Planet Seven

Pronounce it OOranus. I finally had a clear evening of seeing, minimal light pollution, no moon, and Pisces revealed itself, to the south and west of Aries. It’s a dim, far-flung  constellation, and of course Uranus is never more than mag. +6. However, I’m sure I found it this time. Just about on the ecliptic, more or less masquerading as another star in the southerly arm of the constellation.

I found a tell-tale pinprick of light exactly where Stellarium said it would be. Only just visible to the naked eye. Through low magnification, little more than a bright dot among lackluster companions. Defocused, unmistakably blue–my reflector isn’t great with planets but this is a good trick to detect faint colors.

Sir William Herschel discovered this planet in 1781, and wanted to name it after his patron, King George III. “Georgium Sidus,” the Georgian Planet or Planet of George, doesn’t have the classical lilt (or vulgar giggle factor) of Uranus, from the Greek ouranos, or heaven. (Also the father of Saturn in mythology.)

So, would you rather have to call this planet George? Just pronounce it OOranus and you’ll be fine. It’s worth looking for, just to say you’ve succeeded in focusing a tiny earthbound telescope on a massive, frozen giant planet a billion miles away.

Posted in Astronomy, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off


hallobservatoryI’m gaining confidence in my telescope use. I’m getting past the sense of being overwhelmed by the night sky, and becoming more pragmatic, more oriented toward simple goals.

I’ve more or less given up on a really good polar alignment, which I have to blame on a cheap mount; but I can get close. (A good spirit level confirms that the platform is level and yes, I do know how to find Polaris.) There’s a little declination drift, but it’s quite manageable.

Last evening, I was sleepless at midnight, so I went out to have a look at the skies. There was a lot of light pollution, and some high clouds, but surprisingly good seeing in any direction but south. My quest was the seventh planet. Uranus is in Pisces, near the conjoined tail of the two fish.

I set the declination to +7, west of the meridian, and slowly scanned right ascension. Stellarium confirmed that I was right on target to find the green-blue planet. However, some trees were in the way. Pisces itself was barely visible at all–already low in the sky to the southwest and swallowed up in the unusual brightness.

But the evening was a success in other ways. I practiced some careful visual astronomy, starting with constellations I know very well like Cassiopeia, Perseus, Taurus and Gemini.  Gradually I was able to work around the trees and clearly identify Triangulum, then Aries, then the brighter stars on the eastern edge of Cetus. By triangulation, this allowed me to confirm that my telescope was pointing directly where Uranus should have been… hiding behind a tree trunk.

So I asked the practical astronomical question, “Well, what’s good tonight?” and decided to look for M36, 37, and 38. These are a line of open clusters in Auriga, forming a crooked line. I chose these targets not thanks to Stellarium, but thanks to the Messier Planisphere made by Celestial Teapot Designs. It’s a big, plastic-coated, indestructible planisphere optimized for Messier viewing–see my five-star review on Amazon.

Auriga was high and clear, and I had immediate success–I could even faintly visually identify the location of M36–and was able to slew among the three of them at will for a good while.

M36 clearly displayed the bright star at its center (actually two bright stars, one brighter than the other), though higher magnification was a washout. All three were interesting little gems to contemplate, tiny but exquisitely clear.

I enjoy this self-guided tour of the heavens. One of these days I may join a club, but not yet.

Take a minute and look up.

Posted in Arthur, Astronomy, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off


first tryBefore five this morning, a break in the clouds allowed a brief observation of the heavens.

Taurus was fairly high, with the Pleiades almost overhead. The distinctive “V” of the constellation was very clear, along with many smaller stars. (The “V” is also called the Hyades, a star cluster in its own right.) What a pity there’d been so much cloud cover all night!

Aldebaran, the red giant that forms the “bullseye,” was visibly red to my naked eye. If it were placed where the Sun is, it would fill all space up to the orbit of Mercury.

Taurus is the opposite of Sagittarius, my own “zodiac sign.” (I don’t believe in astrology, but the lore is charming.) The sign of the Bull lives right by the galactic anti-center, along with its neighbor Auriga and its brilliant Capella. Contrarily, Sagittarius points us to the heart of the Milky Way; it’s been compared to Las Vegas. Its popular current nickname, the Teapot, even has “steam” coming out of it–a vast star cloud!

If Sagittarius is at the center of things, Taurus is in a kind of eternal frozen wasteland. It’s beautiful to observe the contrast.

The galactic coordinate system places Sagittarius at longitude 0, and Taurus at long. 180. (Cygnus is 90, and Vela, hard to see in most of the North, is 270.)

Taurus is a beautiful and easily-spotted constellation. This morning, I could also see Orion rising up just behind it… still caught in the trees, but bright and confident.

Then the clouds rolled in and took first the Pleiades, and then everything else. So my day began!

