February 2009 Archives

Alright, I'm giving up on the post-a-day thing (and so late, too!).  Sorry, I just can't finish it.  So here's my favorite scene for throwing in the towel.  It's from my favorite movie, Giuseppe Tornatore's "Nuovo Cinema Paradiso."

Background: Salvatore, the boy shown waiting in the doorway, is told a fairytale by his friend and surrogate father Alfredo, the bald man in the first two second of the clip, about a soldier who told a princess he loved her, and to prove it, he'd wait under her window for 100 nights until, and when she decided the moment was right, she'd open the window and they'd take off and live happily ever after.  The 99th night came, and soldier decided he could wait no more and left without the princess.

Salvatore tells the Elaina he'll do the same thing, except he does it for nearly half-a-year.  Finally, he discovers why the soldier quit and leaves as well.  Then Elaina seeks him out.

This scene inspired me to write a paper on the movie - watch how the piano lines up with the film reel, and the perfect timing of the kiss with the music.

Overall, "Nuovo Cinema Paradiso" is a highly egotistical film.  It's written by the director about directing films.  The entire movie is in the director's point of view from every single angle, including music, production, sound and light effects, symbolism, and imagery.  There are quite a few abnormal cuts and unrecommended camera angles and sequences.  And it all works so naturally, so powerfully...  I cannot recommend a better movie.  This movie (and the entire score!) makes me sob.

Enjoy.

There was another very unique thing to "Bolt" - his existentialist dilemma.  It's not absurd that a movie marketed to children would hold some lofty views of existence.  For example, the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" series was an allegory for young adulthood, "Fox and the Hound" dealt with issues of racism, and the exact same existential dilemma that Bolt faces was already examined multiple times in "Toy Story."

Actually, it's a two-fold realization that everyone (hopefully) comes to at some point in their lives:  1) In the scheme of things, I am actually not important.  2) Actually, I am important, but not quite in the ridiculous way I imagined before.  Bolt's continuation of his journey indicates a huge amount of maturity, and we see a puppy growing into adulthood by the end of the film.  Likewise, in "Toy Story," both Woody and Buzz have to face that dilemma.  While Buzz is deluded into still believe he's a Space Ranger, Woody has to face that fact that he's not going to be Andy's only favorite forever.  He's important, but he's not that important.

In fact, in "Toy Story 2,"  we find that Woody never really recovered, and he comes to realize he won't exist forever.  One day, we all die, and as depressing as it is, it doesn't have to be feared.  "Toy Story,"  and "Bolt," both make this beautiful approach to existence: you are important, you just need to define who and what you're important to.  And this lack of total importance isn't a bad thing; the web of importances is what makes life beautiful.

All this from children's movies.

Next on my list: "Coraline"

Last night I saw "Bolt" at the ARHS theater in the HUB.  My initial reaction, minus some reservations, was, "It's official.  Disney is back."

Then I thought about it and realized something.

What were the hallmark of early notable Disney animated films?  Usually among their "blockbuster" animated Disney films, the ones that define the company, the "damsel in distress" was a very common theme.  But there are also some unusual ones in the mix.

The damsel in distress doesn't always appear as a women.  I'm talking about two in particular - "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Chicken Little."

Emperor Kuzco is, how to put it, flamboyant.  Not blatantly, but I think there's quite a bit of tongue-in-cheek homosexuality in his character.  Look at how he completely shuns every woman in his presence, not to mention his view of Yzma.



Between his relationship with Pacha and his self-indulgent flamboyance, I think Kuzco is actually gay.  At least at the beginning of the movie.  Note how towards the middle (and we see it in the beginning), he's portrayed as a damsel in distress forced to accept his position as a man.  I think there is strong evidence to support this view.

The portrayal of Chicken Little as an effeminate geek who prefers books to sports gives a hint toward another view of this stereotype.  We can even see a very light form of this stereotype in "Beauty and the Beast."  Why is the beast a beast, and why does it take so long for him to come around to a beautiful, intelligent woman?  And dare I mention "Pinnochio"?

I could be reading this the wrong way, but, especially given Disney's history of subtle representation, it's entirely possible these stereotypes are built into their movies.  This is nothing new to the film industry.  In fact, it was quite prevalent in film's golden age, and Disney may embody it yet today.

