Satie, Satiety and Satire

Learning to Disappoint

2009-02-19T21:30:00.004-07:00

I went back to the Etobicoke School of the Arts (school from Fall practicum) tonight to watch the mid-winter talent show, especially hoping to hear the jazz clarinetist I had been treated to at the December Holiday Festival Concert. Didn't see him. However, I did bump into someone else.

***

Learning to Disappoint

There is nothing quite so heart wrenching
Than to tell ninth-grade child,
With admiration in her eyes,
The truth.

As she asks, "Mr. Laroche!
Will you come back
And teach at our school next year?!"
To know that it can't be
And won't be.

But to tell her,
And her giggly little friends,
"That's not very likely."
"And the year after?"
To give the same answer,
Grimacing.

"And the year after?"

Feeling one's guilt
Seeking to replace her next
Disappointment.

Clinging to the truth,
Yet whispering, "Maybe."
Knowing that
You've made a difference,
Knowing that
A difference

You can no longer make.

The NDP shoots, but how does it score?

2008-10-13T18:14:00.001-06:00

To continue my mini-series of musical analysis of political advertising, I turn my attention today to the work of the NDP. Two NDP ads targeted to Québec are particularly interesting. For the record, I don't plan to do the Liberals' ads because, well, they are musically boring and not particularly interesting, musically and analytically. They are also musically boring, if I hadn't mentioned that yet. Anyhow, onwards to the first NDP ad of the day:

This ad caused somewhat of a stir a few weeks ago. The music of the ad can be broken down into three main sections, each associated with a unique visual picture on screen.

The first lasts about 4 seconds and is basically just reverberating soft metal-on-metal chime one hears at the beginning while the voter's ballot is on screen. There's admittedly not much interesting here on the surface, as anyone who has spent an hour playing around with Audacity could create a similarly charming opening.

The second portion is much more interesting. At 16 seconds in length, it makes up the bulk of the ad, and is by far the most interesting musical selection. We'll come back to this one shortly.

The third section consists of the last 9 seconds of the ad. Basically, you have Jack Layton on screen, and a nice little electric guitar melody to go along with it. There are a few interesting points to be made regarding the motifs and scoring of this section.

However, as mentioned, the most interesting section of this ad must be the middle part. First of all, if one were to detach the score from the ad and remove the added sound effects - soldiers marching, electric guitars snapping (remember this for later) - one is basically left with a series of pulsating brass notes. The first interesting point to note about this section of the work therefore is its tempo, which you can determine from the pulsating notes. The tempo is about M.M. 80, if you assume that the pulsations are eighth notes. With a bit of detective work, a few observations can be made from this piece of information.

Most of the detective work that goes on relies on one other fundamental piece of information that is related to tempo, that of metric organization. For example, are we talking about a piece in 4/4 here, or 3/4 or 7/4, or does it just not have a regular metric organization? The last of these options is immediately appealing. After all, it's tough to pick any downbeat in the pulsating trumpets and trombones. But if we make a number of assumptions based on what is heard, a clearer picture of what's going on can emerge. First, before the pulsation of eighths start, the first chord heard from the brass ensemble is actually a quarter note. For lack of any other easily identifiable starting point, let's call this the downbeat of Measure 1. If you beat along steadily in 4/4 at the designated tempo from this, you find that, on the downbeat of Measure 4 (~15.5 seconds) also happens to coincide with the next longer chord. Follow this along, and the visual explosion happens on the downbeat of Measure 6.

The reason I note this is, despite all the mayhem going on in the music and its seeming lack of organization, there actually does appear to be a thread of continuity in the music. I'm not entirely sure if a brass ensemble was commissioned to do a recording of this section or if the music was taken from a recording, but based on its style, I see no real reason why such meticulous metric organization would be required. If this is actually a recorded work from somewhere in the contemporary classical catalogue, then the main suspects like Luciano Berio and Edgar Varèse usually make a point of not having much of an identifiable rhythmic structure. They change up the "downbeat" by making every measure a different length; for example, you might have a measure of 3/8 follow by one of 2/4 and then another of 5/8. In this case, you usually stop hearing the downbeat of every measure as a downbeat, and you usually just identify the chords on those beats as being particularly accented within an overall ametric work.

But that's not what is going on here. The pulsations are fairly regular. Which leads us to the second possibility: if performers were hired to record this, a regular metric structure makes it relatively easier to record the work in as little time as possible. That's true, but then again, most professional musicians should be able to follow 16 seconds of shifting-meter music without too much trouble (I mean, chances are they're quite used to this idea anyway.). The larger question here is, if the NDP wishes to represent chaos under Harper as the ad is implying, why not extend this to the musical parameters of the ad too? Why not shift tempos? Why not put in sudden accents that unexpectedly jolt the audience instead of lulling them into an intriguing (relative) sense of musical security with a regular pulse?

The use of the phrase "sense of musical security" to label one of the ad's effects may appear a bit odd at first. After all, this is clearly contemporary classical music; most Canadians don't tend to list this genre as what they listen to when they want to relax on Friday night. But taking a look at its harmonic aspects, it's revealed that this really isn't all that radical. The chord that you hear pulsating throughout is a F-sharp major chord in second inversion: C#-F#-A#-C#. There is also one small addition: a D natural squeezed between the initial C# and F#. The top three notes are held, the bottom two are the ones you hear pulsating. In commonplace harmony, one scale where you can find all of these elements, D-F#-A#-C#, is in the key of B minor. More specifically, this is the chord of III^(7,+5) in second inversion. For those who didn't get that, it just means that this is the chord of III with an added note on top. Here's the thing: while on the surface one might ask when in tarnations one would ever hear such a chord, there's actually a very good explanation. The chord of III tends to be harmony's misunderstood black sheep, it's true, and consequently does not get much airtime. However, within the context of jazz harmony, this combination of notes is commonly understood as part of the Lydian #5 chord. While not an essential part of every phrase's daily breakfast, it does creep up now and again in most jazz music. It's hardly the outside chord one might expect in this scenario; if anything, people actually do hear it when they listen to music on Friday night.

Now wait a second here, some of you are thinking. III^(7,+5) is only particularly poignant in jazz because A) it doesn't happen often and B) there's usually significant context in a piece of music to position it as the black sheep of minor scale harmonies. It's true; while I'm not quite comfortable calling this chord the III^(7,+5) chord despite its technical construction because any relevant context is absent. But this is what's all the more interesting about it: this chord is its own context. It's the only chord you hear in the entire piece. True, at some point the trombones drop from C# to A# (with a few sliding just below A# to give an small "out of tune" effect), but that's still fundamentally the same chord. My point is the following: while at first the chord may seem slightly jolting initially, the fact that it is constructed from relatively common materials, that is to say, a sustained major chord, and that there is no additional context actually works against the shock and awe and chaos the ad is trying to portray. The chord doesn't want to be resolved towards another, potentially more horrifying harmonic destination; it simply exists and asserts itself, over and over again. When I talk about the sense of musical security, this is what I refer to, the idea that, even if the chord is dissonant, without any relative push or pull to contextualize it, the dissonance quickly normalizes itself within the ear. And that, in an attack ad, is a problem, if you are working towards building a more climactic effect. I would suggest that this actually reduces the impact that the soldiers, tanks and explosions in our streets could have had at the end. Going to successive degrees of greater dissonance would be much more helpful here, as opposed to maintaining one more dissonant chord, would have been the way to go here, despite having a great starting idea.

The third portion of the ad is a nice contrast to all that modern stuff we've been listening to in the past 16 seconds. It clearly establishes the idea that Harper is bad, and that whatever you're about to see is good. First, the tempo of this new tune is slightly faster than what you heard in the pulsating eighths before, creating the impression of a drive towards the end. The music seems to be more upbeat, and definitely offers more clarity of movement than the somewhat convoluted second section. But really, the most interesting point here concerns instrumentation.

As many of you can surely identify, after a prolonged brass fanfare, we now get treated to some electric guitar for the end of the work. First, I can't help but wonder if there's some kind of subliminal messaging going on here. As you might recall, at the 9 second mark of the ad, we see an electric guitar being broken as a sign of Harper's alleged crusade against the arts. Later, we hear electric guitar as part of the positive messaging for the NDP. I have no idea whether that's coincidental or intended on the part of the NDP, but I would not be surprised either way. Even if people know nothing about music, most tend to know what an electric guitar looks like and sounds like, as opposed to, say, a bassoon. So this kind of messaging might actually work if it was intended to work this way.

The second point about instrumentation is that there are actually multiple electric guitars being used. Yes, there's the first one we hear, which keeps articulating various combinations of the notes E-B-E'-D# (note: an apostrophe next to a note designates this note at the octave above; therefore, E and E' are same type of sound, but E' is one octave higher). But then there's also the slightly more reverberant one at the end that accentuates the melodic notes E and B when the first guitar plays E-F#-B in the dying seconds of the ad. It seems to bring extra attention to the fact that NDP is on the screen, whilst doing so quite subtly and colouring a very pleasant interval, the perfect fifth E-B. In other words, it's painting a rather paradisal picture of life under an NDP government, and does so quite effectively.

There's one last point that I wish to make about this ad. With the exception one tone heard twice in the final section of the work (D#), the entire pitch aggregate of the entire ad - sections one, two and three - actually fits very nicely within the mould of a B minor scale. The notes from the brass chords have already been discussed, but most notes - E, B and F# - from the second guitar portion actually fit the mould. While I suspect the starting pitches for the third section were chosen simply because E, B and F# are an easy trio to perform mid-range on a guitar, I can't help but wonder what the overall effect of having an aggregate of pitches that can all fall into one common scale. It's admittedly somewhat of a stretch, but if we understand the E-B interaction in the third section as being the chord of IV in B (major/minor), the D# and F# as the chord of I in B major, one can actually argue that the entire harmonic structure is consistent around the tone B as follows: III(7,+5) - IV - I - IV - V. What does this mean? It means that the weird chord from earlier on actually fits into the harmonic context of the musical score as one would expect it to within the rules of common-practice, functional harmony.

Whoa. So much for all-out attack.

Let's move on to today's second specimen. I promise this one will be shorter, as I wish only to focus on the melodic and harmonic aspects of the music.

I love this ad, just because I really like the play on the word bloc/bloque. I'm surprised others havn't used it before, it seems like an obvious avenue to attaque the Bloc. In any case, the musical score here can also be divided into three parts. The first part and third parts are identical to the ones in the previous ad. The second portion features the piano melody and accompaniment and later sound effects, timpani and a choir of fallen angels. As mentioned, the second portion is again the electric guitar "NDP-rocks-but-not-too-hard" theme featured at the end of the previous ad, on the same notes and everything (i.e., still patterns of E-B-E'-D#). The second part is decidedly the most interesting consider.

This ad opens on a C-sharp minor chord in root inversion, articulated in quarter notes in a 3/4 metric structure. And then this persists, over and over again, up until the final dramatic chord at the 20 second mark. Basically, you have the classic minor "sad" chord being articulated over and over again. I can't help but think that there must be an implied message here that suggests that the Bloc is and has been playing the same sorry tune for ever and ever without getting results.

Then, one gets a small melody folded into the mix: B-B', A-A', G#-G#'. The C-sharp minor chord continues to harmonically support each note. In this particular context, the movement from B to A to G# actually provides an interesting analysis into how to create greater dissonance from lesser dissonance. When one hears the B, it is heard as somewhat dissonant against the C-sharp minor chord that has been continuously re-iterated, but not so much as that it is intolerable. Every just sounds sadder because of the B. One could analyze this to be the chord of I^7 (technically, i^7) of C# minor and one would not be incorrect, but I tend to just prefer to separate the harmonic and melodic streams entirely in this case. One might also conceive of it as an overlap between the chords of C# minor and E major, which has some interesting implications for later on. Next, one has C-sharp minor against an A - one could hear this as the chord of A^#7, but because the C-sharp minor chord is so ingrained as the reference point by now, it is instead hear as a more harshly dissonant version of the first chord. Finally, A resolves to G#, which is part of the chord, and therefore highly consonant within the relative context of the musical phrase. This relative consonance also serves to accentuate the A's particular dissonance within the overall context.

The addition of other sounds after the G#-G#' melodic portion are also intriguing. One hears low drums, timpani to be precise, playing C#-G# slightly out of tune for a haunting effect as the sinking economy is mentioned. When it settles, some evil-sounding choir reaffirms the C-sharp minor chord, making it that much more frightening than it was with only solo piano; the downwards pitch slide at the end just adds to the gloom and doom of it all. I think another message is implied here through the music: all the Bloc does is create discord in Parliament (B-B'-A-A'), but even when it doesn't, the results are sad-making (G#-G#' + timpani and choir). I actually find this ad to be quite effective because the music amplifies the main message of the ad so well.

The last thing I want to point to in this ad is the fact that the tonal centres between the second section and the third section are actually narrowly related. In this particular case, if you interpret the E-B-E'-D# of the guitar in the third portion as the chords of I and V in the key of E major. The chord of C-sharp minor is actually the chord of VI within the context of E major. The chord of C-sharp minor actually has an E in it. The E acts as a natural transition point between the "sad" C-sharp minor chords and the "implied-to-be-happy" E major chords - and while you can't actually know whether they are E major chords because the third of the chord is absent, the fact that G#, which would normally fill this role in an E major chord, was articulated over and over again in the previous section means you likely havn't forgotten about it in your inner ear. After all, you might have heard a combination of C-sharp minor and E major chords together in the opening of the ad when you heard a C-sharp minor chord plus melody note B.

In short: it seems the NDP is trying the classic trick of using related major/minor scales to denote happy/sad ideas. Those familiar with basic music theory will know the how's and why's of the relationship between C-sharp minor and E major. Using the tonic note as a pivot point between your negative and positive ideas appears to be a winning solution in this particular ad, likely because the music has reflected simplicity in its organization of musical ideas. Hence, the most simple transition from "sad" to "happy" also appears to be quite effective, without being so much jarring.

(For those of you who are left asking how the third portion could be part of B major/minor in the first ad, but E major in the second, it's all a question of context; when you don't have all 7 notes of the scale given to you, you kind of have to interpret the key/tonal centre based on contextual information that is provided. The context in the first suggests one should interpret it as part of B, the second, as part of E; independent on any context, I would probably also interpret it as being in E, but in all of the above cases I'm still left guessing, since the critical difference between the E and B scales, that is, whether A or A# is used, is conspicuously absent in the music.)

The only problem with this ad, like the Conservatives' ad from a few weeks ago, is its ending: E - F#+D# - B is I to V. How classically imperfect.

Notes about the Conservative ads

2008-09-21T23:50:00.000-06:00

It should come as no surprise to most readers of this blog that I enjoy exploring the complex world of music theory. It should also come as no surprise that I follow national politics with considerable interest.

This is one of those rare occasions where politics and musical analysis meet. Given a brief exploration of cyberspace has yielded no results for the particular topic I'm about to explore, I thought I'd jump into the fray and do it myself.

Context: As might be expected of all good Albertan Reds, I'm a regular reader of Calgary Grit's blog about politics. One of his recent things has been to critique all new ads put out there by the major political parties during this election. That's all well and good, but he mostly only addresses the visual aspects of those commercials; the audio aspects are generally not touched upon. Which means that, for the most part, of all of that specially commissioned music that serves to heighten the drama of attack ads or paint everybody's favorite sweater-vest wearing dad that just happens to be Prime Minister does not get acknowledged or scrutinized.

The topic in and of itself of how much music can affect the message of these advertisements is one worth asking. Are there particular musical forms that work better to reinforce messages in an ad, by, say, having a recurring three- or four-note theme heard every time a "positive" idea is mentioned? Is rounded binary form best for 30-second adds? What if you don't resolve that seventh in an attack ad, does it add extra drama? To what extent do political parties try to brand themselves with a subtle yet ever-present musical identity? If it works for McDonald's ("Have you had your break today?" - can you hear the jingle yet?), can it work for political parties?

I unfortunately can't answer all of those questions, and apparently, nor can Wikipedia or JStor. But, in the spirit of getting started on finding the answers to those questions, I can critique and analyze the ads already going around. I will try to make the critiques accessible for the musical layman, but there are a few more advanced notions that I wish to point out in a few places that will unfortunately require some understanding of functional harmony. In any case, let's get started, as one of the parties might say.

Today, as the first entry in the series, we start with the first ad to be blanketed all over the Canadian airwaves when the election was called two weeks ago.

Oh, isn't that nice and sweet of him. Stevie can play the piano, just like Grandpa at Christmas. How warm and fuzzy of him.

However, if you listen to the music in this ad very closely, there are a few interesting points. Structurally, this soundtrack is easy to break down into sections. You have a segment that lasts 4 measures, and then it repeats itself starting at around the 14 second mark, then you move the closing little segment that starts at about the 27 second mark. In short, you have an A section (A here refers to a section name, not the note A), a repeat of the A section with a modified ending (commonly written as A'), and then a B section to close out the piece. Therefore, we can summarize the structure of the soundtrack of this ad as being in AA'B form, with the first A lasting 14 seconds, A' lasting 13 seconds, and B being incredibly short and lasting only 3 seconds.

The mathematically astute people reading this will immediately notice the first small problem here, and the musical consequences are common enough that most trained musicians will put their finger on the problem right away when listening. In short, while it's the exact same musical length (ie, 4 measures), A' is played slightly faster than A. The the shift to the faster playing speed, called tempo, is very subtle, coming just between A and A'. For the musically astute, try tapping a steady beat; after the 14 second mark, if you're absolutely steady, you'll notice that downbeats don't quite correspond to the downbeats in the music, as if you were behind. It's not like it's the biggest musical crime of all time, though in common musical parlance, changes in speed are frowned upon without a good artistic reason. I think there is a reason why whoever put this ad together is doing this, and I'll come back to it later. For now, it's just important to remember that Stevie the piano player is rushing towards the B section.

In terms of composition (the specifics of how a piece is written), it's worth noting that the composer chose a very boring key in which to play his piece, that of C major; I can't help but think that it might be subliminal messaging about how the Conservatives, also represented by the letter C, want Canadians to give them a majority government, but aren't willing to say so openly. Longtime readers will recall how I previously railed against C major (and C minor, for the record), and I see no reason to recant those views in light of the current situation.

However, the use of C major goes a bit deeper than that. If you listen carefully, the first six notes of the piece, played on a piano, are repeated over and over again with various embellishments for the first 27 seconds of the ad. What are those notes? E-G-C-G-G-E, or in common musical parlance, a C major chord (commonly written as C-E-G, but you can scramble the order and it's still a C major chord). Over and over again. What's curious is that, this C major chord persists in the melody as the bass note changes every measure (which is every three seconds or so) from C-B-A-F (then repeats); as you might have noticed, B, A and F aren't notes that are part of a C major chord. Yet, they appear in direct clash with notes that are only part of a C major chord heard in the melody (over and over again). In other words, C major insists on moving ahead unchallenged regardless of what other notes around it are implying should be done. Sounds familiar.

It's also worth noting that, as far as my ears can tell, in the entire musical score, be it melody, accompaniment or other voices, nowhere are the notes A-B-C sounded in that order. Danny Williams is going to be disappointed.

The choices in instrumentation, that is, the selection of what instruments are used to play music and how the instruments are distributed within the music (encompassing questions like "should the violin play the melody and the piano play the accompaniment, or should we get a tuba to play the melody instead?"), also raise interesting questions. First of all, while the piano heard in the forefront during the A and A' sections is clearly a real and even-tempered piano played by a competent pianist, I have some real doubts about the sonic authenticity of the strings and oboe heard in those same sections. I'm 90% confident that they're actually high-quality MIDI's. I point this out only because, once we finally arrive at the B concluding section, the strings there are most definitely very real, which begs an interesting question - why would you use fake strings in the first 27 seconds of your ad, but then have real strings in the last 3 seconds? There seems to be little cost-benefit of doing it that way; if you're going to arrange for musicians to record a piece of music, it makes little sense to get them to record your 3-second snippet, but not the rest of the ad.

That's of course making one fundamental assumption, one that is likely not true. That assumption is that we're talking about one piece of music that was all written by the same guy (or gal). The B section is so radically different - musically, harmonically, in terms of the sound of the sound (hear that slightly prolonged low resonance when the strings in the B section finally come in?) - that I'm inclined to believe that the B section is an entirely different piece of music that also happens to start/continue on a C major chord, and it's just "pasted" onto the end of A and A'. I propose that, whatever unknown piece the B section comes from, that music was licensed for use in this ad (or maybe even not, given one might be able to justify the use of a 3-second clip music under copyright exemptions), and isn't part of the composition used in AA'. I have a number of contentions to support this idea.

First of all, there is once again a tempo change, this time between A' and B. Tap it out. It's close, but not exact. Not only that though, but you actually get robbed of an entire beat between A' and B. AA' is in 4/4 time, B is also in 4/4 time, except that the last measure of A' is suddenly in 3/4 time. Oops. Of course, none of this proves anything, but in combination with other factors, it does tend to suggest a certain shift has occured, as these features are not musically "natural" or "normal."

Second, there is the harmonic structure of the work. Sections A and A' systematically avoid using the chord of V (G major) until the two last beats of A'; uncharacteristically, the transition between A and A' is actually the chord of ii (D minor) in first inversion (F as the bottom note). Musicians understand that most pieces written in C major make liberal use of the chord of G major (the chord of V). Therefore, avoiding the use of a G major chord (V) in a piece in C major is a stylistically distinct feature of sections A and A'. However, in the B section, the chord of V (G major) is the second chord you hear, right after C major. As a theorist, in combination with the other factors listed below, this fundamental inconsistency of style indicates an important shift to the harmonic approach. In this case, I actually think we're dealing with two entirely different composers because the shift is so sudden and the traits so musically distinct.

Third, the melodic structures of the melodies in A and B are also radically different. The former focuses on wide leaps between notes, usually emphasizing downward movements on the downbeats, whilst in the latter, the leaps are smaller, and directed upwards. Now, this in itself is nothing special - any composition student could use these devices to contrast two different ideas in two different sections. The main difference between the melodic structures lies in their rhythmic characters. The melody in the A section emphasizes dotted rhythms and beat subdivisions; the melody in the B section is very rhythmic and regular, falling only on the beats. Taken independently, there would be a case of saying that all this is mere coincidence caused by normal musical variation. However, taken as a whole, especially in light of the other harmonic aspects discussed earlier, I believe these are probable grounds to state that a stylistic shift beyond what might be normally expected between two contrasting ideas. Because it constitutes a fundamental stylistic shift, it again suggests between composers for the two ideas.

The fourth reason I suspect that the soundtrack from this ad is nothing more than an intricately planned bastardization regards aspects of instrumentation. An astute musical observer would noticed the conspicuous absence of the piano in the B section soundtrack. This in itself is somewhat odd - why does the prominent instrument from the first 27 seconds of the ad disappear very suddenly in the B section? Also, as mentioned earlier, the strings and oboe from sections A and A' sound fake (though "good" fake, in that it's not plainly obvious to tell that they could be, you have to really stretch the ear and pay specific attention.).

Given this, I advance the following theory: AA' originally did not have any strings and oboe in the background. Realistically, if AA' were to stand alone, those instruments would be entirely dispensable, as they serve no real purpose; they just double what the piano is doing in different ranges. The only reason they were introduced into AA' was that, later, in assembling the ads, those in charge realized that there was a musical jolt resulting from a soundtrack having only solo piano to one featuring a full string orchestra. In other words, the whole of the soundtrack lacked musical continuity, especially at a critical point in the ad. Because Conservative strategists (or their advertisers) obviously want Canadians to focus on the messages of the ads, as opposed to a weird musical moment near the end (though they still manage to screw everybody up with that odd 3/4 measure), so additional instruments that make the entire soundtrack of the ad gel are edited in later. This is in turn explains why we have fake strings in the first part - you can't go back and re-record the piano part with new string players, but you can subtly set the piano part to a MIDI soudtrack, and ensure the balance is right so that you are always prominently featuring the piano.

Remember the slightly prolonged low resonance at 27 second mark, between A' and B? I propose the reason that happens is so that there is an extra moment where the fake strings and real strings play together, so that the transition is (relatively) seemless - if anything, you're likely focusing on the 3/4 blip instead of the comparative timbres of MIDI and real strings.

