Toot Your Own Horn

I'm back...

2011-08-11T10:14:00.003-05:00

After a fairly extensive blogging respite, I have decided to return! Woo.

There haven't, in fact, been too many developments since then. I'm still a freelance musician, still trying to make my way through this wonderfully managed economy. Since my last post however, I have started my own website and small independent publishing business called Valley Music Press. You can check out it out at www.valleymusicpress.com. Thats it for now. Hopefully my next entry won't be two years from now.

Keeping it interesting...

2009-10-28T14:09:00.002-05:00

The closest approximation I could remember to an actual gig call that I received:

"Nate, are you available to play at our church next month?"
"Yeah, sure. Not a problem."
"Do you happen to also know where I might be able to find some doves to release?"
"Oh, um...at a church service? Hm...I'm not too familiar with dove suppliers, sorry."
"Well, I would've used my own pigeons, but my wife never let me have any. I always wanted to send messages with them [from Philadelphia] to Mike in New York."
"Uh, ok... You said to Mike? Mike who?"
"Yeah, you know, Mike. Mike Tyson, in New York."
"Uh..."

So much to say...don't even know where to start. Sometimes its the gig calls that turn weird that make it all worth while.

first impressions

2009-04-22T18:48:00.006-05:00

So I finally check out this Susan Boyle clip on YouTube. For those of you who don't know, its from a show called "Britain's Got Talent," and this woman, Susan Boyle, sings "I Dreamed A Dream" from Les Miserables. I'll state from the top that I didn't even watch the whole thing. I couldn't make it. I didn't want to make it. These sort of shows make me sick, but thats besides the point. So unless something drastically different happened in the last minute of the clip, keep reading.

Lets state the obvious, Susan Boyle is not an attractive person. And because of that, you also wouldn't think she could sing very well either, for whatever wrong reason inside of us that tells us that. I'll give her this though, she showed good spirit, was positive, and had a good attitude from the outset. She also appeared to be quite confident, in a non overbearing way, and did not appear to be nervous. Having said that, she started off singing fairly well. In fact, what was most impressive, was that her start was quite good. Right on key, nice tone, and most of all...surprisingly NOT what you would expect. You can simply look at the judges faces to see that, or listen to the crowd. And it was good. As for the rest of the performance (from what I saw, as I still haven't seen the finish), I'll say this: it was okay. There was nothing special about it. If you actually just listen to her sing, take away the crowds' reaction, don't pay attention to the judges reactions, and most importantly don't give a hoot as to how Susan Boyle's pathetic look makes you feel bad for her, and simply listen, you'll find that she's just okay. Just okay.

So what in the world was going on here? Its quite simple. This was the typical first impression. It happens all the time in auditions. Unfortunately its what most auditions are built upon. In this case, some negative first impressions (that had nothing to do with her playing) gave a low expectation for what was to come. Thus, when her start was good, and I'll admit, quite good, everyone flipped. They didn't care what came next. They just liked it. And you know what? They were gonna like it whether the rest was good or not. Period.

In orchestral auditions, the same occurs. A panel is made up of a number of different musicians. Not only different instruments, but obviously different tastes too. Lets suppose a committee member starts listening to candidate number 84 play the same excerpt that they've already heard numbers 1-83 play. Immediately they're hit with an out of tune note, a crack, a bad rhythm off the bat. Thats it, they're going to stop listening. It doesn't matter if the rest is great. The fact of the matter is, you gave them a bad first impression, and they're just looking for reasons to cut you. After all, they've got 100 more candidates to listen to that day, all playing the same thing. Now if the flip happens, and you hit them with something really great, they're going to fight for you. They'll even make excuses for you if you do something wrong, whereas for #84, thats just one more reason to cut you. This is the problem too often with auditions...whether orchestral, or for Britain's Got Talent. And what makes it even more unfortunate is the time and dedication spent by so many musicians/performers in the practice room, when in reality, it all comes down to a moment's first impression.

the power of music

2008-11-20T15:46:00.006-05:00

Music is a powerful thing. Knowing myself, and many of my colleagues, musicians are emotional people. Put the two together and it can be dangerous. I could be watching some stupid commercial about a refrigerators, and because the music in the background is some nostalgic song, I'll suddenly be sad. I know that this effect isn't exclusive to just musicians, but I would bet it affects them more easily. Its just something built into the system.

Music on its own is powerful, but combine it with a visual aid of some sort, whether it be a movie, pictures, a commercial, TV show, or maybe even just a plain old music video, it becomes extremely powerful. Were you ever in some assembly as a kid, maybe at the end of the year in middle school or high school, and they showed a slide show of pictures from the past year? More than likely they played some sort of music...and it probably made all the difference. It probably made you feel sad, nostalgic, maybe even angry, powerful, whatever. Take away the music, and its just a bunch of stupid pictures that people are going to make fun of. Come to think of it, the music probably kept people quiet. Take for instance a movie or TV show. Have you ever re-watched a powerful scene with the sound muted? It loses almost all impact. Or have you ever watched a scene, whether it was some love scene, heart breaking moment, or action packed footage, and for some reason it seemed like it lacked some sort of punch? Was it missing music? Maybe it was just that the music didn't fit the scene? Music is powerful and can make a huge difference. I've noticed the music selections for television series seem to be more and more "thought out." They're more comprehensive. They seem to fit the mood as well, rather than sometimes just fitting the lyrics. A lot of them are using copyrighted music, which means they're probably paying royalties...meaning, they think its worth paying money to use the song. In the past, gaps or scenes might be filled in with some C rate show ditty written by some composer in five minutes who needed a few bucks.

It works on the flip side as well. You may have heard some song or piece a million times, but it never really made much impact on you. Then you heard that song while watching some video, movie, commercial, whatever. Suddenly that song has new meaning, especially when you listen to it by itself. You hear that song in a new light because its now attached to some visual, scene, or scenario and its impact is multiplied.

People link songs to things. Its like smell, but maybe not as powerful. When people hear a song, they think of a time, place, situation, scenario, feeling, and it brings them back. This is probably why movie music is often liked by people...its attached to something. I think it would behoove the classical world to start looking into commissioning new works (or maybe old works) with some sort of visual aid, whether they be mini movies, pictures, art, animations, etc. After all, who didn't like Fantasia? I would say the only caveat is that you might end up associated something that perhaps wasn't necessarily intended to be linked to the music, i.e. whales with Pines of Rome in Fantasia 2000. Pines of Rome is somewhat of a programmatic piece, with a mild storyline behind it...so maybe they're Roman whales, I don't know. Regardless, there's no harm done, its still a great idea, and its pretty cool and powerful either way. It certainly adds another dimension.

interesting thought no. 4

2008-11-14T15:31:00.003-05:00

In this month’s International Musician, where orchestral position openings are posted this appeared. The Detroit Symphony also posted something similar, although a bit different. Keep in mind this is a paid position:

The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra and
the National Repertory Orchestra
announce the following program:
ORCHESTRA TRAINING PROGRAM FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSICIANS
(1 POSITION)

They proceed to state other details such as the date of the audition, the salary amount, an address to send your resume, etc. At the bottom of the ad reads this:

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Really? Hm, interesting...

degrees...

2008-07-26T18:00:00.005-05:00

I’ve been thinking recently about degrees and such. At least in music, it seems somewhat easy to complete a degree (once you've been accepted into a program, that is, which isn't always so easy)…and so pointless. As a performer, a music degree is, essentially, useless…especially the higher the degree. There is no need for it. Anyone auditioning you for a legitimate performance job, could really care less what degree you've earned. Where you studied and who you studied with is a bit more relevant, as it often gives a pedigree of sorts, perhaps shedding a little more light on where you’re coming from, what you might know, and what your experiences have been. Even then, its still somewhat irrelevant. It comes down to how you play, and more importantly, how you play in that moment, or how you potentially could play. Musicians who wish to be performance majors obviously go through schooling to get experience, learn from their teachers, colleagues, make contacts, or for a number of other legitimate reasons. Pursuing further education is often done for the same reasons, or if anything, to avoid being thrown into the real world just yet. The doctoral degree, then, for a performance-geared musician is for all intents and purpose a completely useless degree. Sure, you’ll get more experience during your extended time in school, but the degree will do nothing for you. The only reason one would pursue this degree (other than reasons previously stated) would be if you wanted to teach music. And by this, I mean typically teach those at a university or such institution where students for the most part aren’t studying to be performers, but rather to be music teachers. Its funny to me that at a performance geared institution, students are typically studying with teachers who are actually performers, who never studied to be educators. Yet they are the ones who are most desirable as teachers. Why? Because they’re out in the real world performing professionally, which is what they studied to do, and thus are teaching what they are able to do. Even if they are not currently performing, they more than likely did professionally at one point. After all, every conservatory I can think of employs teachers of each instrument who are currently, or previously were high level performers…some may have accumulated a higher degree or such along the way, but didn't go the education route. No matter what the case, they weren’t employed because of a degree, but rather because of their performing abilities. So don’t you think its funny that many of those teaching music (other than at conservatories and select institutions or universities known for their music programs) aren’t full-time professional performers? Its possible that a lot of them may have never done, or are even able to do what they're teaching. More than likely they're also teaching students who don’t plan on being performers either, but rather teachers, yet who will in turn go out in the world and become “teaching authorities on performance” at some other institution. Almost all of the desired teachers I know of for performance on my instrument never studied to be teachers. They studied to be great musicians and masters of their instruments, and because of that, became great teachers. There are exceptions to ever rule, and I have studied with and known teachers who have PhD’s, were teachers at universities, institutions, even high schools and such, who are fantastic teachers. But they're usually teachers to produce and train other teachers, not necessarily to teach a performer, although they're in a position to do so. Isn’t that funny? Now the flip side is also true, in that great performers aren't always good teachers. This isn't my point, though, as I'm not trying to making a distinction between good and bad teachers, but rather who is teaching who what. Is a firefighter teaching someone to be a police officer? Its close, and I'm sure they could somewhat teach the job, or learn something even new, but its not the same. Perhaps this is often the disconnect between professors in academia and those who teach what they do professionally in the real world.