What does this have to do with "Bolt"?  While "Enchanted" sort of had a princess waiting for her prince, I'd argue that "Bolt" brings back the idea of a damsel (Penny) in distress, waiting patiently, but eagerly, for her prince (Bolt) to return.  Disney's portrayal of Prince and Princess rarely has a sexual connotation, and when it is there, it's very toungue-in-cheek.  There's none of that Bolt's relationship to Penny; it's a pure love relationship, very much reminiscent of early Disney animated films.  Homosexuality, though, could be hinted at in the relationships of the Pigeons.

It seems that the less memorable of Disney's eras tend to coincide with their portrayal of the damsel in distress.  If one exists, and it is a woman, Disney probably has a hit on their hands (although with that theory, I have no clue how Hercules didn't do as well as expected).  Maybe Disney is actually pushing that viewpoint on us.

Either way, there's these little micro-shifts in Disney's films in regards to sexual orientation that I think affects the audience in an unconscious way.  Good or bad, it might be something to be aware of.

My friend Ricky and I went to a bar in early January, and I described my newest piece to him over a couple of beers.  The piece is entitled "Survival Machines," and is composed for electric guitar, bass guitar, and tap dancer, and it begins with some these fluid lines that end with percussive strikes, which flows into a new stream of material that provides the basis for my development section, an imitation of genetic recombination.  He stopped me partway and said, "Wait a minute.  How come everything in modern art has to be so abstract?"

For the past couple of months, my response was that it's art.  The ability to have layered meanings and responses and messages creates an art that's applicable and approachable to everyone.  But what happens when things become so abstract that it touches no one?  Does it lose meaning altogether, or does the fault lie in the close-mindedness of the observer?

How about a couple of examples:

1. John Zorn - Duchamp




2. John Adams - Grand Pianola Music: Movement III.



Given this argument, how may we apply this approach to daily existence?

I finally got my MP3 repaired!  The first thing I did after updating its contents was listen to one of the latest editions of Point of Inquiry, a weekly podcast dedicated to fostering critical thought and
'free thinking' in contemporary American life.  Their episodes are usually quite good, but as I'm on this existentialist kick, I found last week's episode pretty relevant.

It's an interview with Christopher Burns, who has worked in printed mass media at many different levels.  He makes the claim that the biggest problem facing us in the 'Information Age' isn't whether information is true or not, but how and if we can differentiate fact from fiction.  Our brains are made to learn, and if we learn something the wrong way, it's very difficult to 'unlearn' it.  So whether it's how we were raised or a result of natural tendencies to believe something, we often tend to end up with the wrong conclusions.  Even decisions on the basis of consensus may easily and quickly be found problematic. 

More reasons to think ever more critically today.

(P.S. I don't think the brain's defunct.  We just need to learn how to use it.)


I highly recommend downloading the podcast.  It's free and really, really interesting.  Also, the Penn State Atheist-Agnostic Association is trying to bring in DJ Groethe, the man behind the magic.  More on that as it comes.

I'm now working my way through Zeitgeist Addendum.  Slowly.

So let me give you an idea of what it's uncovered so far: there are a group of elite, 1% of the human population, that owns 40% of the world's wealth.  However, the federal reserve creates this wealth and general money through loans, and slaps on an interest that requires repayment with money that doesn't exist.  This creates an endless cycle of inflation.

Sounds logical.  Sort of.  I'm not going to argue whether it's true or not, but let's say it is.  The government is forcing us to work to earn our living.  This is bad, right?

One of the greatest questions we can ask is: What is the meaning of life?  Oof, you think, that's something I can't answer.  But perhaps this 'corrupt' economic practice is actually creating purpose.  Endless inflation means a self-sustaining economy.  Sure, debts won't be completely repaid.  But man will continue to work to repay them.  A purpose for existence continues.

So let's follow the Zeitgeist movement and tear this apart.  What would be the purpose of existence then?  To exist?  Would everyone be able to live by that, or would something like this be created anyway to at least create the illusion of purpose? 



Perhaps we do live in The Matrix, and maybe that's not such a bad thing.  If we escape The Matrix, our meaning of life is to fight against it.  And once we defeat it, then what?  Once Sephiroth's smoldering remains are scattered around Midgar, what's the reason for hanging around?