So at the end of all this analysis, what does it any of it actually mean? At the beginning of this analysis, I asked to what extent political parties might try to brand themselves with a subtle yet ever-present musical identity. According to this particular ad, I think the Conservatives are definitely going for this idea. In AA', you have a jingle that gets repeated over and over - "Harper's Theme," if you will. In B, you get an entirely different musical idea, the "Conservative Party theme," if you would. It's clear that the party is trying to tie specific musical ideas to certain political ideas; these musical ideas serve to reinforce along another dimension (aural instead of visual) the fatherly notion of Harper being projected on screen. Who's to say whether it actually works in establishing a positive feel with voters who are tempted to like Harper but dislike the Conservative brand, but the fact that the Conservatives are trying this seems to at least be worth the effort.

In the end though, while the relationship between politics and music might be interesting, I can't help but notice that the final cadence of the musical score is one that reflects the overall feel I get from this soundtrack: an interesting concept, but ultimately, imperfect (I - V) with unresolved issues (like a leading tone as your last melody note...) worthy of more consideration.

Up next time: Jack à l'attaque.

Causons de la Cause Caron

2008-07-03T23:14:00.001-06:00

Donc, la grosse nouvelle qui est sortie dans la communauté francophone dernièrement, c’est évidemment tout ce qui se passe avec la cause Caron, notamment le fait que le jugement a été livré. Pour emprunter l’expression de Radio-Canada, tout le monde en parle. Justement, moi aussi, je crois qu’il y a beaucoup de choses à dire au sujet de la cause Caron, mais ce que qui importe davantage, ce sont les choses que qu'il faut dire vis-à-vis la réaction que vit la communauté francophone en ce moment.

En fin de compte, on y voit un verdict qui serait, dit-on, favorable à la communauté francophone. Le juge Wendon trouve que la déclaration de 1869 était à caractère constitutionnel, et qu’elle est encore valide aujourd’hui. Malgré le fait que j’ai lu le jugement, je n’ai pas grand chose à dire à son sujet; je ne connais pas assez de façon approfondie le droit pour y livrer une critique qui m’y serait satisfaisante. Je dirai seulement que j’ai été surpris de voir à quel point l’établissement des faits historiques pour confirmer la présence et l’utilisation commune du français dans l’Ouest furent des enjeux importants pour le procès. Je m’attendais beaucoup plus à voir de l’analyse portée sur la justification historique ET contemporaine pour la décision que la proclamation de Décembre 1869 était et serait toujours à caractère constitutionnel; par comparaison au reste, cette portion me semblait relativement courte, malgré le fait que c’est probablement la justification la plus importante à donner dans tout le document. Étant donné son manque de développement (relatif), je crois d’ailleurs que c’est sur ce point que le gouvernement de l’Alberta jouera lorsqu’il déposera son appel.

Non, pour moi, ce qu’il y a d’intéressant et d’inquiétant dans l’histoire de la cause Caron, ce sont les réverbérations qu’on a vu passer dans la communauté francophone. En particulier, la cause Caron semble avoir pris une vie en soi-même, certes adjointe à la réalité francophone de l’Alberta, mais en même temps suffisamment détachée d’elle aussi.

Je m’explique. Parlons d’abord de ce que nous dit notre porte-parole provincial pour les affaires francophones, notre chère ACFA. Je crois que, sans le savoir, l’ACFA semble avoir perdu vue du point de contact entre la cause Caron et la réalité du fait français en Alberta. Sur quelle base affirme-je cela? Bien, regardons attentivement les messages, tant ouverts que sous-entendus, qui sont paradés par l’ACFA lors de ses conférences de presse et contenus dans ses communiqués.

À croire l’ACFA, la grande victoire de la cause Caron, c’est que ca oblige les “autres,” c’est-à-dire les gouvernements, les tribunaux, et ainsi de suite, de “reconnaître la légitimité du fait français en Alberta,” nous dit le communiqué de presse de l’ACFA. Jean Johnson, dans le Edmonton Journal du 3 juillet 2008, affirme que la "decision is a recognition of the francophone community, that they were [sic] here to found Western Canada". Le premier problème avec ces déclarations, c’est qu’elles passent carrément à côté de l’objectif central de la cause Caron. On peut bien se poser la question, à voir de telles déclarations, si on est allé en cour pour faire valoir nos droits, ou pour plutôt faire certifier une interprétation de l’histoire de l’ouest canadien par un juge.

Pire encore, par contre, ces déclarations semblent être fondées sur l’idée que la francophonie albertaine ait ipso facto besoin de reconnaissance externe avant d’être légitime. J’avance la notion que ce serait extrêmement grave que notre communauté pense de cette façon, qu’elle croit que sa propre légitimité culturelle dépendrait de si oui ou non le gouvernement albertain serait prêt à aussi la reconnaître. En suggérant que c’est avant tout la reconnaissance des cours qui entraîne la légitimité, soit elle politique, culturelle ou sociologique, ce que Monsieur Johnson est en train de nous dire, c’est que, sans cette appui, le peuple francophone est en manque de légitimité. Heureusement, au contraire, ce n’est point le cas. Comme l’avoue Jean Johnson dans le Journal, les francophones vivent en Alberta depuis 130 ans sans cette reconnaissance; je pose donc la question, agit-elle comme pré-requit pour le soutien ou même l’expansion du français en Alberta? Si on est là depuis 130 ans, et qu’on est encore plus forts et nombreux qu’on l’a jamais été par le passé, j’ai comme l’impression que la réponse est un non solide; de toute évidence, si cette reconnaissance était si cruciale pour la vie des francoalbertains, et qu’on en était privé pendant quatre, voire cinq ou six générations, elle ne doit pas être autant cruciale que l’affirme Jean Johnson. J’en conclu que ce n’est donc pas cette reconnaissance ou légitimité en soi qui a le potentiel d’apporter le plus grand impact sur nos communautés. Par contre, le plus triste de tout çe chari-bari de Jean Johnson, comme vous réalisez sans doute, c’est que quand on parle de l’importance de la reconnaissance pour la communauté francoalbertaine, on met implicitement de côté l’objectif central que notre communauté se donne. On transforme la question et mission fondamentale de notre communauté, soit « Comment peut-on assurer que les gens soient capables de vivre pleinement en français? » pour qu’elle devienne plutôt « Est-ce que la communauté a une bonne estime de soi? ». Vraiment, qu’est-ce qui est plus important ici? Mais qu’est-ce qu’on privilégie quand on parle avant tout de l’importance de la reconnaissance, et ça, la reconnaissance par des partis extérieurs? Suis-je le seul à trouver cela extrêmement nuisible et endommageant pour notre communauté que notre première réaction à une victoire lors de la cause Caron, c’est que ça exige aux autres qu’ils nous reconnaissent?

Mais donc, que faire, si la reconnaissance, ce n’est pas assez? J’avance que c’est plutôt ce qu’on fera de cette reconnaissance qui sera important pour déterminer notre cheminement culturel et social.

Se battre pour la reconnaissance au nom de la reconnaissance, je ne trouve ça guère plus rigoureux en termes de visionnement qu’un séparatiste québécois qui veut la souveraineté juste pour être souverain, sans distinguer dans son choix le processus et la raison d’être, ce pourquoi le plus fondamental de toute question politique. J’ose espérer que la reconnaissance sera pour nous une partie du processus par lequel on atteindra nos objectifs, et non pas l’objectif en soi. Ce qui importe vraiment dans toute cette histoire, ce n’est pas la reconnaissance externe de ce qu’on sait est vrai, mais plutôt l’offre éventuelle des services essentiels qui y sera rattachée pour nous permettre de vivre plus pleinement en français. De plus, ce qu’on devrait célébrer dans cette affaire, ce n'est pas la reconnaissance qu'on a supposément acquis à la fin du procès, c’est plutôt le fait qu’on a pu avoir un procès de 89 jours en français, avec un jugement en français, et la promesse que ce précédent permettra à d’autres de pouvoir accéder à la justice en français lorsque ce besoin existe. La pire gaffe à commettre serait de se parader comme champions avec notre reconnaissance primée sur notre plus beau carrosse métaphorique, sans savoir quoi faire de cette reconnaissance, à part organiser d’autres défilés pour la promener et la « faire valoir », comme un entraîneur et son bichon frisé gagnant lors d’une série de concours de dressage de chiens.

C’est drôle que personne ne parle des retombées concrètes du procès; le tout semble se jouer purement dans la symbolique de termes vaguement définis mais chèrement retenus (qu'est-ce que c'est au juste, la reconnaissance?). Certains diront sûrement que si les retombées concrètes n’ont pas encore été formulées, c’est parce que le procès vient de se terminer, il nous faut maintenant penser à ce qu’on veut comme retombées. Et voilà de nouveau l’erreur. En ne sachant guère ce qu’on désire obtenir en termes de droits et services, nous sommes toujours en mode “réactif”, n’étant jamais progressifs et identifiant nos besoins à l’avance, mais en attendant plutôt (de nouveau) l’approbation d’une cour avant de décider de nos résultats désirés. De toute évidence, nos besoins peuvent bien être pris avec le sérieux qu’ils reçoivent par les gouvernements locaux si c’est seulement après une victoire qu’on décide ce qu’on veut. Ca donne l’impression que les besoins se créent après une victoire juridique, et non que les besoins justifient, entre autre, la nécessité d’une victoire juridique, comme c’était autrefois le cas dans les années 1980. Quand les parents des années 1980 ont gagné devant les tribunaux pour avoir des écoles en français, ils ne parlaient pas du fait cette victoire agissait en tant que reconnaissance du fait français, on parlait du fait que Maurice-Lavallée était pour ouvrir ses portes bientôt, et que des enfants pourraient alors y être éduqués en français.

La différence entre ce qu’on a vu à ce moment et aujourd’hui ne pourrait guère être plus claire et distincte.

C’est bien beau de faire notre politique dans les tribunaux une fois de temps en temps quand on a et un objectif et une raison de croire que le système juridique peut nous aider, pour qu’ensuite on soit assurés du fait que notre but collectif soit clair, que nos désirs politiques se fassent valoir. Mais il ne faudrait pas juste s’y présenter pour jouer l’avocat du diable, en espérant que quelque chose, n’importe quoi, qui retomberait de l’affaire et qui nous aiderait ferait donc valoir du jeu sa chandelle. Jusqu’à maintenant, les seuls deux effets concrets dont on est certain, c’est que Gilles Caron gardera $54 de plus dans ses poches, et qu’il y a beaucoup d’anglophones qui sont en beau maudit contre nous, à comprendre le nombre de “gentils” appels l’ACFA a reçu suite à une interview que Jean Johnson a passée avec une station de radio anglaise cet après-midi. Et pensons-y, nous, jusqu’à maintenant, on ne fait que parler de symbolique, y’a pas un seul dollar de dépensé encore en concrétisation, et c’est ça la réaction qu’on voit. On a peut-être eu gain de cause, mais sommes-nous pour autant sortis gagnants? Pour l’instant, j’en doute.

Donc, que veut réellement dire la cause Caron pour nous aujourd’hui? Qu’est-ce qui va s’accomplir à partir d’elle? Quel effet est-ce que TOI, tu veux que ça ait dans ta vie, la cause Caron? Moi, je n’ai pas encore su répondre à toutes ces questions, c’est d’ailleurs pourquoi ma “joie” vis-à-vis la victoire a été plutôt nuancée. Maintenant j’espère que vous comprenez pourquoi.

Good job, CBC, good job...

2008-02-26T01:10:00.005-07:00

As many of you might know, CBC.ca is my main news source for what's happening in Canada and around the world. A story was recently posted about military families using Facebook to communicate. One particular passage struck me as odd:

Samie Marchand-Whittle, whose husband is in the Canadian Forces, has closed public access to the Facebook page she maintains for military families.

"It's scary to know that they could find out personal information about our families, our children, where we live," said the Edmonton mother of two. "It is really scary."

Am I the only one who is perplexed by the phrasing of all this?? If Samie really is scared about... well, whatever she's scared about, the CBC sure isn't helping by putting half of what she's afraid the Taliban or whoever are going to find out right there in the open.

Une bonne erreur

2007-11-19T22:48:00.000-07:00

Je sais que ca fait quelque temps que je n’ai pas contribué d’article à la blogosphère. Je dis cela parce que, pour que je me force de le faire, c’est qu’il doit bien y avoir quelque chose qui m’intrigue ou qui m’agace au point de vouloir prendre quelques heures afin d’organiser mes idées à l’écrit. Heureusement pour mes lecteurs, le journaliste Graeme Hamilton a justement réussi à m’agacer, et pas à peu près. J’apprends aujourd’hui que, le 9 Novembre dernier, M. Hamilton a publié un article dans le National Post portant sur des réclamations par des groupes de promotion du français au Québec sur l’utilisation grammaticalement incorrecte du français par la compagnie Nintendo dans certains jeux vidéo récents, notamment The Legend of Zelda : Phantom Hourglass et Super Mario Galaxy. Les groupes réclament un usage parfait du français écrit dans ces jeux vidéo; malheureusement, ce que ces gens ne semblent pas réaliser, c’est que dans le contexte d’une oeuvre artistique, les principes de l’orthographe et de la grammaire française peuvent raisonnablement être oubliés dans le bon contexte pour acheminer des idées davantage importantes que l’orthographe elle-même.

Résumons premièrement « la crise » telle que décrite par l’Office québécois de la langue française et l’Impératif francais: des expressions d’un français dit « cassé » seraient utilisés dans les jeux vidéo mentionnés. Pour ces organismes, ceci constitut un problème parce que l’utilisation du français « cassé » serait une insulte à la langue française et au peuple Québécois. Voyons ce que Gérald Paquette, de l’OQLF, nous dit :

“We are telling the industry, we think you should use standard French rather than slang. We hope this is not a trend that all the little fellows that we see in Super Mario speak slang... We prefer that they speak a standard Quebec French. This is another point that insults Quebecers.... We've been for the last 20 years in the process of having French markedly predominant in the commercial signage... La malle is an expression that reflected the overall dominance of English in our commercial lives. At that time French speakers heard about mail, mail, mail and converted it into French as malle.”

Je vais plutôt avancer la théorie qu’un français cassé dans une oeuvre artistique n’insulte aucunement les Québécois, et qu’il ne pose aucun problème linguistique pour la société québécoise. Je n’oserai guère me lancer dans toute la question morphologique du français québécois, surtout parce que je crois que certaines autres personnes seraient bien plus capables d’en parler de façon compétente, mais je crois qu’il y a plusieurs arguments à avancer de ce côté aussi. Je dirai simplement pour ma part que le français cassé n’a pas été inventé par Nintendo.

Parlons premièrement de l’utilisation du français cassé dans les jeux vidéo mentionnés. À lire l’article, on aurait presque l’impression que les deux jeux présentent une surabondance d’exemples de français techniquement incorrect. C’est loin de la vérité. Afin de comprendre le contexte dans lequels ces imperfections seraient présentés, il est d’abord important de songer au fait que les mêmes jeux en anglais présentent également, et délibéramment, des imperfections grammaticales. Il faudrait donc rationaliser pourquoi les créateurs de jeux vidéo choisiraient, même en anglais, de ne pas respecter les conventions linguistiques.

Premièrement, il faut comprendre que les jeux vidéo d’aujourd’hui ne sont pas les créations de 1985. Depuis ce temps, la technologie a évolué, au point de pouvoir permettre que des histoires soient présentées par l’entremise d’un jeu vidéo. Dans ce sens, les jeux vidéo contemporains ne sont guère différents d’un film ou d’un roman: on y présente une histoire, soit pour divertir, ou pour livrer une critique sociale ou tout autre message. Comme dans un film ou dans une pièce de théâtre, on reconnaît des personnages qui ont leurs attraits individuels qui les définissent comme personnages dans le contexte fictif. Généralement, certaines caractéristiques les différencient les uns des autres; ceci s’aligne également avec la croyance sociale actuelle que l’individualité, c’est-à-dire l’ipséité de chacun, est quelque chose que l’on devrait valoriser. Et c’est vrai aussi, on valorise le fait que certaines personnes sont meilleurs cuisiniers que d’autres, que certaines sont moins grossières, ou tout autre paramètre inclut par les mots « qualité » ou « défaut ».

En anglais, Mario est bien connu pour sa façon de se présenter qui elle-même est grammaticalement incorrect. « Its-a-me, Mario! » dit-il si souvent, empruntant un accent qui suggérerait des origines linguistiques italiennes. Que fait-on d’un personnage, disons un marin, qui demanderait « Whatcha want? » plutôt que l’expression plus juste « what do you want? » La réponse ici indique exactement pourquoi, une fois traduits, ces mêmes jeux vidéos pourraient présenter, à l’occasion, un français cassé.

Mais qu’est-ce que tout ceci a à faire avec le français cassé dans les jeux vidéo? Les amateurs de jeux vidéo savent depuis longtemps que Nintendo tient comme principe de conception de jeux vidéo le fait que leurs personnages devraient généralement être présentés en tant que « muets, » c’est-à-dire que les personnages n’ont pas une voix doublée pour lire leur texte, mais que c’est plutôt au joueur d’inventer « la voix » des personnages qu’il ou elle rencontrerait. C’est comme si, par exemple, une série populaire de dessins animés choisissait de renvoyer leurs comédiens pour plutôt donner des bulles de texte pour faire « parler » leurs personnages, comme dans une bande dessinée. À cause de ce choix, les créateurs de jeux vidéos chez Nintendo n’ont pas recours à l’intonation vocale d’un personnage pour présenter son caractère, ses habitudes, etc. Ils doivent donc employer d’autres moyens pour communiquer l’essentiel du personnage au joueur, et comme ca adonne, dans quelque cas, le viol des normes linguistiques est parfaitement acceptable pour réaliser cela.

Qu’est-ce que ceci voudrait dire pour le français cassé, dont on se plaint actuellement? C’est simple: les créateurs cherchent à définir un accent, une identité distincte, quoi, pour un personnage en ignorant délibéremment des normes linguistiques. En créant un personnage qui parle de la malle à la place du courrier, le joueur peut mieux contextualiser ce personnage dans l’histoire; peut-être sa déficience linguistique est attribuable au fait qu’elle a grandi dans un milieu économiquement défavorisé ou n’a pas bien réussi à l’école, ou tout autre facteur. Peut-être une épellation incorrect d’un certain mot accentuerait une certaine origine ethnique ou linguistique d’un personnage, car ce personnage « prononcerait » à ce moment ce mot particulier à sa façon. Ne faisons pas d’erreur : les jeux vidéos, comme les romans, sont parfaitement capables de présenter des personnages d’une telle complexité. Prenons également l’autre extrême, où un personnage dans un jeu, disons un professeur d’une académie scientifique, « parlerait » un français excessivement correct, au point où ce serait peu naturel de retrouver quelqu’un qui parlerait (ou même écrirait!) vraiment comme cela dans nos rues; dans ce cas-ci, un tel choix accentuerait les capacités intellectuelles de ce personnage, tel que reconnu par sa structure exceptionnelle et son lexique de choix. Ce qu’on voit dans ce conflit entre Nintendo et les « représentants » de divers bureaux, c’est fondamentalement une question de la langue française qui se frotte contre le langage français, tout en ignorant que le personnage fictif ne possède que très peu d’autres moyens de présenter sa personalité. Dans ce contexte, c’est clairement cette individualité linguistique qui devrait l’emporter sur les normes sociales du français écrit.

Je dirais même que cette opinion est loin d’être une nouvelle proposition pour la société Québécoise. Il existe effectivement beaucoup de littérature classique pour appuyer cette idée. Le meilleur exemple serait sans doute Zone de Marcel Dubé, une pièce de théâtre que chaque étudiant du secondaire étudiant le français (langue première) au Canada entier étudie. Dans cette pièce, Dubé se sert de variations entre le langage de chacun des personnages afin de présenter les nombreuses différences entre Tarzan, Ciboulette, Ti-Cul et les autres; non seulement ca, le type de francais utilisé par un même personnage change de contexte en contexte. De cette façon, le langage de Tarzan devant sa gang est nettement différent du français qu’il présente aux policiers; l’intention de la part de Dubé est de démontrer le conflit interne de Tarzan, entre le chef de contrebandiers et l’homme éduqué. En regardant plus grand, les « eille », « moé » et « j’pense » sont courants à travers toute la pièce, et non, ces mots ne sont pas reconnus par l’Académie française. Zone est grandement considéré comme étant une des oeuvres pionières de la litérature Québécoise, et pourtant, ce que définit avant tout son identité Québécoise est l’utilisation d’un français moins que correct à travers toute la pièce. Tout ceci pour dire que l’usage d’un français incorrect n’est pas de facto un crime contre le français ou les Québécois; au contraire, on s’en sert pour représenter le caractère distinct du français Québecois dans le monde.

En somme, la question centrale est la suivante: est-ce qu’on devrait limiter les possibilités expressives de nos artistes par crainte que leurs actes représentent des viols de la grammaire et de l’orthographe? Absolument non. Il faut reconnaître que dans un contexte artistique, le viol de tels règlements n’est pas une atteinte à la langue, mais plutôt un méchanisme par lequel un/e auteur/e représente son personnage aux lecteurs, ou dans ce cas-ci, aux joueurs, et juge cette modification assez importante qu’on perdrait autrement une idée associée à ce personnage. De plus, si on veut que les jeux vidéos progressent comme médium socialement acceptable pour raconter une histoire, c’est essentiel de leur permettre la même marge de maneouvre que ce qu’on permet dans d’autres cercles d’expression artistique. Quand des officiers d’organismes comme l’OQLF disent à la population qu’ils ne permetteront pas que les jeux vidéos bénéficient de la même marge de manoeuvre artistique qu’un roman, ils rabaissent implicitement et injustement la valeur qu'ont les jeux vidéos pour nous livrer des histoires (et les critiques sociales qui les accompagnent souvent) dans notre société contemporaine. De crier le contraire est de continuer de reléguer les jeux vidéos avec d’autres arts couramment jugés d’avoir aucune valeur sociale positive.

Pour des gens qui se disent défenseurs de la langue française, je dois m’avouer bien déçu d’apprendre que la protection de la langue serait supposément plus important que la défense de la culture linguistique. Le français écrit dit « correct » a sa place dans notre société, ne faisons guère d’erreur sur cela, mais notons également les raisons qui nous pousseraient légitimement à dépasser ses bornes. L'orthographe et la grammaire sont seulement un ensemble de conventions sur comment représenter ses idées à l'écrit; le non-respect intentionnel de ces conventions est en soi-même un choix pour acheminer une idée qui représente quelque chose jugé non-conformiste, rien de plus.

Bref, si nos leaders linguistiques pouvaient eux-mêmes distinguer quand l’une ou l’autre forme de la langue est appropriée, ce serait sans doute plus facile pour le reste de la population d’en faire autant.

(Og)born again

2007-06-06T00:20:00.000-06:00

So I know I really havn't logged any entries whatsoever in the past four months. Oh well, I suppose nothing interesting has crossed paths with my life on a regular enough basis since then. But today, something did.

It was brought to my attention that a recent edition of eContact, a "quarterly online journal addresses a variety of themes related to electroacoustics," published by the Canadian Electroacoustic Community, featured an article that discussed one of my works. The article in question, a virtual soundwalk featuring prairie composers, was written by David Ogborn, a relatively well-known contributer to the Canadian electroacoustic music scene and recent U of T DMA grad.

Now, while I'm still getting used to the idea of having my work (in this case, Delusions of a Derelict Television, available on the site or in the right sidebar) mentioned, much less mentioned in the same article as Garth Hobden (who I took composition from this past term) and Laurie Radford (who left the U of A two years ago to take up a position at City University of London, UK), I do have to say that the most interesting result of all of this is one of strict artistic parameters. I suppose the implication that somebody I don't know likes my music enough to write about it somewhere is nice, but it's rather what has been written that's most interesting. In any case, Dr. Ogborn, writing about my piece:

One of the guiding threads running through Guillaume Laroche’s Delusions of a Derelict Television (created at the University of Alberta) is a rising and falling pitch theme that hovers delightfully on the edge of the categories ostinato and “ground bass” — too long and too internally varied to be an ostinato but too short and too insistent to be described in terms of theme and variations.

