WRITTEN WORK - diaries


I have taken Iceland as an example because it is in every measurable way a smaller nation [than Cyprus] and not to make comparisons between the conditions prevailing in Iceland to those in Cyprus. The Cyprus state is not prepared at this point to waste funds for luxuries such as these [ state orchestra?]

Taking as granted the prevailing conditions and priorities in Cyprus at this point in time we can conclude that for the creation of a symphonic orchestra and development of music on the island of Cyprus, we must get draw resources from the international music scene. That is to say, since there are not Cypriot musicians of calibre to participate in this orchestra and as there is not adequate interest by the Cypriot audience to contribute towards the viability of this orchestra then such an orchestra must earn its keep in the international music scene. For participation in the international music arena, it is self evident that the orchestra must have the necessary calibre (which in the international music arena also implies the availability of funding), because without calibre neither conductors nor soloists, record labels, TV stations or other media production companies will be attracted it, to facilitate the existence of this orchestra. For [the creation of] such a successful orchestra funding will have to be “wasted” on it.

Expressionistic Portrait by Nicholas

I do not believe in reforms; that is to say I do not believe that one can fight within the framework set by the ruling class, with the aim to overthrow it. As a musician, working within the system set by the ruling class is the only way, and I refuse to follow it. On the other hand, I can not give up music as it is the language I use for expressing my self. Imagine not having the right of freedom of speech! I have decided that there is no room for combining my activities as a musician and as a Marxist. That does not mean I can not contribute to the movement as a musician; only that my contribution must be outside the framework dictated by the ruling class, i.e. record companies etc. The working class needs to be exposed to culture in order to survive and also to be able to overthrow the system through revolution whilst simultaneously [culture is a necessary prerequisite] to prevent  counter revolution or  degeneration of the revolution into state of  bureaucracy. Lack of culture after all, (in conjunction, of course, with all the other prevailing historical conditions) is what allowed bureaucracy to gain power during the aftermath of the October revolution. However, it would be stupid to maintain that there is a fast way in which the working class could attain culture, though some do, through bombardment with sub standard creations.

Mediocre [people] gain their confidence through using their connections within the system in periods of decline. In other periods, something opposite happens; the talented use the system to bring about a better outcome.

One must be too naïve as Mozart was to have the ability to create such beauty in a world of repulsiveness. Beauty, or the sense of beauty is part of human nature. I mean, when man remains within the framework as dictated by basic human needs, then, only by ignoring the exterior impacts of daily life, one can express the need for cultural beauty, since Art is nothing more than the harmonious sum total of   collective experience.

What is it that makes humans to differ from animals? The question has been answered many times and in different ways and rightly so. But when people write literature in Penthouse magazine describing their sexual fantasies that is how they stick their dick in a woman’s pussy then one must wonder. Because these very same people are those who vote for the [governing] idiots or should I say servants? And the masters have the same problem. Are we condemned in the same way as the dinosaurs; has the planet’s environment been presented to the human species like a cheap whore? Have we conquered the secrets of nature before developing intellectually in a corresponding manner? And we have conquered these secrets easily as they were offered to us by the very nature of our planet. If it were harder to tame the planet’s nature then perhaps we would have more respect towards it; but who has respect for a whore?

One must make an effort to express one’s self through writing. To simply return back to the oldest method of communication with one’s own self but also with the “wider audience”. The thing is that we have forgotten how to write; We use recorders, videos, records, films etc. In all this maelstrom, in this polyphonic cacophony, how can one write?  It’s not only that; in addition  one’s impression is that writing is a great anachronism since nowadays nobody reads or writes, except for a few eccentrics, a few cultivated relics and  the bull-shiters

Yet reading and writing possess an unsurpassed quality. The very fact that one can condense meanings and ideas and that these can be formulated in any way one wishes, is in itself enough proof that writing as a reflection of reality transforms reality itself into a different reality through the act [of writing] which is itself further transformed through thought. Not to be misconstrued, the starting point is always reality, not thought.