Lots of people work hard for their degrees, study a great deal, and know a lot about the field in which they’ve earned their degree. However…lets look at the large number of people who don’t, and cruise right through. So I then I thought, getting back to my original point on degrees…since it seems in some cases, or at least at some schools, fairly easy to achieve a doctorate in music and not necessarily have to do all that much for it (or even necessarily know that much), I started thinking...in how many other fields is it just as easy to achieve a degree, or at least breeze through one? And in those fields, its more than likely a bigger deal to have that degree, probably coupled with more influence and responsibilities. After all, a musician with a doctorate isn't necessarily making decisions affecting peoples' lives. And so, assuming this PhD means more in another field, what kind of numb-nuts are being handed high level degrees? Should they really have them? What sort of decisions are they making, or opinions are we getting, and trusting, from people whose only justification for voicing it was the degree they never deserved to get? Isn’t it funny? Or is it just plain scary?

inappropriate applause?

2008-04-29T16:12:00.004-05:00

As in any work environment, there are certain rules and etiquette in classical music which most people adhere to. Some of them, I believe, are what makes going to a classical concert sometimes so unattractive to people these days. There are many which apply to the orchestra, but the one I'll be referring to in this post is specific to the audience, and that is applause. Some of the generally accepted rules and etiquette are common for any public event, like not blurting out profanities in the middle of a piece, or slugging the guy next to you. But applause is another thing. As we all know, "classical" concerts are among the few, if not the only musical events where applause is generally unacceptable during the music, and certainly between movements of a multi-movement piece. And as a little disclaimer: this isn't a bad thing, its how this type of music is performed and set around. Anyway...so recently I played a concert that had both exciting and tame repertoire. During the first half (the tamer half) of the first performance, perhaps there were some "inexperienced" concert goers or maybe young audience members who were unaware of the "don't applaud between movements" rule. Perhaps they were personally excited by the music and felt desire to applaud after the first movement, or more than likely, they just didn't know you "weren't supposed to." As the little pocket of audience members were the only ones who applauded, you might have thought they wouldn't have continued to applaud between the following couple of movements, but they did. And I'm glad they did. In fact, what made me even more glad, was to see the conductor graciously give a half turn and a little bow/nod to acknowledge their applause and appreciation. During the second half, where we played a more lively symphony, Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the same thing happened. If you know the 6th Symphony, you'll know that the third movement ends like most symphonies end, quite excitingly and thrilling. The last movement ends in a quite unusual fashion, very somber and depressing, but quite beautiful at the same time. Regardless, even to an audience member who is aware of the "don't applaud" rule, and maybe not so much Tchaikovsky's 6th, one might be easily mistaken that it is the end of the piece and applaud, perhaps assuming two movements were meshed into one, and that the third movement was indeed the end. Even if one was aware of both the "rule" and the piece, one would hopefully still feel an excitement at the end of the movement, which might prompt one to want to applaud. Regardless, the same pocket applauded between movements of the Tchaikovsky, and a few more added to the mix after the third movement. During the concert the next night, perhaps a more "educated" audience, or maybe just a prude one was in the house, and no one applauded between movements. I have to admit, whether it was the "type" of people who don't applaud, or maybe just their seeming temperament, I liked the first audience better.

The last performance we played in the series was a sort of educational concert where every movement of the Tchaikovsky was explained before being played. Well, obviously this sort of setting allows for applause after every movement, but even then, the audience wasn't sure, and their were random claps amongst the audience until the "narrator" of the concert said, "Yes, its okay to applaud." That to me is depressing: the fact that an audience had to be told that it was okay to clap. If you're up on your music history, you'll know that during the Cleveland Orchestra's premier performance of the piece, the audience applauded so enthusiastically after the third movement, the conductor proceeded to replay the 3rd movement before even moving on to the fourth! What happened to that kind of enthusiasm, or audience?! Again, I was especially glad to hear the conductor go out of his way to address the subject, and specifically point out that he wasn't offended, didn't mind, and even welcomed it when people felt led to applaud after something they liked. Its as if people don't want to make a mistake at a concert by applauding in the wrong spot. Does that even make sense?? And whats so much worse are the people who look down at other people with belittlement and disdain as if they're so much more educated and "know better" than to applaud between movements. I don't like that conceited attitude you often find around classical music...another problem I believe plagues the business. Did you ever notice on a classical radio stations how the "DJs" often have, what I find to be awfully put on, fake ambiguous accents? Maybe they're real, who knows. That's another subject anyway.

It was so perfect too that just a week or two later I played a gig with a group and at the performance, between two of the movements, the audience for whatever reason started to applaud slightly until the conductor shot out his arms very abruptly to silence the audience's applause, as if they were some stupid kids who "should've known better!" I was disgusted, embarrassed, but mostly glad to remember there were conductors like the last one I played under (who by the way, has a more prestigious position, perhaps because he knows better).

So what is this about applause?? Do you have to be told that its okay to applaud before you do, as if you were still in 2nd grade and needed to ask permission to pee? Come on. Seriously, and whats this haughty taughty crap about looking down on people who applaud between movements? If you like it, show your appreciation. From a performer's viewpoint, we like to know you're enjoying what we're doing. Now don't leave this post thinking I'm saying you should applaud between movements. I'm just saying, you shouldn't feel bad if you do, and certainly don't feel like you can't, and definitely don't look down on someone who does. So this brings me to the point to agree with those opposing me and say, okay, so there are exceptions. Maybe for a really soft, moving, tender moment, you're not going to burst out in some raucous applause. There are moments that shouldn't be "disturbed" and would be better left to enjoy the moment and the silence that follows. And you probably aren't going to want to start cheering in the middle of a piece either like a jazz or rock concert, but then again, who knows, why not? But for those of you who don't like exceptions, and say, NO! This is the symphony orchestra, and it must be upheld and respected in its most holiest sacredness of whatever whatever-ness...just shut up and applaud.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 12

2008-03-25T00:03:00.002-05:00

Ok, wow, so its been a while since my last post. But I'm still here, so have no fear. I'd like to suggest listening to Peter Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4. Its a very popular work that is perfomed quite often, and is one of those symphonies that's harmonically pleasing, brassy, and really exciting. Tchaikovsky wrote the piece for a patron of his, Madame von Meck, to whom he dedicated the piece writing, "Dedicated To My Best Friend." A very wealthy, and seemingly moody and excentric woman, Tchaikovsky and von Meck held extensive correspondence with each other for some 13 years, writing over 1200 letters, and yet never met. The opening statement heard in the brass represents "Fate," and is what Tchaikovsky believed kept one from happiness. As stated in a letter to Madame von Meck, the second movement has a more melancholy, sad, nostalgic feeling, based on wearyness, and the sad and sweet memories of life. "The Third movement," Tchaikovsky says, "expresses no definite feeling. It is made up from capricious arabesques, of elusive images which can rush past in the imagination after drinking a little wine and feeling the first phases of intoxication. The spirit is neither cheerful, nor yet sad. Thinking about nothing, giving free rein to the imagination, which somehow begins to paint strange pictures. Amid these memories there suddenly comes a picture of drunken peasants and a street song ... Then, somewhere in the distance, a military procession passes. These are completely disparate images which rush past in the head during sleep. They have nothing in common with reality; they are strange, wild, and disjointed." Interesting. The fourth movement depicts a picture of a folk holiday, and as Tchiakovsky says, "If within yourself you find no reasons for joy, look at others. Go among the people. Observe how they can enjoy themselves, surrendering themselves wholeheartedly to joyful feelings. A picture of festive merriment of the people." The symphony was written between 1877 and 1878, is made up of four movements, lasting about 45 minutes.

blown out of proportion

2007-11-10T22:38:00.000-05:00

Today I was watching TV and an old commercial came on for PowerAde with Lebron James. Its that one where a newscaster is supposedly shooting a news report on a basketball court and the camera man "candidly" catches Lebron shooting consecutive full court shots. After a second viewing of this commercial, it becomes obvious that this isn't real. If my memory serves me correctly, this commercial came out close to the time Lebron entered the NBA. When I first saw the commercial, I was amazed. After all, as its supposed to, it actually looked like he was pulling this off. More importantly, there had been so much hype and news about this high school phenomenon, that heck, maybe this kid really could do mind blowing stunts like this. At the same time I was pretty skeptical and wanted to see it again to find the glitch as to where they may have doctored it, which, sure enough, I spotted the next time I saw it. I have to admit, I was a little dissapointed.