Posted in Astronomy, Country | Comments Off

The Garnet Star

One of the first names that entranced me upon taking up astronomy this January was that of the Garnet Star. Also called Herschel’s Garnet Star, and officially Mu Cephei, it’s one of those heavenly objects that interested me because of the sheer poetry of its name. (Others include Kemble’s Cascade and my all-time favorite star name, Zubenelgenubi!)

Like all of Cepheus, the Garnet Star is circumpolar at my latitude: at declination +58º 51′ it is always at least 10º above the horizon. In other words, it never sets. It’s a fairly dim magnitude 4-ish, but I never have trouble spotting it, conditions permitting of course.

I saw the Garnet Star last week from a gorgeous quiet lakeside in the Adirondacks. It was fairly high in the northeast when I trained my little Newtonian on it. Its signature garnet color was very pleasing. Earlier in the evening, friends had been thrilled to see Saturn’s rings and Albireo, but I had the Garnet Star all to myself.

It occurred to me that this star should be the official star of the Adirondack region. I was, after all, barely twenty minutes away from the Barton Mine, the source of 85% of the world’s garnet. Most of it is industrial grade–an exceptionally hard form of the mineral, measuring about 8 on the Mohs Scale. It’s ground into a slurry and used to cut metal and stone. Not much of it is used in jewelry, because it tends to be flawed and has considerable color saturation. There’s one nifty shop near the mine that sells the garnet as jewelry…just one.

I have one of their Barton garnet rings, a souvenir of a few summers ago. Under sunlight it glows like a ruby, but indoors it’s very dark. When I got it, I named it Arcturus, in honor of the red giant that gleams over the lake in mid-August. Perhaps I should rename it Herschel!

Posted in Astronomy, Country, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off

Coat Hanger

I had fun the other night locating the Coat Hanger (or Coathanger) asterism, also known as Brocchi’s Cluster. It’s a common destination; almost like boasting that you drove through Patchogue on the way to the Hamptons. But it’s pretty, and it’s fun to track it down and have a good look at it.

As its name suggests, it looks exactly like a coat hanger–a curved rod below and a hook above (in my reflector, anyway). The stars hover around the limit of unaided sight, from magnitude 5 to 7, making them easy targets for good binoculars. In my telescope, the asterism comfortably fills the eyepiece at low magnification.

You really feel you’ve stumbled upon an angelic dry cleaner’s.

What’s an asterism, you ask? The term is used in at least three different ways that I’ve seen. Here, in its commonest usage, it refers to a recognizable pattern of stars that is not a constellation. The Coat Hanger is a popular one; Kemble’s Cascade is another. (I love that one; I’ll share its story another time.)

Another common usage of “asterism” is to refer to a portion of a larger constellation, as in the Big Dipper, which is the well-known asterism in the constellation Ursa Major. (The rest of the Big Bear is faint and hard to see; however, many people assume that the Big Dipper is the whole constellation, which it’s not.) Also, there is the Summer Triangle, where the brightest stars in three constellations–Vega in Lyra, Deneb in Cygnus, and Altair in Aquila–form a recognizable large-scale structure in the sky. These kinds of asterism are very useful in star-hopping, not to mention folklore.

Lastly, I have seen “asterism” used to describe the constellation proper–the connect-the-dots pattern itself–as distinct from its larger region of space. In this usage, one would say that 145 Canis Majoris is not part of the asterism–that is, not one of the stars that form the “picture” of the Big Dog.

I find this easier to say than “not part of the constellation constellation, as in the constellation itself, but only the constellation as in the region of space, blah blah blah…”

Don’t get confused. An asterism is a pattern of stars: the constellation for which the region is named, a folk-named portion of a constellation, or a distinct little pattern popular among geeks. Something for the professionals, the amateurs, and the laity. Would that everything were so tidy!

Posted in Astronomy | Comments Off

Ring Nebula

I found the iconic Ring Nebula last evening, just as civil twilight was ending. Lyra is riding high in the eastern sky these days, as is Cygnus, with Vega and Deneb well above the trees–Altair, which completes the Summer Triangle, is a later riser. Right near Beta Lyrae, also known as Sheliak, is the famous doughnutty nebula.

Called a “planetary nebula” partly because of its shape and partly because of an 18th century convention (or mistake), it is tiny and at first impossible to distinguish from a star. But keep looking: there is just a wee fuzziness to it that won’t resolve, even when the stars around it are pinpoints. Center on the suspiciously diffuse point of dim light (well under eighth magnitude) and re-focus, going past the focus point in both directions till settling in. Use averted vision as well.

