So this post has been a long time brewing.  It’s the question of what a musician does in performing music, and how that relates to the beauty of music itself.

I would venture to say that when most of us go to music, we seek to be entertained.  Venue makes a difference since going to Grant Park in Chicago will have a distinctly different feeling than going to the Symphony.  Here the participant is engaged in making a conscious choice in seeking the environment that plays to the sides of entertainment or Art.  Of course seldom is it one or the other, but my perception is that pop “concert” venues with wine and cheese look for entertainment value rather than an artistic quality found at hushed concert halls.  The important thing here is the audience.  Venue aside however, the music itself is the same and must be interpreted by the one(s) playing it. 

Below you will find links to Vivaldi’s Presto section in “Summer.” (originally I wanted to compare He’s a Pirate, but this was more interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NLiipyXcjo (a more “classical version”)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcYT7jpH9E%20 (Joshua Bell, lots of energy, but still in classical mode)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g65oWFMSoK0&feature=related (Mari Silje, less energy than Bell, still in classical mode)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3OVQPjk7nE (David Garrett, edited video, fast, very separated notes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EHhxPF1-YA&feature=related (Vanessa Mae, music video, lots of energy, introduction of techno beat)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o8SqEvwu0 (Bond, quartet, studio produced, “plain” classical sound, techno + electronic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcl1ZDL-0Sg (Epica, Metal/Rock instrumentation in addition to symphony orchestra)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_eIM0jqEAo&feature=watch_response (Samvel Yervinyan/Yanni/et. al, free-form based Summer [skipping cello part], almost military, superfast, does Yervinyan ever really smile?)

These are all different takes on Vivaldi, but I think you will notice a shift in artistic rendering.  I’ve given notes on a few things that I think differentiates them and what the performed music is trying to do.  It seems the more solo driven and the more orchestral in nature, the more entertainment value there is.  Note also the shift in staying “traditional” to the music and the embellishments and genre interpretations that alter/mask it.  Now should musicians be concerned with “tainting” the original beauty of a piece, the Urtext, so to speak, or should musicians celebrate what can be seen as innovation in musical interpretation?  Are any of these renditions “truer” to what Vivaldi had intended when he composed “Summer?”  Or is there something behind any piece of music, an essence that remains unchanged and ready to be expressed differently?

I think part of the answer lies in whether one is trying to entertain or to present art.  Again, it’s seldom one or the other, and I don’t know if Vivaldi would have been concerned with such a question.  Given technology now would Vivaldi had done something different with his Summer?  Of course this is only a hypothetical question.  It’s not like we can steal Vivaldi from time in a phone booth and let him wander into a store with electronic keyboards (Bill and Ted anyone?).  No, I think the answer resides with the performer of music and where that person wants the listener to go.  If a person or entity’s purpose is to entertain, then the music stops with him/her/it.  Music becomes the artist’s tool to point to him/herself as the main attraction and not the music.  How many times have you said, “I’m going to see Bon Jovi tonight?”  Or “I’m going to the symphony tonight?”  True, it’s just easier to reference the artist than the myriad of songs or pieces to be played, but doesn’t it seem like the music gets lost?  So what of art?  Even those that seek to entertain will stake a claim to the music itself.  After all, they are the ones playing it.  I make a subtle distinction here.  Whereas entertainment enslaves music to the musician, art (music) empowers the musician to free it so that it transcends the player, pointing beyond the musician to the music itself. 

For example, I recently got the itch to start playing the piano again.  It’s amazing what I “remember” playing.  I haven’t played Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” (1^st and 3^rd movements) or his Pathetique for more than a decade, yet my fingers warmed up to the notes nicely.  During one of my run-throughs of Moonlight, I felt something I really hadn’t felt before, or maybe I just wasn’t cognizant of it.  In my early days, I was fairly wooden.  I was focused on technique and playing the notes correctly.  Sure I would pay attention to my dynamics, but you would see little movement from me.  I was in control of the music.  During my run-through, I found the opposite happening.  I breathed with the music, moved with it.  I let it flow naturally, as if moonlight itself were tickling the keys.  I could imagine an old grandfather clock keeping time.  I could sense the beats of each measure as almost heartbeats.  Yeah.  It was unexpected.  Sure, I made mistakes along the way, but I didn’t really care.  I made the correction and moved on.

I do not know the historicity of “Moonlight,” but I would hope that a listener would be able to feel the music as I had, or at least sense its transcendence because of the way I had played it.  Of course I could never know the reasons or the process that went into the composition of “Moonlight,” but can certainly point to the music and say that it’s in there somewhere. 

