Star Wars Quote of the Week

"Don't listen to Her Worship.  I have plenty of manners.  I'm very, uh, mannerful."

-Han Solo

Video of the Week: Sarah Neufeld - Forcelessness

Open Letter to the NBA and ESPN Concerning the Finals

To the NBA: OFFICIATING
I've seen worse, but there are some serious inconsistencies.  The best way to say it might be, "I don't have any issue that I don't already have with NBA officiating."  NBA officiating has historically been bad, but I do think it has improved some.  However, it still has a long way to go.  Sports officials should be doing work that doesn't get noticed.  In an ideal world, the players themselves should be able to enforce and recognize the rules of the game (one of the reasons I love curling is because it is primarily self-officated).  If the decision making of the officials must be considered as part of a game's outcome, then it is being officiated poorly.

1. Inconsistent application of rules is frustrating.
2. A lack of instant replay on meaningful plays throughout the game is totally uncalled for.  If the coaches and players can say "just look at the replay on the screen" and you don't have the ability to do so by rule, then its time to change the rules.  If there is one thing that the NBA could do to help games, it is approve a wide variety of reviewable calls throughout the game.  There is no reason to get things wrong throughout the game, like possession calls, and then magically gain the ability to review them in the last 2 minutes.  Especially at the level of the Finals, ANY play can be an important play and EVERY play has significance.  Officials should have the ability to get the call correct rather than guess.

To ESPN: ANNOUNCERS

I'm just about done with announcers.  ESPN's coverage has been consistently eroding over the last few years, and it is now just a joke.  Its troublesome that this must be said, but people don't watch sports because of the announcers.  Sports fans buy tickets and tune in on TV/radio for the game, not mindless talking heads.

1. In general, these TV announcers seem to have placed some heavy bets on Cleveland - their on air bias towards the Cavs is embarrassing and pitiable.
2. Ignoring their network's own camera work to manufacture a massive debate isn't intelligent - its dumb.  Please, don't say things happened that the video shows didn't happen and vice-versa.
3. Applying the word "controversial" to random calls and coaching decisions sounds idiotic.
4. Please don't insult the players and fans by using the phrase "he wanted it more."  That's ridiculous.  To imply that a person or team will lose because they didn't want to win enough is degrading and uncalled for.  If I played Lebron 1-on-1, I guarantee you I'd really want to win.  Saying I beat Lebron in a round of ball would be a great party story.  Sadly, I can guarantee that I would lose because Lebron is a far better student of basketball than I ever will be.  Its not just a question of desire.  Its a question of skill, work ethic, time, athleticism, etc.
5. Please don't yell and argue with each other on the air.  If I wanted to hear three people yell at and over each other all night long, I'd be watching Fox News or CNN.
6. Just because someone played or coached basketball doesn't mean they're a good announcer.  They may know a great deal about the game, but announcing is its own skill.  For example, look at Vin Scully with the LA Dodgers.  He didn't have a 15 year career as a baseball player, but his skill and experience as announcer combined with his love and knowledge of baseball produce the best announcing in all of pro sports.  Most ex players and coaches are mediocre on-air personalities, at best.

Other impressions of this postseason:

1. It was ridiculous that the Clippers and Spurs had to face each other in Round 1.
2. The dirty play of the Houston Rockets was utterly uncalled for, and it is unfortunate that the NBA continues to be idle concerning such scenarios.
3. James Harden is not "difficult to officiate," as some announcers have said.  Officials simply need to call Harden for the many fouls he commits.
4. Stephen Curry is the best basketball player to ever approach the game for one reason: he has the capacity and ability to out-maneuver anyone and then make shots that are difficult or impossible for most players.

Star Wars Quote of the Week

"You had me wear these robes as a symbol in support of your cause.  I wear them now to destroy that symbol… as well as your cause.  Your personal agenda is wrapped in patriotic terms, but you are nothing more than a thug."

-Kir Kanos

Video of the Week: Herbie Hancock "Actual Proof"

This week's video of the week is a Herbie Hancock tune that I absolutely love: "Actual Proof."  This is an excellent version from a few years back with a lights-out band:

piano: Herbie Hancock
guitar: Lionel Loueke
bass: Marcus Miller 
drums: Terri Lyne Carrington
trumpet: Roy Hargrove
guitar: Wah Wah Watson
percussion: Munyungo Jackson

Going Analog to Create

Technology is a funny thing.  It speeds things up, makes life easier, and provides many benefits.  But, when it goes wrong?  Well, you might as well have been doing it the old fashioned way to start with.  Moreover, technology itself can easily demand your attention and become the focus of a project instead of the content. Simply put, unchecked use of technology can usurp the creative process.  Where you would have had a great idea or great solution, you have a computer generated cop-out… such as a movie that is loaded with effects but lacks in plot, character development, or good acting.  Other great examples are cookie cutter pop songs, copy and paste fiction works, or even "news articles" that are either just linked or rehashed versions of pre-existing work.  

