Saturday, November 03, 2007
Guess I Picked a Good Year to Not Get Cable!
I panicked when the Fall TV season started and I still didn't have cable. However, I kept dragging my feet for some reason. Now that the writer's strike is happening (on Monday) I guess there's no reason to rush. Early 2008 is probably going to be a sad time for TV watchers!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
I'm in Geek Heaven!
I've heard some exiting news in the last several days! First, I heard that Joss Whedon has unexpectedly decided to return to television. He is developing a new series starring Eliza Dushku, called "Dollhouse." There's been all kinds of buzz about this, and another rabid Whedon fan has already created this website, which has quite a bit of info.
The second bit of exciting and surprising news: X-Files 2 is coming out next year! Chris Carter is directing, and David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are both in it!! If the rumor I've heard is correct, we may see it in theaters next July.
There's not much more I can say - I'm too overwhelmed with joy. Since some of my geek wishes have been granted, if anyone is listening, here is what will make my life complete:
1. The Star Trek remake doesn't suck
2. "Fray" gets made into a movie
3. Marvel does an "Avengers" movie and DC does a "Green Lantern" movie (no cartoons, though, they should both be live action.)
4. Bruce Campbell does "Bubba Ho-Tep 2," and "They Call Me Bruce" actually gets a theatrical release!
These are a few of my favorite things!
The second bit of exciting and surprising news: X-Files 2 is coming out next year! Chris Carter is directing, and David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are both in it!! If the rumor I've heard is correct, we may see it in theaters next July.
There's not much more I can say - I'm too overwhelmed with joy. Since some of my geek wishes have been granted, if anyone is listening, here is what will make my life complete:
1. The Star Trek remake doesn't suck
2. "Fray" gets made into a movie
3. Marvel does an "Avengers" movie and DC does a "Green Lantern" movie (no cartoons, though, they should both be live action.)
4. Bruce Campbell does "Bubba Ho-Tep 2," and "They Call Me Bruce" actually gets a theatrical release!
These are a few of my favorite things!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
On Artistic Expression, Part 2: Pitch
Let me begin this post with a potentially controversial statement: Pitch is an artificial construct, foisted upon us by our culture. Why is this controversial? Perhaps because people such as myself have spent many years and dollars studying a discipline that is centered around the concept of playing or singing in tune, matching the pitches perfectly. Then, we turn around and teach the next generation the same concepts.
Now, technically, pitch is actually the number of cycles per second a sound wave travels through the air, so in that sense, perhaps we wouldn't call it an artificial construct. I am referring instead to our perception of pitch within our western scale -- you know, the one that starts with A and ends with G#?
Of course, the greatest evidence for this hypothesis is the fact that, in some eastern cultures, there are more scale tones to the octave. These are quite foreign to our ears, and usually sound "out of tune." However, to those brought up in that culture, they sound perfectly normal.
In many indie rock styles, it is actually considered inauthentic to sing or play too much in tune. This is most likely rooted in the punk aesthetic. There are also many R&B singers who tend to sing consistently out of tune. In recent years, R&B and rap artists have incorporated non-western sounds into their music. I believe this has contributed to this phenomenon. Popular music was born from a fusion of western and non-western sounds, which may partly explain why pop musicians have never been overly concerned with singing in tune.
I have come to the point in my life where I no longer consider singing or playing out of tune a bad thing. If someone has an interesting sound, but isn't quite in tune, it doesn't bother me. I also no longer consider that solely a reflection of someone's musical ability. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the listener,) I cannot divorce myself of the obsession with being in tune. Perhaps that will come in time.
Comments, please!
Now, technically, pitch is actually the number of cycles per second a sound wave travels through the air, so in that sense, perhaps we wouldn't call it an artificial construct. I am referring instead to our perception of pitch within our western scale -- you know, the one that starts with A and ends with G#?
Of course, the greatest evidence for this hypothesis is the fact that, in some eastern cultures, there are more scale tones to the octave. These are quite foreign to our ears, and usually sound "out of tune." However, to those brought up in that culture, they sound perfectly normal.
In many indie rock styles, it is actually considered inauthentic to sing or play too much in tune. This is most likely rooted in the punk aesthetic. There are also many R&B singers who tend to sing consistently out of tune. In recent years, R&B and rap artists have incorporated non-western sounds into their music. I believe this has contributed to this phenomenon. Popular music was born from a fusion of western and non-western sounds, which may partly explain why pop musicians have never been overly concerned with singing in tune.
I have come to the point in my life where I no longer consider singing or playing out of tune a bad thing. If someone has an interesting sound, but isn't quite in tune, it doesn't bother me. I also no longer consider that solely a reflection of someone's musical ability. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the listener,) I cannot divorce myself of the obsession with being in tune. Perhaps that will come in time.
Comments, please!
Powered by ScribeFire.
On Artistic Expression, part 1
Reading David Thomas' blog post the other day reminded me of some questions I have wrestled with for many years:
Years ago, my answers to these questions would have been no, yes, and no. However, I'm not sure my motives were pure. At the time, I was trying to be a "rock star," and I was always quick to defend my conscious decision to write "hooks." I also think that deep down inside, I really felt like I was selling out, so I was very defensive.
If you will pardon the pun, I have changed my tune these days. If I am creating purely for my own enjoyment, I still have an audience. It doesn't matter that the artist and the audience are one and the same. An audience of one is still an audience. Furthermore, some art may appeal to a large audience while other art may appeal to only a small, select audience. This does not diminish the artistic quality of either work. Of course, this leads us back to the art vs. commerce debate, but you may refer to my earlier post on the subject.
Please comment - I really want to hear your opinions!
- Can "Art" exist in a vacuum?
- Is a work of art required to appeal to an audience, even if it is only a small one?
- Is the artist who is creating solely for their own enjoyment really creating art?
Years ago, my answers to these questions would have been no, yes, and no. However, I'm not sure my motives were pure. At the time, I was trying to be a "rock star," and I was always quick to defend my conscious decision to write "hooks." I also think that deep down inside, I really felt like I was selling out, so I was very defensive.
If you will pardon the pun, I have changed my tune these days. If I am creating purely for my own enjoyment, I still have an audience. It doesn't matter that the artist and the audience are one and the same. An audience of one is still an audience. Furthermore, some art may appeal to a large audience while other art may appeal to only a small, select audience. This does not diminish the artistic quality of either work. Of course, this leads us back to the art vs. commerce debate, but you may refer to my earlier post on the subject.
Please comment - I really want to hear your opinions!
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