The key difference in presenting music and entertaining is the symbolism that an artist is supposed to represent.  An entertainer takes the music for his or her own, as if the entertainer IS the music.  I’m sure some of you have heard a certain musician IS rock or IS country.  The symbolism is lost.  An artist however, only points to the music because at best the artist can only reveal a part of the process that went into making it, even if he or she was the original composer.  Thus as symbol, the musician embodies the soul of music.  The cold rational process of technique is melded with the abstraction of warm feeling.  As a result, the musician draws an audience into their interpretive framework that ultimately ends with the music, its soul, not the musician him/herself.

Throughout this post, I’ve set up opposing sides of entertainer and artist as if one could not do what the other could.  At the beginning of my post however, I mentioned the beauty of music, and I think it appropriate to end on that note.  People have different opinions on this, but I think that the appreciation of beauty can only be felt, not analyzed.  As such, entertainer and artist are able to do both as long as they allow the music to transcend and retain the function of symbolism.  Before I go, here is another link to an old favorite musician that I think embodies the soul of music when she plays her solos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ppgiK8R3OA (Karen Briggs)

The baseball All-Star game has passed with the Senior Circuit (aka National League) pounding the Junior Circuit (aka American League).  The National League will have home field advantage this year, but this is not the reason for this blog.

Rather, the home run derby is topic and the vociferous boos that Robinson Cano of the New Yankees received when he came up to bat.  Some have said that it was much a boo about nothing.  Fans boo players all the time, and that Cano deserved it.  There is some truth to that, but in my analysis there was something clearly amiss during his at bat. 

First, there is the perceived injustice of the Kansas City fans.  Supposedly, Cano has been put on record as saying that he WILL choose Billy Butler of the KC Royals to fill the final slot for the AL.  I have yet to see this promise in print as direct quotes.  I have read that Cano thought that Butler SHOULD be the pick, and that it was the right thing to do, but this is not a binding promise.  His pick to fill that last spot?  Mike Trout of the LA Angels.  Let’s compare some stats:

Bulter: .348 AVG, 12 HR, 61 R, 42 RBI, 30 SB; 68 Games

Trout:  .294 AVG, 17 HR, 32 R, 54 RBI, 2 SB; 87 Games

Clearly, Butler CAN hit the long ball, and he is from KC although only 6 of his 17 home runs were hit at home.  COULD Butler have competed well in the competition?  Yes, he could have, and the home town fans would have appreciated it.  But when it comes to the Derby, winning isn’t everything….at least for the baseball fan.  At best, the HR derby is show of power.  The longer the HR the better….with exceptions.  Did you see the low ball shot to CF that Trout hit?  Everyone was talking about because it wasn’t your typical home run.  It wasn’t the moon shots that Fielder (the eventual winner) hit, but one of those “line drive” shots that was a display of raw power.  Could Butler have done this?  Probably not.  Now, I know that KC fans were clamoring for something cheer about, but is the All Star game about the city or is it about baseball?  The home run derby, which does nothing for either AL or NL is about baseball, not the city.  As a fan, you just got to see the “best” home run hitters in baseball, and for some of you KC fans, you got to catch some of those home runs.  You know what else?  You just got a glimpse at one of the best young talent in baseball.  Sure, KC is in the American League so from time to time you’ll get to see Trout when he comes to town, but imagine if you were an NL town.  Again, the HR Derby is about baseball, not about city allegiance. 

Second, booing against a player is one thing, acceptable even, but CHEERING against someone purely for failure purposes is quite another.  This is probably the most bothersome aspect of the Cano spectacle.  In games fans often cheer when players fail.  The strikeout is a prime example, but note that there is always a contrasting side.  The pitcher made that strikeout.  Even during the cheering of an error, it results from direct competition from an opponent.  Where was such a contrast with Cano?  In fact, the only contrasts seems to be the booing at his at bat with the cheer when he fails.  Is it about competition?  No.  If it was, then other competitors should have been booed as well.  Instead, you have Cano’s father throwing pitches, hearing the boos.  You don’t think that bothered him at all?  Don’t you remember last year’s HR Derby, where the Father/Son duo was the story of the Derby?  Why KC fans, would you jeer at Cano’s family in the stands because of the choice of Trout?  The only reason is spite.  KC fans feel spurned and that’s understandable, but the cacophony of boos and cheers which increased to new levels with each recorded out was unwarranted.  It was beneath the baseball fan.  

