to maliciously murder people (and to play the genocide run you simply can't argue self-defense for killing Papyrus or attempting to kill monster kid) and to commit genocide you have to irreversibly change your personality to do that. Once you cross the moral event horizon there is no going back and you simply can't go back to being a good person. This is represented in game where Chara became a separate being from the main character. We the player lost control because to kill all those monsters, we permanently lost control of our moral center and there is no going back. Chara determination in acting out his hatred goes beyond our player's control. So the player is Chara but the players determination to commit genocide cause a disconnect between the players and Chara where previously they were interconnected. 

Asriel could have been redeemed as he was soulless when he committed the evil act and we could call to his good side when he accesses to souls and compassion to redeem him. Chara couldn't be redeemed because Chara did all the activities while having access to soul (Frisk) and hence have the capacity to feel compassion. This is represented by how a lot of players felt bad for doing the genocide run and yet still went ahead with it. We had the capacity for compassion but ignored it and killed anyway. Having Chara becoming a separate entity that the player can't control represents that our own dark side once unleashed to do heinous acts can no longer be controlled. So that even if the players decided to do a pacifist run afterwards it all comes to nothing as once you unleashed your own dark side there is no return. There is no choice to be a good person again as need to become a bad person to indiscriminately kill sentient beings. Ultimately this leads to Chara stealing Frisk soul, escaping to the surface and destroying humanity.

So this is my theory on how Frisk, Chara and the players relate. Frisk was the body, Chara was the inherent determination/motivation driving the story and the player was controlling Chara until either Chara fulfilled his goal of liberating monsters or destroyed humanity. 

The Genocide playthrough of Undertale reveals the pitfall of self-insertion (Spoiler)

"At least we're better than those sickos that stand around and WATCH it happen...

Those pathetic people that want to see it, but are too weak to do it themselves.

I bet someone like that's watching right now, aren't they...?" - Flowey

It's interesting that the genocide playthrough take up 1/3 of the game and the story and yet it's an aspect of the story where a quite significant proportions of fans of the game refused to play, take pride in not playing it and even questions the morality, ethics and characters of people who do experience that aspect of the story.

In a way it's a testament to Toby Fox as a storyteller to elicit this kind of reaction. By creating such memorable characters where even random monster people encounter have distinct personality, why would anyone wants to go around killing them? You have to be an amoral psychopath to go through that people will understandably argue.

Also Toby Fox has mastered the integration of interactive elements of video games to the plot of the game. Saving and loading the game isn't just a video game mechanics but an intrinsic part of the story and hence maximise the immersion of having the video gamer self-insert themselves in the protagonist "Frisk "and give players the illusion that you are the protagonist not just a passive observer or an actor playing a role as alot of the video gamey elements that could potentially break the suspension of disbelief is integrated in this universe. Hence Undertale creates the illusion that you are Frisk with the power of determination to moulded the world in your vision. Any negative actions that Frisk does hit home and fills the player with guilt as you are the person creating harm not just a fictional character.

So when the reformed Flowey pleads with Frisk/the player to leave the universe alone and let the true-pacifist happy ending stand instead of resetting the universe and playing the game and erasing the triumphs of all the characters of the game. It's quite understandable that people left the game as it is and not touch the game again and not be a completionist and explore all the stories that could be told in this game. Especially when the motivation of the villain of the game is essentially a completionist who dispassionately seek to discover everything in the world. Why would you want to emulate the villain of the game?

So is that the end of the argument that the "correct" way of playing the game is to just play the game until you get the pacifist ending and then just quit leaving the game installed in the computer but untouched and imagining all the characters living happily ever after?

My answer is no and in fact this aspect reveals how "self-insertion" by the gamers is a limitation of story-telling of video games as a medium. In a way I see video games as players being an actor in a choose-your-own adventure story. You are given some degrees of agency to shape the story like most actors do but ultimately you are following the script of the author/game programmer.

Now I'm not necessarily saying that self-insertion is wrong and in fact it is a strength that gives video game it's unique qualities and in large part it is part of the reason of video game popularity. People self-insert themselves as an idealised heroic version of themselves in fiction and when they finish the story they feel they have shared the accomplishment along with the fictional character. 

Although this is a strength of video game it is also a weakness. It's the reason why video games are singled out in terms of controversy. After all, when people see people "playing" video game characters doing immoral violence, they are not just seeing a character doing violence but seeing the player themselves as an active participant in violence which does scare alot of people.