In any case, my point is this. The media and "word on the street" was that there was this amazing kid from high school who was drafted into the NBA. So much hype was created, then this commercial with him supposedly candidly shooting full court shots appears, and we're supposed to believe that this freakish phenomenon can literally do unbelievable things. Well, Lebron is an amazing basketball player, and he's able to do some amazing things, some of which could probably be classified as stunts. In fact, I'm sure he could make a full court shot here and there (probably by luck), but not multiple consecutive ones, especially with such ease. After all, throwing a basketball full court usually requires a good old "hurl" rather than a nice shot with "free-throw form." Basically Lebron, while certainly a superstar and one of the better players in the NBA, essentially doesn't do anything totally above and beyond the many other players in the NBA, or at least among the many superstars there.

This same thing, while not necessarily to the same degree, often happens in music. You hear about so and so, this guy, that girl, whoever, and how this person is just "such an amazing musician," or "simply the best." If I only had a nickel for every person I heard about that was the best, or unbelievably amazing. If these things were all true, I probably would've quit by now too. But these are the things that get into people's heads when they go to auditions, competitions, etc. You heard so and so is going to be there, and word on the street is that this person is the best there is. Well, look. This person is probably really good at their instrument. They may even be one of the better ones out there, maybe even one of the best. After all, there are freakish musicians out there who can do crazy things on their instruments. But all in all, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, that person is probably no better than the other professional that you've heard on that instrument that you thought was "amazing."

Here's the point. People talk too much. People like to know people, people like to know the most talented people, and people like to talk about people they know. Therefore, too often, (especially for those who enjoy talking) the people that people know and talk about, often miraculously become the most amazing, unbelievable people (or in our case, musicians) that suddenly can make brooms dance and dishes wash themselves. This is nothing against those musicians who are being talked about, after all, they aren't the ones talking about themselves (hopefully). And, more than likely, they probably are good.

What it comes down to it the loud mouths. People who like to talk a lot. People like the media. Boy are they annoying.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 11

2007-10-26T00:01:00.001-05:00

So continuing to speak of new music, I heard this Chinese music on the local classical station the other day and it caught my ear. Its music from a new album put out by Deutsche Grammophon with Lang Lang called "Dragon Songs," and has a bunch of 20th century written Chinese pieces featuring piano. I've only heard what I could on the radio and from the clips on the Deutsche Grammophon website, but I think you'll enjoy the music. I thought it was pretty cool. After all, its probably not what you typically listen to day in and day out. Here's the website link, give it a listen.

http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/special/?ID=langlang-dragonsongs

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 10

2007-10-18T23:55:00.000-05:00

If you happen to have read my post in April on new music, you'll know how I feel about it. Regardless of whether you read it, I thought I'd suggest a few new pieces that I actually do like. Personally, John Adams' is one of my favorite contemporary composers. He's a minimalistic composer, which roughly means the composer uses a chord, rhythmic idea, phrase, or other item in a repetitive fashion, without altering it (much), for a long period of time before changing to something else. It can be a very powerful technique. A few pieces of his that you might want to check out are "A Short Ride in a Fast Machine," "Grand Pianola Music," and "Harmonium." Jennifer Higdon is another living composer who I enjoy. She isn't a minimalist composer, and I don't know how she would classify herself, but I view her music as a sort of neo-romantic style. Some pieces of hers that I like are "Concerto for Orchestra" and "Blue Cathedral." Also try checking out Christopher Theofanidis' "Rainbow Body." Another really cool piece that I just discovered is Wynton Marsalis' "All Rise" which is for (jazz) orchestra and chorus. This is only a small taste of the new stuff thats out there, and you may not even find these selections appealing to you, but thankfully I feel there are a lot of choices in styles of new music to choose from these days, and more than likely you'll find at least something you'll like.

who does that?!

2007-10-15T20:54:00.000-05:00

So the other day I got this email to do a gig in NY. It miraculously fit in between two other gigs I had going on in Philly so I was pretty excited that it would work out. The email gave the dates, times, locations, TBAs on some of the other locations, but pretty much provided all the info, except the important stuff…the bread, the moolah, the cheddar, a.k.a. green cash amounts. So naturally, I wrote back asking how much the pay per service was (Per service pay is how a lot of musician gigs are paid. Each rehearsal or concert is considered a “service,” and usually, and hopefully, a concert will pay more than a rehearsal service will). So, you would think, “Oooo, a gig in the ‘Big City.’ That must pay some cash, right?” Wrong. I get an email back saying, sorry, this gig doesn’t pay. Whoa, whoa….what? Doesn’t pay? Are you serious? This gig was seven services. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday night rehearsals (pretty late too, 7-10 pm), a Saturday rehearsal, a Saturday evening concert, a Sunday rehearsal, and a Sunday afternoon concert. Maybe I live in some alternate universe, but that’s a lot of time and a lot of work to not even be paid!? I mean, this isn’t a benefit concert or something, where all the money made from the concert sales is donated to a cause, and where the performers usually aren’t paid either as they’re “donating their services to the cause as well.” And believe me, I’ve done my share of these too, so its not like I don’t do the charity work. But this isn’t even that. I’ve done gigs like this that don’t pay (non charity concerts), many times, with the thought process of, “Well, you never know who will be at the gig, who will be listening, or what contacts will be made, so you never know.” And this is usually the mentality for musicians without a steady job, unfortunately. Thus, people who like to exploit this mentality are actually able to find people to do the work for free. But seriously, who are these people that ask musicians to do work for free, then expect to keep all the money made? I mean, I expect this concert was charging for tickets, but maybe not. Regardless, even if this isn’t some sort of benefit concert, the musicians should still be paid (I think musicians should be paid at a benefit concert anyway). Anyway, this really disgusts me. And not to constantly be comparing the ‘music world’ to the ‘normal world,’ but lets be honest with ourselves, who does that anywhere else!? Most volunteer work is for a cause...a reason…right? Not just exploiting work.

Its funny too how most musicians feel bad about what they're charging, or feel bad asking to be paid after say a lesson or other sort of service, as if playing your instrument or taking time to teach someone else how to play their instrument isn't worthy of being paid. Or that the amount being asked is just 'silly.' After all, its just music. The worst is after say, a wedding (or other gig) when payment is not promptly given. You have to ask...which can be quite awkward and humiliating to the musician, and simply should not have to be done. This has happened to me before, and on more than one occasion. This is just unacceptable. I had a teacher that compared this situation to doctors. Does a doctor have to ask for payment, apologize for the money they're charging, or more importantly have to ask for it after treatment? After all, isn't the knowledge he or she studied so hard for to treat you with just as valuable? They're certainly not going to treat you without being paid. Just because its music, doesn't mean it took any less time to learn or any less skill to master.

is music hard work?

2007-10-09T23:40:00.000-05:00

The other day I was having coffee with a friend I haven't seen since high school and we were talking about what we've been up to. While I'm sort of in a transitional period since I graduated and I don't have a steady job, most of my time is consumed by practicing, preparing for auditions, and doing the occasional arranging/composing, interspersed with gigs and hopefully some teaching. All too often I find myself explaining to someone what I do, usually downplaying it, or the amount of work, effort, and time I put into it. Simply put, when I tell someone what I'm up to on a daily basis, which is usually just "practicing," it ends up sounding like I don't do anything. The fact of the matter is, music is hard work and quite time consuming, despite how it might come across in say, a conversation.

Music is a slowly developing art, which is probably why many beginners give up before they get good enough, simply because the time it takes is too consuming compared with the progress they feel they're making. Even when you've entered the professional realm of music, the same holds true, and progress actually becomes an even slower process. Depending on the instrument you play, you can only practice so much at a time, and only so much in a day. Not to mention, you will usually want to spread out your practice time with rest time, otherwise you may injure yourself. If you use this method, it could become an all day process.

While it may sound silly, practicing a musical instrument is also a physical thing. It may not be like running a marathon, but many a days, I've finished a practice session and I'm a little sweaty, my face and arms are tired, etc. Its mental too. If you're really focusing on what you're doing while you're practicing, a whole days worth of practicing is quite tiring. It never ends either. Even professionals with great orchestra jobs still practice, not only to maintain their ability, but to also forever improve themselves. Its like having homework every day of your life. While I do believe in taking breaks from practicing, I've spent many vacations and holiday breaks practicing because an audition, competition, or important performance was coming up. This never ending practice regiment can even become tiresome, especially mentally.