In the end, it’s not even about the level of booing for in all likelihood Cano has heard worse.  Rather the All star game is about respect and watching your baseball stars shine regardless of team affiliation.  

*Disclaimer: I am a Yankee fan so perhaps my view is colored, but foremost I am a baseball fan.   

If you recall, I created a blog about Call Me Maybe and online dating.  Well, here’s one with height.

Methodology: 203 profiles were viewed across ages.  Preferred height differentials were recorded from my saved search parameters, people who viewed my profile, and mutual searches.  Data was compiled in two batches of about 100 each.  Women who listed height preferences 5 foot upward to 7 or 8 feet were classified as not having a height preference.  None of the women counted were taller than 5′ 8″ and only one was under 5′ 0″.

Results:

Don’t care: 24

-1: 2

 0: 12

 1: 17

 2: 26

 3: 39

 4: 34

 5: 22

 6: 14

 7: 11

 8: 2

Total: 203

Of course these results are only a reflection of my searches and as “random” as I can make them.  They are still however, women’s preferences because they listed an ideal height for a man.  I wish I could have done a histogram to show you a nice bell curve, but alas my stats program is on another computer.  Just looking at women who did care, the preference was 3 or 4 inches taller, accounting for 36% of the data.  While an average height of women sampled would have provided a mean measure to judge relative tallness in potential men, the height of the woman did not appear to be a factor in determining height differential based on a small sampling (data not shown), so regardless of height, 2-5 inches taller was the preference, accounting for 60% of the data.  Taller men were a clear preference since women who did not care, could go shorter than their own height or at least at their height, accounted for only 19% of the data, nearly half the amount who preferred 3-4 inches taller.

Discussion: There are some caveats to this “experiment.”  The first is that data was compiled in two batches.  The first batch mixed in “mutual” matches, which means that both parties matched each others height specifics.  As data was collected, I noticed that “mutual” matches tended to have more women who did not care about height.  In fact, after tabulation, the “don’t care” category had the largest number.  Thus, a second tally with a preferred search parameter was done to see if there was any difference.  While the overall pattern was the same, there was a drastic reduction in the “don’t care” category that shifted to the 3-4 inch taller preference.  These results suggest that certain parameters can affect height preference.  More research will be needed to be done in order to parcel out the affects of search parameters.

I’ve started my dream journal again.  So you, dear readers, will get a glimpse into my unconscious mind.  Hope it’s entertaining and let the analysis begin!  Here’s one I had last week.

Sometimes actual people appear in my dreams, like friends, family, etc.  But for the first time She made an appearance.  I don’t know what preceded the dream sequence, but this part was the last thing I remember before I woke up.

The scene was in a pasture of sorts.  There was thick, lush grass on one side by a small wooded area with open, green fields that stretched out into the countryside.  Now there are some dreams where you just watch what’s happening, but there are others where you are a character too.  This was one was a bit of both.  I had spotted Her emerging from the wooded area on a big, light chestnut colored horse, the kind that had a bit of shaggy hair over the hooves.  She was dressed in riding gear.  Knee-high black boots, white pants, a top of some kind but I don’t remember what.  No helmet, you know the black round kind with the chin strap.  Alongside her was a dog/fox hybrid.  It was like a squat, fat dog, but with fox features.  It even walked like a fox. 

She kicked the horse into a cantor and soon it was flat out galloping.  The “dox” kept pace, even frolicking dangerously close to the horse’s legs as if goading the horse into play.  The horse more than obliged as it slowed and played back.  All the while She was smiling and laughing atop the horse as if three good friends had gone out for the day. 

I don’t remember if She went back to the wood or not, but I ended up going to a shaded area around a bend near the wood where there stood an old looking house.  Gray flaking paint, wooden steps.   I rang the doorbell.  It was one of those old metal round ones with the black button in the middle.  There was a layer of rust on it.  The buzz was electric sounding and echoed after it stopped ringing.  She came to answer it, but stopped short and turned around.  I don’t know if She saw me, but shortly later the keeper of the house came and let me in.  We walked through the doorway, but upon entering the house, it was mansion like.  Polished wood everywhere, libraries on walls, and a long spacious open great hall. 

I asked, “What’s the room and board?” 

She replied, “Not much, but first you’re going to clean and polish your shoes.  Go up the stairs and you’ll find something to use.”  I went up and found the items.  Perry Ellis shoe polish?  I took off my shoes and noticed they were black dress shoes that somehow were splattered with a thin layer of mud.  I hastily tried to clean the mud off with a rag, but it didn’t work well.  Then I noticed a worn brush off to the side, which of course worked much better.