However, there is an alternative to "self-insertion" and the answer is in the name of the genre of Undertale itself which is "Role Playing". That you aren't playing an idealised version of yourself and playing a character with similar ethical standards as you. You are playing a character that you created with its own personalities, agenda that still makes sense from the universe the author creates.

The question whether people playing the genocide route are amoral psychopath could be rephrased and asked are actors who play villains in movies and not only that but enjoys playing villains in the movies, are they amoral psychopath? Is Heath Ledger a psychopath for playing the joker in Batman? For people who seriously morally object to playing the genocide route of Undertale, you have to ask yourself what makes you different to the moral crusaders like Jack Thompson who believes video games makes people violent because it's interactivity of violent behavior in video games. The inability of people to see the interactivity as anything beyond self-insertion is the reason why video game controversy exists and gamer themselves should absolutely resist this mentality as you are falling in the trapped of people who are essentially anti-video games.

The controversy of people playing the genocide route and people being question about why they want to see well-crafted characters get cruelly killed off now seems absurd if viewed from a "role playing" point of view. As the answer is that it is good storytelling. I mean it's the same reason why people write books, films, TV shows that have well-made characters be killed off. 

The genocide ending and the subsequent soul-less pacifist is great storytelling. Imagine a person with the ability to time travel to an earlier version of themselves and redo events in their lives and even avoid deaths. At first they go and do things to make the world right and to correct their own mistakes to ensure that everyone they care about get their "happy ending". However eventually their own curiosity and boredom with the power where they feel they discovered everything about the world they know within the constraints of morality. They decided to start killing people out of curiosity to see what would happen rationalising that they could always go back in time and reverse their choices. After all, from the perspective of the character, is murder really bad when murder is easily reversible with time travel and you can always undo every consequence of your choice whether it is good or bad. However, a person can't just indiscriminately killing people without affecting themselves permanently. You can't just decide to commit genocide and then just reverse with a click of a finger as no one can make that decision to do these great evils without changing yourself and turning yourself into a villain. This is reflected in-game by having Chara taking control over the body of Frisk and decided to kill Asgore and Flowey and then the rest of the monster universe without any input from the player. Once you made the step to be the villain you can no longer have the morality to reset things and make things right and have no control as a person has to become the devil or "Chara" to make that decision in the first place and that moral centre that you had is no longer in control as you unleashed your own dark side (which is represented in game as Chara). This is shown where even attempts of redemption in doing a pacifist run after a genocide playthrough resulted in the destruction of the world as once you cross the moral event horizon you are no longer in control but your own inner dark side is.

To me that is excellent storytelling and there's a certain poetry to have the protagonist becoming the villain that they tried to stop in the initial "Pacifist" playthrough. Also the genocide playthrough reveals character insight to many characters of the game including the primary antagonist. One of the message of the game is that none of the characters are "purely evil" and they all did things with good intentions. It's their good side of their nature that comes to the fore when faced with a villain as powerful as the "Chara" corrupted Frisk and that is good storytelling. Ultimately "self-insertion" as much as it is a unique positive aspect to video game can be a pitfall that limits how much a person can get out of the medium and limits the potential story they can enjoy if people are unable to divorce themselves from the protagonist they are playing as this prevents stories that explores the dark side of humanity from being seriously appreciated.

Does this mean that in my playthrough I did the genocide ending after I finish the pacifist ending? The answer is no. After seeing the plea from Flowey to leave the game as it is and the dark music over the resetting the game option I didn't have the heart to go through with the genocide playthrough. After all not every person is capable of being an actor to be a villain in a stage or movie and will have a lot of trouble doing villainous act even in a scripted event with no real world consequences. However, I see this as my own weakness and not a strength. That my own inability to roleplay has limited my ability to fully enjoy video game as a medium of storytelling. I only have to admire people who do have the strength to go through with that and in that case I agree with Flowey that people who do the genocide run are getting more out of the game then people who are unable to go through it or is only able to watch it. I wish I had the strength to go through with it. So for all those people who are refused to play the genocide playthrough of the game, that is perfectly fine but please respect the people who are able to explore all aspects of storytelling in video games by role-playing instead of self-inserting themselves and their own personal moral standards on the characters they are playing.