Now, here's where this gets interesting. I composed that piece. Never before, previously to reading this, had I listened to my piece in terms of the transformations of that small "rising and falling theme" that comes back. Knowing how I had constructed each part of the work, I listened for higher-order structures and transformations, because I knew they were there. The experience of dealing with an educated listener commenting on my work has put into perspective for me how to listen to, and ultimately, understand my own work differently. It's a difficult sensation to describe, because it's not as if somebody just came in and opened the curtains in a dark room. It's much more like having designed and built a house, then having someone take you on a helicopter tour and seeing your final work from a much different angle, one that you had considered simply a small and relatively mundane cell of a larger being, and have that magnified to represent the entire project. I'm not sure I like that interpretation, because with it the work becomes pretty boring with a minute or so remaining when the timbral variation just starts repeating (as part of a larger timbral structure I designed), but for what it's worth, it certainly is entertaining from that perspective for the first few minutes, and as such, I can see why people would choose to perceive it that way.

But here's the real kicker about the entire thing: what I designed as structural post-minimalism, Ogborn sees as the edge between ostinato and ground bass. It's this kind of thinking that really excites me about musical criticism, about how many different labels you can logically affix to a characteristic, and how context-sensitive each of these terms are. It really makes you realize how specific the study of musical analysis can be, and where the variety of interpretations can come from, depending on one's specific training in regards to musical context.

In the end, maybe the biggest joy of having others talk about your work isn't knowing they've discovered your music, but rather how you can rediscover your own afterwards.

Sigh...

2007-01-29T18:35:00.001-07:00

Canadians never cease to amaze me with their ignorance. The more I look at various news sites' comments sections, the more I think there are much more serious issues in our nation than environmental policy or whatever issue is popular at that moment. Things like being able to think.

When did people become so blindly partisan as to forget their own affiliations' misdoings? When did people stop critically evaluating what a politician tells them? My political colours are well-known, but even I would recognize that, for the vast majority of the 13 years the Liberals spent in power, they did not adequately address the Kyoto protocol. However, I would stipulate that there are good reasons that Kyoto and/or climate change was not at the top of the agenda for 13 years. The first is that the Kyoto Protocol was initiated in late 1997, and that Canada didn't ratify it until five years later in December 2002; whether waiting/arguing about the Protocol for five years before ratification was a good thing is certainly debatable, but in any case, the government had no obligation to deal with Kyoto up until that time. The fact is, somehow painting that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years about Kyoto while including the period before Kyoto even existed with hardly anyone noticing blows my mind.

Furthermore, this same "13 years" argument seems to imply that all of today's issues were also issues back in 1993, which is absolute nonsense. Prior to the year 2000, hardly anyone had heard of the issue of global warming; it really only became an issue in Canadian society in the lead-up to the treaty ratification. How does it come about that evaluations of the year 1997 are carried out from the year 2007's terms without alarm bells going off for these active, politically-inclined citizens? If politicians were not addressing this issue in 1997, the Canadian population has only itself to blame for not being as active on it then as it is now; governments, for better or for worse, rarely address "unimportant" (read: little-known) issues of the day, for fear of being perceived as ineffective against the woes of modern society.

But back to the main question: when and how did Canadians become so subservient to the media and/or politicians and/or parties that a healthy dose of critical reflection is now nowhere to be seen, or, when spotted, immediately branded "partisan politics" from another party and immediately dismissed? Perhaps I'm naive, but I tend to think the analysis from the above two paragraphs links political activities (and lack thereof) to the trends of the day in what I would call a non-partisan manner.

I suppose the deeper thing that's troubling me is why political participation in society is even a worthwhile activity if most politically-inclined people can't be bothered to stop and reflect on any message in an honest and critical manner before expressing an opinion.

Sigh...

Go to the source

2006-12-14T09:43:00.000-07:00

Question: Where does one go for contemporary analysis of the various relations that gaming music and remix culture holds within society?

Answer: To my recently published website recently published on the Lancaster University servers. I recently published it. Having some traffic would be nice, so check it out. You might even find something you find funny, or particularly remarkable.

Musical psycho?

2006-12-01T09:09:00.000-07:00

Musical psychology just keeps getting more and more interesting every week. Witness today's lesson, where we explored the idea of "musical personality", ie, the traits that musicians tend to display in significantly higher or lower proportions than the general population. Basic methodology includes administering personality tests based on Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Model in groups of musicians and "the general population". In short though, compared to the general population in a thorough study by Anthony Kemp, adult musicians are more:

intelligent
introverted
independent
sensitive
anxious
androgynous

If you've ever sought a definition of what it means to be "musical", there it is, from a psychological perspective. So that's cool. I can now make legitimate claims that musicians are smarter than other people; now, it's not that I couldn't make such claims before, it's just that lacked the concrete, peer-reviewed evidence. I generally agree with this list of items if you take musicians as a whole, despite believing that individuals have some departures from this general list (such variation would be normal). The one that kind of gets me is that musicians are more androgynous (ie, we tend to blur male-female traditional stereotypes) is a particularly interesting one to note. Of particular interest in this field is that, given personality testing has determined that women more often seek to control other people's actions than men do in the general population (or, to appease those feminists out there, are possibly more often conscious of the fact that they are attempting to manipulate others), and given that female musicians are considerably less likely to exhibit this behaviour compared to their general population counterparts... then maybe it's safe to say that the aristocrats of the 17th, 18th and early 19th century Europe were on to something when they kept instructing women in the art of music, claiming that women were required to learn such skills because "women just did that". It's interesting to note that, as soon as this tradition dies out in the late 19th century, it doesn't take long for the feminism ball to get rolling... Now, I'm not saying that causation here is beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's certainly a noteworthy correlation to consider; on the practical side, men could potentially have modern applications from this model for common social gain (ie, having more women performing music, of course a very good thing!).

However, as interesting as musicians vs. the general population is, what's even more interesting is subcategories of musicians pitting up against themselves. We've all heard of those stereotypical designations of certain instrumentalists; flautists going to band camp in particular have been given a rough time since American Pie came out. However, wit and jokes is all fun and games, but unfortunately for brass players, scientific fact is harder to root out. Because you see, compared to other musicians, in the same study by Kemp, brass players were found to be statistically significantly less intelligent and less self-sufficient than their keyboard-, string- and woodwind-playing musical comrades, who were respectively found to be more sensitive and more intelligent, more introverted, and more self-sufficient. The best news in all of this though, is the study done of composers vs. performers. Compared to both their performance instruments and musicians in general, composers were found to be signicantly more "musical" in all aspects - ie, more intelligent, introverted, independent, etc.

Why is this good? Because now, as a composer-pianist-musician, I can make legitimate-ish scientific-ish claims of being near the top of the social/musical intelligence ladders. While I'm sure the prospect of me being near the top of the musical ladder will cause some people significant distress, I find I'm quite happy just to sit back and enjoy this innate blessing. Amen.

Is Quebec a nation?

2006-11-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

There's been a considerable reporting and discussion on CBC.ca as to if Prime Minister Harper, the Liberals and other interests should define Quebec as a nation. I submitted an abridged version of the following to the open discussion topic on the issue:

I've long wondered where these ideas of Québécois separatism stem from, because there doesn't appear to be anything consistent since the movement started. At first it was cultural issues issued out of the Quiet Revolution, then it was the fact that Quebec rejected the Constitution, next we heard about Quebec losing grasp on its linguistic heritage, and recently, the story we're hearing is that this is because of a "fiscal imbalance" are legitimate reasons for Québécois separatism. Are these the issues that are supposed to define Quebec as a "nation"?

My substantive opinion on this issue is the following; we'll follow through with the logic behind it in a "I say/the separatists say" dialogue. Basically, I'm cool with Quebec being a nation, if the separatists promise they won't complain when I name the Acadians a nation in their own right, along with Natives and other groups displaying qualities meritorious of a "nation" title. Problem is, anytime the issue of the term "nation" comes up, the separatists talk about "Quebec's distinct character" that makes their nation a different one from these other nations (wouldn't the term "nation", by definition, normally imply a "distinct character" anyway?). The part where the separatists lose me is that I don't get why all of a sudden this "nation" status coupled with this "distinct character" catchphrase means that Quebec merits exceptions to the rules that govern the Canadian confederation. This is traditionally where the separatists pull out the argument that says "those rules don't necessarily apply, we never signed the Constitution!"; at which point I'm usually found saying "I don't care, we drafted it requiring nine out of ten signatories". The separatists then come back, arms flailing, arguing that "maybe we didn't want what that Constitution stands for, hence we're justified in our separatist position". At which point I say "sure, but you've never once mentioned what things Quebec would have done differently on a non-administrative scale. Seemingly the only thing Quebec keeps wanting out of constitutional revisions are more seats in the House of Commons, on one hand, and more provincial autonomy, on the other. There's a conflict in asking for more influence federally but also wanting to administer more of its own 'domestic' affairs, in that Quebec gains a disproportionate power over all other provinces, both nationally and provincially; by having a disproportionate amount of seats in the House, Quebec is in a better position to influence policy on the pancanadian scale, whilst it holds escape clauses for when national policy doesn't hold the favour of the government of the time. Therefore, if you reject the Constitution, Quebec must do so on substantive grounds in which it rejects some principle like minority language education rights or other non-standard rights, or seeks additional rights that the rest of Canada does not want. Unfortunately, we've never heard what either might be, or how the current absence or presence of such rights has caused considerable harm to Québécois society."

In conclusion, what separatist Quebec has to prove to me is that an autonomous Québécois state would somehow operate differently than the current Québécois society. What principles or rights would be enshrined by Quebec that Canada rejects? Alternatively, what does Canada accept that Quebec summarily rejects? These are the questions that should define nationhood, as these legal levels are where concepts of identity and self-determination in relation to that identity are defined. Yet all we ever hear about are other tangential issues as to why Quebec wants to separate. I'll consider the separatists' cries when a principled, reasoned argument starts being made consistently, not a flavour-of-the-month approach designed to gain more political power for the sake of holding political power.

I hate Central Trains Services

2006-11-20T10:21:00.000-07:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - November 19th, 2006

I hate Central Trains Services. I also know I'm not the only one. They seem to particularly like to mess with your head and your schedule. If it's not delaying a train and cramming people into it once it does come, it's cancelling a train altogether due to "labour and staff shortages" (something I'm sure they could have foreseen 10 days ago when I bought my ticket based on available schedules). I suppose things could be worst; fellow Canadian Adam Gaya almost missed Friday's sessions due to two consecutive cancellations, with the tardy replacement eventually breaking down en route. Needless to say, I think he hates Central Trains Services too.

So here I am, having otherwise thoroughly enjoyed my Cambridge weekend (minus a recurring acute muscular pain in my right foot that forced me to limp a bit at times). It's currently 2:34 pm on this Cambridge train station platform, and I'm stuck here. And it's all Central Trains fault that I have nothing to do for the next hour except wait on a cold metal bench whilst venting into my debate notebook with my fine, music printing-and-editing pen.

Have I mentioned I hate Central Train Services?

I really should have followed Steven's advice about going via London. I thought it would cause undue complications to travel via the big city (Toronto Pearson, anyone?) but then again, having four trains every hour to London versus one every four hours might hold distinct advantages, like warm seats with a train company other than Central Trains Services.

I feel deep-rooted passionate hatred for Central Trains Services.

I suppose I should focus on the positive. I had a fantastic time in Cambridge. My friend Anastasia, a former debate partner and currently a Cambridge University MPhil student, hosted a small yet refreshing dinner party on Friday night. Sure, I might have walked an hour through the pouring rain to get there (do NOT trust Chris Jones to be your tour guide), but it was good to get a feel for Cambridge that way anyway.

At least it's not raining now, not that this could extinguish my fiery hatred for Central Trains Services anyway.

Debating was generally okay. We rightfully took a fourth in round 1, were wrongfully cheated out of a first in round 2, agreed with the second in round 3, somewhat questioned the third in round 4 (as did everyone else aside from the judges in that room), and were dubiously awarded a first in the final open round.

Well, isn't this fantastic, now the 15:48 to Birmingham has been cancelled as well, with a replacement coming along at 16:24. That means another 1h26 to wait around on this platform, also due to labour shortages. You know, it's funny, ONE Trainlines has four customer service attendants on this platform to eal with anything that could come up for them, but Central Trains Services can't even find enough people to staff a train, let alone a platform at a popular station. More people are willing to stand on platforms all day long rather than serve onboard CTS trains. Somehow I'm not surprised by that either.

Oh, well this is interesting, apparently Central Trains Services have found the staff requiered for a 15:48 run to Birmingham, with the 16:24 now being cancelled. What a bunch of unorganized panzees.

One good thing that happened to me today was lunch at the Curry Garden. I had some nicely spiced Chicken Jalfreza, and it was awesome. Some of the rice was coloured fluorescent green pink, orange and/or purple. It was cool, I liked it. That meal was supposed to keep me full till I got to Lancaster. I rate the chances of that happening to be a lot lower now; who knows how long I'll be in Birmingham waiting for a Lancaster-bound train (if I ever get to Birmingham in the first place, that is).

I really, really hate Central Trains Services. I'm starting to think I might better spend my time writing a fiery letter of complaint to the company, but then again, they probably wouldn't (A) have someone employed to read and deal with such letters and (B) care.

One thing I was able to accomplish today was working on my composition. I did so from a sunny bench alongside the King's College grounds. The work is shaping up really well and -

Okay, that's it, I'm cold. It's going to be sunset by the time I board the train, might as well go warm up with a hot drink now.

I hate Central Trains Services.

***

So Now I'm sitting in Preston, about 20km south of Lancaster. It's 9:54pm (a bit more than 6 hours later), and I'm waiting for the last train out to Lancaster. I wasn't supposed to have a stopover here, but with Central Trains Services messing up my schedule in Birmingham, this is the closest I could get to Lancaster without going via Plymouth or Edinburgh. I barely made it too, as the train I vacated in Birmingham arrived about 5 minutes before the train that took me here to Preston was leaving (Virgin Train Company, thank God almighty!). Any later, and Central Trains Services would have been directly responsible for me having to wait out the night in Birmingham, which could have again significantly increased my " mild displeasure" with them.

I hate Central Trains Services.

The Central Trains Services ride itself was an embarassment to the company - for a service that advertises itself as professional and reliable, it was neither. Reliability I've already commented on. As for professional, during the entire 3-hour ride over to Birmingham, the two-car train was crammed fuller than a 7:40 Montreal metro subway car. They even kicked off some passengers at some point further down the line for them to wait for the next train to Peterborough to make room for people going beyond that point. Some guy, without a seat, found it more convenient to occupy the washroom for the entire duration of his journey than to stand. You know things are out of hand when a petition is circulated within the train itself on the journey, a petition that nobody hesitated to sign. The ride made me think of what Roman describes as bus service in The Gambia: an overcrammed van going from stop to stop. If I don't find this acceptable for public standards in Western Africa, I'm certainly not going to condone it in central England.

I hate Central Trains Services.

So it's going to be 10:30pm when I arrive in Lancs, an hour and a half later than expected; not quite too bad given the ordeals I've gone through, or what I very well could have gone through. I'm going write Central Trains Services a letter, see if they dignify a response.

I hate Central Trains Services.

Run Samus Run!

2006-11-02T14:14:00.000-07:00

In case you missed the news this past week, there is big news that is shaking the gaming world. For those only superficially in the know, one might assume that such big news could only be an XBox 360 price cut, a sudden overabundance of PS3's, a DVD-playing Wii or an Ice Blue DS Lite coming to North America. As the links point out, you'd be wrong to assume so. Contrary to what the more educated out of you might be led to believe due to the title of this post, the news has nothing to do with the upcoming Metroid Prime 3: Corruption either.

This week's big news is a blast from the past that goes by so fast you hardly realize it hit you. I give you the 1994 masterpiece, Super Metroid.

A Japanese player, Satoru Suzuki, aka Hotarubi, has shattered the old any% speedrun records, both in the single and multi-segment categories (the latter of which are usually faster) by completing - and recording - a new 32 minute single segment run. For the uninitiated, that's a full 4 minutes faster than the previous multi-segment record, and 6 minutes faster than the previous single-segment record. It's an incredible achievement.

(Note that YouTube links are not videos of this incredible run - start your amazing download now by clicking here, or get the Flash version of it here.)

In a single-segment run of Super Metroid, you start from the beginning of the game and play through to the end without stopping (The first time you play Super Metroid, you're likely to have a game time of around 15 hours, but it's pretty simple for anyone to cut that down to under 2 hours once they know what they're doing.). In other words, if you screw up a 1-shot manoeuvre anywhere (such as the Kraid quick kill), you're reaching for the Reset switch. In a multi-segment run, you're periodically saving your game and giving yourself a restart point in exchange for about 12 seconds (6 to save, 6 to get you going once you restart), from which you can try as many times as your heart desires for that perfectly executed time-saving trick.

Therefore, that a new single-segment record also trumps the previous multi-segment record offers insight into just how near-perfectly this run is performed. Suzuki is undoubtedly the best mockballing Super Metroid player I've ever seen - mockballing is one of the most difficult techniques in the game, by virtue that it was never intended to exist by the programmers, and therefore exists as a bug more than anything else (it allows your morph-balled self to roll along at the same speed your were power running at just before you did it). Suzuki's Phantoon battle strategy is "a harmony of mathematical precision", to borrow from the Wachowski brothers. Now, he screws up a bit, missing his first chance to hit Phantoon and isn't very lucky as the boss' attack patterns are his slowest (these are the kinds of things you might do faster in a multi-segment run, get random factors to go your way), but the strategy itself is mind-blowing.

Given all this though, I'm not quite surprised that the old records were shattered - the older runs were from 2004 (singly) and 2001(multi), if memory serves me right. Many new small tricks have been discovered in the past 6 to 12 months that allowed this player to run faster and run really fast more quickly (ie, activate the Speed Booster in less space, roughly 55% of what the programmers intended).

In case there are skeptics out there, the experts have taken a very close look at the run, and most of them think it is a legitimate, non tool-assisted speedrun (on a tangential note, Drewseph's recent TAS of Super Metroid Redesign (TAS video runs on emulator) is also highly praiseworthy, but I would reccomend playing Super Metroid Redesign before watching the run. Redesign in itself is an incredibly challenging endeavour, likely to be enjoyed only by Metroid side-scrolling purists due to the sheer difficulties of the map and the complexity of the item succession and layout. Anyone who thinks they are pretty good at gaming will be humbled in no time flat by this "variation" on the original. One run through this game will improve your Metroid action and puzzle skills more than any other title or any number of runs through any other Metroid title.)

In any case, if you're curious about the amazing skills of Mr. Suzuki and didn't start downloading like I told you earlier, either download it here, or watch the Flash version of it here.

Flicks, Agents and Detectives

2006-10-28T12:21:00.001-06:00

One of the things that I'm really enjoying about the Lancaster University campus is the fact that it is home to a student-run cinema. While you won't find Casino Royale blasting its way to this theatre on November 17th, I do rather enjoy going for a cheap movie or two every week - it costs me only 1.80GBP (a bit under 3.75$) and I get to catch up on summer blockbusters that I couldn't make time to see in Montreal (Superman Returns) as well as some smaller, lesser-known art films (Junebug).

I'll be the first to admit that the idea of transforming a lecture theatre into a cinema every night of the week (save Wednesday) was a bit odd to me at first, but the seats are comfortable, and this impromptu theatre is equipped with a 6-track sound system.

In other news, I think I could definitely be interested in a career in forensic musicology. From what I've been reading, a forensic musicologist analyzes musical patterns, be they in melody, harmony or timbre or others, and compares these findings with 'an original' in an attempt to prove or disprove that the work in question is plagiarized. It requires advanced knowledge of music history, music theory, processes of composition and yes, law. In some ways it's kind of like a dream come true. The downside: You need credibility in music and law, which basically means you need A) a PhD in music and B) a degree in law. Estimated total time from no university education to holding a BMus, MMus, PhD (Music), LLB and a 1-year BEd thrown in for good measure?

17 years.

Words of encouragement would be appreciated.

A Voyage to Houyhnhnm-dermere

2006-10-22T14:04:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - October 21, 2006

I got up (relatively) early this morning so that I could catch the first train to Windermere. The 8:30 bus to the Lancaster train station was marked by the usual saturday "habit": a meeting with Michel.

Michel is an exchange student from France. Michel and I have the uncommon knack of accidently bumping into each other, but only on saturdays. I met Michel the first saturday I arrived in England while waiting at the airport. The next saturday, we coincidentally partook in the same Lancaster town tour. Last saturday, I had just sat down at bottom Wetherspoon's in the late afternoon when in he walked with his girlfriend. We chatted for a while, joked that we'd see each other 'next saturday' and went our separate ways.

Imagine each other's stupor when we bump into each other in the bus to the train station. He, however, was headed to southeast to Manchester, whereas I was due North to Windermere's lake district.

Funny how the things you joke about end up happening.

The train ride to Windermere was rather uneventful despite it being the first time I've taken a train. I really didn't expect it to be much more than another place where you sit down and wait in your seat to arrive at your destination, occasionally looking out the window or reading a book to break the monotony of it all. I was right.

When I got to Windermere after the 35 minute ride, not knowing where I was in relation to the lake (England's biggest, and it really isn't that huge to begin with. I think Lesser Slave Lake has it beat), I decided to take it easy and grab some breakfast at the nearby Booth's cafe. as I came out and started walking away from the train station (there was really only one option), the local tourism office appeared on the corner just ahead, so I popped in to check a few maps. My Rough Guide to Britain unfortunately had not included one on the local scale that I required. This task accomplished, I started walking downhill towards the lake, about 2 kilometres down the road.

I walked all over the place, down to the piers, over to the ferry, through all parts of town, snapping a bunch of pictures as I went along. The rain didn't really take long to catch up to me, and for the better part of two hours I slowly absorbed more and more qualities of a spunge. I did bring my rain jacket, knowing the forecast was calling for light rain, but then the water just trickled down and soaked my pants (err, trousers). I didn't really mind though until a some time later when I sat down for some lunch at Churchill's pub. As a graduate of Winston Churchill High School, I really could not have gone anywhere else, with this eternal "Churchill Pride" that seemingly never lets go...

Following lunch, a succulently fresh Fish and Chips order, I followed a sidestreet over to the Wonderful Wolrd of Beatrix Potter exhibition. Though admission was a bit steep for a half hour's worth of galleries, I'm glad I went nonetheless, as the paintings, sculpture and dolls were truly first class, from an artistic point of view. I did snap a few pictures.

Afterwards, I went back to the quay to catch a ferry to Ambleside, on the North shore of the lake (Windermere/Bowness are on the east shore of a lake that basically draws out vertically like Lake Champlain, for example). While I don't regret going to Ambleside, I think I would have been more entertained by Lakeside's aquarium (south shore) than Ambleside's Home of Football. The House was a museum documenting various moments in the sport, most of which I was unfamiliar with; they claim to possess a collection of 60 000 photos. I found myself enjoying the pictures for their artistic composition more than their relation to football. I later went by a piano bar in the downtown core, but nobody was playing the piano at the time, so I moved on without sipping tea and some biscuits.

Later, I basically walked back to Windermere, if only to prove to myself that I could walk a few miles with a heavy backpack. From central Ambleside to central Windermere must have been a good four mile uphill hike. It wouldn't have been so bad if the rain hadn't started again at about the halfway point. Shortly after 6pm, wet, tired and cold, I arrived back at the train station a few minutes before the next train back to Lancaster was due, and, satisfied with my day, I decided I had seen enough of the lake district and set off to go back home.

You know you're a music geek (or just a geek) when...

2006-10-19T23:53:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - October 19, 2006

... the newest followers of your blogging adventures happen to be people from the University of Lancaster Music Society (including alumni of said association that I've never met and even the choir director, believe it or not). Anyhow, good to have you all along. I would call everyone's attention to the fact that my composition recordings have been updated in the side column, so if you have yet to sample what Guillaume's compositions are like, by all means, treat/torture yourself.