While most musical jobs aren't "9 to 5," they do take time and effort, and often require odd hours. Musicians usually work when everyone else has off since its a form of entertainment. This means evenings, weekends, and especially holidays. While the average worker can't exactly be late for a job, it probably wouldn't be the end of the world. It wouldn't be the end of the world for a musician either, but being late for a rehearsal is pretty much not an option. Here, you usually have to plan extra, extra time to make sure you won't be late, and preferably, be early. As far as I know, the average worker isn't expected to show up at least 15 minutes before official work "start time." Ok, that may have been a bad example, but maybe you see what I'm saying. Performing isn't always the most relaxing thing either. While its hopefully usually enjoyable, it can also be quite stressful. After all, you're on the spot, and you really shouldn't be missing notes...ha. Anyway, I'm certainly not saying being a musician is harder than any other job, and I'll be the first to admit, its not nearly as bad as most. However, it is hard work, and it does take a lot of time, despite how "What I did today..." might sound, or the seemingly slow progress that is made after hours and hours of practicing. So its a little frustrating when people seem to think you don't do anything because you spend most of your day practicing, and not at a "real job." I suppose I shouldn't be too upset, as I'm often the guilty one for either playing down the amount of work it really takes, or making a joke about the amount of work we actually don't have to do ;)

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 9

2007-09-30T21:52:00.001-05:00

I'd like to suggest listening to Sergei Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1, also known as the Classical Symphony. I love this piece, partly because its 15 minutes long, total, which is sometimes refreshing when comparing it to an hour and a half symphony, but mostly because each movement has great themes which will inevitably get stuck in your head. Sergei gave the symphony its name due to his attempt to recreate a symphony in the classical style, trying mostly to emulate Joseph Haydn. Prokofiev added some newer elements to the structure to demonstrate his current time period (this was written around 1917), thus achieving a neo-classical status for the symphony. An interesting fact to this piece is that he composed it as composition practice away from a keyboard, meaning, he did it in his head. If you've ever tried any composition, you'll know this is quite impressive. While you're on a Prokofiev kick, I would also suggest listening to his Symphony No. 5, which is another popular composition of his.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 8

2007-09-13T22:57:00.001-05:00

My next listening suggestion is Igor Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, or Rite of Spring. Its one of those pieces I heard for the first time and was like, "What? That was horrible." Its now one of those pieces that I can't wait to hear or perform again and again. Stravinsky came up with the idea for the ballet in 1910, but didn't start working on it until 1912 and 1913. The piece essentially depicts a wild pagan spring ritual, in which a girl is being offered as a sacrifice to the Spring god. The Rite of Spring was groundbreaking as it was a very unconventional ballet, in rhythm, harmony, dissonance, and choreography. It was first performed in 1913 in Paris, and, according to reports, arguments and fistfights broke out amongst the audience between supporters and opponents of the new music, eventually developing into a full blown riot. The piece has an incredible primal, primitive, barbaric nature, and while you might think the dissonances would sound horrible (as he often even has different keyed triads playing at the same time; i.e. multiple keys playing at the same time), it is in fact quite exciting, and sounds good at the same time, which only a master like Stravinsky achieve. The percussive rhythmic intensity of the piece is one that is unmatched by any other, and at points, will really get you grooving as if it were a rock piece.

The piece is broken into two parts. The following is the breakdown of the piece. The first part begins with a very melodic and beautiful bassoon solo (which, according to Stravinsky, is the only tune he used that was directly taken from a previously existing folk melody; the rest are apparently either influenced or original-folk-sounding ideas created by Stravinsky). The second part begins with an eerie yet calm and somewhat beautiful setting. Both of which develop into barbaric, often scary moments.

Part I: Adoration of the Earth
Introduction
The Augurs of Spring (Dances of the Young Girls)
Ritual of Abduction
Spring Rounds (Round Dance)
Ritual of the Rival Tribes
Procession of the Sage
The Sage (Adoration of the Earth)
Dance of the Earth

Part II: The Sacrifice
Introduction
Mystic Circles of the Young Girls
The Glorification of the Chosen One
Evocation of the Ancestors
Ritual Action of the Ancestors
Sacrificial Dance (The Chosen One)

If you have seen the original Fantasia, you might recognize parts of the piece. While it is a ballet, the piece is often performed only in concert version without dancers. I hope you enjoy the piece, and if its your first time listening, please, don't suddenly slug the person sitting next to you.

interesting thought no. 3

2007-08-28T18:53:00.000-05:00

These days it seems more times than not, an orchestra won't pick anyone after an audition. This has happened to me personally at least five times. This is very annoying since taking an audition is not only a costly endeavor, but also a tiring and time consuming one, among other things.

Regardless of the reasoning that orchestras have for not picking someone, I was talking with a friend recently, and we were discussing how it has become somewhat common to see in a job advertisement something along the lines of "Please do not take this audition if you do not plan on taking the job after winning." How hypocritical. There should be a response line that says, I'll take this audition if you plan on choosing someone.

knowing the orchestra members

2007-08-22T19:56:00.000-05:00

The other day I was thinking about why I find it more enjoyable to listen to one group rather than another. Obviously it’s always more enjoyable to watch a more talented group, a more musical group, and so on and so forth. The one reason though, that I find uniquely significant is the aspect of familiarity with the performers. These days I think orchestras and performing groups in general like to encourage their performers to associate with crowds, talk a little about themselves and their background, and try to be more connected to their audiences. Often you’ll see pages in the programs specifically devoted to “Meeting an Orchestra Member.” In the two cities I went to conservatory in, I enjoyed listening to one of the orchestras much more than the other, and I wondered why. Both orchestras are top notch (although in my opinion, I thought one of them was a little better, ha). While it could be argued that one of orchestras was actually was more musical, talented, or something else, I realized that the main reason I enjoyed watching the one orchestra more was because I knew many of its members much better on a personal level. Many of the musicians were faculty at my school, people I worked with in a one on one level, or were even previous schoolmates of mine who had won positions in the orchestra. I was able to watch the orchestra from a whole different perspective than the average audience member. I knew the players on a far deeper level as people, and it really made a difference in the whole experience. I know this sounds a little silly, but I’m really serious. It was really entertaining to watch them perform and I was truly able to relate to their performance and appreciate what they were doing much more. Not to mention, since you would often see them on a daily basis, you would see them before and after the performance, which is also another important aspect of relating to someone's performance. It’s hard for me to really explain this feeling, unless you can experience it yourself, and unfortunately most people won’t, unless they spend personal time with orchestra members. These days, while orchestras seem to be making an effort to bring the audiences closer to the performers, it still doesn’t seem to be the same as actually knowing them personally. It is certainly a step in the right direction, and I think they should keep doing it. Unfortunately, this is one of the main problems in connecting audiences with performances, and I wish I had a better answer.

metronomes...mmm

2007-08-12T12:45:00.000-05:00

Metronomes....our time keeping devices. Some days you might love them, others, want to simply hurl them across the room and smash them to smithereens. But of course they're a necessary evil that we must practice with to ensure strict rhythm. I actually enjoy playing with a metronome sometimes...not sure why, but it sort of dictates you how fast you can go, no faster, no slower. In any case, playing with a metronome actually shouldn't be the crime most people make it out to be. In fact, if you're playing with it correctly, you really shouldn't hear the clicking at all (assuming you play an instrument louder than your metronome) because you should be playing exactly with it and thus covering the beat. Often times though, I find myself listening for the metronome to make sure I'm with it, and thus playing slightly after the click. I suppose if you're extremely consistent doing this, its not a bad thing (and would actually help when playing with orchestras who like playing slightly after a conductor's downbeat), but I would argue (and for all of you who hate playing with a metronome might use this as an excuse) that metronomes encourage playing late to the downbeat. Simply because most people are waiting to hear the beat to play with. Of course if you have good rhythm and know the pulse, this shouldn't and won't happen, but I'm just saying its a tendency which happens easily. Speaking of good pulse, have you ever been listening to pop music (or any other music in which the tempo stays exactly the same) and you leave the room short for a moment to where the music goes out of earshot, and you're singing along in your head, thinking you're with the music still, and when you come back, you're off by a beat, or heaven forbid a couple? For orchestral musicians, this is simply just blasphemy, but I'll bet it happens to the best of you. Its a test I'd like to give many of the jurors (and fellow orchestral musicians) sitting behind those screens in auditions, tapping away their pencils as if they're God's gift to perfect rhythm. After all, I wonder if they were all looking at each other's tapping whether they'd even agree with one another. Just a thought.

interesting thought no. 2

2007-08-09T19:01:00.000-05:00

Why is it that other countries' orchestras often offer national auditions to their own citizens before opening them up internationally, and an orchestra in the United States has yet to do that (to my knowledge)? It seems as though many countries do that. Why shouldn't we?

Many U.S. orchestras seem to be stressing the fact that you need to be able to work once you win a job, and that you must take care of visas, etc. beforehand if a problem is anticipated. From recent seminars I've been to, it seems as though managements don't want to even bother with the hassle to get these visas, etc. as it is a timely and costly process for the orchestra. So why not do this?

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 7

2007-07-19T17:01:00.001-05:00

I'd like to suggest listening to Aaron Copland's Symphony No. 3. It was Copland's final symphony and was finished in 1946. Following the end of World War II, Copland said it reflected "the euphoric spirit of the country at the time." Personally I love Copland's music. It combines elements of excitement with nostalgia, warmth, flares of different ethnicities, and ear pleasing harmonies into a swirl of "Americana" music. Listen when you get to the beginning of the fourth movement and I'm sure you'll recognize this famous "Fanfare." You'll hear fragments of this fanfare hinted throughout the symphony up until its statement in the fourth movement. If you know any of Copland's other works (which I would also suggest listening to), you might also recognize fragments from his other ballets. Enjoy.

interesting thought no. 1

2007-06-23T01:40:00.000-05:00

How many times have you given a standing ovation because you felt it was deserved, rather than because you felt you should?

critcism conversations

2007-06-19T16:56:00.000-05:00

Its been a busy couple of months. I’ve now finished my graduate degree, and am technically out in the real world now. I recently just got back from a music festival, and now have some auditions and a few gigs lined up. For those of you who don’t know, music festivals are places musicians go during the summer to play (typically musicians who don’t yet have a full time jobs, but depending on the caliber of the festival, this is not always the case). They are located all over the country and the world, and vary in their scope as to what they do, how big they are, who will be there, and how they are run. They’re typically (but not always) in nice, wealthy or touristy areas, and usually serve as a tourist attraction for the location. Depending on the festival, the perks can range from being a job in which the musicians are paid and otherwise do what they want when not in rehearsals or performances, to the complete opposite side of the spectrum where you have to pay to attend, and must participate in master classes, coachings, lessons, etc. in addition to rehearsing and performing (in essence, a summer school). Regardless, festivals are usually pretty nice for the musicians, since we probably wouldn’t otherwise visit the places they’re in, and it gives us something to do during the summer (and hopefully make a little money). Anyway, I began thinking the other day after listening to someone talking about their thoughts on a conductor. Why is it that musicians, seemingly more so that other people, always seem to feel the need to give, and often argue, their criticism of something? I’m not just talking about what they think of piece, a conductor, a teacher, a lesson, a festival, management, but it often gets down to even non musical things…like analyzing movies, a meal, a restaurant, how someone said something. It seems musicians are trained to develop a thought/criticism/feeling on everything…to find the good, and find the bad in whatever it is they’re doing or observing. It seems as though nothing can ever just be enjoyed for what it is…never just listened to, absorbed. A judgment always seems to need to be made. Even if you don’t want to participate in one of these conversations (which, if you have ever sat around with musicians, it is inevitable that these judgment conversations will arise), you will feel the need to participate, especially if you don’t agree with what is being said. This environment leads you to make these opinions and judgments, which you may never have wanted to make in the first place. Secondly, not only did you not want to make the opinions, but you’ll find yourself making them before conversations even arise, so that you won’t need to figure it out when someone wants to challenge you on it.