Of course, in real life, you'd create a perfect society ala The Giver.  But as written by Lowry, there are problems with this society.  Everyone's so equal, they're not 'ones' anymore.  Thinking about life is forgotten, not to mention a form of social functionality (which Zeitgeist is mostly against) would be created anyway to organization man's existance.  It's a big circle.

So let's say capitalism, in its current incarnation, isn't the best solution.  What do we replace it with?  How do we 'fix' it?

I hope I see something like this is South Park's upcoming season.

Here's a little toe-tapper for you all.  "Capitalism" by Oingo Boingo.  (And I apologize for choosing the one single song from their first five albums that has a swear word)

Topic of the day: Zeitgeist!

I've embedded the entire two hour movie below for your perusal.  But please, not yet...

I don't celebrate Valentine's day, partially because I've never really been in a relationship that carried through February 14th.  Or my birthday.  Which is sort of odd.

But more to the point: I'm rarely in relationships because I'm never sure how people perceive me (which reaches back to my reality struggle of a couple of days ago).  To demonstrate this, let's examine the real trailer to "You've Got Mail" with a recut trailer.  If you haven't seen recut trailer's on YouTube, some of them are phenomenal.  I'll offer a couple here.





How are one's intentions really received? If you've seen the movie, you know that both Tom Hanks' and Meg Ryan's characters carry a strong sense of innocence in their intentions and motivations.  But, this being Hollywood, how realistic is this, and how often do people actually pick up these subtle cues.  Maybe I'm just bad at communication, but I may be on to something here.





As soon as I hear Peter Gabriel in that second one, I lose it.  But it's an example of the same thing.  How do we communicate our intentions, and are we really keen enough to pick up on them?  The fact that Wendy is still with Jack at the beginning is downright frightening in itself.  (Note that I'm referring to the movie, not the book.) 

Humans really are such bizarre animals.

I saw a lecture yesterday called "Darwin and Sex" given by Tim Birkhead, in which he discussed his hypothesis on ducks and sex.  He found that the vagina of particular species of female ducks have alternative tracks and spirals that sperm can easily be lost in, decreasing the chance for insemination.  As male ducks tend to force themselves upon female ducks to propogate the species, this biological trait may allow female ducks to chose who their mate will be by letting her straighten her track to facilitate insemination or bend it to cancel out the chances.

With most 'lower' species of animals, it's so easy for intentions to be picked up and examined.  But with humans, with all the complexities of culture and language and etc., things get complicated real fast.

I'll admit it: I like courtship, for all of its amazing, wonderful qualities.  It's one of those beautiful cultural 'happenings' of life.  But in a society which demands forthright explanation of everything (thanks to the Web2.0, as discussed in the last post), intentions are becoming less vivid.  I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, and perhaps half the fun of being in a relationship is discovering these intentions and how they are rooted in a person.  Nonetheless, it is certainly an important thing to make note of.  (I may not be experienced enough to make that call, though.)

So there's your Valentine's Day gift from me: a verbose braggadocio on communication, cultural anthropology, evolutionary biology, and why I still don't have a girlfriend.

I stumbled on this today.  Which is to say it showed up on my RSS Reader.  And I agree with him; the Web2.0 revolution has changed the way we approach criticism.  The Anon option on  forums allows for people to not be held accountable for their views, and therefore say whatever they want.

I've seen this appear in meatspace and in the university, too.  People are hesitant to criticize me, even when I have horrible performances (like last night).  And when I am criticized (or, more often, threatened or badgered (and by badgered, I mean called obscenities from the window of a car)) it is by people who, in one way or another, remain anonymous.

What has happened to personal responsibility?  If you've put work into having views and opinions, why be ashamed of it?  We as a society have begun shunning the idea of direct discourse for fear we'd be proven wrong.  Especially in a university (and there's a lot of places in this university where I'm sure it already isn't a problem), we should not be holding back.  This is supposed to be the last bastion of knowledge and intellectual discourse.  Shouldn't it begin by being personal?

Yes, I did paraphrase "You've Got Mail."  I'll post that one soon.