Do we live to labour or do we labour to live? And what sort of labour is, anyway playing the piano? That is to say, what does it offer to others when one plays on the piano, a reproduction of music that  was created 200 or 50 years ago; then we can strive for the manifestation of a perfect performance digitally on a CD. Then, when one senses the esoteric need to admire the harmonious cohesion of this or that work of music, one would only need to push the play button on our CD player and “hey presto!” we enter the temple of digital perfection. What then is the use of live concerts? Well, live concerts have a different quality of sound. Listening to the vibration of an orchestra’s string section live and not as transmuted, amplified electromagnetic waves taking on the guise of live sound at a concert hall is a different thing. A diamond is not the same thing as its glass replica. What then do we pianists offer? The  diamond? And what would the diamond be as such? The sound quality of the piano? The music score? The composer’s aesthetics? The piano’s brand? The subjective opinion of the score’s editor? The bald spot or length of the pianist’s hair, the tailor of the tuxedo? The acoustics of the hall,  the refinement of the audience, the entrance fee, the availability of a parking spot? The weather conditions not to mention the latest football results? Our subject matter is after all the piano or if you wish, music for the piano. Dexterity on the piano, musicality.

Dear fellow humans,

I am not Beethoven writing the will of Heiligenstad. Nor am I Trotsky who became a “martyr” striving “against the stream” while feeding his rabbits somewhere in Mexico. Nor am I the ill and vacillating Lenin who – having accomplished his mission – used to write his legacy in the form of letters to the conference of the party he once founded.

I am Nicolas Economou who could depart from this world quietly without disturbing a single soul – without a parting letter or a will. Yet, for as long as I live, I do not cease to be human being. And as long I am a human being I cannot  find any justification for my existence unless I have contributed towards continuity, i.e. to what I am and to those that are close to me, especially my daughter. The reasons why I do not wish to live are interpretable and, ultimately, very simple. Those little passions that constitute the motor for survival are alien to me.  They have been foreign to me from the very beginning. In other words, I have lived in a world that was never there, but should be there. I am not so daft as not to realize this fact. But having arrived at this realization, I am left with no other option but to make a move-“forward”! The difference between myself and Lenin, or whomever, is precisely this: I posses no little passions. I am, therefore, the offspring of decadence, brought about by your petty egotisms. ‘One against all’ is  a ridiculous situation where one suddenly suspects one is being egotistical. But of course! I have always known this and tried not to be egotistical (perhaps at times I have even achieved it who knows?) It is not “strength” that made me strong but “weakness”. The dialectic of egotism = rule of the jungle. An alleged toughness or intelligent utterance, a supposed humanism etc. A transition stage from animal to human. I was never poor enough to the point where a piece of bread was precious. That is why I was hungry. I was well off for the very same reason that I was hungry. I possessed something you [ruling class] did not, so you kept giving me with one hand and took it back with the other. You nurtured me in the same way you would a cow that gives milk; when there is no more milk the cow is slaughtered. You [ruling class] are such animals just like the scoundrels you reproach. Your saving grace is that you plea unawareness of such deeds. Anyway, don’t get me started on this….

I have left things [above] unfinished. I could not bear to go on. I lacked discipline; and (please excuse me) the appropriate egotism. Let my works be testimony to this effect, if anyone cares to study them.

OCT 88

At this moment the ruling class is celebrating the death of ‘Communism’. What is actually taking place is the death of Stalinism; the death of the system that gave birth to mediocrity in power, a system of managers and parasitic bureaucracy. Stalinism and Socialism were always two systems at loggerheads. Stalinism rode to power on the back of the Russian revolution to ultimately achieve bringing back the Tsarist bureaucracy, which it is now trying to pass off to the capitalist world in a different guise as dictated by the need for survival. Doubtless Stalinism will fail in this feat.


You died! You are so stupid. Stupid because you got the ida that you could not live because you could not fulfil your dream, in short you refused to be “flexible”. You sacrificed yourself for a folly! That is what we have come to.

The saints have no affection for the common folk; they have affection for God. That is why they have no expectations from others. The egotists, in their turn love no one and expect nothing from others; they are strong. For both egotists and the Saints, people do not exist (and thus they do not exist themselves either). A person that loves expects to receive love in return. When one gives back less than one takes, it is easier to be strong. Saints are closely linked to what I shall call a “general concept” [God] to gain power, and in this they are preferable to the egotists. But a person that is really “strong” would be one that takes upon himself the full burden of responsibility without God around. But this under normal circumstances is an abnormal state of affairs. Because we should complement each other and no one should bear the other man’s burden. But could we do that within a system that drives a wedge between people forcing them to scrapple over the crumbs and leftovers of the oligarchy? So, whoever takes on the responsibility for their fellow man, in the end becomes a saint himself?