I suppose it derives from our field. In order for ourselves to improve as musicians, we constantly need to be listening to each other, and more importantly to ourselves: making judgments and criticisms, finding what is good and bad, and figuring out what needs to be fixed. I suppose if we didn’t do that, we would be stagnant, and never improve. It also tends to stem, I believe, from the lack of professionalism and structure that the music business often fails to live up to, compared to the business world on the “outside.” It becomes overwhelming, I suppose, when you are constantly listening to others’ thoughts on a conductor, piece, management, or something. You may have a gut feeling about something, such as a piece when its over, as we all do…but why is there are always this need to discuss and argue it? And as I say, it often turns into arguments, when if you think about it, all you’re arguing over is something very trivial and opinionated anyway. A musician’s mindset is often one that is seeking perfection and that whatever is being performed can probably be better. This may or may not be healthy, but hopefully is and will lead to improvement. However, when we are being analyzed by others, the mindset that you must find something wrong may be unhealthy. What if there is nothing wrong? Maybe the passage was played in a perfectly acceptable manner, but perhaps wasn’t exactly along the lines that specific listener was looking for. True, more than likely, whatever was played wasn’t played perfectly, and suggesting a different interpretation is always acceptable…but you can see where I’m going with this. When is something good enough? Regardless, I always find it refreshing to sit and have conversations with non musicians. At least they seem to be able to have conversations about things other than criticizing what they do.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 6

2007-05-04T17:34:00.000-05:00

I have to first thank everyone who has been reading as today breaks 500 hits to my blog, so thanks. My next installment for listening is going to have to be some Rachmaninoff. I love Rachmaninoff because I think his music is absolutely beautiful, so I'd like to suggest Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 3, usually referred to as Rach 3; an extremely difficult concerto for pianists...often known as the hardest...or so I've been told by my pianist friends. Its about forty minutes long, and is in the typical three movement concerto form. Its not only extremely beautiful but quite exciting. Rachmaninoff was a "romantic" period composer, and his music, in my opinion, is the epitome of the style. As I expressed in my previous post about "new music," Rachmaninoff was obviously an accomplished musician himself as he wrote the piece not only to show his talents as a composer, but as a pianist, as he himself was the first to perform it. (He supposedly practiced the part on a silent keyboard on the boat over to America for the first performance as there had been no time to practice in Russia before leaving!)

new music

2007-04-18T20:27:00.000-05:00

New music…hm. Well, to be honest, I guess I’d have to say I usually don’t like it. Here’s the thing though – that doesn’t mean I don’t like “new music.” What it does mean, is that most of the new music that is coming out these days, is no good, in my opinion, and thus I just don’t like it. I hate this idea that you have to like something just because its “new” or because who knows why. Its possibly one of the most annoying things for me when, after going to a concert with new music or a premier in it, I have to listen to my fellow musicians express their ignorant “deep thoughts” on the piece, or how they thought it was so great, or try to analyze what they thought they heard, but actually showing to everyone else what they don’t know in their head…the truth of the matter is, more than likely, they have no idea what they actually heard, especially if the composer thought he or she was being really intelligent and tried pulling some mathematical stunt or created some ‘genius’ new idea/sound/concept in a piece, which, lets be honest, didn’t work. The thing was, J.S. Bach did some really unbelievable, miraculous, new things... mathematically, fugally, etc., etc., but he was able to make it sound amazing at the same time. So unless the concert program explained what was going on in the piece, it was probably a mystery to all the listeners, and even if you did know what the math puzzle was, you probably still wouldn’t be able to hear what you knew to be true in the science of the piece. Most of the time, its just a lot of noise…literally like people playing whatever the heck they want, whenever the heck they want. To me, it seems as though this kind of writing doesn’t even take much talent…it just takes time. And often I wonder if you were to ask a composer who writes this kind of music to write something really beautiful, not necessarily emulating anyone, but just genuinely beautiful, I’ll bet they’d have a really hard time at it, if they could do it at all. Maybe I’m wrong…but it seems that would be the case. I’ve talked to a lot of composers over the years around school and what not, and its amazing how few of them actually play an instrument (let alone the instrument they are writing for), how few have a solid knowledge of the instruments they're writing for (ranges of the instruments, what they can do, and what they can't, etc.), how few have ever played in an orchestra (especially when that’s ensemble they’re writing for), or most amazingly, how few have heard much, if any, of the standard orchestral repertoire. I’ve talked to composers who have gone through college and never heard a Mahler Symphony…..never heard Wagner or Brahms….whatever. That is shocking, unbelievable, and unacceptable. It makes me think composition should not be allowed as an undergraduate degree. In fact, I think if you are going to be a composition student, it should be a graduate degree only, and it must be a prerequisite to have actually become proficient at an instrument, and possibly played in an orchestra…unless of course you’re like Mozart. It’s like people just want to make themselves love ugly music these days…which brings me to an interesting and scary point. Most people haven’t, but if you’ve ever read what the Communist Goals in 1963 were, take a look at numbers 22 and 23.

22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings,” substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.

23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

This is scary…especially since it seems to me that this is what most art has become…especially visual art. Obviously everyone has different tastes, and for those of you who love new music, I certainly don’t have a problem with that, but lets all be honest with ourselves and admit there’s a lot of really bad crap out there…which is the stuff I’m talking about. Now, don’t get me wrong. Not all new music is ugly. And as I said before, and let me reiterate: I don’t dislike new music, but if you were to ask me, I would say I tend to dislike new music, because most of it seems to be really poorly written these days.

Now that I’ve just gone off on a tirade against new music, let me tell you, there is good new music out there. I’ve heard it…and I don’t mind listening to it. I won’t name any specific pieces right now, for the funny reason that what I thing is good you may think is bad, and what I think is bad, you may think is good. Such is music. But again, you know the kind of music I’m talking about. Maybe I’m from a weird place…but I always thought music was written to be listened to, and if its not at least somewhat pleasing to listen to, no one will want to listen to it, thus it won’t be played. The good news is, I think composers are finally coming around these days to this realization. I mean, if you’re writing music for yourself, and not thinking about “what others think,” then fine, listen to it yourself…but don’t expect it to be performed. It used to be in the ‘60s and ‘70s composers were so into experimenting and developing new ideas, I feel like they totally lost a very important focus of music….to entertain. True, it is an expression tool as well, which is what was being emphasized (mood writing, like Schoenberg and Webern), but come on. I also have a problem with people who don’t like certain new music, or discredit something because they say its “too cheesy.” What does that even mean? I can admit, some things, if too simplistic, repetitive, or poorly written, can being boring or just bad…which goes into the same category I put poorly written new music. But say that, don’t call it cheesy. Just because something is tonal and may follow a harmonic progression which can be expected doesn’t necessarily make it cheesy. In fact, I’ve talked with new music advocates and they’ll discredit the tonal new music as cheesy, or not good. Why? I guess they’d ask me the same question to me for disliking their music…but I would honestly answer, if their new music was written well, I’d probably like it. Just because it sounds good, this apparently makes it bad. This breed of people seems to like anything execept tonality. So let me ask them a question...do you truly enjoy sitting through a concert with (in my opinion) really awful, poorly written new music? Truly enjoy? Or are you just trying to be some “open minded” and “artistic” hippy? If you can still say yes, then good…you’re able to enjoy something I can’t, but don’t expect me to come to the concert.