This really hit home a couple of years ago when a composer friend of mine and I were chatting during a soundcheck for a concert.  We had been talking about challenges of notation and getting through to young composers how to properly write for certain instruments, and our conversation turned to the overwhelming presence of technology in creative pursuits.  He said, "When composition students bring me pieces they are working on, I can tell from what they've written if they've only been working on a computer."  The ability to spot the difference between someone sitting with pen, paper, and instrument and someone sitting with a computer alone is evidence that technology needs to be reconsidered in the creative process.  When working with pen and paper (or in any traditional analog way) you are forced to interact and engage both yourself and your material. In a creative process, the usage of tech can interrupt and seduce your focus away from the difficult (but crucial) formative work. 

With music an an example, think about the challenge the music community faces if young composers/songwriters are subconsciously limiting their ideas to what they find in their computer (as opposed to what comes out of themselves).  Instead of creating, the author is compromising with their technology to receive a result they would not have necessarily sought.  That lack of control and authority over a tool has made that hardware or software an unwitting participant in the development of new work.  In other words, it could be argued that the computer should receive credit for its work.

For another art form, consider this example in film: color correction (color correction is a process that  alters the colors in frames of film for effect).  Numerous articles and videos have been made to highlight the rampant use of digital color correction in Hollywood.  At one point in cinema history, color correction was only used in specific situations to achieve the goals of the director.  It was a very expensive and time consuming process that was used sparingly to achieve certain effects.  Directors had to pay careful attention to on set lighting, camera angles, etc., to ensure they would get the look they wanted with as little extra work as possible.  Now, digital technology not only makes color correction easy on individual frames, but makes altering the colors of the entire film only a few clicks away, too.  Instead of a supplement tool that requires a time and cost decision, it has become a button press.  The joke about "just fixing it in post-production" is becoming more real.  I believe this is the reason that certain films and filmmakers are getting the accolades and attention for their work. Christopher Nolan's dedication to using VFX sparingly is well known, and it shows up the unbelievable look and feel of films like Inception and Interstellar.  Just in the last few weeks, George Miller has garnered a large amount of attention for his dedication to making everything real in the newest installment to the Mad Max franchise.  Star Wars fans look forward to seeing JJ Abrams create The Force Awakens with a reduced usage of computer effects and blue screen.

Now, my big disclaimer is this: I think technology is a huge asset for creative people because it helps us realize things that were once unable to be realized.  But technology itself is not the answer, and the creator and user of the tech must bring the artistic vision and dedication to their work.  Moreover, the artist using technology must be well versed in its usage just like any other tool; the greatest guitar ever made can sound bad in the hands of a non-guitarist.  Technology may help you realize, but it doesn't help create.  Even in sound and media pieces where a computer or interface is largely determining the sound and visual content for the audience, the artist or composer must still create the piece -- even if technology is the performer.

Within the past couple years, I've returned to scoring music on paper first and keeping creative ideas outlined on paper.  With it has come a volley of ideas that were lost to me while using software.  Several completed pieces, story ideas, brainstorming… its all more effective with paper and pen.  More importantly, when I do begin to use technology in working it is far more productive and is more informed.  I encourage everyone to pay close attention to how they're using their tech and to find the process that lets them find a balance.  

Star Wars Quote of the Week

"And I did it looking good."

-Lando Calrissian

Video of the Week: Bruckner Symphony No. 8 Clip

The Shuffle Experiment

I recommend that you try a music listening technique that I've tried:
The Shuffle Expirement

Here's how it works:
Listen to the entirety of the the music library on your iPod or computer using shuffle.  Yes - all of it.  No skipping songs allowed.  And yes, depending on the size of your library and how often you use your device, this could take some time.

Why would someone do this?
I started this about 3 years ago on my iPod on a whim, but quickly discovered that I was listening to interesting and enjoyable music that I had never listened to, despite owning it.  Most people love a band with those 3 songs that can never be played enough, or maybe have a favorite piece by a certain composer.  Then, there's the CD you got from a friend that you really didn't listen to.  Perhaps there are some tunes in a compilation album that you bought for a specific song.  Then there is that recording of Beethoven's 7th Symphony that you re-discovered after only listening to to a version by a different orchestra for 4 years.

I found that even in my carefully built music library (I am a musician, after all), there were a great many things that I hadn't paid attention to and some music that I could discover.  As with many people, there are tracks in my music library that have hardly been played while some have been played many, many, many, times.  Despite my overall preference of using vinyl for music listening, the computer becomes a convenient music player and can be used for something more interesting than simply playing songs.

So, put your music library on shuffle and hold on to your seat: you might be getting ready to discover some music!