Continuing with this trend of self-bashing, let's talk about reality.  Every year around show week, two things happen: 1. I become so stressed out that my schedule, as well as my grip on the world around me, dissolves and 2. I lose my grip on reality as I become sucked into the show I'm working on.  It's bizarre.  So last night, as I was walking home, I came across the idea, again, that maybe I have some severe mental handicap and don't know, and that everything I experience is skewed by how people feed my perception of myself.

Now, you can respond and say, "Ryan, you're being foolish, that's totally not the case at all."  But here's the fun part: I'm reading it.  How can I be sure I can trust my perception?  Having spent some time with Ayn Rand's writings, I often try to take the Objectivist stance and claim that my faculties are all I have, and I must thus trust them as best I can.

Now should I rely on consensus reality, I am still tied to the faults of my sensory faculties.  But here is where I agree with Rand: subjective reality is utterly disgusting.  It says that everyone has faults in their faculties without acknowledging that the view that everyone has faults in their faculties is probably a fault of one's faculties in itself.

So how may I decide what's real?  Should I really blindly trust my own senses?  How do I know something is actually 'there' is I can't be totally sure I'm of sound mind? 

These questions aren't rhetorical: I've been struggling with this for a few years now, and I think it would make an awesome post-a-day discussion.  But seriously, maybe it dissolves back into itself as a question, just as "What is the meaning of life?" does.

I thought this video was appropriate for this discussion of consensus reality.  Or the reality of reality.  Enjoy.  I'm going to go stick my brain in a jar.

I'm sure this goes far beyond the area of music.  But it's worrying me nonetheless.  And I'm sure I've hinted about it in the past.

This year, in South Halls, I've heard more people talking about the CD's they're recording than ever before.  Writing and recording music has become so easy and effortless that literally anyone can do it.

In many non-Western countries, music is not a living for people, but an embedded part of society.  This is where we're headed now.  In a way, music had always been a leisure activity, but with the added significance of 'meaning' something, of carrying a statement or a world-view that a person couldn't find anywhere else and would ultimately benefit from discovering.  But it seems like music is losing this significance, and as our society becomes more driven by and attached to the leisure activities that surround us, the less likely it is for music to be a mode of living for people who are devoting their lives to the further pursuit and development of this art form.

The vehicles for carrying musical messages have become vastly simpler.  Simple tonality and obvious lyrics say 'everything that needs to be said,' and people pick it up quickly and hold on to it.  Everyone responds with "That's pretty" or "That's sad" or "That's my party jam" and happiness ensues.  I can't get into that, and as a result, I'm going to be left out of this evermore growing part of our modern society: user-created music.  The ultimate P2P destruction of not only the industry and business, but the artists, cultures, and workforce that struggle against it.

I am afraid that we are witnessing the destruction of music as an art form and a career.  This creates two major problems:

1) As mentioned before, the immense loss of jobs and destruction of those cultures.

2) The 'bubble' problem.  One of the major things that I'm trained to do as a composer is look outside of the norm and discover something new.  That's why it takes people like me a bit more time to create new art, and why it has been will respected throughout history.  Formulas and pre-contrived structures are hackneyed and riddled with problems and exhaustive repetition, especially the way we approach it today.  So the vast majority of people will work with these simplistic structures, discover little new, and keep rehashing the same old jig.

But it gets worse.  What happens when we lock ourselves into this new culture and ignore the world outside because it 'sounds weird?'  Blues riffs vs. R&B riffs vs. Rock licks vs. rap tracks is no way to approach music.  What makes art inspiring and thrilling is its lack of definition.  And without this infinite variety, would followers of this culture become more close-minded and hesitant to discover?

I do believe music contains this power, and if this art form dies, which it likely will, not only will I be out of a job: we'll be facing a cultural problem.

I'm not saying people shouldn't record their own art.  But we need to support the artists in our society.  They aren't devoting themselves to leisure.  They're devoting themselves to what may be one of the deepest modes of education and revelation: at deepest, it trails along the tracks of religion, theoretical science, and philosophy.  Were this pillar to collapse...  I can only wonder how long the ceiling will stand.

I stumbled on a song by geek-rapper MC Frontalot on YouTube today, and thought it might be interesting.  It's meant to be a social satire on the uber-religious community's activism against evolution in science classes in recent years (citing the Kansas and Pennsylvania school board rulings, as well as the Institute for Discovery), although it comes off as an actual rebuttal to evolution.