One of the things that the Lancaster area seems at least decent at doing is putting on concerts. While it doesn't quite compare to Edmonton, the classical offerings are much higher than in a city of similar size in Canada, say... Lethbridge. This evening I attended a performance of Franz Joseph Haydn's The Creation with the Chetham Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, part of the 38th season of the Lancaster International Concert Series. Sounds pretty fancy, doesn't it?

Well, one thing dawned on me as soon as I entered the concert hall (which, by the way, has nothing on Convocation Hall, nevermind the Jubilee or Winspear) was that everybody in the Chetham Symphony Orchestra and Chorus was basically under 25. Now, I'm not one to automatically discredit a performance simply because it's being given by a youth orchestra, but somewhere I guess I thought the words "International Concert Series" and "local youth orchestra" were more or less mutually exclusive. That being said, the orchestra did offer a pretty good performance (though the star of the evening was unquestionably the featured baritone) - a few rhythmic imprecisions now and then, a few wrong notes in French Horns somewhere and a questionable first minute, but besides that, the level of performance was really quite good. Maybe not "international standard" good, but enjoyable nonetheless. The only real beef I have with the orchestra comes with the musical interpretation that was being commanded by the conductor, which I thought definitely lacked balance in his violin-heavy and cello- and doublebass-deprived orchestra, not to mention that he decidely wasn't too subtle with the bass trombone halfway through the second part (I tend to think it comes in subtly to underscore the baritone's solo with a pedal point. According to Mr. Paul McCreesh, it not only underscores, but also harshly steals the show.). The conductor seemed like a fantastic choral director - whenever the choir had to partake in the music, I thought his gestures were precise, readable and on-the-spot. It's his orchestral conducting that I'm left wondering "why oh why" - had I been playing in that orchestra, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had a clue what he wanted out of me half the time. Most of it just seemed too imprecise and vague, certainly compared to when he was leading the choir. Sadly, it often kinda looked as if he was more into his aerobics routine (the arm flailing and knee-springing full body motion probably had something to do with it) than he was a certain page of the The Creation.

On the whole though, most of my above complaints is just my musical snobbery coming through. The performance was enjoyable - my biggest complaint has to do with them not giving us an intermission with which to digest what we've heard, and I feel I'm hardly alone in fielding this request.

Aside from this, I've been spending a lot of time with the Debating Society people this week. Tuesday night was Lazer-Tag Tuesday, so we went over to Morecambe (basically northwest of Lancaster, actually by the sea) for that. On the way back, we stopped at Wetherspoon's (this fantastic, inexpensive pub) where I got a hearty dinner and a pint of beer for 5£ (that's roughly 10.50$ Canadian for an Earls-sized meal and a pint). These debate peeps are absolutely wonderful people, and I totally love being in their company, so just bear that in mind as you read what comes next.

On wednesday I attended 'Debate training'. I took a few key concepts out of this session:

1) The Lancaster University Debating Society fully acknowledges that they are nowhere near a solid debating club - well, I'm glad they know this themselves, because I would hate to have to tell them. Dan, the official club Training Officer, admitted to us all that he was the most experienced debater in club, having about 1.5 years of experience and having attended 6 tournaments in that time. When that's as deep as your club runs, its understandable that quality debating where I might learn something on a regular basis maybe shoudn't be expected. We did a mini, pseudo-CP style debate at the end of the training session and I basically got up with nothing to say (on opposition, I was supposed to speak second, but then my partner politely told me as he was being asked to give a speech that he had nothing, so in good ol' "pro-of-the-team" fashion, you take a hit for your novice) and basically made up the core of my refutation as I went along and had next to nothing for constructive arguments. Basically, I gave a 5-minute speech with 4.5 minutes of refutation and a final 30 seconds of 'constructive' (and I use the term loosely) arguments, only to be later told by Dan that I had 'already developed a really good style' (gee, I wonder why, I'm guessing he missed the part about me doing this for three years) and that my arguments were 'bloody brilliant' (which I'm not exactly sure they were - I basically just took out the standard "you're stigmatizing this group and that's bad" and "businesses have a right to determine their own biz model"), but that I just needed to 'work on balancing construtive and rebuttal materials' (yep, totally agree with you there buddy, that was one lopsided speech I gave, though surely having 2 seconds to prepare my speech had something to do with that). It troubles me that, around here, I can be told I'm 'bloody brilliant' when I'm making my argument as I think of it as I'm speaking.

2) The Lancaster University Debating Society is not exactly well-versed in competitive debate tactics - I'm pretty sure this is a direct result of not having anyone with good experience around for longer periods of time (this is a primarily undergrad university), but the strategies that were being given on 'how to win a round' would probably be more accurately described as 'how not to lose a round'. Summary speeches were explained in terms of just collapsing the debate into a 5-minute speech, not in terms of what gives Proposition II the win versus Opposition I / II or Proposition I (or OppII win, given the case). The rule of thumb "have three arguments for your speech" is seen as law by the more advanced debaters as opposed to a guiding notion for novice debaters. If I'm only speaking for 5 minutes and that I need to do some quality refutation in there somewhere, I'm only giving two constructive fleshed-out points, to allow for time to adequatly address other stuff. There was no mention of using POI's to lay claim to arguments in a BP-style round, no guidelines for "who should be asking the POI's when", and I got weird glances when I started talking with my partner in-round about what arguments needed to be made in his speech, as if talking to your partner about strategy is, at very least, uncommon. Teamwork was defined as "referring to what your partner said earlier or what your partner will say later". All of this lack of competitive sense is stirring quite an issue with me - more on that later.

3) The Lancaster University Debating Society does not have a lot of money - this is the reason the LUDS likes to give for its lack of success at tournaments. This is appreciable to some extent; if the UADS were funded like the UBCDS or Hart House are funded, we'd have more opportunities to refine our skills. What I don't like about the attitude here is that people seem to blame the absence of money for all their weaknesses, but then operate the society on a system that allows only select members to gain tournament debating experience in a way that bears no semblance to equitable division of funds among those interested in improving (essentially, the exec sets the number of teams that will go to x tournament, and then pays most of the costs for that number of teams to go). This system only further perpetuates the lack-of-money equals lack-of-opportunities scenario. What further annoys me is that they don't seem willing to do anything about it - I've chatted about some of the fundraising the UADS does to help support our initiatives, and the answer I get is basically 'nah'. Then again, the people who are likely to go to tournaments under the present scheme are the ones giving this answer, so I can see why they might be reluctant to change it (not because they would supposedly be greedy, but because they have earned their place among the preferred debaters under the current system and a change would necessarily mean giving that up in favour of more open participation, at higher individual costs). As far as I can tell, hosting a high school tournament some weekend as a fundraiser is simply out of the question (despite other universities doing it).

So now, to the heart of the issue. Most people who read this blog are very aware of my debate-training activities I've been undertaking in the past two years. The question I submit to all my readers is the following: should I stand up and offer to help these people at least advance their strategic skills and risk being the "know-it-all foreigner" who comes in and messes everything up, or should I sit quietly and keep on watching them continuously partake in debates that I know they could do better at if they only had a bit more strategic sense? Like I said earlier, these are good people, I don't want to offend or alienate them, the Society just suffers from the fact that nobody ever sticks around long enough to acquire a considerable practical experience (undergrad degrees last 3 years here, and this is a primarily undergrad university).

Anyhow, I'm speaking on monday against the motion 'abandon the London 2012 Olympics' for the debate meeting (other problem: main debate meetings consist of watching debate, not learning how to debate.). Who knows what might come out of that.

Best. Choir. Ever.

2006-10-11T16:23:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - October 11, 2006

So apparently choirs around here have a different philosophy of what it means to take a break at halftime - in this case (as in so many others), it means you now have 15 minutes to head to the pub (conveniently located just across the way) and have a beer.

And then you come back, and practice another 45 minutes or so.

And then, to celebrate your evening's musical achievements, well, what better thing to do than head for a drink at the bar?

It's hard not to appreciate such culture shock.

Rebirth of the music (student) within

2006-10-09T10:47:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - October 9, 2006

A lot has been happening over the past few days.

First of all, I went to town for the first time on Friday. There, I was able to sample the staples of British culture - everything from tea shops to "Bob's Bargain Booze". I went for a tour of the castle grounds, and ended this quick escapade with a trip to the local supermarket. On the whole, I found it all to be quite charming; I'll definitely need to go for a proper Lancaster Castle tour sometime (I spotted they do a "dark" tour of the Castle every month, complete with costumes and "other surprises" - definitely sounds like something I'll have to do. Beyond that, I picked up some local concert brochures for the county opera tour (Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin) and a local Mozart concert series.

Today was the first official day of classes; about time too, I've been waiting to take up a few more academic challenges lately. With this in mind, I started off with a trip to the library to take a look at some of the recommended readings for my Musical Psych class before heading off to my 2-hour lecture on Renaissance Music. Despite being the oldest guy around the music department (most professors are surprisingly young, at least half of them less than 40 years, 90% under 50), he seems to be quite sensitive of what is required to make compelling and memorable lectures, offering lots of information (I've never taken so many notes in one theory/history lecture), but also interspersing this with lots of other ideas, not the least being:

I once tried to teach 40 primary school children to play a descant using recorders. Biggest mistake of my life.

I can't help but appreciate that practical aspect on spreading the sound of Renaissance music.

One of the things that's quickly becoming apparent is the amount of independent reading required on this side of the Atlantic - every class seems to have about 15 iterations of various books more or less loosely tied to the main subject material, all of which I may or may not have to go through before end of term. Students here seem to be seeing Renaissance music for the first time (and comparing it to Wagner and Chopin, if you can believe that), while I'm hear to gain a much deeper knowledge of the topic. From the looks of the outline, I think I'll be satisfied with what will be covered - score transcription, social ties of music, and studies of various factions of secular polyphonic madrigals.

One non-music class that I'm very much looking forward to is Media and Cultural Studies 204: New Media and Audiovisual Culture. In basic English, I think this means "how computers, the Internet and video games are changing traditional media". One of the topics I'm diving deeper and deeper into as I progress in my academic career is the association of music with various emotions, feelings and locales (something a knowledge of Musical Psychology will help me better understand), and I hope this course can provide me with the basic tools of evaluating digital environment music within its context. That's basically a fancy way of saying that I want to understand how the tunes that play when you boot your computer or play your video game assist in establishing a better framework for the task you (or software designers) wish to accomplish. I'll have to wait till thursday to find out what the class brings though. Until then, I'll have the local debate society and choir to check out, as well as hopefully getting my composition lessons underway.

Charming, I say, charming

2006-09-30T17:52:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - Sept.30, 2006
(timestamped retroactively)

I've arrived in Lancaster. Britain is simply marvelous, and everything so far has been fantastic. Except for that British immigration guy and the urban landscape from a plane. From the sky, British urban design is really messed up, confusing at best, with fields (as in fields with lambs, cows, etc., not parks, FIELDS) being interspersed within suburban Manchester. Go figure.

The University International Office had a direct bus service from Manchester Airport to Lancaster University set up when I arrived. There are a lot of exchange students around here; so far, I'm met (Eastern) Canadians, Americans, Frenchmen, Turks, Germans, Chinese and East Indians. My floormates are two Japanese girls. I have yet to meet the guy in the other room.

(I've since learned that, of the 12 000 students at this University, about 2 500 are internationals.)

While I havn't been around the entire campus yet, there's one thing that should be pretty clear to anyone who even drives by the place: residence is a big part of the "Lancs" experience. Campus is basically surrounded by a perimeter of residence halls, with some even being in the middle of campus. Then, there's somewhat of an "additional" to campus in the southwest corner, all of which are residences. It's said that there are basically 6 000 beds on campus. Academic buildings line the centre of the main part of campus.

The University is not terribly old, only 40 years or so, leaving even the oldest buildings in decent shape; same goes for residences. Those on the South part of campus are decidedly newer than the ones I live in, but I don't really care, I enjoy the more traditional British approach that my room offers.

Connected to the residence system is the college system. For the uninitiated, a college is a basically like a House in Harry Potter. Just as Harry belongs to Gryffindor House and therefore sleeps in Gryffindor dorms, wears Gryffindor clothes, hangs out and goes to class with Gryffindor friends and plays on the Gryffindor Quidditch team, I sleep in (one of many) Bowland halls, hang out with Bowlanders in the Bowland pub, and it I were to stick around long enough, would compete in intercollegiate competitions in the name of Bowland. While the college you belong to is more or less arbitrarily assigned upon application to the University (they do try to accomodate requests), it's good to know that, after taking the official "Which Lancaster Uni College should you be in?" test, I'm apparently in the right place.

I really believe I'm going to enjoy it here. Now I only need to figure out how to register for classes.

Canada and Dads alike are really big

2006-09-29T17:43:00.000-06:00

Guillaume's Travel Journal - Sept.29 2006
(timestamped retroactively)

I'm sitting here in a café at Pearson International. It's really just hit me now: I'm leaving the country. For all the independent travel I'm been doing since junior high, this is the first time I'm actually leaving Canada. It makes me realize how big Canada is, for me to be able to travel it quite extensively over 8 years or so , always having a new corner to discover, and never feel like I've seen everything. Now, to see something new, it seems I'm jetting off to some new horizons.

As I write this (paper and pen), I'm enjoying Canadian beef and Canadian(TM) beer. Earlier today I had Tim Horton's. I'll be back for more of all, someday.

I'm a little scared. When I first moved to Edmonton, I had been there before, I somewhat knew what to expect. Same with Montreal this past summer.

I've never been to Lancaster, let alone the UK, Europe, or off the North American continent, for that matter.

It's good to know I have strong encouragement. I won't ever forget the "go get'em Guillaume" thumbs up my dad gave me as I turned away to board my flight.

There's nothing like an awesome dad to both weaken and solidify your resolve in moments like those.

I don't choose you, Pac-Man!

2006-08-30T17:08:00.000-06:00

A recent article on the CBC website by Toronto variety writer Richard Poplak, entitled A beautiful game, takes a closer look at the modern Pac-Man phenomenon in some detail and tackles some subjects tangential to the central issue. To briefly sum it up, Pac-Man has been released on the Xbox Live Marketplace, and the author basically argues that since there are no modern games with broad market appeal, companies are turning to old favorites to fill a void left by a supposed lack of broad appeal games. He also advocates that “there will never be another videogame with such sweeping influence”. Unfortunately for Richard, asserting these contentions is a lot like turning into a trap that ghosts have set up in a maze full of dots.

In his concluding statements, Poplak argues that “in lieu of new games with mass appeal, the gaming industry must content itself with technostalgia,” where ‘technostalgia’ is defined as a “phenomenon for those of us born on the cusp of the digital age.” Fair notice to Mr. Poplak: the gaming industry is not contenting itself with ‘technostalgia’, but older gamers are showing a strong desire to play the great games of the past.

The rerelease of Pac-Man is hardly a new landmark in the industry. For years, older titles have been re-released, usually as part of mega-collections, such as the Sonic Mega Collection or the Mega Man Anniversary Collection. Nintendo even re-released a few of its original NES games (Metroid, Ice Climbers, the very first Legend of Zelda) for the Game Boy Advance a few years ago. Gamers everywhere want to play the games of their childhood. Myself, I like to fire up Donkey Kong Country and Mega Man X every so often, games that have been around since 1994, and I still have as much fun with them as I did as a nine year old boy. The modern Pac-Man phenomenon is no different; with the average gamer’s age being over 30 years, it’s hardly surprising that a game from the early 1980’s is being well-received by the general gaming public. If gamers are willing to spend money (or Marketplace points, for that matter) to enjoy the classics of the past, it’s no wonder that companies are increasingly turning to old favorites for additional revenue. The big N has even hinted that its entire roster of past releases will be available for download (for a fee, in all likelihood) onto the new Wii console; its controller wouldn’t look like this if there were at least some motivations to return to the roots of gaming; turn it sideways, and it looks like an original 1985 NES controller, no?

In any case, it’s not that any one blast from the past has any more or less wide-market appeal than Gears of War, it’s that people have already had time to enjoy and connect with that game and want to play it again because of the emotional experiences connected to that game. ‘Emotional’ in this context is analogous to the idea that everyone remembers and is proud of their best Tetris score (141 lines!) more than it implies one of actual emotional attachment to the animated video game character. If “it fully sucked when Pac-Man died”, that was because you would have to start over again to try to get a better score than your buddy, not because you genuinely liked seeing Pac-Man gobble up dots across the screen. Supposing that many people who played Pac-Man in its original form continue to play games today, they will cherish the opportunity to replay Pac-Man today for the same reasons they chose to play Pac-Man in 1981, and not because of a void of Pac-Man-like games in today’s industry.

A far more contentious and less supported theory of Poplak’s is that “there will never be another videogame with such sweeping influence”. Plainly, that’s simply incredibly short-sighted and bafflingly unreasonable. Without even thinking twice about it I could reasonably say Pong has influenced modern gaming more than Pac-Man has, and for one simple reason: Pong was a two player game. There is little doubt today that the largest success of gaming is its ability to bring everyone together in one fun activity. It started with Pong, then you had Ice Hockey, eventually Mario Kart came along and today you have entire online servers and communities filled with StarCraft maniacs and Counter-Strike addicts. You have people willing to spend a month’s worth of rent to fly to some small place in Connecticut for a 2-day live Halo tournament. You have game hardware companies offering, at a premium or free of charge, online spaces for players to play against each other. The result is the creation of complex social behaviors where one simultaneously wishes his opponents would just die already while enjoying the challenges the opponents’ skills bring. Crazily enough, at the end of the carnage, you’ll be better friends with your opponents too. The original incarnation of Pac-Man did not allow for this type of competitive play. Yet, even in arguing on Poplak’s own terms of popularity and influence, the concept that the game is driving other media to take up its framework in some way (hence having a TV show and making the cover of Time Magazine), I would still argue against Pac-Man having the most “sweeping influence”, probably in favor of Pokémon.

(To be brief, I would argue that Pokémon was the beginning of a high degree of customization offered to a player that effectively allowed the player to choose his or her own way to play the game, incorporated basic two-player head-to-head game mechanics, established portable systems as a legitimate and sometimes even preferred form of gaming media, spawned an entire army of spinoff games and products, not the least being some 7+ seasons worth to TV shows, 9 full-length movies, a card game that was at some point as big as the electronic game and a Time Magazine cover that actually talked about the Pokémon phenomenon as opposed to using their iconic status to further a social opinion. It also got more girls interested in gaming than any game before it, something that is bound to start paying larger and larger dividends in years to come as those girls become women. As for emotional attachment, I’ve seen some pretty devastated kids that lost their level-100 Charizard when their little brother accidentally saved a new game over the old one. Also, for the record, I predict some sort of Pokémon rebirth around 2015 or so, when all those 8 year olds from 1998 are making money and have some clout as to what ‘retro’ gaming means.)

Now, to his credit, Poplak did give mention Pokémon in passing, so perhaps some more reflection on the matter will get him to reconsider his idolism of Pac-Man. Alas, the only broad point of agreement I would have with Richard Poplak is that having a small, cute yellow mascot seems to bring on a considerable following among the general public. For the time being, if Poplak is to bring any insight into the influences of past gaming, he should probably take a closer look at today’s biggest trends before attempting to convincingly describe their origins.

Surprises from Martha

2006-08-25T21:56:00.001-06:00

If all Liberal party of Canada leaders since the 1910’s have gone on to become Prime Minister at some point, it’s not exactly farfetched that the winner of the current intraparty election will eventually swear an oath and assume residency at 24 Sussex Drive. With this in mind, I decided it was definitely worth a few hours of my time to check out what a certain Martha Hall Findlay had to say about the nation and its future.

To sum up the experience, focusing strictly on Martha: well-intentioned, a good listener, definitely very smart, but lacking an overall vision of the country or principles beyond the widely-accepted ‘Liberal’ values. In some ways, if she were ever to be Prime Minister, she would probably be a lot like Stephen Harper, in the sense that she seems to have reasonable political savvy and a few popular ideas here and there, but not really anything so innovative as to revolutionize Canadian society or to leave a worthwhile mark as #1.

Bottom line: if I had a vote to send a delegate to the Liberal leadership convention, as of today I’m still not marking my ballot for someone supporting Martha.

Now let’s talk about everything outside of what Martha had to say.

First of all, it turns out the local Liberal riding president is my high school French teacher’s mom. Given the teacher in question has recently left for Saudi Arabia, it makes for quite the conversation starter.

Secondly, having elected representatives on hand can be quite entertaining, from Senator Joyce Fairbairn’s piercing red cowboy outfit to Bridget Pastoor’s provincial politics-related heckles during the star of the hour’s speech.

But perhaps the most unsurprising surprise of the hour showed up chauffeuring Ms. Hall Findlay (courtesy of Avis, as he pointed out to anyone who would listen). I won’t criticize the guy for being Martha’s Alberta campaign coordinator, as I can tell he’s doing something he genuinely likes (and he likes it because he thinks it will get him ahead, which is probably true in some yet unknown way) and it’s not implausible that one day he might run for the same job. Plus, he only had words of praise for me. Anyhow, if anyone is looking for this man, he can be reached at the Alberta Campaign for Martha Hall Findlay HQ.

Out and about their business

2006-07-25T14:53:00.000-06:00

One of the major events coming to Montreal this week is the 1^st Out Games, which, as the name suggests, will welcome the very best gay athletes from around the world for healthy competition. A number of conferences, meetings and summits surrounding gay culture are also planned for the duration of the games. All in all, you could say that somebody around here has organized the largest gay festival ever.

That being said, one question must be asked: are the Out Games actually necessary? It’s not that I have anything against gays getting together to discuss their ever-expanding culture. What merits discussion within the overall framework of this question is whether hosting sporting competitions as a central aspect of the public advancement of worldwide gay culture is fundamentally constructive for that community; to suppose this is true, as shown below, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the homosexual communities of the world.

What is the purpose of any sporting competition, be it the Olympics, a pro basketball game, or a bunch of 12 year olds in their community baseball league? Simply put, it is a contest to determine who the best side at the chosen sport is when that particular event is held on that particular day. This is true even in the friendliest of FIFA or family reunion matches. Our global human society places enormous stress on ‘being the best’. Italy was recently declared the best soccer team in the world. World Lacrosse Championships are underway in London, Ontario to determine which country is the best at lacrosse. Everyone wants to show they can be the best at something, which, incidentally, is probably why you have places like St. Paul setting up UFO landing pads, since they apparently have nothing else to be proud of.

Some boundaries are enforced in any competition to ensure that no team or individual is particularly advantaged or disadvantaged based on the physical makeup of that person or team at the outset of the contest that will determine the best. That’s why there are weight categories in boxing, and why we have women and the men compete separately for swimming titles. We recognize that there are legitimate constraints that have too much of an impact on the contest that are not due to skill, but rather the genetic makeup of the individual, and as such we establish rules that will return skill to the forefront of the contests. The basic premise of open and fair competition is that all the participants qualified themselves through a demonstration of a certain level of a particular skill. They then compete against each other with the understanding that they are all skilled at the sport to determine who is most skilled at performing the given athletic tasks.

Yet what is being witnessed in the Out Games is fundamentally different from this. Participants are skilled individuals, but on top of that, participants must be openly gay to compete. This creates a situation in which skill alone is no longer the driving factor of participation in the event. In no case does this restriction on the participants attempt to create an even competitive field; it effectively creates an artificial pool of competitors that are competing primarily under the banner of their common homosexuality rather than their common high degree of skill at a particular sport. Functioning in such a way deprives the Out Games of the fundamental premise of sport, of placing sport first and foremost, because the ensemble of the athletes can collectively be said to be there primarily because they are homosexual, and then secondly as being skilled in their chosen disciplines.

If we consider who is likely to show up to watch such Games, we can divide them into two very general groups. First of all, there will be the sports enthusiasts that enjoy sport for the heat of the competition. Secondly, there will be the gay enthusiasts that may not enjoy sports as much as the sports enthusiast, but believe it is important to lend their support to the implied homosexual cause. Let us further divide these two groups into two subgroups: the locals attending the event, and the people coming from outside Montreal. With numbers already starting to show up in television broadcasts, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this event, both on the local and international stages, is not attracting the sporting crowd, but rather the homosexual community to its events. This audience is only further emphasizing that these Games are first and foremost about gay pride, with actual sports and sportsmanship being the mechanism for this surge of pride.

