has little surface attraction; it is starknand demanding. It reminds one of modernnScandinavian music, but without itsnlyrical relief. “In my work there has alwaysnbeen some evidence of violence,”nsays Mennin, “and the element of contrast.nHere they come out with a vengeance.”nA fair description of a turbulent,nhighly dramatic work. This is also anresurrected recording (from 1967), originallynmade by RCA. Jean Martinon andnthe Chicago Symphony Orchestra give anblazing performance.nPhillip Rhodes is a young composernwho has written extensively for voice.nHis “Visions of Remembrance” makesnone eager to hear his other works, especiallynsomething as ambitious as “ParadisenLost,” which is available from LouisvillenRecords. “Visions” is somethingnquite lovely and unexpected: a contemporarynwork that is kind to the voice:nnone of the ululations or screaming melismasnof what passes for modern vocalnmusic. Because of its lyricism, it has invitedncomparison with Samuel Barber’sn”Knoxville: Summer of 1915,” butn”Visions” lacks the dramatic build andncoherence tha’t the single text fromnJames Agee gives Barber’s work. Rhodesnuses for his text four poems by DouglasnWorth, his 12-year-old daughter AnnanJean, Hart Crane and D. H. Lawrence.nAccording to Rhodes, this work “isnbased on the general theme of reminiscence,nbut especially on that hazy aura innwhich the mind seems to cloak long rememberednpersons and events. . . .nVisions is about the circles of time andnthe flow of generations, and in that context,nthe things that change and thosenthings that always stay the same.” It doesncreate that “hazy aura,” a kind of gauzenthrough which the past is regarded; itnprovides the distance of time and memory,nand therefore the poignancy of thenpast —a musical recherche du tempsnperdu.nThe voice of soprano Carol Wilsonnand mezzo-soprano Lorraine Manz interweavenmellifluously, accompanied by thenCarleton Contemporary Ensemble, directednby William Wells. “Visions ofnRemembrance,” issued by ComposersnRecordings (CRI-426), is recommendednto anyone interested in modern vocalnmusic, particularly to anyone whose previousnexperience of it has been only onenof cacophony. DnTin: AMKKICA.N PROSCKMIM JnCapitalism & the RopenEverybody knows Lenin’s old, overused,nalready-stale dictum about the ropenthat capitalists, mentally debilitated byntheir own greed, would sell the communistsnto use for their own hanging. Forndecades, it has symbolized and synthesizednthe suicidal vector of capitalismnwhich is predetermined to arrange itsnown death by the very logic of its inherentncharacteristics.nNo one denies, now, the wisdom andninsightfulness of Lenin’s prophetic bonnChronicles of Cttlturenmot. Capitalism in America has developednsome interesting forms of coexistence,neven cooperation, with certainnsociocultural forces, a cooperationnwhich has brought the rope adage tonan enigmatic stage of refinement. Whynwould large corporations advertise lavishlynin press organs which openly andnintelligently promote capitalism’s demisen(they even admit that they do it bynusing purely capitalistic methods ofnmarketing their ideas in order to makenthem more effective).^ Why MothernJones and Rolling Stone are awash withnnnads for enterprises whose strangulationnthey advocate remains a question to benanswered by a multitude of corporatenpublicity departments. The more simplemindednamong business executivesnwould answer that it is because thosenpress outlets have an audience, a mostlynwell-heeled youthful audience, and thatnthey help to sell their products, thusnperforming a service to the growth ofncapitalism as embodied by their ownnbusinesses. More perverse corporatentheorists would claim that by makingnMother Jones or Rolling Stone a thrivingnbusiness they are subverting it andnaligning it with the system, but thesentheorists forget that by their financialnsupport they are enabling the survivalnof a more sophisticated and thereforeninfinitely more dangerous anticapitalisticnidea. What seems alien to the corporatenmind, however, is that accordingnto history ideas always, in the end, willndefeat mere aggregates of money,noffices, machines and plush headquartersn—whether such a compound is calledna state or a corporate enterprise. Thisnis a lesson that will be absorbed into thencorporate mentality sooner or later, butnby then it may be too late.nBut something even more fascinatingnthan the rope syndrome has passed unobservednand unmentioned in our historicalntheater of the absurd. The NewnYork Times Magazine recently ran anstory on Mr. Armand Hammer, a celebratednindustrialist, tycoon, art collectornand philanthropist who, for the lastnhalf-century, has been best known as ango-between for the rulers of the Kremlinnand American Presidents. The NYTnarticle, written by an honest social commentator,nMr. Edward Jay Epstein, isnrather fair in its assessment of Mr. Hammer.nIt correctly points out that all missionsnof good will and mediation undertakennby Mr. Hammer on behalf ofnpeace and understanding between thenU.S.S.R. and us have always ended withnhis own fabulous enrichment andnaggrandizement. Yet the article doesnnot answer two crucial questions thatnevery intelligent mind would ask aftern