I'm sorry, but I don't care what your beliefs are: Intelligent Design and its counterparts (Irreduceable Complexity, etc.) is not science, nor is it a logical thought process.  I'm not saying I can decide for everyone whether there's a god or not.  But the fact that evidence exists that counters a common view obtained from the Bible should not deter people's belief or non-belief in god.  If anything, it's simply humans discovering the processes of the world.  If you do believe in a god, that discover should be enlightening.

Here's the song, and lyrics:

I've been getting positive responses on this one, so here you are.

Throughout my past 4 years here at PSU, I've seen a lot of concerts and listened to a lot of music.  One of the things a lot of university students are lacking in general is a basic understanding or even appreciation for classical concert music.  I admit, I'm behind on this, too.  But in the school of music, much of the emphasis is focused on this specific canon on classical music.  So for the vast majority of students, I'm going to accept this canon as 'given' and not include it in my count.  It still matters, but I'm going to concentrate on some more contemporary stuff.  Let's say this canon disappears after Messiaen's "Quartet for the End of Time."  I realize it extends further and leaves many out, but my focus is what's composed outside of the canon (say, post-1950's).  (In the canon, I'm also including traditional rock, such as Beatles, Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" (yes, this is a must-listen), etc.).

We have faced some of the most musically diversed decades in the history recently.  The development of audio recording revolutionized how we experience every aspect of music and sound.  Socially, the world has grown a lot smaller.  It's difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate exactly what music today will influence the art of tomorrow.

My list consists of 5 CD's that have done something I haven't heard anywhere else, and excellently well.  This list will probably be editted over time, or even tossed out entirely, but this is my current list, and this applies to all students.


1. Henryk Gorecki - Symphony No.3: Symphony of Sorrowful Songs

You've probably already read my schpeel on this one.  Get the one with David Zinman and Dawn Upshaw.  It's truly transformative music.

Here's a segment of the first movement:




2. 1 Giant Leap

1 Giant Leap was a collaborative project between a couple of producers from the UK and musicians and philosopher from accross the globe.  The music is the best crossover of Eastern and Western music I have ever heard, and it goes far beyond the experiments of Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon.  This CD is always a revealing listen.

Here's their trailer:




3.  John Adams - Doctor Atomic

Alright, more of a DVD than a CD.  John Adams also composed "On the Transmigration of Souls" in remembrance of 9/11.  And then came Dr. Atomic.  Not only is it a great representation of the direction opera is heading, but it successfully sums up the changing social climate of the 20th century.  In his fifth Harvard Lecture, Leonard Bernstein explained how Mahler foretold the destruction and imminence of death of the 20th century.  Through the story of Dr. Oppenheimer and the 36 hours leading the detonation of the first atomic bomb, Dr. Atomic summarizes everything that Mahler foretold and more.  Truly an amazing piece.

Here's the trailer:




4. Mr. Bungle - California

Another CD that sums up the 20th century, California is a post-modern masterpiece.  The production is top-notch, the performances effortless, and the composition are utterly perfect.  It's a shame this was their last CD, but there is definitely something on this CD for you, if you get past the supposed (and in many ways, apparent) lack of function of nearly every track.  The CD hangs as a whole, but the styles they take on (70's teen beach movie theme, bop-metal, something that sounds way too much like the WHAM!, and another that sounds like Elvis, and another that sounds like the Beach Boys...) makes the CD come off as a sloppy array of anachronisms at first listen.  But the CD quickly pulls itself together and becomes stronger with every listen.  This album will change the way you listen to music.

Here's a live performance of their only ballad, which is incidentally from California, "Retrovertigo":





5 is a tie


5a.  Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennae to Heaven

Part contemporary art music, part electronic audio, part rock, Lift Your Skinny Fists... is an hour-and-a-half journey unlike anything else I've heard.  As challenging as it is accessible, it opens doors to new possibilities in the world of music.  This is another transformative listen, almost a cross-country journey accross the US.  This is a truly brilliant piece.