This reality is again amplified by the fact that there are absolutely huge gay festivities and discussions surrounding the ‘main’ sporting events. There are music festivals featuring gay artists. There are conferences being given on gay rights. The list goes on and on, thereby expanding the scope of the Out Games to something much broader than sport alone. The result is a world gay culture summit parading under the widely-accepted name of sportsmanlike competition, to the detriment of both sport and gay pride.

Sport is supposed to be about determining who the best competitor is within a city block, the southern half of the province, North America or the Commonwealth. Introducing any other factors into the limits of the competition is at its very base unsportsmanlike conduct, as it restricts entry into the competition by factors that do not affect or are not affected by sports. For this very reason, a gathering of Punjabi-speaking (or French, for that matter) Canadians to determine the best discus thrower is a fundamentally flawed sports event, especially if the basic premise of the gathering was first and foremost to be proud of Punjabi heritage. If one seeks to foster pride in the Punjabi language and culture, one should organize an event that highlights the merits of Punjabi and its culture; this goes back to the above discussion about how being the best at anything fosters pride for the circumstances of becoming the best.

What does it mean to be the athlete that will be crowned the best gay sprinter? Is that an actual measure of success?

If I could legitimately say “I’m the best French-speaking sprinter around Lethbridge”, would that legitimately mean anything? Speaking French doesn’t affect your actual and potential athletic ability any more than being homosexual does. Therefore, why should being the best gay high-jumper in the world be any different? If anything it begins to create a dangerous association of pride in non-sportsmanlike traits through athletic redemption within a restricted field of participants, and that is the worrisome trend against which the gay community should be guarding itself from.

Why?

Because pride is a two-way street.

Let us briefly suppose that none of the laureates of the upcoming Out Games are going to be crowned Olympic medalists or World Champions, or generally nowhere in the top quarter of the competition. All of a sudden, these gay champions are champions no more, not because they are gay, but rather because their athletic skills are simply inferior to those of the World Champions. These athletes, who happen to be gay, will know this, but will the world? If the white man can’t jump, the gay man could conversely just not be able to run or swim. When you’re part of a community that’s attempting to foster pride for itself, such similes are likely to be counterproductive if all the gay community wants is to show they are not very different from the rest of us – which is what these Out Games were ultimately about in the first place: to show that gays are capable of building inclusive, open societies not unlike many western social democracies.

If on the other hand the homosexual community lets these athletes be athletes that happen to be gay instead of labeling them gay athletes and parading them down René-Lévesque, we can avoid this divisive result. The homosexual community needs to take pride in its accomplishments in our modern everyday society, just like the black community did in Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson. Would Robinson have received the acclaim he did get by establishing his own Black Baseball League and being a star hitter? No, for pride and acceptance into larger society is primarily determined by how threatening the majority perceives a particular minority. For the homosexual community to shed its demonstrably unjust reputation of being immoral only to take up a more real one of being elitist and anti-societal is at best a social relations disaster, at worst irreparable damage.

The solution? Have a gay summit like you are having in a few days’ time, but be frank and open about the purpose of your summit. Call it the Worldwide Gay Summit. Holding such events is a healthy demonstration of one’s culture, if the masquerading is kept out of the equation. Trying to gain approval in wider circles of society through participation in widely-publicized and popular yet restricted events is ultimately more of a formula for further rejection rather than approval. If gays are searching for global societal approval in the face of much adversity, they shouldn’t be going out and about their exclusive business; they should be coming out and helping our wider society’s business. Community-building takes root from within society, not outside of it.

Safe and Sound

2006-07-24T13:19:00.000-06:00

From the back of the packaging of my new travel-efficient headphones:

WARNING: Handling the cord on this product will expose you to lead, a chemical known in the State of California to cause birth defects and other reproductive harm. Wash your hands after handling.

You really have to wonder what frivolous lawsuit ended up with RCA deciding to put that warning on there to avoid any future court appearances.

Good thing I don’t live in California and that I'm not exposed to such risks…

Sequels: a formula to keep Kraken them out

2006-07-11T15:26:00.000-06:00

Please note that my recent lack of Internet connections means I blog to my computer then publish the next time I get access, hence why there are two entries today.

The second installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Dead Man’s Chest, follows the usual Disney formula for sequels: add a few more semi-interesting characters, find ways to rehash others, and leave the ending open for possible additional sequel. On the whole, it’s not an entirely bad movie, it’s just not a particularly stunning and memorable one like the original was years ago.

For fans of the series having watched every bit of the original in detail, they were probably expecting some expansion on the 10-second snippet at the end of the original’s credits, where everybody’s favorite immortal monkey is seen pilfering a medal from the chest. Disney must have (correctly) realized that this kind of storyline was at best limited and at worst repetitive, and so chose to take the series in a new direction. The movie opens on Elizabeth and Will’s rainy wedding day seeing the two landing themselves arrests on charges that they helped an enemy combatant (none of other than our dearly beloved Captain Jack Sparrow) escape justice. The official responsible for the arrests is none other than an official from the East India Trade Company, whose motives are initially unclear, but this man nonetheless strikes a deal with Will Turner, who must bring the compass of Jack Sparrow to the man in return for pardons. Fast forward through random bits of French, some clever makeup, a few black spots that just won’t come out, linguistically incomprehensible witches living in creepy swamps and the backhanded deals of Captain Sparrow, and what you have is Will, now searching for the key to the Dead Man’s Chest, finding himself as a crew mate aboard newcomer Davy Jones’ ship – and right next to his own father, who is quick to lash out at Will despite his better judgment. Fast forward some more, and you’ve got interesting 3-way fights for the beating heart of Davy Jones and other fights of monstrous proportions.

On the whole, the expansion of the Pirates’ universe is well done. Davy Jones is a suitable villain, possessing all the necessary qualities of being ugly, slimy, bossy, gutsy, and one hell of an organ player. The addition of Will’s father is clearly superfluous for the time being, but given where Disney is hinting it is taking the series, the fathers of the three main characters all have some roles to play – let us hope they are actually worthwhile. So far, everything that was ‘accomplished’ by the presence of Will’s father – arguably the main catalyst for what becomes the 3-way sword fighting near the end – could have been accomplished otherwise, perhaps by having Davy Jones threaten to do something to Elizabeth in a way Jack Sparrows is willing to accept for his own purposes. The writing was also tedious at times – Johnny Depp turns in a good performance as the Captain, but does not turn in the exceptional effort from the first film. Disney needed to find someway to reinvent Captain Sparrows in some particular way to keep the audience on their toes, but the way in which they chose to do it was simply too predictable, as was the eventual outcome. The particular charm of Captain Sparrows in the original wasn’t only in his cocky yet aloof ways, it was also in the fact that the audience didn’t know if this man could be trusted or not. In this film, you already know he cannot be trusted, and on top of that, you are shown all of his inner dealings; if you didn’t know before, it quickly becomes apparent that you shouldn’t trust him. The Captain certainly still has a few witty lines here and there (“Hide the rum” upon discovering Elizabeth will be coming aboard his ship among them), but they are certainly fewer than in the original. Keira Knightley was disappointing in the first half of the film and then again in the second half of the film, and is certainly not helped along by a few dreadful cinematic montages that clearly leave her showing different facial expressions with every camera angle shift. As for Orlando Bloom, I’m still trying to decide whether the way he portrays Will Turner’s reaction to his father is within the established character or not. Certainly that I’m ambiguous about it must show that, even if nothing is wrong, not everything is right either.

Finally, I regret to inform all my readers that, in my semi-professional opinion, the score for this installment, well, sucked. Klaus Badelt takes a few themes from the original and recycles them for all they’re worth, but the use of unpitched percussion, while effective at times, was generally so overused that it had lost its effect by the time some real tension could have been aided by drums. In particular, I felt as though I noticed the drums were there; even though I very much like orchestrated music, I’m also of the opinion that the best movie scores will have me mostly not realize they are there, or if I do notice them, it is because of some innate charm that a particular section of the score possesses (here I reference the excellent featured choral piece from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). I am tempted however to ask whether the average show-goer will notice or think that there were a few too many drums rolls in that movie – a few more pitched percussion instruments such as a marimba could have been used for greater heightening of atmosphere in some places where Badelt elected to feature drums (actually, I’d prefer a bass marimba, but those are hard to come by and my instrumentation prof told me not to write for them unless I know that it will be an available instrument, which it sadly isn’t always even in professional ensembles.).

Alas, my battery is dying on me on this early morning bus trip to rural Quebec, I best finish by saying that, while it’s not a particularly bad movie, Dead Man’s Chest will not go down in the annals of movie history the same way the original Pirates of the Caribbean movie did. It’s simply too much of the same in some areas and not enough of the same in others, while the new stuff goes overboard in yet other categories. Let us hope the upcoming third installment will not push us to abandon ship on the series all together.

Je me souviens

2006-07-11T15:23:00.000-06:00

Donc, depuis les deux mois que j’habite ici-même au Québec, j’ai eu le temps de faire quelques observations, quelques-unes qui se rapportent directement à moi, certaines autres, pas vraiment.

Première observation : La politique au Québec, il n’y a pas à dire, c’est mêlant, et pas à peu près. Parlons premièrement au niveau fédéral. Tout le monde ici me demande de ramener Stephen Harper en Alberta avec moi quand je vais finir par repartir, mais c’est également clair pour ces gens-là qu’ils n’aiment pas les Libéraux ou le Bloc, et le nom Jack Layton n’est simplement pas dans les parages. J’ai clairement l’impression que, peu importe qui gouverne le Canada à tout moment, les Québecois ne veulent ou ne voudront rien savoir de lui (ou, soyons politiquement correcte, elle). Encore plus étonnant, c’est qu’au niveau provincial, ça revient essentiellement à la même chose : Charest va à l’encontre de l’opinion publique, Boisclair est trop jeune et les gens sont un peu plus fédéralistes de ces jours-ci, et Dumont est trop idéaliste. Résultat : j’ai tellement souvent l’impression que les Québecois ont (généralement) simplement aucune idée ce qu’ils veulent politiquement. Ce n’est pas qu’ils sont politiquement ignorants, c’est simplement qu’il n’y a apparamment personne pour représenter le Québecois « moyen ». C’est beau chialer, mais un moment donné, quelqu’un doit passer à l’action, et ceci semble s’avérer particulièrement difficile au Québec. D’ailleurs, la façon que le gouvernement fonctionne est assez particulière. Du coup, on a un ‘Chef de l’Opposition’ qui n’est pas Chef de l’Opposition, car M. Boisclair n’a pas de siège en Chambre. Dur de voter pour ou contre un motion quand on n’est même pas à l’Assemblée Nationale (à peine un nom pour une législature duquel j’approuve..). Du côté du gouvernement par contre, les lignes de parti sont brisées et ça semble être la norme de la façon que c’est traité. Le tout me préoccupe pour deux raisons; rappelons d’abord que la question de la souverainté Québecoise est toujours un enjeu dans la société Québecoise, bien que personne à travers le pays n’entend parler de Gilles Duceppe depuis 23 Janvier. Premièrement, si personne représente le Québec comme les Québecois le veulent à tous les niveaux, c’est seulement normal, qu’à la longue, le sentiment nationalistique se développe peu à peu. Du côté des Canadiens hors-Québec, la situation du mécontentement vis-à-vis la représentation de la population passe relitivement inaperçu, et on prend pour acquis que ce que les politiciens Québecois nous disent qu’ils veulent d’Ottawa est ce que la majorité des Québecois veulent pour le Québec. Comme résultat, on tombe dans une situation où on pense qu’on satisfait les demandes des Québecois, sans réellement le faire, et que les sentiments nationalistiques continuent à se développer. Par contre, c’est bien vrai que, jusqu’à temps que la population soit elle-même un peu plus sûre de ce qu’elle veut, tout le monde va continuer de se tirer dans le pied en essayant de faire ce qu’il y a de mieux pour le Québec.

La deuxième chose que je remarque au Québec, c’est l’omniprésence de Jean Coutu partout où je vais. J’ai aucune idée si Jean Coutu était un pharmacien avant que ses 139 succursales sur la rue St-Catherine se popularisent, mais je peux t’assurer que ces jours-ci, le gars doit avoir le monopole sur les entreprises pharmaceutiques au Québec. Sérieusement, il y a tellement de ces ‘Pharmacies Jean-Coutu’ et ‘Super Escomptes Jean Coutu’ que, si l’expansion de la compagnie continue à un tel rythme, je m’attend bientôt à pouvoir déguster un bon burger chez ‘Mec-Jean Coutu’, louer des films chez ‘Super Vidéo Jean Coutu’ et même me rendre à Sherbrooke ou Toronto en enpreutant les ‘Lignes d’autobus express Jean Coutu’. Je ne suis pas allé aux frontières encore, mais je ne serais d’ailleurs pas étonné de voir un magasin Jean Coutu installé à la place des magasins hors-taxe ordinaires.

Le plus étonnant dans tout ça, c’est que je ne suis pas encore allé chez Jean Coutu malgré 60 opportunités à chaque jour. Ca doit être parce que je ne veux pas savoir ce que je veux chez eux, trop d’options c’est pareil comme pas assez.

Prime Master!

2006-06-07T21:29:00.000-06:00

So I need to brag about something to anybody who's willing to listen.

Simply put, I rule at Metroid Prime.

My latest run through the game has me getting the Space Jump first, getting an early missile tank ahead of Hive Mecha, beating Flahgra through the uncommon 'genius' method, succesfully acquiring the floaty jump and wallcrawling three rooms to get it back into the real game, defeating Thardus without the Thermal Visor, grabbing the Artifact at the Tower of Light without the Gravity Suit, going through the entire sunken Frigate without the Gravity Suit or the Thermal Visor, using a space pirate I've knocked down to the floor in the Main Quarry to dash across and grab the Grapple Beam, acquiring an early Plasma Beam, getting stuck underwater in Frozen Cave on my way to finally acquiring the Gravity Suit and still managing to pull myself out after 20 minutes and grabbing an early power bomb at Phendrana's Edge.

Oh, and all on Hard Mode too, but really, I don't even notice the difference in Hard mode most of the time anyway.

And I've only gone into 6 rooms in the Mines: Entrance, Main Quarry, Main Quarry Save Point, Waste Disposal, Cache B (Grapple Room) and that one room between Waste Disposal and Cache B. So really, who knows what I could still pull off. I'm thinking of turning my skills to a two-turn Omega Pirate kill (Hard mode, 1-turn kill isn't possible because of the half-damage you inflict...)

We'll just see. In the meantime, I feel comfortable declaring:

I'm a Prime MASTER.

(Also, while I'm blogging, this is very cool.)

Vive la logique

2006-05-16T23:42:00.000-06:00

Aujourd'hui, ça adonne que j'ai fait quelque chose que je n'ai pas fait depuis longtemps: je me suis servi d'un parapluie. Pour les gens de Montréal, ça pourrait paraître niaiseux de dire ça, mais quand on vient de la desination soleil du Canada, c'est bien rare de voir un parapluie, bien plus s'en servir.

Étrangement, ça me rappelle quelques pensées et observations sur les parapluies.

Le plus important: un parapluie... quelle forme à la fois bizarre et fascinante! Je me demande bien qui a inventé le parapluie et quand. Le parapluie devrait-il avoir droit à un brevet? Un parapluie me parait évident, hors une condition pour l'obtention d'un brevet est le fait que l'invention ne sois pas évidente. À part l'ajout d'une poignée, un parapluie, n'est-ce pas seulement une capuche taille XXXXL, tellement grande qu'on a besoin d'une poignée pour pouvoir l'emporter? De toute façon, comment appelle-t-on celui (celle...) qui fabrique des parapluies? Un parapluitier? Si un cloutier fabrique des clous, un fabriquant de parapluies devrait être un parapluitier. Je sais que ça parait mal, mais ca parait aussi tout à fait logique.

Mais, aujourd'hui, ça adonne que la météo m'annonce toute une semaine de pluie, du jamais-vu en Alberta. Ça adonne aussi que, hier soir, j'ai trouvé dans l'appartement que je sous-loue un très, très beau parapluie. Il est assez grand, bleu foncé et me protège bien de la pluie.

Étrangement, il me rappelle également quelques souvenirs et observations.

Le plus imporatant d'entre eux provient de mon cours de philosophie de ma 12ième année, celui donné à 7h du matin. Il y avait un cours ou on parlait de ce qu'était la science à la plus grande base. Don, le prof, nous avait longtemps parlés de la parapluiologie, l'étude des interactions entre les humains et les parapluies. Si, comme on proposait, la science est une collection de savoir que l'on explique rationnellement par ce que l'on peut observer. En parapluiologie, on peut faire des observations comme "les humains réagissent à la pluie en sortant leurs parapluies" qui ne sont guères plus bêtes que celles en biologie, ou on observe que "les mouches drosophila réagissent à un solution de glucose avec une augmentation de leur rhythme cardiaque". Dans chaque cas, une variable explicative mène à un résultat observable, la variable dépendante. Ça parait tout à fait logique, même si ça parait tout à fait mal.

J'aimais bien mon cours de philosophie. On parlait de parapluies.

Parce que je parle de parapluies, je l'aime toujours aujourd'hui.

Vive la logique.

Worth a second look

2006-05-05T17:43:00.000-06:00

The first round of the playoffs was quite the unexpected one. My, and many others', pick for the Western Champion was eliminated in 7 games, the Oilers actually won their series, and Philly went out in the first round. To summarize my predictions and the actual outcomes:

East

Ottawa vs Tampa Bay: I predicted an Ottawa sweep; they won it five. No big difference here.
Caroline vs. Montreal: I predicted Carolina over Montreal in 5. They did in six. I have to say Montreal did give me a run for my money for those first few games. And yes, my views on how far the Canadiens would go in the playoffs are rather unpopular around here.
New Jersey vs. New York Rangers: I predicted Jersey in 6, and they swept. Didn't expect NYR to go down that hard.
Buffalo vs. Philly: I predicted a Philly win in 6. Buffalo won in 6. Missed by a country mile.

West

Detroit vs. Edmonton: I predicted Detroit in 6, but in the end Edmonton triumphed in that many. Not that I'm complaining. I wish Edmonton would surprise me like this more often.
Dallas vs. Colorado: I thought Dallas would triumph in 7, but a lack of offensive support by the Dallas offense resulted in Colorado making quick work of them in 5.
Calgary vs. Anaheim: I predicted a Calgary sweep. Boy was I ever wrong on that one, with the Ducks winning in 7.
Nashville vs. San Jose: I predicted San Jose in 6 and they did in 5.

Prediction accuracy: 4 out of 8.

Let's try this again and try to do better.

Eastern Semifinals

Ottawa vs. Buffalo
I'm writing this up as I'm watching Game 1 of this series, and this is going to be very exciting hockey. It's going to be a high-paced serieswith lots of scoring. And intersting perspective on this matchup is the relative inexperience of both goaltenders, Emery and Miller. Ultimately, I expect the Senators to triumph. Both their powerplay and penalty kill are better than the Sabres, and they have three scoring lines whereas Buffalo is a one-and-a-half-lines scoring team. Senators in 5.

New Jersey vs. Carolina
Another very good series should develop. Both teams are riding winning streaks - although NJ's is sixteen games long as opposed to Carolina's four. Regardless, both teams are playing very confidently. The matchup between Cam Ward, who has now earned the #1 spot in Raleigh, and the veteran Martin Brodeur appears to be very lopsided, but given the relative strength of the defensive lines in front of the goalies, I don't think a clear black-and-white difference will be notable. This series will be won on teams capitalizing on the defensive mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Devils win it, but I'm going with Hurricanes in 6.

Western Semifinals

San Jose vs. Edmonton
This is going to be such a good, high-paced series. I predict lots of solid, exciting hockey. I don't know enough about the Sharks defense to be able to make a good call about how it will play into the series. Because I like to think the Oilers are this year's Cinderella story, I'm going to say Oilers in 6.

Anaheim vs. Colorado

As long as Colorado gets more pucks to the net than Calgary did, I see no problem with them advancing to the conference finals. Anaheim just squeaked (s-quacked?) by Calgary, I'd surprised to see them pull off the feat once more against Colorado. Avs in 5.

Why?

2006-05-04T21:29:00.000-06:00

Why do people not appreciate art?

Why are people seemingly afraid to be challenged by theatre?

Why are people afraid to reflect on different perspectives they are presented with?

Why are artists who present differing perspectives of society not models to be upheld?

Why are there people willing to live through poverty to present Canadian theatre?

Why are there pennyless artists that indebt themselves to see theatre realized?

Why is it that they are right to do so, but nobody seems to recognize it or want to encourage it?

...

Why am I afraid to show the same dedication to music as these people do to theatre?

Why I'm glad I went to the U of A

2006-05-03T13:34:00.000-06:00

It's just dawned on me once again how happy I am to go to the University of Alberta.

Since arriving in Montreal, I've gotten a pretty good feel for what McGill culture is like. Many of you know that I applied to McGill three years ago, and that I would have given an arm, a leg and an eye to be admitted. Had I been admitted, I was unquestionably bound to come here. The University of Alberta was a sober second thought, a necessary alternative to *cringe* the University of Lethbridge.

Back then, I was kinda disappointed that McGill rejected. Disappointed, yet satisfied, because I knew I had given it my all in my audition, that was truly a reflection of where I was at in February 2003, and apparently it wasn't good enough for them. I don't think I've ever been as happy with my performing than I was after my McGill audition (minus the sight reading part, but I was still quite a horrible sight reader back then). I remember playing my Bach C- prelude and fugue (Book 2 people, I see you rolling your eyes already), my Beethoven Op. 90, my Schumann Op.111 and the G- Prelude by Rachmaninoff. I played good. Despite earning me a rejection, I'm proud of what I did that day. Because of that, you could say that McGill was clearly not a good fit for me.

Now that I'm here taking some classes, I can only be grateful even more.

First of all, everything is so competitive around here. There's this strange ambiance you get when you walk into the room... everyone is eyeing you, some clearly telling themselves "I'm better than that", others seeing me as a threat to their B-. C'mon people, just chill. It's only an aural skills class.

Thing is, if this is only an aural skills class and this is the general feeling going around the room, I'm not sure I want to go to a performance class or a composition class here. I was seriously considering doing a Masters in Music here eventually before I arrived, but now that's clearly off the map. Sure, they have the spiffiest music building this side of the Atlantic Ocean, but I just can't stand the atmosphere here. I'm sure I'll survive the summer, but there's no way I could go through this full-time for a few years.

I better warn all of you right now: practice facilities are "interesting" here, if you define "interesting" as meaning "ressembling an odd mixture of a science lab and prison". I havn't seen the practice rooms (supposedly they do exist) in the main music building, but the practice "rooms" I've seen on the music-floor-in-a-skyscraper-across-the-street might be better described as solitary confinement fridges. There's an odd-shaped window that lets you know it's actually a room (maybe the carpet fools a few people), and then you can see a small area. It's pretty standard until you take a look at the door; I'm pretty sure I've seen bank vault doors look more movable than those. The habitation deck of a derelict ship would probably be a more desireable practice locale. I dare not enter one of those practice rooms for fear I couldn't get out or would suffocate because no air can get in.

Plus, they just have weird ways of doing certain things around here. Like computer logins. Between online registration, library connections, email accounts, and a host of other things I havn't discovered yet, I must have at least 5 unique login ID's (and their equally unique passwords).

Then there's this thing called printing. I now realize how lucky I am to hold a OneCard, because everything I might ever need from a card on campus is on there. While my McGill ID is somewhat spiffy in that its magnetically charged to allow access to some doors corporate-admission style (ie, pass the badge in front of a grey box), its rather annoying that I can't load it up with printing cash. Instead, I'm expected to buy a printing card. I'm one whose open to doing things differently, as long as "doing things differently" implies "doings things at roughly the same or a better level of efficiency", and in this case, that's not the case. At least copies are a reasonable 8 cents.