A lot of orchestras are promoting the idea of playing new music these days...which again, I don’t have a problem with, if its written well. Recently I was in a class at which Zarin Mehta (President and Executive Director of the New York Philharmonic) spoke. Something he said was very interesting to me. He said the New York Philharmonic has no problem playing some of the same standard pieces year after year, such as Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, because those concerts are always sold out. And in a city of millions, more than likely, even if you play it 10 years in a row, you’re going to sell out the house to different people each year (other than your regular subscribers, who probably still won't mind listening to it again...and yes, these concerts will usually be sold out). Not to mention, the orchestra members enjoy playing pieces that create excitement and are fun to play. Beethoven knew how to write an electrifying piece…and he was deaf. Mr. Mehta continued by telling us, interestingly enough, that in orchestras these days, its not necessarily just the old-timers in the orchestras who have a problem playing the new repertoire. It’s often primarily the young members. He said, it’s the young players who are new to the orchestra and are geared up to play the famous and exciting literature they’ve studied so hard and perfected their instruments for so long to play. The old-timers have played it all a million times. Of course this is a generalization and you’ll find the contrary to be true too, but its an interesting point. I think what it is, is that I believe music, and art for that matter, should be beautiful. That doesn’t mean it all has to be tonal, sing-songy, happy, or anything like that. It can be angry, ugly, atonal, whatever…but it has to be written well. I guess it’s just a really hard thing for me to explain…and I’m just really sick of it.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 5

2007-04-15T12:15:00.000-05:00

I’ve taken a slight hiatus from making entries, but I’m back, and here's my next listening suggestion. Recently, I’ve been on a little Requiem kick as I’ve had the opportunity to perform three of them in the past couple weeks, so I’d like to suggest listening to one of my favorites, Mozart’s Requiem. A Requiem is a sacred piece which is typically composed in the adjustable form (meaning movements can be retracted or added depending on likes of the composer) of the Roman Catholic Liturgy, and written primarily to be performed in a liturgical service, but may also be played in concert settings. They were, and are, primarily written as dedications to the souls of those who have passed away, and thus may also be played for special services or occasions such as Good Fridays, funerals, etc.

Mozart began composing his Requiem, his last composition, in 1791, but died before completing it. He only completed the first movement, and sketches have been found over the years from other parts of the Requiem. Because of this, there is debate as to how much of the piece was written actually by him, and subsequently many versions have been completed by numerous musicologists and scholars. The most famous and traditional version of which is called the “Sussmayr” edition. I hope you like the piece, and you might find that even if you think you’ve never heard it before, that you might recognize parts of it as its often used in movies, commercials, and other mediums.

my audio-media dilemma

2007-04-02T00:23:00.000-05:00

I was trying to think of the last time I actually bought a CD. Its been a while…in fact its been so long, I actually can’t remember. A year or two ago I put all of my CDs onto my laptop, converting them into MP3 format, so, as I’m quite mobile these days, I can easily and quickly access all of my music at any time. Its very handy. I’m the type of guy who likes to have little clutter around, meaning I would rather have all of my music on my computer and carry around my laptop, rather than have 350+ CDs lying around. On the other hand, I’m also the kind of guy who likes to have a hard copy of everything too. So in one sense I like to have very little lying around, and at the same I like to have copies of everything filed somewhere. This is very contradictory, I know, and that may be just something weird specific to me, but somehow I think that maybe a lot of people are like this. It’s ironic these days that things such as recording methods like microphones, digital recording technologies, and highly researched recording techniques are at an all time high. Playback methods have also been tremendously improved, such as speaker qualities, surround sound technologies, sound eliminating headphones, etc. What’s ironic however, is that what people are actually listening to, largely MP3s these days, contradicts the big bucks they are spending to hear their music. I’ve heard it argued that CDs were even a step down from records. As I’ve been told, if you have the correct setup and all the right equipment, records can have and even higher quality sound than CDs. I don’t know if I buy this (as I certainly don’t have a problem with CDs), but if you do entertain this argument, media has been the one aspect which has constantly decreased in quality. While CDs are a high quality form of media, MP3s, comparatively, are incredibly dumbed down audio files, where many frequencies have been removed to save memory…or something (even though these days memory is dirt cheap). Its kind of a shame when you think of the quality of everything else which has been so meticulously researched and improved, and then something like an MP3 throws that all away. However, it also raises the question as to whether people would even hear the difference. Most people don’t have both a CD and MP3 copy of the same music to check it out, but even if they did, could they tell the difference? Interestingly, it sometimes comes down to your playback method as to whether you would be able to tell: for example, listening on your built in speakers on your laptop as opposed to some high quality Bose speakers.

There’s something about having that hard copy though. I’m always listening to MP3s on my computer, and don’t really think about what I’ve listened to most of the time. But the other day I got a CD from my school library, listened to it, and at the end, physically removed it from my player. It sounds stupid, but there was something rewarding about having a CD in my hand with a specific set of music that I knew I have finished, completed, and listened to. Not to mention, I was more conscious of what I had just listened to. I put it back into the case, and bam, done and done. Also, when you only have an MP3, you lack the tangibles, such as the cover inserts you might get in a CD; information and details which you can only get from the insert. In fact, you can try and be savvy by looking up the CD on Amazon.com or something and get some of the information, but you’re still going to miss a lot of it. This is where I also run into a dilemma. I like to have the information…who’s playing on certain tracks, where it was recorded, when it was recorded, some background info on the group, composer info, pictures, album art, whatever. But I don’t want the clutter, and I want to be mobile. You can’t get this information from an MP3 file (sometimes you can get limited album art, and some rudimentary info, but nothing very comprehensive). Basically I think there needs to be another audio-file revolution. Something needs to be developed that can still be portable (which is important these days), can somehow be both tangible and not, can provide all of the information needed/wanted, and still not sacrifice the audio quality which is more than capable of being captured and reproduced these days. It’s kind of weird when you look at video which seems to be improving all-around: HD televisions almost everywhere these days, cable stations are beginning to broadcast in HD, the cameras which people are recording with are beginning to be in HD, and HD-DVDs and Blue-Ray discs are now becoming more prevalent. Obviously I’m content with CDs and MP3s as I enjoy the benefits of both. But when I’m listening to music on my expensive speakers, I’d like to think that the time that went into rehearsing the music, the talent that was refined to perform it, and the technology that was developed to record it, will be justified in its reproduction.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 4

2007-03-26T15:06:00.000-05:00

For today's "dose" I chose Maurice Ravel's "Le Tombeau de Couperin" (A Memorial for Couperin) arrangement for orchestra. He originally wrote the piece for piano in six movements, but orchestrated an arrangement in 1919 which was shortened to four movements. Each movement is dedicated to one (or more) of his friends who died in World War I. Ravel himself was in the war acting as an ambulance driver and was also wounded. The piece is presumably named after Francois Couperin, a well-known French Baroque composer, after which Ravel wished, not necessarily to write in his style, but to pay respect to the French baroque keyboard style which Couperin was well known for.

This is a slight change in pace to what I have been suggesting, as it’s a lot lighter in orchestration, meaning there are fewer players than in a Mahler Symphony, and the dynamics and density of sound is much softer, lighter, and thinner. This is a nice short piece that has some great harmonies. Its evokes a much different feeling than the brassy, loud pieces I’ve suggested in the past. I hope you like it.

sports vs. music

2007-03-21T10:10:00.000-05:00

I love watching sports, and have been doing so a lot these past few days…and will continue to do so in the next few weeks, as we are in the midst of March Madness: a fantastic competition of college students playing to win a spot in the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, and ultimately win the championship. Just a note: although I do enjoy watching this tournament, I’m not one of those people who thinks college sports are way better than professional sports. I mean when it comes down to it, while the games can be exciting especially during the post season, unless its one of the top teams, they really make a lot of mistakes. Missed shots, botched plays, etc. I mean, they’re students, not professionals…that’s fine. But often people say, “But at least they’re playing with heart and not for the money,” and I say, “No, they’re playing with heart to get the money.” This may or may not be true, but, especially when you’re looking at the top teams, you can bet the players are playing for a spot in the NBA. A small tangent.

Anyway, when I’m watching sports, I’m often comparing it to music. Whether its thinking about how they practice, what they’re thinking during the game, how they react under pressure, etc. Obviously many books have been written and other comparisons have been made when it comes to the psychological and mental aspects of sports relating to music. Of course, it almost always goes that way….sports to music, and rarely the other way. Can you imagine during a basketball practice a coach referencing musicians to some aspect of their sports’ practice or athletes reading books on how musicians practice? “If you guys would just practice your free throws like musicians practice their scales, maybe we’d win our next game!” Highly doubtful. I wonder why that is. They’re often doing that to us in master classes, lessons, and other training we go through. It doesn’t bother me, as it often helps…its just interesting. Regardless, there seems to be a close connection between the two. They’re both forms of entertainment, but music tends to lack the competitive aspect, and doesn’t tend to draw the crowds or attention (probably due to the lack of competition in performances, as this is what draws the crowds) that sports does. Obviously we musicians don’t get the monetary perks that most professional sports athletes have, but then again, we don’t have the exorbitant fines they often receive too, thank goodness. Unfortunately we don’t have the endorsement perks, signing bonuses, (free) personal trainers, or other benefits and help they have either. All these things annoy me. But I think what makes me the most annoyed is their reward, whether monetary, fame or whatever else, for the work, skill, or talent that is, lets say, equal to, the work, skill, or talent necessary to be a truly successful musician. Granted, the chances of becoming a professional athlete are slim, and are very competitive. But then again, so is becoming a successful musician. In fact, I’d argue its harder, takes more work, costs you more money, pays a heck of a lot less, and may or may not be less rewarding. While there is a draft for most sports every year, you’d be lucky if there were four good auditions (four spots) for a position of your instrument every year in an orchestra, at which every musician who plays that instrument and is actually pursuing getting a job will be there (and not just college aged musicians, but grown people who either don’t have a job still, or want a new one). Not only this, but they might not even be spots in great orchestras, or well paying positions…regardless, there will still be a whole lot of hopeless musicians there. To be a soloist is even more ridiculous…perhaps more rewarding monetarily, but crazy hard to achieve the status, let alone keep it. Not only this, but music demands less mistakes and is less forgiving than sports. Sports will allow for a missed free throw here and there, a missed shot, a botched pass, a bad game, a bad week, even a bad season….heck, look at A-Rod…the guy sucked for like half the season, granted he got some flack for it, but he still made ridiculous amounts of money, and kept his job. Music…not so much. First of all, an audition for a job won’t really allow for a mistake. They all say you can make a mistake and still win, and sure, you could probably crack something, but certainly not again, and definitely nothing major. When it comes to the job, you might be able to miss note here or there, but not again, or you’ll get looks. And it better not happen much…or you’ll be getting a talk. That’ll happen even if you’re playing out of tune, or say hitting all the notes, but your sound starts to suck. I certainly don’t think someone should be able to get away with schlock playing, but when comparing it to sports, it seems so trivial. Whatever…I’ll still go on watching sports, and enjoying them, and I’ll definitely keep playing music, and hopefully enjoying that too. So, unless someone figures out how to get 50,000 people to consistently attend classical music concerts (at a stadium I guess), get people to wear XYZ Orchestra ‘jerseys,’ start selling beer and hot dogs at the Opera Café, have an Orchestra Super Bowl, and maybe having some sort of Classical American Idol, it looks like things are just going to have to stay that way.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 3