Once my shoes were clean, I went back downstairs and found dinner was ready.  I sat down with a group of people, though I can’t remember specific features or who they were.  She was conspicuously absent though.  Dinner was a pasta fagioli, but there weren’t enough bowls.  The keeper of the house rectified this by using a plastic top as her “bowl,” the kind that comes with sheet cakes.  We all had our portions ladled out, but I got up and went to the front porch where I saw Her.

She had changed attire into a summer dress.  It was a plaidish design, white and navy.  Not big ones, but smaller ones.  I really couldn’t tell since she was standing in the shadows.  The shoulder straps were about where an inch thick, with a slightly angled neckline.  The dress came down to about the knees but there weren’t any frills or pleats.  The dress didn’t need a belt since it hugged her frame, and the rest draped very well.  I guess you could call it a tank dress….and yes I had to look this up.  She was standing sideways, looking off in the distance when I walked up to her.  Her left foot, back against the porch railing, her left arm extended for support.

We both locked eyes for a moment before simultaneously looking toward the setting sun.

I said, “I didn’t expect you to be here yet.” 

She sheepishly grinned.  “Well, I came a little early.”

I didn’t tell her I had seen her riding the horse that day, nor did I ask her why she wasn’t at dinner.  I had the feeling though that we had arranged to be there that day.  Then I woke up.

Ok…..so I am utterly confused now by this song and why women choose to use it for their dating headlines.  As you may have deduced, yes, I have looked online for dating purposes and I swear someone could write a PhD on some sociological topic.  This is not it, but here are some observations.

There are many a profiles that reference this song.  I hate this song…It’s catchy and sticks in your head.  Not what I want to be humming while working out.  But I digress.  I recently saw the music video, and it makes no sense when used with dating websites. 

First, women complain that men often take shirtless photos of themselves and post them on their profiles.  Apparently it happens a lot, but what happens at the very beginning of the music video?  The guy is shirtless while mowing the lawn, and she is totally flustered by him.  She also happens to be reading romance novels which have shirtless beaus on the cover.  The message I get is that eye candy is appealing, especially if you have a body like the guy in the video (I suppose the tattoos help too).  I haven’t gone looking at men’s profiles, so I have no idea what’s being posted, but I would assume that if a guy is going to post a shirtless photo, they could pull it off.  It is possible that women are complaining because men CAN’T pull it off, and they don’t want to see all that.  The justification of the complaint however, doesn’t hold water because a view of a rockin’ bod is exactly what they want, and men try to cater to that desire.  Failure or success, you can’t blame men for trying.

Second, what’s the deal with the Call Me Maybe line?  Until the end she hasn’t even given a number yet, nor has she met him.  She’s missing him even before she’s met him, and apparently there are other boys who are chasing her.  This makes no sense with the video and even less so with online profiles.  The way people “meet” online is by VIEWING profiles, which does nothing to determine actual interest.  This is even more problematic with sites which require paid subscriptions to access who has viewed your profile in the first place.  Assuming you can, how does a man gauge interest, especially if the expectation is for the man to contact the woman?  Is a profile viewing the Call Me Maybe equivalent?  This is hard to do considering there are no numbers (and rightly so), so there is no “Call.”  For that matter, there is no “Maybe” either.  In the video she WANTS him to call her.  To be fair, there are now ways where calling/texting is an option, but you’ll have to pay extra for it. 

Third, total confusion at the end of the music video.  The guy is gay/bi, or at least it appears that way with the XOXO.  I assume that women who use Call Me Maybe have seen the music video.  It’s probably a bad assumption.  The screening criteria for a woman in looking for a straight man, well, excludes gay men.  So, why would you reference a song that has a shirtless guy who you’ve been missing even though you haven’t met him, only to find out he’s gay?  Is that the purpose of Calling Maybe?  Is that what a woman wants?

In all honesty, I do understand why a woman would use the line.  Apart from any context, it’s just a straight up hey-if-you’re-interested-after-looking at pictures and READING-my-profile-call-me thing.  The maybe might be there because sometimes a woman DOESN’T want someone to “call” her.  In a public, online environment this is certainly understandable.  In using those very lines however, there is an implicit knowledge of the song.  What she doesn’t account for was any matching up of the video with song, the portrayed female desires of the song, or the problematic…logistics…of Calling Maybe on online dating sites.  I suggest that women avoid using references to Call Me Maybe.  It would avoid confusion.

Comments?