Among some of the things that are the same: a bookstore that makes a genuine attempt at getting the most cash out of you as possible, an administration building that seems to function like a circus, and a clear lack of presence of Students' Union.

Good thing I have those to hold onto and keep me grounded in Albertan reality.

How the West will be won

2006-04-22T21:11:00.000-06:00

Alright, intermission's over, let's get right back to it.

Western Quarterfinals

Detroit (1) vs. Edmonton (8)
Dallas (2) vs. Colorado (7)
Calgary (3) vs. Anaheim (6)
Nashville (4) vs. San Jose (5)

Detroit (1) vs. Edmonton (8)

This is going to be a great series, mostly because it's a meeting of my favorite team and a team that I like a lot. I'm going to forget what happened yesterday, and call that Detroit wins this one in 6. The Oilers will give them a tough time, but ultimately, we just don't have the offensive depth to win four games out of seven against these guys. This is further complicated by the fact that Manny Legace keeps his cool no matter what happens, and Roloson... well, I've seen a few too many times where he's upset at the ref because of some call he thought should have been made, when really, I've got to agree with the ref... Detroit in 6.

Dallas (2) vs. Colorado (7)

This is the most difficult series to call in the West. Colorado prevailed today, and their continued success is going to be measured by if José Théodore can keep his play up; he's experienced playoff success and major disappointment in the past, so I have no idea how he's going to play it out. Turco has been exceptional in goal for Dallas this year, and I would expect this to extend as far as Dallas will get in the playoffs. In the end though, I think Dallas will prevail. Too bad. Dallas in 7.

Calgary (3) vs. Anaheim (6)

I really don't expect this to be as close as Game 1 suggested it might be. Calgary will win no problem, their defence is top-notch and special teams are doing awesome. Anaheim is not the team it was three years ago when it went to the Cup final - I think only 4 or 5 players from that team remain today. Calgary sweep.

Nashville (4) vs. San Jose (5)

Nashville lost Tomas Vokoun late in the season to injury. I expect this to be an offense-heavy series, given that both of these teams are better known for their great offensive play then their defensive work. In the end though, the hot Thornton-Cheechoo pair will triumph over Kariya's Pred's, in part because Nabokov will steal more goals than whoever the replacement in Nashville is. San Jose in 6.

Western Semifinals

Detroit (1) vs. San Jose (5)
Dallas (2) vs. Calgary (3)

Detroit (1) vs. San Jose (5)

This will be a great series simply because of what we'll be seeing: youth highrisers vs. established legacy. The Detroit offense isn't what it once was, but the defense is better than ever. San Jose is a club that plays disciplined hockey and hardly ever fails to capitalize on chances. Playing Detroit though, I expect few mistakes of the sort will be made. I don't know how good San Jose's PP has been, but I do know that both Detroit's PP and PK are among the best in the league. If the Oilers series drags on to 7 with lots of overtime games, and San Jose forces a lot of extra time too, I could see the Red Wings tiring out and abdicating, but in the absence of that, I'm going to have to call this one in favour of the Wings. Detroit in 6.

Dallas (2) vs. Calgary (3)

If the Oilers can't take on the Stars this year, I suppose Calgary will make for an acceptable substitute. This will be an exceptionally tight series, as both teams play an incredibly focused defensive style, but also have plenty of offensive punch. In the end, Kiprusoff is better than Turco, and Iginla arguably playing better than Modano. Plus, scoring is more or less equally distributed among Calgary's three scoring lines, whereas Dallas has to rely on one big line to get the job done. The fact that Calgary will have ended their quarters early while Dallas will probably go to 6 or 7 to settle their quarterfinal date with Colorado will play into this. I expect this series to be much closer than what my verdict would tell you: Calgary in 5.

Western Final

Detroit (1) vs. Calgary (3)

The Flames took it to them in 2004, and they seem poised to do it again in 2006. I expect the Wings' veterans to be tired by now, and will consequently making more mistakes. Also, speaking of the Wings' veterans, their good, but they're also starting to show signs of age. As much as like the guy, Stevie Y isn't getting anywhere near as many goals as he used to, as is Shanahan. The young ones are going to have to step it up majorly if Detroit is going to win. This is not a problem in Calgary, when a good mix of experience and youth exists, and it's pretty clear that the youth has stepped up to the job (Dion Phaneuf, anyone?). Calgary in 6.

Western Conference Champion: Calgary Flames

I'll ponder the matchup on the Flames and Hurricanes in the next little while. You'll be hearing back from me about that.

Intermission: Update from Orchestration

2006-04-22T01:25:00.000-06:00

So I'm done my orchestration course. If there's one thing I can say I learned this year, it's orchestration. At the beginning of the year, I still thought flute was a transposing instrument. The idea of writing notes on a transposing instrument at written pitch just a second after determining the sounding pitch was clearly out of the question. Nowadays, let's just say I know better, and a whole lot more, and just about every instrument.

What I find so odd about this process is that, while I know that I know so much more than I did before, I don't feel like I've done much work to attain this new knowledge. I'm not quite saying I'm lazy here; if anything, the idea is that my profs were so good at this that it doesn't feel like I've had to sit down and learn anything, but that rather that I just absorbed as I went along. The vast majority of assignments didn't give me much trouble (except for that Dvorak Symphony #9 piano reduction... darn rhythms). Yet clearly, if I look at my final project, I think it's pretty clear I know much more than I did 8 months ago. It's this idea of timeless learning that's intriguing me most.

I've had some really awesome profs. I've previously talked about Howard Bashaw. This semester, I had recent McGill PhD grad Andriy Talpash. He's an all-around good guy - I also took composition from him this semester, and his ideas on musical time were, at minimum, interesting, if not completely revolutionary in the way I approach some things. Looking back on this semester, the only near-outrageous thing I was asked to do by this guy was memorize some forty orchestral works that were anywhere from 6 minutes (Rossini's Overture to The Barber of Seville) to an hour and a half (Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie), with the average probably clocking in around 20 minutes or so. Actually, no, wait, that was outrageous.

But it's over now, and I know about 20 works pretty well for it.

(Let us not speak of the other 20 ever again)

But besides that, this guy is pretty awesome. He says the funniest random things, "midget with a microscope" being one of them. Plus, when class time degenerates into discussing if tuba is the most appropriate instrument to score Jabba the Hutt's intro line for, you know it has its good parts.

I swear all this had a point when I sat down to write.

Oh well.

It's playoff prediction time!

2006-04-19T12:28:00.000-06:00

All of you know how much I like my hockey. Hence, it's only fitting to blog a bit about how this year's playoffs will come out. Let's go round-by-round in both conferences. Today, I start in the East.

Eastern Conference - Round 1

Ottawa (1) vs. Tampa Bay (8)
Carolina (2) vs. Montreal (7)
New Jersey (3) vs. New York Rangers (6)
Buffalo (4) vs. Philadelphia (5)

Ottawa vs. Tampa Bay: Ottawa will win this one no problem. Tampa Bay is not the force it once was, given it lost a lot of leadership in Andreychuk's retirement and Khabibulin's move to Chicago. Ottawa has been slumping lately, but I don't expect that to be a problem against the Bolts. They did crush them in the season series. Ottawa sweep.

Carolina vs Montreal: Carolina is real force to be reckoned with. Montreal's scoring has basically come from one line only lately, and playoff experience with its defensemen and goaltenders (seriously, when your choice for #1 is Aebischer or Huet, you don't have a #1 choice) will come back to bite them. Carolina in 5.

New Jersey vs. New York Rangers: New Jersey is very hot going into the playoffs, winning their last 11 games. New York is a rather cold turkey. New Jersey excels at shutting down opposition big lines, and NYR are basically a 1-line production team anyway (read: Jaromir Jagr). New Jersey will win the battle at the nets, as Brodeur, who has really turned things around since the Olympic break, will be the better than Lundqvist. New Jersey in 6.

Buffalo vs. Philadelphia: This is the hardest one to call in the East. Philly recently celebrated the return of offensive threat Peter Forsberg. Philly has plenty to offer on the offensive side of things (Gagné, Nedved, Primeau come to mind) as well on the defensive side (Hatcher, Therrien, Gauthier). Robert Esche has proven himself to be fantastic goalie this year, and he has significant prior playoff experience, carrying the Flyers to game 7 of 2004's Eastern Conference Final. Buffalo too has a solid lineup offensively, with Afinogenov, Briere, Drury and Hecht leading the way. Defensively, Buffalo is more challenging to call. Except for Biron, the defensive lineup is basically your average collection of no-name brands. In the last two months of play, the team has almost always allowed 2 goals or more per game. That's not quite going to cut it against Philly, so will play a demanding physical style. Philly in 6.

Eastern Conference - Round 2

Ottawa (1) vs. Philadelphia (5)
Carolina (2) vs. New Jersey (3)

Ottawa vs. Philadelphia: The Ottawa Senators are a good team when they're all healthy. Take out an aging Dominic Hasek due to injury, and replace him by Ray Emery, and you still have a pretty good team, you just don't have a Stanley Cup contender anymore. So much playoff success in the last few years has been decided on defensive success, not offensive success. Look at Calgary's 2004 run, or New Jersey's 2003 victory. I'm not sure the "new rules" will change this all that much, because of the mentality, and also because refs are generally a bit more reluctant to call the small things in the playoffs. As much as I'd like to see Ottawa take this one, I don't think they'll be able to take out Philadelphia. To do so, they would have to strike quickly and decisively early in each match. That's not going to happen, even if they do make it through, they'd lose to Carolina in the eastern final. Philly in 7.

Carolina vs. New Jersey: These are two excellent teams, and should make for a very exciting series. Lou Lamorello has done an amazing job turning around the Devils from coach's spot, but to control as much offense as Carolina has while trying to pierce the Carolina defense will no doubt be challenging. A possible sore spot for Carolina will be that Mike Gerber has little (no?) playoff experience. In the end though, the Devils aren't the team they once were: Neidermeyer went to Florida, Stevens left for the golf greens. They are still solid, but not enough to weather the Hurricanes. 'Canes in 6.

Eastern Final

Carolina (2) vs Philadelphia (5)

Common sense tells me Philly should win this. At least they should, on paper. I'm going to ignore common sense because I hate the Flyers. Late season additions to the Carolina such as Doug Weight will help carry the Canes to the Cup Final. Carolina in 6.

Tomorrow: The Western Conference!

Je peux composer

2006-04-12T17:54:00.000-06:00

Lors de l'écriture de ma pièce la plus récente, intitulée Minuit sur le pont Laurier, j'ai pu témoigner à quel point je me suis amélioré en composition depuis le début de l'année. Cette oeuvre, pour hautbois, clarinette, violon et violoncelle, a été un grand défi, mais je crois avoir été à la hauteur. Ce qui m'intrigue le plus, c'est comment j'ai été capable de composer sans instrument, mais en accomplissant quand même mes buts.

J'avoue qu'au début, j'ai fait beaucoup de travail au clavier. Mais vers la fin, disons, les deux dernières semaines de mars (j'ai complétée l'oeuvre le 27 mars), j'en avais pas besoin. Ce concept m'intrigue beaucoup, celui de pouvoir produire de la musique sans pouvoir vraiment l'entendre au fur et à mesure.

Avouons que plusieurs ont déjà fait ceci par le passé - Beethoven a composé la majorité de ces oeuvres tardives sans instrument, puisqu'il était sourd à ce moment. Pour une mémoire extraordinaire, on dit que Mozart a mémorisé la grande majorité du Miserere de Giorgio Allegri après l'avoir entendu une seule fois. Bien sur, si je mentionne ces exemples, ce n'est pas avec l'intention de me comparer avec ces grands maîtres, mais plutôt pour montrer que je ne serais peut-être pas anormal pour autant.

Comment est-il possible que je puisse écrire pour des heures à la fois de la musique qui ne suscite que des remarques positives lors de mes séances d'évaluation hebdomadaires (c'est-à-dire, ma leçon de composition) ? J'ai tendance à penser que c'est parce que l'oeuvre est si bien définie en moi que c'est (relativement) facile de la compléter sur papier.

Ce que je n'aime pas de ma théorie, c'est que j'avais souvent le contour et des idées plus minimes confirmées, mais le tout doit être complimenté de petits détails, des choses qui s'ajoutentaient au clavier. Ce que j'aime encore moins, c'est que, si je sais que j'ai cette habilité, comment vais-je m'en servir? Contraire à ce que dirait ma prof de piano, j'ai la capacité d'apprendre une oeuvre très rapidement - quand je m'y mets, ce qui a tendance à se produire dans la dernière semaine avant l'examen. Je sais que je suis capable, donc, malgré mes bonnes intention, je sais que je peux m'assurer un succès relativement satisfaisant en mettant le gros push seulement à la fin. Je m'inquiète que ce processus, en composition, pourrait affaiblir le calibre de mes oeuvres futures.

Quelqu'un a d'autres suggestions sur comment pourquoi je suis capable de composer comme cela?

ECOLOGY 101: Senators

2006-03-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Senator is quite an interesting species. Let us examine a few of their characteristics:

1. Habitat and Migration: Senators tend to be found all over the North American continent during most periods. They do however inexplicably gather in two major centres at various times of the year, often travelling in lofty executive cabins on financially and morally bankrupt airlines. The purpose of this migration is as of yet not clear, as nothing seemingly gets done during this time. The possibility of migration for reproductive purposes must also be rejected.

2. General behaviour: Their moods vary a lot. Some are very outgoing and friendly, others demand to be respected and upheld as models of society. They are generally sharply dressed for any occasion, and their entry never goes unnoticed. They are said to be accomplished individuals, although often their public record makes it difficult to determine in what area this expertise may rest. It has been suggested that expertise of any kind hibernates until the age of 75 years.

3. Energy and dietary habits: Three letters - KFC, as evidenced today by this writer in a face-to-face encounter with a local specimen. They apparently consume two 15 piece buckets, two regular sized salads, caesar salad, and McCain cake. It is unclear if Senators do so to accumulate energy for long winters, or to satisfy the cravings of 7-year-olds they might bring into the feeding pit with them.

In all, Senators are fascinating creatures; we should endeavor to protect them and their environment in this day and age.

I might just need professional help with this one

2006-02-27T19:58:00.000-07:00

I've told you in the past about my unhealthy obsessions, but I'm thinking an event that happened just a moment ago might be even more worrying.

I was typing up a document which included the phrase "phone the Metro Cinema". When I looked on screen, it appeared that I had actually typed "phone the Metroid Cinema".

I'm actually somewhat concerned.

Glass under the lens

2006-02-25T12:06:00.000-07:00

It's said that, eventually, every artist, musician, actor and others working in the arts see a visionary, a leader in their field, someone that inspires them to see their art in a new way. I can finally start to understand what that sense of discovery is in many others now that I've seen Philip Glass perform live.

Glass is a huge name in later 20th century music. Though I don't think he's the best (an honour I bestow upon Steve Reich), he's one of the original minimalists, and probably the best known outside music academic circles. He was born on January 31, 1937 in Baltimore. The guy is crazy smart - he got into the University of Chicago at 15 years of age. He studied with Nadia Boulanger - for those not in the know, everybody who made a name for themselves in the 20th century studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris.

The thing that was special about this performance is that Glass, while a pianist, is certainly no virtuoso, and could best be described as 'competent' as a pianist. But there's something very special, almost ethereal, about hearing a composer perform his own works. It gives insight and a sound that transcends physicial skill at weilding the instrument.

The solo piano program was quite interesting. He divided it into three blocks. In the first, he performed his Mad Rush (1979 for organ, 1980 for piano). He then went on to Four Metamorphoses (1989) and concluded with a selection of his Études (1994-99). The program was played without an intermission. It's quite rare that one will be able to hear this much minimalism in one evening, and therefore is not for those who are quickly bored by its seemingly overrepetitive themes. Fortunately, I'm a minimalist junkie, and could have sat through a program twice as long; I find there's just so much to hear, so much you can subtly change to create an entirely new effect, so many different playing techniques you can experiment with (and that actually yield favorable results) that Patty (my piano prof) would have me crucified for if I tried them in Beethoven or Debussy.

His Mad Rush was an ear- and mind-opening experience. It became clear very early on that this guy was more composer than pianist, and to some extent, to enjoy the concert, the listener had to accept that as the basic premise. He fumbled around with some notes. In his sequences of repeating sixteenths, the occasional note didn't sound. On the whole, it was very imprecise playing. On top of that, there were always these predictable slows between harmonic shifts.

But the music it made was beyond the technicalities of the performance.

It was here that the role of the musician in society was clarified for me, through this 69-year-old man bumbling along, playing his works as best as he could, not as best as the work can be played. Despite bumps, bruises and scratches, this guy was creating real music. You could here so much conviction in his weak sound that the feeling of the music came out to me even more than in some of the best performances by virtuoso pianists over the past few years. There was a true connection between the music, the performer and the instrument. Last night, I didn't hear a pianist, I heard a musician.

Beyond that, minimalism in CD's is always so perfect, so timely, so organized. The fluidity and options available to the performance of minimalist music was never clearer than in this performance of Mad Rush. It was minimalism freed from the perfection of CD's. This phenomenon is very difficult to explain. It was as if, by being irregular and predictable in the distortion of time, the meaning of minimalism came out even more. No longer was this about series of notes of x duration repeating y times - it was much more about the flow of time and how these sounds fill that time. All of this through imprecise playing.

It even brought back a vivid memory from times past. Throughout this piece, I didn't see a pianist, and as it went on, I started to forget there was a musician there. All there was left was an old man. He was relaxed and enjoying himself. He was so relaxed that I myself was relaxed, and I'm most often relaxed at a rock concert than a classical one. He was just happy old man who was playing to those who wanted to listen. Except for about a dozen years' wear on the featured fellow, it was the spitting image of Vladimir Horowitz's 1986 Moscow recital. Anyone who's ever seen the videorecording of the recital can acknowledge that Horowitz wasn't a pianist at that event - he was just an old man playing for the loyal fans who had only heard of him, not heard him play. And Horowitz was happy. It's one of those images that clearly sticks out in my mind, the internationally renouned Vladimir Horowitz being the Russian common man, playing for his fellow citizens after years of exile, and simply being happy.

It was the kind of performance in which you have to remind yourself to blink because every part of your brain is dedicated to listening and responding to what's being heard.

It's rather unfortunate that the rest of Glass's published program was executed in more of a messy style than an imprecise one; in this case, the lack of pianism in the playing did detract from the music. Lack of power to dig into the keys left dramatic moments empty in the Four Metamorphoses. Some of the Études were played at too fast a tempo, and the performance was subsequently reduced to notes being played on a piano. There was great insecurity in dynamic shifts and how to render them convincing. I started to feel tension again in myself and in him. Now I know what Eleni (the DMus gal who teaches me when Patty can't for whatever reason) is talking about she says "the audience knows if you're tense through how they physically react to the music".

But through that there were still wonderful moments of powerful yet obstructed longing in low bass chords. Faint projections of some melodies over roaring bass figures somehow captured a dreamlike mood. Curiously, inexpressive playing of melodic figures still resounded with depth of feeling and emotion; I can only wish I knew how.

It was a great treat though for Glass to come back with an encore from his Glassworks. These are my favorite works by Glass for the piano, and I was initially a bit disappointed the program wasn't going to include one or two of these. He performed the #6. His sound was weak, unprojected. But through all of this shone a convincing , yet distant, fragility in the sound. There was also a definite sense of longing. It was almost like hearing a baby cry from far far away in the dead of the night from the middle of an empty field.

So in the end, this concert was everything and nothing that expected. I expected to be amazed, I just thought it would be at the pianicism he would demonstrate, not the genuineness of heartfelt feeling that he projected through less than perfect playing. I expected to hear how beats and measures make for good minimalist music instead of the stretching of time back and forth. But most of all, I learned that it's up to each individual to make his music worth something to somebody, and to have the conviction to stand by the art for what it is, not what others want it to be.

Annonce que j'affiche partout où je peux

2006-02-14T14:36:00.001-07:00

Mes amis, permettez moi d'afficher ce message une fois de plus. Aussi, ce n'est pas indiqué dans cette invitation, mais je vais avoir besoin de beaucoup de bénévoles pour être des juges lors du samedi 8 avril. Nous donneront des formations le 7 avril, et possiblement à une autre occasion aussi. Je vous prie de SVP considérer donner votre samedi pour la réussite de cet évènement!

Cher amis de la langue française,

La University of Alberta Debate Society est fière de s’associer au Campus Saint-Jean de la University of Alberta pour présenter la toute première édition du Sommet de Débat de l’Honorable Sénatrice Claudette Tardif. Ce tournoi sera présenté les 7 et 8 avril prochains, et sera ouvert à tous les étudiants de la 10^e à la 12^e année de l’Alberta, et sera présenté au Campus Saint-Jean de la University of Alberta.

Participation à l’évènement

Toutes les écoles secondaires, deuxième cycle de l’Alberta sont invitées à participer à cette compétition. À partir du 20 mars, l’invitation est également ouverte à toute école de niveau équivalent du Canada. Nous voulons ainsi encourager au maximum la participation à l’évènement, tout en accordant la priorité aux participants albertains. Les personnes dont le français est la langue seconde (FLS) sont aussi fortement encouragées à participer à l'événement: un prix sera accordé au meilleur débatteur FLS. Cette invitation est distribuée sélectivement pour économiser les coûts mais le concours est ouvert à toute école qui satisfait les critères mentionnés ci-dessus. Veuillez librement faire circuler cette information.

Format et style de la compétition

Les débats se tiendront entièrement en français. La compétition comprendra quatre débats, débutants le samedi 8 avril au matin, et se poursuivront tout au long de la journée. Les quatre meilleures équipes se qualifieront pour les éliminatoires qui comprendront les demies finales et la finale; ces débats auront lieu en fin d’après-midi (demi-finale) et en soirée après le banquet (finale). Le style utilisé sera le débat parlementaire canadien (5-7-7-8-3), en équipes de deux. Les points d'information seront permis et encouragés. Les thèmes des débats seront donnés. Les deux premières résolutions seront annoncées à l’avance du tournoi, donnant l’occasion aux participants de se préparer bien à l’avance et de comprendre comment formuler un argument. Toutes les autres résolutions seront données 15 à 20 minutes avant le débat, et les participants devront se préparer pendant le délai accordé. Toutes les résolutions seront tirées des principes historiques, sociaux et économiques touchés par le curriculum des cours d’Études Sociales de la province de l’Alberta. À l'exception du premier tour, les équipes auront à affronter à chaque tour une équipe ayant le même nombre de victoires. Pour le premier tour, les équipes seront jumelées au hasard, en évitant de mettre deux équipes d'une même école ensemble. Pour les tours ultérieurs, les équipes seront jumelées au hasard avec une équipe avec le même nombre de victoires. C’est l'équipe qui fut le moins souvent au gouvernement qui sera placée au gouvernement. En cas d'égalité ou lors des éliminatoires, le gouvernement sera choisi au hasard.

Formation

Des membres de la University of Alberta Debate Society présenteront le vendredi 7 avril deux ateliers à tous les participants du tournoi. Les ateliers porteront sur comment bien défendre sa position au Gouvernement (équipe à la proposition) et à l’Opposition (équipe à l’opposition). Des ateliers seront offerts à deux niveaux, débutant et avancé. De plus, nous espérons pouvoir offrir des séances d’entraînement pour les juges pendant ce temps. De plus amples détails vous seront fournis ultérieurement. Il sera également possible pour les participants d’acquérir, vers le début du mois de mars, un guide expliquant très spécifiquement le style de la compétition et comment bien formuler et présenter un argument. Veuillez consulter notre site web pour de plus amples détails: http://www.ualberta.ca/~debate/tardif.html

Juges

Il n’est pas nécessaire que les écoles envoient des juges à l’évènement. Tout bénévole accompagnant les écoles sont la bienvenue de s’inscrire à titre de juge. Un tarif spécial sera accordé aux gens qui désirent participer au banquet du samedi soir; veuillez nous avertir de votre présence à l’avance si possible.