2007-03-19T13:48:00.000-05:00

My next suggestion is Gustav Mahler’s Second Symphony, also known as “The Resurrection” Symphony. Mahler wrote nine complete symphonies, and started a tenth, which he never finished. His Second Symphony is a beast though, and a favorite for Mahler listeners. It can range anywhere from 70 to 90 minutes long, depending on who is conducting, but don’t let this scare you off. I strongly recommend giving it a listen, the ending is well worth the wait, not to mention the whole piece, which is fantastic. Anyway, Mahler wrote the five movement behemoth over the course of six years, beginning in 1888, and finishing it up in 1894. He wrote the first movement over the first year, and proceeded to write the next three movements by 1893. It wasn’t until after the death of his friend, Hans von Bulow, that he was finally inspired to write the fifth movement, which includes chorus. It was after hearing Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock’s Die Auferstehung (The Resurrection) that he decided to write his fifth movement based on the text of this poem.

Unlike most of his music, Mahler had a narrative for this piece. The setting of the first movement is a funeral, in which questions such as, “Is there life after death?” are asked. The second movement recalls the happy times in the life of the deceased. The third, written in a scherzo (a dance), there is a complete loss in faith, and the belief that life is meaningless presides over the movement. The fourth, an unusually short movement, especially compared to the 30 minute fifth movement, but one of my favorites, is called Urlicht, or Primeval Light, and is a beautiful song sung by an alto in which faith and a belief in Christ as Savior is again realized. In the fifth movement, elements from the previous four movements are referenced, such as doubts and questions from the first movement. The character finally becomes sure of God’s love, and the belief in everlasting life is sure. This movement is especially impressive as Mahler masterfully uses alto and soprano solos combined with chorus, great brass, and suspensful wind and string writing.

Enjoy.

some general terms, just in case

2007-03-14T16:19:00.000-05:00

As I was looking over my last entry, I realized I should have explained some of the “departments” in the orchestra and other musical ensembles. The orchestra is made up of several different divisions: the strings, the brass, the woodwinds, and the percussion. The strings are made up of, from highest to lowest: the violins, the violas, the cellos, and the basses. The latter two are considered the lower strings. Violas kind of get shuffled around in the mix, and thus tend to be the butt of many jokes. The harp is also part of the string family, but is often is own entity...as are, often, the musicians who play harp. The woodwinds, in score order (meaning the order they appear in a full score of music which the conductor looks from), are made up of: the flutes, oboes, clarinets, and bassoons. The brasses, also in score order, are made up of: the horns, trumpets, trombones, and tuba. The first two are typically considered high brass, while the latter two are low brass. The percussion is pretty explanatory, and I’m not going to list all the possible percussion instruments, as I think, that would take forever. Some typical ones include the snare drum, bass drum, cymbals, timpani (or kettle drums), triangle, etc., etc. The piano and celeste (the instrument that you may know better as "Trolley" from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood) are also technically considered percussion instruments, but are also a part of the keyboard family. These are just the basic instruments. Often there are many more playing, but they will fit into one of these groupings.

In case I suggest listening to chamber music, here are some typical chamber groups.

Strings:

A string quartet, the most common ensemble, is made up of two violins, a viola, and a cello. When strings have a quintet ensemble, it is referred to as whatever instrument is added to a standard quartet. So, a piano quintet is made up of a piano, two violins, a viola, and a cello. A viola quintet is a viola plus a typical string quartet, and so on. A piano quartet, however, is a string quartet minus a violin which is replaced with a piano. A string trio is made up of a violin, viola, and a cello. And finally, a piano trio is usually a piano, violin, and a cello.

Woodwinds:

A woodwind quintet, the most common ensemble, or commonly known as a wind quintet, is made up of a flute, clarinet, oboe, horn, and bassoon. A wind quartet is typically a flute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon, and a wind trio is made up of a flute, oboe and clarinet.

Brass:

A brass quintet, the most common ensemble, is made up of two trumpets, a horn, a trombone, and a tuba. A brass quartet is typically two trumpets and two trombones, but can also be made up of two trumpets, a trombone, and a horn. Unlike the strings, when a group is referred to by the instrument, such as a 'trumpet' quintet, or a 'trombone' quartet, this simply means five trumpets, or four trombones, respectively. Brass players keep it simple…and use common sense.

Of course all of these ensembles have exceptions to the rule, thus throwing anything I just wrote out the window.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 2

2007-03-11T15:35:00.000-05:00

For my next “dose,” I’d like to suggest listening to Richard Strauss’ Eine Alpensinfonie, or An Alpine Symphony, which is one of his great tone poems. Tone poems are typically one-movement pieces written around a story, or some sort of imagery which is “programmatic,” meaning it follows a story line of sorts. This one is somewhat autobiographical in that Strauss recalls climbing the Alps when he was 14. I would suggest listening to a recording of this piece that has individual tracks for each segment of the piece (since it doesn’t have movements and each scene melds into the next). There should be 21 or 22 depending if they group the ‘Waterfall’ and ‘Visual Feature’ movements together or not. Each segment of the piece is a scene during his journey up and down the mountain. In case the recording you get has the movements in German, here are the English translations: Night, Sunrise, the Ascent, Entry into the Woods, Wandering by the Stream, by the Waterfall, a Visual Feature, on Flowery Meadows, an Alpine Pasture, In thicket and undergrowth on the Wrong Path, on the Glacier, Dangerous Moments, at the Summit, Vision, the Fog Rises, the Sun is Gradually Obscured, Elegy, Calm before the Storm, Thunderstorm and Descent, Sunset, the Waning tones (the journey ends), Night. Listening in this way will allow the music to make more sense and you can follow why Strauss wrote the music the way he did for each “scene.” For example, in the Alpine Pasture scene, listen for birds (flutes) and cow bells (cow bells), and before the Thunderstorm scene you’ll hear raindrops begin, and quickly develop into a thunderstorm of wind, thunder and lightning, all clearly portrayed in the music. Two major recurring themes which you’ll want to listen for are the Night and Sunrise themes. You’ll hear the Night theme in the low brass in the beginning, and the Sunrise theme in trumpets in the beginning of the second scene; both reoccur throughout the whole piece. Enjoy.

auditions...the bane of my existence

2007-03-07T17:51:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are not musicians, and for those who are, and would like to commiserate with me, I would like to explain a little something musicians must go through in order to get jobs...auditions. I'm going to concentrate on the orchestral audition, as it hits most closely to home. So if you would indulge me by continuing to read further. A quick disclaimer: as my knowledge concerning the job search in the "outside world" is limited, I have made certain conclusions based mostly on what I believe to be true, but can pretty much be sure, I'm not far off the mark.

Now, musicians audition for all sorts of things, from orchestral positions, to tours, to shows, to music festivals, etc., and if you're some sort of performing artist, these processes are probably very familiar and similar to your own. I think, and perhaps I'm wrong, but because the 'orchestra' is more of an 'institution' than most other ensembles, it has somehow evolved its audition to being so incredibly "fair," for better or for worse, that it becomes an almost alien process that is so remarkably different from actually playing the job, that auditioning requires a skill of its own to win (which I obviously still have yet to master as I have not yet won a professional position). Like I said, I'd like to concentrate on the orchestra audition because really, in my opinion, its one of the weirdest, most unique, messed up ways of looking for someone for a job.

It all starts with the "posting" of an opening of a job. Lets go with the arbitrary instrument of, the kazoo (hopefully you realize there are no kazoo positions in an orchestra, and this is meant purely as a case study example, only). The vacancy will be posted in the union paper, which you receive if you are a part of the union. Ironically, you don't need to be in a union until you're in an orchestra (or play a union gig already), and yet this is how you find out about the opening. Subsequently, most people check the paper from a library, or find out by word of mouth or a third-party website. After applying through mail or email by sending in your resume, you will, hopefully, receive a response from the orchestra personnel manager either inviting you to come, or telling you that you are too inexperienced and suggesting that you not come (as its illegal to refuse anyone the right to audition), or, in conjuction with the latter, that you may send in a recording of your beautiful kazoo playing with a list of orchestral excerpts x, y and z. [A quick note to those who don't know: an orchestral excerpt is usually a difficult or telling passage of some aspect of playing on your instrument from the orchestral repertoire which can be anywhere from 3 to 30 measures long].