Here's a segment for your perusal:



5b. Boredoms - Vision Creation Newsun

Japanese minimalist psychadelic rock.  The Boredoms are a highly engaging experimental band from Osaka.  Vision Creation Newsun never ceases to surprise me, and the piece breathes equally of Eastern traditional and Western contemporary music, all in a cohesive electronic setting.  This piece has to be bigger than I think it is.

Here's a segment of the first track:




And that's my current Big 5 (6).  I have other recommendations, but I feel the listening strength of these pieces transcends personal preference.

I think the university should issue a recommended reading and listening list.  I'd like to see the academic community's reccomendations.

One of these days, I'll make a list of music I think all people at this university should here.  Number one on this list is Gorecki's Symphony No. 3: Symphony of Sorrowful Songs.  Movement two is provided below:



We talk all the time about how powerful music can be, but this goes beyond anything I've heard elsewhere.  Pulling from folksongs and writings on the walls of Auschwitz, Gorecki used a combination of beautiful poetry and simplistic, neo-modal composition to create an utterly powerful work of art.  That's an understatement.

From what I've read, Gorecki denies that the piece has any political or spiritual significance, claiming that it's nothing but a symphony of sorrowful songs.  But given the political climate of the 1970's (the piece was completed in 1976) and Poland's past relationship with Germany, a plethora of possible explanations exist.

And beyond the explanations, there's little evidence of musical models (although the construction and orchestration, at times, is reminiscent of the Romantic symphony), and there's evidence to suggest that the first movement is proportionally based on the Fibonacci series.

I honestly feel this symphony is a call to humanism, and a warning against the terrors of absolutism of the past.  Especially in today's society, and among my generation, we are completely cut off from the tragedies of World War II, and an emotional connection is nearly unattainable.  This is what I get every time I listen to Gorecki's 3rd.  And that is why I think everyone needs to listen to it at least once.  It requires a lot of patience, but it's worth the time and the effort.

The version to listen to is the one conducted by David Zinman, with Dawn Upshaw as the soprano (a DVD version is in the library, call number: M1001.G65 no.3 2007 DVD).  This copy sold over 1 million copies when it was released in 1992 (which, as rumors have it, makes it the highest selling classical CD until Andrea Bocelli and Il Divo appeared), but it's been nearly forgotten since then. 

We live in a time when it's become easy to forget the tragedies of the past 100 years (and many who try to enforce that forgetfullness), and in order to prevent the same atrocities from happening again, we must make this emotional connection.

Hey.  Topic 1: I'm back in for the post-a-day challenge.  I promise I won't sleep until I write a post.

The project I've been most involved in recently is No Refund Theater's production of "South Park: The Movie: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut: The Musical."  There's a rumor that Stephen Sondheim told Matt Stone and Trey Parker in a letter that they had written the best musical he heard in fifteen years, and they immediately hung it up.  Some tell that they replied, "Well, you've written some pretty good stuff, too!"

But in all seriousness, the movie has some incredibly artistic qualities.

Warning: These clips are pretty vulgar.



Here is Satan's big show-stopper, "Up There."  Not only is it phenomenal music, but it presents Satan, the symbol of all that is evil, as an identifiably tragic character.  We feel for him.  Meanwhile, Saddam is presented as the evil one.  Satan must take over Earth because it is his destiny; Saddam is simply greedy and uncompromising.  And note the gospel chorus singing with Satan.  It should be noted that when Jesus appears on South Park, there a quite a few times he's labeled as fictional, although Satan reoccurs as real and as a pathetic character.

The obvious theme of the movie is how the world naturally corrupts its children, and how reluctant parents are to blame themselves or fix it, a problem which seemed much more common a decade ago. One of the big themes of the movie is that what we derive as good and evil are constructs that we create ourselves, either as mere extensions of our existence (such Terrance and Phillip's fart jokes and bad language) or as a bastardization of misunderstanding (such as the war against Canada or the characterization of Saddam Hussein), and it is our responsibility to manage our developments and control them as necessary.

Now for one more juxtaposition:  This one's very vulgar.



P.S. Oddly, the beginning of the film reminds me of Toys.  I think I'll do a post on that soon, too.

P.S.S. If you haven't seen recent episodes of South Park, I highly recommend you do.

I'm supposed to be taking part in a blog-a-day challenge throughout February.  Believe it or not, I didn't get back to my dorm tonight until after midnight, so technically, I lost already.  C'est la vie.