Prix

Il y aura des prix pour les 4 meilleures équipes, les 5 meilleurs orateurs, et le meilleur orateur dont le français est la langue seconde. Les membres des équipes se qualifiant pour les demies finales seront assurés d’une bourse d’étude du Campus Saint-Jean d’une valeur minimale de 500$. D’autres prix seront également accordés aux lauréats de la compétition.

Repas, Transport et Hébergement

L'inscription au tournoi comprend un léger goûter le vendredi soir, le déjeuner et le dîner du samedi. Le banquet formel du samedi soir est également inclus dans les frais d’inscriptions. Les participants venant de l’extérieur d’Edmonton sont responsables de leur transport et de leur logement pour la durée de l’évènement. Nous sommes très contents d’annoncer qu’un forfait autobus-hôtel partant de Calgary en direction du tournoi est prévu. Les informations sont affichées sur notre site web. Des représentants des écoles intéressés doivent contacter Martin Poirier (mapoirier@cbe.ab.ca) de l’école William Aberhart pour s’enregistrer.

Frais d'inscriptions

L'inscription est de 80$ par équipe, et 25$ par juge. L'inscription comprend les repas mentionnés ci-dessus. L’inscription se fera en deux rondes. La première, du 27 février au 17 mars, permettra à toutes les écoles éligibles de l’Alberta d’inscrire jusqu’à quatre équipes (8 participants). La deuxième ronde, du 20 mars jusqu’au 3 avril, permettra aux écoles qui ont déjà inscrit quatre équipes d’en inscrire d’autres, ainsi que permettre à n’importe quelle école secondaire du Canada d’inscrire des équipes. Notez bien que le nombre maximal d’équipes permises sera 50. Un dépôt couvrant la moitié des frais d'inscription (40$ par équipe) des participants devra être versé avant le 24 mars pour les équipes inscrites lors de la première ronde et le 3 avril pour celles inscrites lors de la deuxième ronde. Le dépôt n'est pas remboursable. Les chèques doivent être libellés au nom de la «University of Alberta Debate Society». Notre adresse postale est:

University of Alberta Debate Society

C.P. 147, Students' Union Building
University of Alberta
Edmonton AB T6G 2J7

Organisation
L'organisation de l'événement sera assurée par Guillaume Laroche, organisateur en chef, Danusia Moreau, organisatrice adjointe, et James Crossman, président de la University of Alberta Debate Society. Le juge en chef sera nommé à une date ultérieure; veuillez nous contacter pour plus amples renseignements sur le juge en chef.

Pour plus d'information...
Si vous désirez avoir plus d'information, vous pouvez nous contacter à l’adresse courriel suivante: debate@ualberta.ca . Nous vous prions d’indiquer « Sommet Claudette Tardif » à l’objet du courriel. Tous les renseignements et nouveautés rattachés au tournoi, incluant un horaire détaillé, sont affichés au site Internet suivant: http://www.ualberta.ca/~debate/tardif.html

Guillaume Laroche
Organisateur en chef
1^e Sommet de Débat de l’Honorable Sénatrice Claudette Tardif

Switch it on, switch it off, switch it on, switch it off

2006-02-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

My courses have recently been delivering countless inspirations for blogging topics. The most recent course to offer such possibilities is Music 445, Electroacoustic Music and Composition.

Every so often in my classes, the instructor will play something totally cool that just blows your mind. Maybe you've heard it before, but just didn't realize how cool it was. Example: orchestration class and Jabba the Hutt's tuba solo. First of all, how many orchestral tuba solos are there around? Secondly, how cool is it that I'd heard it before, but not noticed? Well, I suppose that technically, that should make me incompetent as a musician. Oh well. Call me a geek, but I have that CD, and I never noticed it was a high tuba line.

Or in 20th Century Music theory class when Dr. Bashaw played Conlon Nancarrow's Etudes for Player Piano. They are for player piano because no pianist could play them. I'm not even sure a duet could play most of these. Maybe a piano trio could, but then the rhythm is so complicated in some of these that it would be very, very hard to pull it off (I'd still like to see someone try). And that's just the ones for one player piano, not the Études for two or three piano players playing simultaneously.

But back to what I recently heard in Electroacoustic class.

Now, we've all heard of new renditions of old pieces. Most of us have probably heard a track or two from Mozart Master Mix, one of the first CD's I can remember to start remixing works of centuries ago. Clearly, I grew up in the 90's. While this CD isn't too bad, what I heard takes the cake.

I present Switched-On Bach. Basically, it's a performance of various Bach works using electonically synthesized sounds as done by Wendy Carlos. Not electronically synthesized bassoon, I'm talking sounds that are clearly pitched yet clearly electronic sounding. This was originally done in 1968 on an original Moog synthesizer, going through the labourious process of transfering individual lines to multitrack tapes, then making sure all your tracks align. Nowadays, with MIDI interfaces, digital keyboards of all sizes, digital samplers, synths and a whole bunch of other pricey equipment, doing a project like this would be a snap - play the notes on your keyboard, make sure it's connected to a computer with MIDI software, fix any mistakes by hand, change the timbre from Grand Piano (concert hall) to Midnight Electric Storm, and you're done.

I encourage everyone to swing by the Rutherford Library's Music Library on the second floor and request M 3.1 B1 C37 1981 - CD . It's seriously worth listening to, even if the topic at hand is a more lighthearted take on serious works.

Let's hammer this one home

2006-01-20T14:22:00.000-07:00

Oh, the wonders that orchestration class can do to your way of seeing things.

I intend to propose and support an argument that Super Mario (seen here in various forms), of Super Mario Brothers fame, is actually a leading contributor to the lack of appreciation seen today in the world of orchestral music. I must also confess that I was inspired by the creative genius of the authors of Communist Mario, a most interesting piece. But I digress, I have a case to prove.

I first of all offer images of peaceful inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom, also known as Hammer Brothers. As you can see for yourself, a distinguishing feature of the Hammer Brother organism is his tendency to have one or multiple hammers. Besides that, they are somewhat rugged-looking, perhaps because of their strict dress codes. Behaviourly, they tend to jump around, move back and forth, fly in the background, generally repeating the same movements regardless of whether they are being watched or not. Among their main hobbies including throwing hammers around, usually in a very regular and calculated method, both in terms of the frequency of throws and the intended target.

Let us momentarily break from the intense analysis of the Hammer Brother's habits to instead soundly explore the world of church bells. Bells sound by way of them being hit by another object. This is accomplished by one of two ways, either by keeping a weight inside of the bell, or by hitting the bell from the outside with another object. In many cases, including orchestras, tourist attractions and even at landmark national symbols, this is done by way of a hammer striking the bell. As circled in the accompanying diagrams, these mechanisms can take a number of forms, as can the hammers. Another option is simply that percussion players, highly trained in the art of banging random objects against each other to produce sound, may manually strike bells, chimes and other metallic instruments with items such as hammers. In some extreme cases, hammers have also been used to get very dry tones out of some wooden instruments (I don't recommend this, it tends to damage the instruments pretty badly pretty quickly).

Now, let us consider the Super Mario story. He's going through the Mushroom Kingdom, basically taking down any who happen to get into his way, or just his field of view for that matter. That almost seems to be the objective more than saving his princess. Among the "foes" he encounters along the way are Hammer Brothers. Now, for the longest of time, it's been suspected that these Hammer Brothers were actually throwing hammers at Mario, which would obviously constitue assault, which means he would have a right to defend himself.

I have a different theory.

Scroll back up to those pictures of the Hammer Brothers, and consider the shapes of their respective hammers. Now, compare those shapes to those highlighted by the red circles on the bell-ringing mechanisms. If you're like me, you'll see a striking semblance between the two.

What does this mean? The only thing it can mean. Hammer Brothers are born musicians, percussionists of the strictest, most professional order. All this time we thought they were chucking hammers at Mario, they were actually practising. That's why they don't care whether Mario is there or not, they still throw hammers. That's why the scuffle back and forth, up and down, trying to figure out where the reverberations of bell hammers and other objects (such as bricks). It also explains their tendency to hang out in packs, as orchestral percussionists usually come in pairs or triplets.

What then is Mario doing by defeating such talented artists? He's depriving the Mushroom Kingdom of their finest instrumentalists. Let's be honest, it wouldn't be the first time Mario (under the alias of "Jumpman") went after recognized experts in the field of rhythm and percussion neighbouring the Mushroom Kingdom. With what reason? Well, it would appear that there is interest in foreign investment in the field, specifically from these guys. Let us not forget that the coin has devalued recently against the rupee (note the desire of the participants to grab the rupee in question), as evidence in this diagram where coins are just left lying around, without anyone apparently wanting them. Even German Marks weren't that bad. So it's definitely in Mario's personal interest to get rich off of commissions. Shame on him to do so on the back of the developing arts scene of the Mushroom Kingdom, though.

That is why, my friends, Mario is to blame for reducing attendance at orchestras everywhere. He dispatches of unfriendly competition in his own market in the most brutal of ways, ensuring that others from the outside will be needed to fill the Mushroom Kingdom's jobs. I say we throw the cheap traitor into the nearest bottomless pit.

Je suis très honorable

2006-01-09T22:46:00.000-07:00

Comme plusieurs d'entre vous, chers lecteurs, etiez au courant, je suis récemment allé à Ottawa pour le Parlement Jeunesse Pancanadien. C'était une très bonne expérience et j'encouragerais tous d'y participer en janvier 2008 lors de ça prochaine parution. Étant donné mon comportement en Chambre (nous utilisions la Chambre du Sénat du Canada), je n'étais pas tout à fait surpris de me voir décerné le prix du "Futur politicien", bien que ceci me cause bien des soucis pour ma carrière musicale. Il faudra bien aller demander conseil à ce cher Tommy Banks...

Entre temps, jusqu'à la prochain séance du Parlement Jeunesse Pancanadien, je crois que je vais m'essayer à un peu de politique national au niveau débuttant. Je me suis donc présenté à un poste du Cabinet, et j'ai été élu. Comme une photographe attentive néo-écossaise a pu le constater, je crois que je serai très confortable non seulement dans le rôle, mais aussi dans le siège, de ma très honorable contrepartie politique.

Au delà du hockey et des nouvelles

2005-12-08T14:01:00.000-07:00

Bon, les devoirs remis, voici donc ma plus récente contribution au Miroir, contribution datant d'une semaine. Je tiens à souligner que la version ci-présente représente la version qui devait paraître, et non celle que mon éditeur a décidé allait paraître.

Il y a quelque chose qui me tracasse. C’est vraiment bizarre, ça m’arrive partout où je vais lors de mes journées banales, en faisant des activités qui sont d’autant plus banales, que ce soit écouter la radio où la télé, ou même simplement lire les nouvelles du jour en ligne. C’est bien la raison pour laquelle je suis resté surpris quand j’ai découvert ce qui me tracassait parmi toute cette banalité: les médias auxquels je me fie deviennent également banal. C’est simplement trop de banalité pour un gars banal comme moi.

Le fait que les médias se ressemblent tous les uns les autres n’a rien de nouveau. Ce qui est plutôt marquant, c’est que la Société Radio-Canada (SRC) s’adonne de plus en plus à des pratiques banales. C’est bien ça, la Société Radio-Canada, cet icône national, principe issue des minorités dans les médias, la même qui fait la télédiffusion des matchs des Maple Leafs chaque samedi soir pendant l’hiver.

« Mais voyons Guillaume, t’as vraiment perdu la boule! Le hockey est de retour, les nouvelles sont présentées à la radio à chaque heure, et ce en français ou en anglais! Tout va très bien, voyons!» Oui, tout va très bien, si on adopte de tels standards pour mesurer la qualité du travail de la SRC. Mais regardons un peu plus loin, juste pour voir ce qu’on pourrait déterrer… Regardons l’exemple de la radio, ou plutôt, écoutons-là. Écoutez, vous verrez, comme dit si bien leur slogan. Et que verrons nous? Que la SRC ne file pas très bien de ces jours-ci, et que si ça continue, ça va banalement aller de pire en pire.

Je m’explique.

La Société a récemment annoncé que sa chaîne radiophonique principale, Radio One, diffusera, à partir d’une nouvelle émission, du contenu dit ‘populaire’, comme Madonna et Shania Twain, supplémenté ici et là du Top 40, chaque après-midi. Effectivement, une telle manœuvre pousse la Société là où elle ne devrait pas aller: de plus en plus proche des autres médias, la transformant plus en un double de 96X. C’est-à-dire que des fonds publics sont utilisés pour transformer notre Société en une chaîne commerciale, banale par la nature de sa programmation. C’est fondamentalement une mauvaise idée. Premièrement, Radio One n’est pas en mesure de faire compétition à de postes commerciaux, ce qui est clairement l’intention de son administration si la Société va diffuser des listes plus semblables à celles des autres chaînes. Les stations commerciales sont simplement mieux équipées pour faire la promotion de leurs postes, et le seront toujours meilleurs car elles ont été fondées avec l’intention de présenter un répertoire populaire. La SRC, elle, doit fonctionner selon des règlements établis dans la Loi sur la Radiodiffusion, des paramètres rédigés en fonction de la diffusion d’un contenu pertinent aux besoins du canadianisme, tant national que régional (si quelqu’un peut m’éclaircir sur la façon qu’une chanson de Madonna remplirait cette fonction, veuillez me le signaler). C'est-à-dire que la Société entre non seulement dans un marché où elle ne peut pas espérer en sortir gagnante, mais pour le réussir, veut également contrevenir certaines lois et faire fi de ses principes. Et avec quel but ultime? Apparemment, celui d’attirer plus d’auditeurs et d’auditrices.

Ce qui ne se produira guère. Les stations commerciales pourront toujours livrer un contenu populaire de façon continuelle, et s’assureront donc une clientèle également continuelle. Ceci veut dire que la SRC perdra des auditeurs, car ceux qui veulent écouter du contenu populaire le feront ailleurs. Ceux qui cherchent quelque chose de différent se tournent présentement vers la SRC; certainement ces gens n’hésiteront pas de changer le poste quand ils entendront le mardi après-midi les premiers accords banaux de la nouvelle chanson de The Killers à l’antenne de Radio-Canada.

Il est alors clair que le rôle de la SRC est de desservir un public autre que celui qui écoute les stations commerciales. Hors, nous savons bien que, par pure logique, si les stations commerciales connaissent un succès, c’est qu’une majorité populaire les supporte. En conséquence, la SRC devrait donc desservir les minorités. « Attend minute là Guillaume, si la population canadienne, c’est-à-dire, la majorité paie pour le fonctionnement de Radio-Canada, pourquoi est-ce que celle-ci devrait desservir les minorités? » Une excellente question, en effet, à laquelle j’ai une excellente réponse: parce que dans toute société où le règlement se décide par majorité simple, la majorité a une responsabilité de protéger les vues de la minorité, sinon la tyrannie de la majorité s’en suit. Ce qui est commercialement viable tire un profit, donc correspond assez étroitement au un segment majoritaire de la population. Ce qui n’est pas commercialement viable correspond donc à une vue d’une minorité. Nous avons ainsi le devoir collectif de protéger ces intérêts, et ceci a traditionnellement été réalisé par le biais de la SRC. Mais quand des émissions si peu banales comme Ceci est un test, une émission pour les amateurs de musique alternative francophone, passent presque à la guillotine (comme c’était le cas l’année passée), le pouvoir d’expression, non seulement des gens qui écoutent cette musique, mais également des artistes qui s’adressent à un public limité, est encore grandement compromis.

Ce qui est encore plus intéressant dans ce scénario, c’est les sondages qui indiquent que la majorité des Canadiens supporte qu’une programmation variée, différente et intéressante fasse partie de notre société, même si c’est seulement de façon occasionnelle. N’importe qui dans la rue vous dira que présenter du théâtre, c’est une bonne idée, mais peu de gens pourront vous dire qu’ils vont régulièrement au théâtre. Dans la société d’aujourd’hui, pour laisser un effet avec la majorité, il faut de grands évènements. Dans le cas du théâtre, on pourrait parler du Fringe annuel. Mais entre temps, pour continuer de développer le théâtre de façon innovatrice, la société a un devoir de satisfaire une minorité, de façon continuelle, pour que cette minorité puisse ensuite se retourner pour plaire à la majorité de façon occasionnelle, lors des grands évènements. Le même principe s’applique pour les programmes moins écoutés, mais tout de même essentiels, à tous les paliers de la SRC. Un avancement social dans toute discipline, soit-elle artistique, scientifique ou autre, dépend d’un support continuel et non occasionnel. Si la majorité supporte effectivement un avancement social dans les différentes disciplines que l’on retrouve aux postes de la SRC, nous devons effectivement continuer de supporter ces initiatives sans porter attention aux nombres banaux de gens qui y prêteront leur attention de façon quasi-religieuse.

C’est donc par cette analyse que je détermine qu’en éliminant un support pour les minorités et le remplaçant par des programmes plus commercialisés, la radio de la SRC s’oriente vers un futur tracassant et, contraire à ses attentes, encore moins écouté. Ce n’est qu’une question de temps avant que ce manque de vision et la banalité inévitable qui suivra se propagent au contenu radiophonique régional et à la télé. J’espère que j’apprendrai à aimer le hockey des Maple Leafs.

Professorial proclamations

2005-11-22T13:13:00.000-07:00

I just got back from instrumentation class (Music 263, offered every fall, for those who might be inspired following this). It's taught by a nice fellow by the name of Howard Bashaw. Nice guy. Goes off on some wacky tangents, if briefly, every so often, but he definitely knows his stuff. He's willing to admit he makes mistakes, and that's cool too. However, just having gotten my latest assignment back, I really must wonder in what kind of situation this guy grew up or had his original musical training. About the assignment, it was a (seamingly) straightforward thing where one arranges four measures of a Bach chorale four different ways using woodwinds (flute, oboe, Bb clarinet, bassoon) in pairs (two of each). Now, I don't want to ridicule Dr. Bashaw, but one can only wonder what thought process resulted in the following comments on my assignment:

The balance is a little wonky. Needs more tenor. Thank you for taking risks though. :p

Now, attentive observers will immediately realize that the first phrase could easily have been derived from modern-day interpretations of what classical music should be by replacing the term "cowbell" by the word "tenor". Aside from the consideration that more tenor in the example would mean more bassoon, which inevitably leads to having to recruit more bassoonists (who are really cool people, besides the fact they play an instrument that looks like an aged bamboo stick), the idea that, without more tenor, that the balance is "wonky" is somewhat disconcerting. How, as a pupil, am I supposed to learn to write non-wonky sounding music? It's not a common term, as if he had suggested that my arrangement is bass-heavy, or that the soprano will not come through. My balance is "wonky", and I'm sure that, regardless of how many instrumentation textbooks I go through, I will not be able to find out how to rid myself of this issue.

The bigger issue here is that smiley/emoticon-ish character he put on the end. In the original, it kind of looks a bit mad. If he is poking fun at me (which is cool, I've had a few clever responses to some of his questions in the past...), then why is he doing it in reference to me taking risks? Does he want me to do it more? Less? More intelligently? Thanking me for taking his class? Moreover, what would ever motivate someone to DRAW a smiley face when marking an assignment? Maybe he confused my assignment with his MSN conversation - I guess I'll never know. Probably for the better.

On the next page, one finds specimen 2:

What in tarnation are you doing here?!?! -5pts

Aside from the consideration that what I did, in hindsight, wasn't very bright (despite being associated with two high flute parts), I must again question the language and extreme use of exclamation and question marks. The fact that I've only heard "what in tarnation..." pronounced by geezers over the age of 70 and in old 70's TV shows (think Eric Foreman's dad in That 70's Show), used by my prof, he's probably 47-48ish, really leads me to question how this expression would be a normal part of his marking scheme. Looking up his credentials, he apparently did his doctorate at UBC, and is originally from the Vancouver area, in other words, a long way from Texas. Still, one wonders...

Moving on to what will undoubtedly be a favorite for a long time to come:

Please don't go re-composing Bach - he would be angry, and he turns all big and green and smashy when he is angry.

Oh dear. It's hard to run to someone's defense when the same person draws comparative links between the Hulk and J.S. Bach. It's hard just to conceptualize how one would begin to think in a such a manner. Either this guy has really weird dreams at night or there is some clear link in his mind between recomposing someone's music and the composer not taking it so well. Maybe his experiences over at the Canadian Music Centre have something to do with that. Could be an interesting tale for a future class, I guess.

Musicians are such weird people. Especially the theorists and composers.

Monsieur Green dans l'appartement avec la clé anglaise

2005-11-18T20:15:00.000-07:00

J'ai hier eu l'unique plaisir d'aller au plus récent spectacle présenté par l'Unithéâtre, une belle pièce s'intitulant Visites à M. Green, écrite par Jeff Baron. J'avais entendu dire que c'était bon comme pièce, mais ce que j'ai vu a de loin surpassé toutes les attentes que j'avais fixées. Entre les conversations hebdomadaires de M. Green et Russ, les deux personnages de la pièce, il y avait du bon théâtre mais surtout une critique perçante de la société d'aujourd'hui.

Une des choses à apprécier dans la pièce est le développement intense des personnages. M. Green, un homme d'au moins 80 ans (je ne crois pas que son âge est spécifiée dans la pièce) porte autant de qualités que de défauts, et lui rendent l'attitude d'un vieux schnoc qui est aimable malgré tout. Il est à la fois gentil, direct, d'une grande volonté et d'une fierté juive incassable, mais également naïf. Ross (apparament c'est son nom, je jurerais pourtant que le nom Russ a été prononcé pendant toute la représentation) a trente ans, est moderne, de bon coeur mais se choque facilement. Il est également homosexuel; ce fait crée une certaine tension entre lui et M. Green.

Également exécuté de façon surprenante était le jeu de lumières. Diversifié et provenant de huit lampes sur scène, plus les phares accrochés pour assurer un flux suffisant, on se sert des lumières pour créer des atmosphères de temps, d'environnement et même comme symbole de ce qui se passe dans l'appartement de M. Green. Quand les choses vont de mieux en mieux pour M. Green, les ampoules brulées de font remplacer, en tout point comme les sentiments négatifs qu'il éprouvait initialement pour Ross. L'idée de s'en servir comme ceci est loin d'être nouvelle, mais, bien exécutée, le résultat subtil qu'elle offre contribue néanmoins à la l'expérience présentée.

Aussi à noter est la musique simplement charmante et hautement originale qui est offerte entre les scènes. On y retrouve un mélange étrange d'accordéon, de violoncelle et de percussion. Le résultat sont des compositions comme aucune autre. Leurs saveurs exotiques sont à la fois divertissantes, mais aussi représentatives du concept de vieux et du neuf luttant l'un contre l'autre. On entend subtilement des mélodies empreuntant les couleurs du modales du septième degré mineur de la gamme, un grand trait de la musique juive. Mais contre cela il y a beaucoup d'énergie, de jeunesse percussive. C'est effectivement une autre façon que Baron trouve pour mieux prononcer les conflits d'idéologies entre M. Green et Ross.

Mais là où Visites à M. Green se définit vraiment est du côté de la critique sociale. M. Green parle longuement de comment les juifs ont toujours été, sont, et seront toujours persécutés. Ross en fait autant pour les homosexuels. Par contre, si Ross n'éprouve rien contre les juifs, M. Green ne se gêne pas de faire connaître ses opinions sur l'homosexualité. Il y a là dans les paroles de l'hypocrite une réflection de notre société, que nous défendons les troubles de notre communauté, mais ne pensons pas deux fois avant à s'attaquer aux autres groupes qui pourraient également vivre des situations difficiles. Ceci est également représenté par le fait que M. Green, le coupable ici, n'a pas de prénom - de cette façon, il est M. Green, M. Smith, M. Berger, il est l'homme de tous les jours, son nom aussi banal que celui du prochain, sans pouvoir le distinguer pour ses injustices. Vue d'une autre perspective, l'extension inquiétante qu'en fait Baron est que l'adhérence au conformisme de la majorité est à récompenser; effectivement, Ross se voit offrir une promotion au sein de sa compagnie, mais pour se faire, il doit implicitement continuer de jouer l'agent double, d'aucunement suggérer qu'il est homosexuel. Ce qui nous ammène au thème principal qu'attaque la pièce: les responsabilités de l'individu envers la collectivité sociale contre celles établies vers soi-même.