Do all of this, at least, if you have a very basic telescope like mine. If you have a “yard cannon” with go-to, just sit back and enjoy the show, and pretend you’re aboard the International Space Station. I prefer to hunt, and then say with John Keats:

Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken…

And I did! And it did! The thrill of discovery is not diminished for me by realizing that millions have seen it before.

Posted in Astronomy, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off

Learning Dupré

After many false starts–interrupted for various reasons–I’m in for the distance this time. I’m hard at work on the Dupré opus 7.

I played the G minor prelude and fugue a number of times some years ago, including for my master’s audition. The other two I’ve kept deferring.

Just a few thoughts on the B-major prelude, in no especial order.

This prelude is played too fast as a rule. Certainly, what I’ve heard online bears this out. The music is not an occasion to show off your chops. If anything, it’s an opportunity to “turn the wheel” –manage the rhythm and timing so that the concussions and repercussions meet in the air, and create a mechanistic effect. When it works, the effect is uncanny.

Mechanistic? Absolutely.

This is music composed during the age of steam travel, after all. George Gershwin was honest about the “steely rhythms” and “rattlety-bang” of the railroad, and how it helped him compose Rhapsody in Blue. The same idea of “steely rhythms” will make the prelude come alive, as well as the fugue.

Follow Albert Ross Parsons’ ideas about the metronome, including his slow-down technique: to practice a passage successively slower as well as faster. Get away from the technique for the sake of technique idea.

The music is difficult, but the existential fear of it should pass after a day. Just dive in with a very slow metronome and begin to learn it, a page at a time. Set the metromone to track sixteenth notes at first, then double back and track for eighth notes, then again for quarters… each time doubling the starting point. Soon, you’ll be up to the optimistic quarter note = 112 of the score. (Providing, of course, that the room allows it.)

There is always melody to be found in Dupré. My favorite recording of the Chemin de la Croix, by Ben van Oosten, always finds the melody.

In the B-major prelude, find melody in the chunka-chunk right hand passages; in the pedal; and obviously, in the singing passages where the soprano repeats the pedal theme. (In these, an excellent fingering solution is easy to find, and the results are thrilling!)

Just playing the toccata figurations of the right hand as “knucklebusters” makes less of the music. And besides the tunes, bring out a sense of the form of the piece. (Can you assign it, more or less, to a genre? What one word would you choose? I’d choose sonata.)

“Fools admire, but men of sense approve,” said Alexander Pope. Dupré runs much deeper than his dazzling passagework or thundering finales. There is song in him. It runs deep and may be hard to find at times, but it’s there.

One final thought: there’s nothing like hearing a lot of top-drawer organ recitals in a short space of time to clear out your creative cobwebs and remind you of the joy of the whole enterprise. At the moment, I allude to the Guild’s recent Houston convention, which was superb. Still, the idea applies universally.


Posted in AGO, Pipe Organ | Comments Off


I was awake at 3 AM the other night, so went out to have a look at M31–the Andromeda Galaxy. There it was in the eastern sky, faint and fuzzy but alluring in my eyepiece. The light I saw was almost three million years old. Till hints of dawn came, I was alone with this ancient, enormous, elegant structure. It made the morning practicing go better, I’m sure.

Posted in Astronomy, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off

Dretzel Update

jbh5Things have been quiet lately on the C. H. Dretzel front. No new research to report. However, I remain convinced of my central thesis: that Dretzel’s Divertimento is a closer stylistic match to 565 than any other composition yet studied.

If we are permitted to make stylistic comparisons –and we are, and regarding this question it’s virtually all we’ve ever done– then Dretzel is the leading candidate, hands down.

I’m increasingly confused as to why we keep squinting at Kellner and Krebs, turning their scores this way and that, hoping that some passage will suddenly transmogrify into an actual semblance of the popular composition in question.

No amount of self-induced astigmatism can produce the close stylistic resemblance that plain, 20-20, uncorrected vision instantly reveals in the Dretzel.

Here is a comparison of the openings of the two fugues: first, the fugue of BWV 565; second, the fugue in the Divertimento.




I submit that, even from these snippets, a characteristic keyboard idiom and contrapuntal structure is noticeable across both pieces.

Please, do, show me a work by Kellner or Krebs, or any other A-lister of the Bach Circle, who composes a full movement in that precise idiom: light, airy, tonal, Italianate, vigorous, energetic, repetitive, and heavily flirtatious with scale degree 5 yet always avoiding a tonal answer, for the same obvious reasons.

(In the first case, the wonderful subdominant answer is finalized in a plagal cadence; in the second, the opening triadic leap allows the composer to obviate the issue and still enjoy a “prominent dominant.”)

All thirds and sixths, with carefully stage-managed moments of crisis; these often marked by fully-diminished chords in many voices or “staggering” 4/2 harmonies. Also, very little artifice, if you please. In both cases, similar feints at the Musical Sublime, and the educated middle-class taste.