I'm learning to cut my losses.  Right now, in addition to a 19 credit workload, I'm working on three (and a half) musicals now, preparing a film score, an orchestration project, 2 pieces for near-future performances, tours with Essence of Joy, part-time work, PSUAAA, this, grad school follow-ups, composition competitions, voice lesson accompaniment, radio shows, etc.  In the past two weeks alone, I've had to give up swing dance, sleep, working out every day, hanging out, and degrees of timeliness, partially due to a bad cold I had last week.

I bring this up because I'm still having trouble figuring out exactly how to balance my life.  The tendency at a university filled with 40,000 people is to either do absolutely nothing or everything possible.  Those who balance exist, but in small amounts.  I'm not one of them.  I do everything, and I pay for it.  And, unsurprisingly, I'm still a little behind.

A note to students: it's essential to be involved, but keep classes in mind.  I'm one of those people who refuses to miss a class, and when I wake up in the morning and I have to decide between going to classes or chiseling out vocal arrangements, I know something's wrong.

So, sorry SHC for failing the Post-A-Day Challenge already.  I'll continue posting, and often, but my current schedule leaves this challenge most inconveniently at odds with everything else.

I wouldn't post these if they weren't absolutely hysterical.


1.  "Don't Mess With Grannie" - Impatient driver vs. sleeping grandmother.  You'll have to watch this twice.




2. "Chad Hates Aliens" - this one is about a couple of roommates pulling pranks.  Initially.  It's absolutely genious, but the second half is a little unnerving the first time around.

I saw an interview with Sean Forbes on CNN this morning.  He created D-PAN, the Deaf Performing Artists Network, a non-profit organization of deaf artists who are presenting music and video to the deaf in a way they can understand and relate to.  Initially, I'd never even thought of such a thing, and although I'd kind of expect it to exist, I never knew where to look for it.  Well, here it is.

It's funny that around 15 years ago, the idea of catering music to people who are deaf was presented in a popular film, and it took until now to really take off.  But I am excited and intrigued.  Congratulations Sean Forbes, and I hope to attend a concert of your's in the future.

The past semester and so and so and so, I've noticed a particular trend at work.  And although it ticks me off, I need to approach this from the outside.

I had to clean tables yesterday.  Many people don't know what my job is.  My job, when I clean tables, is to stock condiment trays and clean tables.  And the *occasional* spill.  I had several people tell me to throw their food away from them.  One girl even literally slammed an empty water bottle in front of me without even looking at me.

Do I throw their stuff away?  Eventually, yes.  Many students (yes!  fellow students!  academic compadres!  my own demographic and culture!) leave it on the table (with the occasional lugee) for me to clean up for them.  So I'm left wondering: is this people being rude or is this cultural?  One of the things we, all of us, tend to forget is that University Park is truly a melting pot of people and cultures.  PSU is provides jobs and education to people from all over the world, so even in University Park alone, hundreds and thousands of different cultures and worldviews are present at any one time.  And the design of some of these dining halls (Redifer) may lend itself to fostering this sort of barbaric hostility by emulating a sort of metropolitan large-eating area where people can just leave trash around for workers to pick up.

And I've seen this hostility extend to the OPP and Housing.  People need to stop and think about what exactly workers do when they're working.  It all goes back to the idea of personal responsibility.  I ran into one guy yesterday who accidentally spilled a container of syrup on the table.  He took the towel out of my hands and cleaned it himself.  Usually, people don't even tell me when they have a spill in the commons, and he was gung-ho about taking care of it for me.  That's personal responsibility.  That's what needs to be exercised here more often, even at places as simple and common as the dining commons.  

Or McDonald's or College Pizza.  I feel so bad for people working the night shifts on weekends.  I've seen many a Taco Bell worker endure the bane of college student behavior, amplified by drunken stupidity and rage.  No matter what state I'm in, sick, angry, drunk, or just downright out of it, I make it a point to be as kind to retail, food service, and housing workers as I can.  Especially here at Penn State, where we're all pretty much doing the same thing, it's important to carry personal responsibility and appreciation for everyone.


I mentioned this video and song at a party last night.  I think it's sort of fitting.



Okay, maybe not.  But my argument stands.