Once you are invited, or are asked to come after your recording is accepted, you book a flight and a hotel for the 'preliminary round' audition date. This is all at your own expense (until perhaps the final round which the orchestra may or may not cover your costs). This can be an interesting matter, because more often than not, there are several days of preliminary round auditions...meaning, if you need to book a flight, you obviously need to know what day you're playing on (and what time) so that you can make arrangements accordingly (especially if you want a good price on a plane ticket). While you may have seen all the dates of the audition posted, you still don't know when you're playing until they tell you, which, can sometimes be only a couple weeks before the audition. By this point, tickets prices have often gone up, etc. Not to mention, this whole process is quite expensive, because usually in order to be in top form, you'll want to fly into the audition city the day before, and, if a semi-final round exists the same day as your preliminary round, you'll probably need to stay over another night because you don't know whether you'll advance or not. Plus, you will have sent in a check as a deposit for anywhere from $50 to $100 to reserve your audition time (Granted, you get the check back assuming you show up). Oh, and not to mention, you'll need money for all the meals you'll eat, cabs to and from the airport to your hotel, and unless you happen to land cheap hotel in the middle of a metropolis next to the concert hall, cab fare from your hotel to the audition location. Remind me, do musicians swim in money? The term starving musician suddenly makes sense.

Lets assume for this kazoo audition, you found out your audition details with plenty of time, and you were able to make arrangements without problems. You'll be practicing your kazoo, and the whole list of kazoo excerpts, which may or may not all be asked in the audition, a lot, perfecting that beautiful paper buzz, your intonation, your rhythm, and that quality tone you know you can produce on your expensive, plastic instrument. I forgot to mention, you and maybe 50 to 200 other kazoo players are taking this audition, for the one spot, that opens up once every couple of months? years? So, you fly out the day before, have a pleasant? night's sleep in your hotel, and wake up in time to arrive at the audition a good half-hour before your "hour" of auditions. You'll check in, and usually, if its a well run audition, will be put into your own warm up room. These days, you are assigned an "hour" during which you play, and there can be anywhere from 5 to 10 people within you hour. However, some auditions are run where everyone who is auditioning that day shows up at the same time, then draws 'straws' to find out when you will play within the day. Lets assume for this kazoo audition, its the case of the former. At this point, you'll be given the order which you are to play within your hour, and thus can somewhat guess what time you'll play (which usually isn't accurate, as things run like a typical doctor's office). So finally, as you're warming up in your room, hands a little sweaty, hearing everyone else buzzing away on their kazoos, wondering why you got into this business and whether you should even be playing the kazoo at all, the proctor of the audition knocks at your door informing you, "Its time." They lead you down the hall, as if you're walking the "green mile" or something, get to the stage door, and give you a last look of, good luck, hah! You walk out on stage, on a carpet mind you (because they don't want to know whether you are male or female), and they announce your number, since the committee, made up of prominent orchestra members, is behind a screen in the audience and can't see you or know who you are. The list of excerpts for the day more than likely was given to you when you checked in that day, a much smaller list of maybe 5 or 6 from the big list you were given initially. Sometimes they'll pull a stunt and put excerpts in front of you, one at a time, so you don't know what you're playing next until it hits you in the face. So, you play a couple excepts, and usually, there's a cut-off point...that way if you're really sucking, they at least "gave you the chance to play," and say "Thank you!" Or if you're sounding good, they'll let you continue, and finish up the list. Don't miss a note! They may even ask you to play one or two over again, if they like what they're hearing, which is a good sign. This doesn't happen too often, as they have a million other kazoo's to listen to in the day. Assuming you got to play the whole list, this whole process takes, oh, I don't know, maybe 5 minutes...fun fun. Now this process right here, in some case, some orchestras might have up to three different rooms with three different committees, simultaneously listening to kazoo players. This typically happens if they have a really large pool of applicants. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I personally can't see how three different committees can have any sort of consistancy in what they're listening for. Regardless, after you audition, you're then led to a holding room. There you wait nervously, because after the committee hears that hour of applicants play, they quickly confer, and choose, if anyone, who to advance to the next round, based on, usually annonymous votes...because heaven forbid anyone know your opinion of someone's playing. The proctor will then come into the room and announce who advanced. I've heard of days, and whole auditions (several days worth of people playing, mind you), where NOBODY advanced. And I'm not talking about advanced=winning the job. No, I'm talking about, advancing to the next round, or semi-final round. And there are typically three rounds, preliminary, semi, and final rounds. These days, even if you get that far, you still haven't won the job. If you and someone else (or more) do happen to make it to the final round, you'll each be asked to play maybe a week or two with the orchestra in a trial period. If that works out, then, they might consider you the winner of the audition. Even then, you're still under a probationary period, which can last up to a year and a half, and, if you aren't given tenure after this period, at least in the orchestra world, that means they don't want you, so go look elsewhere.

Anyway, if you've been able to do this yourself, kudos to you...and personally, and maybe foolishly, I still have hope and faith that this will happen to me. BUT...I have to say, its often quite discouraging to practice your kazoo hours a day, spend a whole heck of a lot of money (which typically musicians, other than Britney Spears and Snoop Dogg, don't have a whole heck of a lot of) and time to be put into an unnatural situation where you have to play at your optimum level, and show, in 5 minutes, with some weird 10 bar excerpts, that you are the best kazoo player they're going to hear. Its possible...but hard. And I know, thats not exactly the way any typical business conducts interviews for its jobs. So goes it...we've chosen the field ourselves, so I guess thats what we asked for. However, I have to say, once you've won the job, its pretty sweet. You're doing what you love, and being paid to do it. So, the next time you go to the symphony, remember what these people have gone through, and know they've got some skills...Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer skills...well, maybe not, but at least on their instruments.

a dose of music: a classical injection - part 1

2007-03-05T03:36:00.000-05:00

At the typical conservatory, and any other classical institution for that matter, musicians are often bombarded with the oh-so fateful questions, "What is the future of classical music?" and "Where is it going," which are usually, and almost always followed by this seemingly recent and overly stressed idea of "outreach" for musicians. I don't have a problem with outreach, in fact I think its a great idea depending on how its carried out, but I also have issues with it, which deserves an entry unto its own. Regardless, this led me think about why it seems people aren't interested in classical music. The reasons are many, but I decided that one, which I might be able to address myself, is the matter of exposure. I think it often gets a bad rap because people don't know what to listen to, and their idea of classical music instantly shoots to some sort of Mozart Symphony or similar type of piece. This isn't a bad thing, since Mozart was obviously a genius, and wrote great music, but sometimes, I'll admit it, it gets a little boring. The average joe just hasn't heard a lot of whats out there, and there is indeed A LOT out there...good, exciting stuff. Sometimes since classical music (and I use the word 'classical' out of the literal time period sense) tends to be long, people don't want to hear it and lose interest quickly, mostly due to our quick pace of life these days. Pop music is short, gets to the point, and I'll admit, can be very powerful. But....If you like pop music, and most people do, classical music has the same punch, in fact is, almost always, so much greater, because it takes much longer to lead up to a climax, which makes it all that much more rewarding. Not only is the music is so much more rewarding once it gets there, but the music is written so much better...in other words, it uses more than just the four basic triad chords that a pop piece might use. So I decided that, as a duty I felt to myself and to help expose those desperately seeking juicy classical music, a periodical classical music listening suggestion blog entry was necessary. Whatever I might be listening to, whether it be popular/famous, or (more preferably) not, I'll share it, and hopefully if anyone is indeed reading out there, you might go find it somewhere, and take a listen.

For today's "dose" I decided to choose Ottorino Respighi's Pini di Roma, or Pines of Rome. This is one of those more well-known pieces, so you may already know it, as it was used in Fantasia 2000, but its a good one to start with. This piece is great; its not too long, it follows a story (so you can at least imagine whats going on during the piece), good harmonies, and has a great punch at the end. Gotta love brass. You can read more about it at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pines_Of_Rome

a musician's first entry

2007-03-04T01:44:00.000-05:00

Ah yes....I'm a musician.....a classical musician....and a student at that. I'll be finishing my second degree shortly, and as I'm nearing that light at the end of the tunnel, I realized that I'm about to become one of those "starving musicans" I always joked about. I won't really be starving, but I certainly don't have a steady job yet. The music world is a funny one, because it really is a bubble unto its own. I guess I wouldn't really know what other "bubbles" are like, or if they compare; but as I do have some friends outside of the music world, I can honestly say that as far as I can tell, the musician bubble is unique.

Anyway, I'm a little new to blogging scene, quite new actually....funny that I've started a blog, really, considering the first time I even visited a blog was yesterday, simply to see what they were all about. I always knew what a blog was, but never visited one. I've actually always considered myself pretty attuned (no pun intended) to technology, or at least tried to keep somewhat up to date with what was at least out there....but I often only read about things, and never checked them out.....such as blogging. Having said that, I don't know where the content on this blog will lead, or even if its "supposed" to lead somewhere...but hopefully it will be somewhere fun and englightening. I think since music, and the music world is often a unique and mysterious place, it would be fun and hopefuly a bit interesting to talk about such things, for both musicians and non-musicians. I guess we'll see.