Also, please, if you would, show me another early Bach piece of confident attribution that is this airy, light and free in texture. So not laborious!

In other words, I suggest that the musical economy of both pieces is virtually identical, in a way that I simply do not see in any other attempts at stylistic comparison. It is highly likely that we are dealing with one and the same composer.

In re-attributing the “adagiosissimo” movement which is still called BWV 897a, we implicitly re-attribute BWV 565.

I was honored, in 2014, to speak to a graduate seminar in counterpoint at NYU on this topic. The two above snippets were first used in that class. I have excellent colleagues, both my seniors and my peers, at that remarkable institution. I’m also grateful to the Guild, which gave me a forum at the Boston convention.

However, six years from my –I’ll call it discovery– there is still scant acknowledgment from the world of Bach scholarship at large. Some emails have come (to me), enthusiastically agreeing with me. Some emails (from me) have gone unanswered.

There is of course deep and widespread investment in a time-honored attribution; one doesn’t simply set that aside at the say-so of one person. There is the iconic status of the work in question; who wants Bach’s number-one calling card to be handed to a nonentity? Even if that nonentity deserves to be a household name? Even if nothing else by Bach sounds like 565, and one is reduced to scouring his œuvre for examples of initial descent from 5 to 1?

By that standard, Mozart wrote 565.

E pur, si muove.

William of Occam, help me!

Posted in Dretzel Project | Comments Off

Astronomy Update

first tryIn January, I published a set of posts about my lifelong passion for astronomy– a passion never properly nourished, but that’s a long story. One way or another, it’s been an unacknowledged part of most of my life. I suspect I should have been a scientist–someday I’ll speculate how that might have been derailed.

I removed those posts for a while, but they’re back up.

I have finally found my way to a relatively dark night sky, and my immediate desire was for a telescope. (The first night, I was kept awake by the stars in my eyes!)

I settled for a cheap one, and unfortunately had an ordeal with customer service when something went wrong.

After three nights of careful, gentle use (I am always very cautious with something new), the declination control knob simply jammed. Stopped moving altogether. Nothing doing. And then, clink! a little piece of pot metal fell out.

The mount had failed. The cheap, Chinese-made, two-dollars-marked-up-to-two-hundred mount, had failed.

I contacted Meade customer service, and got what we might reasonably call a bullshit job. “Would you please very kindly Mister Hall sir write a narrative of the purported occurrence so that our Engineers might possibly read it and figure out what happened?”  said a thick-tongued and insincere voice on the other end of the phone.

In other words, go screw yourself, idiot.

If a company sells a product, it stands by a product. End of discussion. I don’t want to hear about “low-end models.” Stop selling them if you don’t respect them.

Narrative for the engineers. Indeed!

But I waited like a typical well-bred dope, and then finally called again, full of the fine-toned indignation which I also inherited. I got a woman this time, and she understood my simple English phrases like “blistering zero-star review on Amazon” and the like.

And lo! the new mount arrived in the mail. With a new and unneeded tripod. But without counterweights or control cables. I was supposed to cannibalize the old one. Well, OK then. I was back in business.

And I’ve had a good time since then.

I’ve added some accessories: a 26mm eyepiece via Agena Astro, a 4mm eyepiece via BST, a planisphere via Celestial Teapot Designs, a red flashlight via Rigel Systems, a subscription to Sky and Telescope, a polarizing filter, a carrying case, and a 6×30 new-old-stock Meade finderscope. (Not crazy about the red-dot finder.)

I plan to get some black flocking for the interior, as well as a solar filter for the front end. Also, I think I need a good classic Plössl at the 9-10mm size. I’m auditioning different kinds of mid-priced eyepieces.

I’ve been enjoying Jupiter’s big show, though any Newtonian reflector is bound to disappoint here. A washed-out disc with a hint of banding, and pinpoints for the Galilean moons. Still, I note their position night by night. Then, there are the popular binaries: Almaak, Albireo, Algieba, Castor, 145 Canis Majoris, iota Cancri, Mizar (of course).

And the mythology! I always look for Algol and Antares–the two evillest stars in the heavens. Antares and Mars are close right now– Mars and Anti-Mars (ant-Ares)–or even Mars and Fool’s Mars!

When I find the “evil” stars, I am drawn to the exuberant words of Psalm 19… but still cannot repress a shiver.

My sessions are always heavy on unaided visual observation, and careful practice of declination and RA motions.

Honestly: how can I buy another Meade telescope after my experience? I’m thinking of an advanced Celestron model, or a SkyWatcher apochromatic refractor. Not too keen on Cassegrains.

That is, if I don’t lose interest first.

Which I won’t.

Posted in Arthur, Astronomy, Famous Bastards, Seasons of the Year | Comments Off