S'il y a des points négatifs que j'emmènerais au sujet de l'oeuvre, le premier serait de petites contradictions dans les personnages. Dans le premier acte, Green est effectivement en train de se suicider à petits coups en refusant de manger, s'abandonnant dans le désespoir. Mais comme la scène de confusion de le deuxième acte l'indique, il tient toujours à Rachel (sa fille avec qui il a de mauvaises relations), et déclare même plus tard qu'il n'a "jamais arrêté de l'aimer". Ces scènes nous démontrent qu'il vit encore avec l'espoir de la réconciliation. Pourquoi veut-il se suicider si c'est la seule chose qui le garde en vie? Parce que c'est justement la seule chose qui lui reste dans sa vie? Hélas non, car même sa solide fierté juive (elle-même articificielle, comme je le démontrerai dans un moment) peut être ébranlée par son amour de son enfant.

Un autre aspect que j'ai moins aimé était le manque de symboles dans la pièce. Certes, les fleurs et le téléphone ont joué leur rôle, mais l'un des plus grands thème abordés, celui du conflit qu'à M. Green, reste sans objet représentatif. Le portrait de sa femme (décédée) aurait pu être développé pour le représenter, mais reste pour l'instant simplement un object du passé comme tant d'autres dans son appartement. Effectivement, puisque Madame Green (Yabbeh?) était effectivement également une source de conflit pour Monsieur Green parce qu'elle acceptait de voir Rachel partir vers un destin autre que celui que son père y avait réservé, il y avait une tension dans le couple. Le portrait aurait pu donc agir pour véhiculer la frustration et le conflit intérieur de Green vis-à-vis les choix de sa femme si l'objet aurait été traité de façon plus violente. Ceci aurait également représenté le fait que M. Green attribue les fautes aux autres là où il n'arrive pas à se convaincre qu'il est le coupable malgré ce que le bons sens lui indique. Green se cache derrière le système de la religion juive pour aider à justifier des choix qu'il sait très bien ne pas pouvoir justifier. C'est donc cette croyance, artificiellement développée par peur de réprimande, qu'il faut mieux exemplifier quelque part dans la pièce, et le portrait représentait la chance parfaite si son utilisation aurait été approfondie.

Si je peux me permettre une dernière plainte, c'est qu'on ne sait pas comment se termine l'histoire de Ross.

Je m'efforce donc de ne pas répéter la faute étant donné comment je termine maintenant cet article.

In the name of science... ATTENTION LADIES

2005-11-04T00:39:00.000-07:00

It has very recently come to my attention by a most esteemed neurologist and renouned fellow U of A student that I have mystical gifts. It would appear that, following a campus-wide search including students, professors, administrators and everything in between, that I am blessed with having the most sensitive fingertips (both hands) of anyone on campus, both in touch reception and touch control. This was actually calculated using scientific processes and data. Therefore, in a most shameless plug for science, I will publically iterate for the first time in a while that I am actually a "free agent". Reply/apply into the comments section below, if for no reason other than the advancement of science and mankind.

Et une publication! Une!

2005-11-03T15:30:00.000-07:00

Paru dans The Gateway aujourd'hui, et republié ici parce qu'il semble que les chers éditeurs du Gateway ne veulent pas mettre les textes en français sur leur page web:

J’aime mon hymne national. J’aime entendre le O Canada dans les écoles, aux concerts ou aux matchs de hockey, partout où il est coutume de chanter notre hymne national. En temps et lieu, je ne me gêne pas et je chante moi aussi. Étant francophone, peu importe où je me retrouve, aujourd’hui, je chante l’hymne national en français – à chaque fois. Et à chaque fois, en milieu majoritairement anglophone, il y a toujours quelqu’un qui me regarde de travers, comme si je proclamais plutôt la Marseillaise. Parfois ces personnes me font même des commentaires sur pourquoi il est inapproprié de chanter O Canada en français, ainsi que pourquoi je devrais plutôt adhérer à la version anglaise (tout en gesticulant et en parlant lentement pour que je puisse bien les comprendre). Il n’y a pas à dire, je trouve cela agaçant.

Mais en même temps, je dois reconnaître que ces gens ont en partie raison. C’est difficile de dire que nous sommes un peuple uni quand nous n’arrivons même pas à nous décider sur la langue dans laquelle exprimer notre patriotisme. En plus, deux textes sur une même mélodie, même moi je trouve ça de trop et je suis étudiant en composition musicale contemporaine.

Il faut donc qu’on en finisse avec les deux versions, l’une en anglais, l’autre en français, pour en arriver à une édition qui présente un texte avec des composantes des deux langues: une version bilingue. L’hymne n’aurait pas besoin d’être reconstruit à partir de zéro, car il nous suffirait d’emprunter les meilleurs passages des deux textes existants. Si les grandes vedettes à la télévision le font le 1^er juillet, le peuple peut en faire autant.

Bien sur, c’est loin d’être une nouvelle idée. À part de revenir de temps à autre dans les médias (et donc dans l’opinion publique), l’idée a été formellement considérée en 1967 lors des séances gouvernementales pour l’adoption officielle d’un hymne national, mais fut rejetée pour préserver les intentions originales des textes sélectionnés. De plus, quelques politiciens, sans doute soucieux de leur image publique, avaient suggéré que des minorités ethniques accepteraient difficilement un hymne bilingue. Depuis ce temps, le Canada a adopté deux langues officielles, non pour piétiner les autres minorités linguistiques, mais pour mieux se définir en tant que pays. L’extension logique de ce principe serait de réviser nos hymnes nationaux pour en produire un seul. Je ne suis pas convaincu pour autant que les intentions artistiquement et historiquement distinctes des juges A.-B. Routhier et Robert Stanley Weir, les poètes ayant contribué les textes que nous connaissons, devraient rester un siècle plus tard protégées; nous pouvons plutôt les amalgamer pour présenter la vision de ce qu’est devenu le Canada. Si l’identité d’un peuple se clarifie, c’est normal que les symboles qui le représentent évoluent également.

De plus, un hymne bilingue définirait mieux l’identité linguistique du pays. Si l’une ou l’autre langue officielle est mal perçue dans un coin du pays, c’est une indication que la société locale ne valorise pas cette langue, souvent par un manque d’utilisation courante pour bien ancrer sa valeur sociale, ou parfois, encore pire, par préjugé. Dans les communautés du pays où on retrouve des conflits linguistiques, subtiles ou moins subtiles, il est davantage plus évident que les buts originaux du Premier Ministre Trudeau, exprimés par la loi sur les langues officielles de 1969, ne sont pas à ce jour encore réalisés. Dans un pays où les couples linguistiquement exogames font de plus en plus partie de la norme pour les minorités linguistiques traditionnelles, comment est-ce que ces couples, ainsi que leurs descendants, sont supposés s’identifier au canadianisme? L’alternatif consiste à s’identifier à certaines composantes du canadianisme, mais l’histoire a déjà démontré que cette perception limitée semble plutôt éloigner les gens du fait canadien. Le geste simple proposé pourrait à la longue contribuer au renversement de ces tendances simplement en agissant à titre de reconnaissance officielle tangible et accessible à tous de la valeur de nos principaux dialectes, autant à Kelowna qu’à Rimouski en passant par Iqualuit.

Ceci se produira le jour où nos buts politiques, sociaux et culturels seront sur la même longueur d’onde. J’ai hâte. C’est alors que, accompagné de tous mes concitoyens, je pourrai chanter O Canada tout en restant fidèle à mes identités francophone et canadienne.

Entre deux perspectives

2005-10-11T13:42:00.000-06:00

Dans la situation récente qui s'est présentée vis-à-vis la critique d'Entre deux pays que j'ai présentée la dernière fois, je veux ici, en me servant d'une lettre reçue, parler un peu plus de mes intentions avec la critique. Ultimement, il revient à tous de former leur opinion, mais je crois que, dans toute cette situation, il y a des grands principes sociaux qui ont été exclus des échanges. Alors, un lecteur, dont l'identité restera ici anonyme, m'envoit le courriel suivant:

J'ai lu ta critique de la pièce "Entre deux pays" par curiosité vu que tu as frustré pas mal de monde, moi je me suis dit que j'allais lire avec esprit ouvert vu que la critique peut souvent être constructif et aider à améliorer. Je dois par contre dire qu'après le premier paragraphe tout ce que j'ai pu constater était que tu dois te penser pas mal spécial et plus intelligent que le reste du monde. Lighten up buddy, c'est un conte de fée et c'en était l'intention! C'est dommage que tu n'as pas aimé la pièce mais on ne peut plaire à tout le monde. Ce n'est pas une excuse pour attaquer France comme cela, pis by the way ton attitude de "oh c'est juste du théatre communautaire" c'est pas mal arrogant de ta part! I'd like to see you do better!

Je lui ai présenté la réponse suivante:

Tu apportes de très bonnes idées. Tout le monde semble avoir l'impression que, parce que j'ai critiqué un aspect de la pièce, c'est que tout était mauvais - pas du tout. Les acteurs étaient fantastiques; les musiciens superbes; les costumes élégants, grandement symboliques et attrayants. Ce n'est pas parce qu'une ou deux composantes d'un grand ensemble n'est pas à son 100% (à mon avis) que le reste est nécéssairement mauvais. Je crois quand même que j'en ai eu pour mon argent.

J'ai relu le premier paragraphe, et je n'arrive quand même pas à voir où la suggestion que je suis pas mal spécial et plus intelligent que l'autres en ressort. Je ne pense pas que ce soit à cause que je suis allé voir la pìèce, ni parce que j'ai été frustré par certains aspects. D'une façon ou d'une autre, je ne prétendrai pas d'être une autorité quelquoncque sur le sujet du théâtre, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi ceci m'empêcherais d'écrire une critique dans mon petit coin, critique qui n'était pas écrite avec des standards journalistiques et donc ne devrait pas être interprétée dans ce contexte.

Sur ton autre point: oui, je réalise que c'est pas possible de plaire à tout le monde, et c'est correct ça! Je reconnais que je suis dans la minorité pour ceux qui sont allés voire la pièce. Je ne pense pas que ceux qui ont aimé la pièce sont ridicules pour cela; comme tout autre art hautement subjectif, ces gens ont une autre interprétation, et c'est parfaitement acceptable, même à encourager pour en arriver à former "l'opinion général" de l'oeuvre.

Je crois que tu as mal interprété mes commentaires sur le coté 'théâtre communautaire' - je n'utilise nullement l'expression de façon péjorative, mais plutôt au sens que c'était une production non-professionnelle, et, en conséquence, que mes attentes étaient différentes. Ca ne dit pas que de telles productions sont automatiquement mauvaises, mais que le standard attendu par le public est simplement différent. Ca ne veut pas nonplus dire que de telles productions ne peuvent pas atteindre un très haut standard. Un autre exemple: la chorale de Maurice-Lavallée contre la Chorale Saint-Jean - il y a simplement des différences aux niveaux des attentes. Ceci ne veut pas dire que l'un mérite d'exister plus que l'autre, ou que l'autre est automatiquement mauvaise à cause de l'existence de l'autre, mais simplement que l'emphase présenté par chacun des groupes est différent, et que c'est normal qu'un public attentif fasse des ajustements en conséquence.

Finalement, le point de "I'd like to see you do better". Les critiques ne sont jamais écrites (du moins de mon point de vue) avec l'intention de dire que 'je pourrais faire mieux'. J'avoue également que je serais simplement incapable de produire quelque chose au même niveau - j'ai un grand respect pour France pour son dévouement à un tel projet, peu importe le résultat final. Mais il n'y a pas nécéssairement un lien entre la capacité de reproduire les tâches d'autrui et la critique ouverte des gens dans le poste: regardons nos politiciens, nos leaders communautaires religieux, académiques, de tout genre finalement. La grande majorité d'entre nous serions de parfait imbéciles (moi inclus) dans le rôle du premier ministre de la province ou du pays, mais cela ne nous empêche guère de régulièrement passer des commentaires sur ce que ces gens réalisent (ou ne réalisent pas) dans nos communautés. En tout, ma critique était simplement une collection d'observations (et mes jugements qui s'y rattachent) sur la pièce, présentées de façon assez directe.

Maintenant, je vais être franc avec toi, ce qui me tanne de toute cette situation-ci, c'est que les gens semblent s'attaquer à moi personnellement, m'appellant arrogant, snob, prétendant intellectuel et j'en passe, plutôt qu'aux idées que j'ai présentées - en relisant ma critique, je ne traite pas les gens en disant qu'ils sont stupides ou incapables de penser pour eux même, JE M'ATTAQUE À LEURS IDÉES ET L'EXÉCUTION ET LA VALIDITÉ DE CES IDÉES. Ce sont deux choses fondamentalement différentes. Ce qui m'étonne encore c'est que personne n'a détecté (ou, si oui, ne m'a mentionné) qu'il y a un nombre immense d'assomptions dans ma critique, des préférences qui ne doivent pas nécéssairement être vraies. Oui, je défavorise le dédoublement de personnages, mais si c'est essentiellement une bonne ou mauvaise technique est très débattable - j'ai affirmé que c'était mauvais, vous semblez tous me sauter sur le dos pour cela plutôt qu'argumenter les points positifs d'une telle idée.

En somme, je crois que le tout a grandement été exagéré du contexte que je l'avais imaginé, et que le fait que mon style écrit a tendence à être très formel a créé une image que "je pense que je suis meilleur que les autres et voici pourquoi" - ce n'est absolument pas le cas. J'ai un grand respect pour tous ceux impliqués dans Entre deux pays, reconnaît que tous ont mit un énorme effort à sa réalisation, et que le théâtre original en français, ça a sa place dans notre communauté, et ce peu importe la variété d'opinions sur une oeuvre en particulière qui y aurait été présentée. Je termine en suggérant que c'est possible d'être une communauté unie qui encourage ses associations, tout en partageants plusieurs points de vue. Pourquoi donc pas dans la communauté thespienne francoalbertaine?

-Guillaume

Triskaïdékaphobie croissante

2005-10-07T01:03:00.000-06:00

À l'occasion de la soirée d'ouverture de la 13ième saison de l'Unithéatre, et étant donné que plusieurs amis et copains de la Chorale et d'ailleurs figuraient sur la liste des vedettes, je me suis payé une petite soirée au théâtre, question de divertissement, pour aller voir Entre deux pays, écrite par France Lévasseur-Ouimet. C'est alors bien malheureux que ce spectacle de théâtre communautaire ait été plus une source de frustration que de joie.

Malgré ceci, je crois important de féliciter tous les interprètes dans la pièce - ils ont collectivement présenté quelque chose de vraiment fantastique, et leurs efforts devraient être reconnus. Dans la plupart des cas. Plus sur ceci plus tard.

Je devrais premièrement rappeller les éléments qui ont été bien ou même très bien réussis. La vedette de la soirée: un interprétation fantastique de l'acrobate danseur Punch, offert par nul autre que Zak Tardif. C'était vraiment super mon gars, suivi de près par Casey Edmunds dans le rôle de Roland. Des costumes et décors exquis couvraient la scène de bout à bout. Et ce serait insultant d'oublier de mentionner une certaine scène interprété à merveille par Randy Boissonneault et Claude Painchaud dans le deuxième acte dans lesquels ces gentilhommes chantent, sautent, dansent et interprètent à merveille leur role.

Malheureusement, s'il y a quelqu'un de qui je suis très déçu dans tout ca, c'est nulle autre que France Lévasseur-Ouimet, auteur et directrice de la mise en scène. Pour quelqu'un qui est écrivaine-en-résidence à la Faculté - non, Campus - Saint-Jean, je croyais pouvoir m'attendre à bien mieux. C'est très peu souvent que je m'aventure dans le monde de la critique littéraire par pur intérêt, donc si quelque chose m'inspire, ou plutôt, me frustre, au point de le faire de ma propre volonté, c'est qu'il doit bien y avoir d'excellentes raisons quelque part.

Je commence d'abord du côté de la pièce elle-même. Malgré que je comprenne l'intention de donner une chance au théatre communautaire, il devrait aller sans dire qu'un écrivain devrait tout de même savoir limiter le nombre de personnages prioritaires dans ses histoires. Je recommenderais que si, à la fin de la pièce, il y a assez de gens sur scène pour pouvoir interpréter sans problème les quatres opéras contenus dans le Der Ring des Nibelungen de Wagner (avec assez d'extras pour pouvoir former et le choeur et la section des premiers violons dans l'orchestre), il y a probablement trop de personnages dans la pièce. Le problème n'est même pas autant qu'il y a tant de personnages, mais plutôt qu'ils sont tellement mal utilisés et la majorités sous-dévelopés pour les rendre intéressants. Les bons n'ont que de bonnes qualités, les méchants, que des défauts; les contrasts entre noir et blanc sont tellement puissants à rendre la pièce plus surréaliste et encore plus simple que même du théatre de base devrait présenter. Ceci est un tellement grand trou dans la présentation de la pièce que la majorité des vilains passent vraisemblablement comme étant plus humains que 'les bons', un problème qui entre en conflit direct avec la direction que prend l'histoire.

L'autre effet d'avoir une trentaine de personnages est que personne est un personnage primaire dans l'histoire; effectivement, le tout est bâti autour de personnages d'importance secondaire. J'étais ravi de voir Casey Edmunds, dans son rôle de Roland, arriver sur scène au début du premier acte, interprétant son rôle à merveille, avec l'écriture formulant la suggestion que Roland serait le personnage central de l'histoire, mais malheureusement ce style est abandonné pour attribuer une plus grande égalité entre tous les personnages. Tellement d'autres fois tôt dans la pièce, il y a des suggestions que tel ou tel personnage sera important dans la grande histoire, mais ce n'est jamais le cas.

Parlons de l'histoire. Parlons justement de Roland, qui est présenté sur scène de façon que toute personne normale croirait que l'on présente le personnage principal, l'héro de l'histoire. Au contraire, malgré cette introduction, ca ne porte pas à fruit, rendant effectivement complètement inutile et sans pertinence les quinze minutes passées à présenter l'idée que Roland, venu de loin, doit s'adapter à son nouvel environnement. Sur le tout, c'est une histoire intéressante qui est abandonné en faveur d'un conte de fées. Malgré que je comprenne que l'intention était de présenter les personnages et la situation, le tout est réalisé de façon trop systématique, forcée, et surtout, ce qui est de plus frustrant, semble prendre le public adulte par la main pour expliquer chaque situation en détail. J'avais souvent l'impression que je regardais une pièce des 9ième années au Festival Théatre Jeunesse de Kananaskis étant donné le besoin de tout expliquer verbalement et de remettre en question niveau d'intelligence de l'audience. Trop de personnages ont de doubles du même coté (a-t-on vraiment besoin de trois fées pour faire fonctionner l'histoire? J'en doute.), et trop de situations n'aboutissent à rien de constructif dans la pièce (je fais ici référence à à peu près la moitié du premier acte). D'autre part, des situations inutilements longues sont présentées (SEPT trésors? SEPT?!), ce qui ne fait rien pour alléger un texte déjà trop long. En tout, la pièce dur à peu près deux heures; l'histoire principale (en elle banale, un compte de fées présenté avec quelques valeurs francoalbertaines incorporées) aurait pu être réalisée en soixante-dix minutes.

Parlant de réalisation, une fois de plus, je dois m'avouer grandement déçu du travail de Levasseur-Ouimet au niveau de la mise en scène sur deux grandes lignes. Premièrement, il s'agit du manque de niveaux physiques sur la scène, et l'absence d'interprétations créatives sur l'utilisation des niveaux existants. Sur tout, il y avait trois niveaux utilisés - au plancher, une estrade à une élévation de trois pieds, et des balcons à quelques mètres, utilisés uniquement par les fées. Donc, finalement, pour les 28 autres personnages, il existe deux niveaux avec lesquels jouer. C'est loin d'être assez pour pousser à fond des idées non-verbales comme l'autorité, la situation géographique, et d'autres faits se relatants au théatre; au contraire, ca rend très plat, même bi-dimensionnelle, l'expérience présentée. Et de ca, les deux niveaux n'étaient pas biens utilisés - toujours tous en haut ou tous en bas, très peu d'en haut et d'en bas, et encore moins d'échanges verbaux entre les deux. Cela contribue à encore un autre raison que la pièce paraît très enfantile - l'approche physique en est toujours à une base, et rien de plus.

En deuxième temps, s'il y a quelque chose qui n'avait simplement pas ca place sur scène, c'était la musique. Malgré que j'apprécie le fait que des artistes aient été embauchés pour jouer "live" aux prestations, ces artistes ne contribuaient rien et retiraient beaucoup en étant placés sur le tiers arrière de l'estrade, un espace qui aurait pu être utilisé pour possiblement approfondir les jeux d'espace physique sur scène (avoir une basse de quelques milles dollars sur scène réduit effectivement ce qu'on peut accomplir côté action dans ce bout de la scène.). Les musiciens aurait pu facilement être à coté de la scène et toujours visible, ou même derrière l'auditoire. Les placer en pleine vu dans un espace très valorisé était probablement l'idée LA plus terrible de la présentation d'Entre deux pays.

Côté musical, j'avoue avoir été déçue en première moitié. Les mélodies (encore écrites par Lévasseur-Ouimet) ressemblaient plus souvent que pas à des chants de Noël; il y avait effectivement peu d'originalité musicale investie dans leur présentation. J'accepte le fait que le théatre communataire chantant doit pouvoir voir ses membres chanter les mélodies, mais ce n'est aucunement une raison de les rendre banales, en espérant que leurs lacunes seraient couvertes par un excellent texte. En première partie, seul le chant des fées était construit de façon originale (une interprétation que j'ai bien aimé, malgré quelques notes un peu trop bémols à l'occasion - mais c'est du théatre communautaire, il faut presque s'attendre à de telles situations). C'était donc avec joie que j'ai vu le problème se régler en deuxième partie (jusqu'aux chants finaux). Musicalement, je dois par contre féliciter Marie-Josée Ouimet pour d'excellents arrangements pour basse, guitar, clavier et trompette, et de plus en reconnaissant les limites musciales sévères que imposées par l'auteure de la pièce.

Sur le tout, c'est décevant que tant de gens aient travaillés de façon si ardueuse pour présenter l'idée incomplète et incohérante de France Lévasseur-Ouimet. Trop long, trop de personnages, trop de banal et peu d'innovation, une mise en scène préferant les caricatures lors de numéros musicaux à l'utilisation maximale de la scène, mais surtout, le manque d'actions dans l'histoire menant à l'évaluation critique de normes sociales de n'importe quels genres par le public - voilà les grands défauts d'Entre deux pays. J'espère qu'à l'avenir je ne serai pas le seul à exiger plus d'une dame qui a déjà accompli bien plus par le passé.

Long Time No C

2005-09-10T15:33:00.000-06:00

Alas, it has been a while, but I have returned to blogging at last! I also want to point out that this will be the first of a number of musically-oriented blogs that will be posted in the upcoming weeks, covering broad topics like tonality, self-criticism in music, and even a few compositional experiments (such as a step-by-step serial transformation of a tonal theme...). Before I jump into it though, I feel compelled to passingly mention that someone else has also gotten back into blogging, as per contractual obligation. Now that it's done, enjoy.

*****

If there's one thing that still perplexes me a great deal about music to this day, it's our continued fixation with the note C. It seems to continue to be the center of musical everything, be it learning, composition, orchestration... and for no good reason at that!

First a little history. The idea of giving certain pitches of sound is said to be derived from Pythagoras' experiments in Ancient Greece, where the various inflections placed on a string of fixed length produced various pitches, with some relations being determined. For example, reducing the vibrating string to one half of it's original length produced a pitch now known as one octave higher, if tension and other factors were constant. Other ratios were developed for intervals now known as the fifth, fourth, and the major and minor thirds. Onwards, various pitches assembled together in major and minor second intervals came to develop modes. It developed to such an extent that Plato later recommended in his Republic that all should stay away from the mixed Lydian mode for it was too harsh, and again from the Ionian and Lydian mode since they were without any musical tension (Two side points: while the names are the same, these modes were different from those later used by the Catholic church in Gregorian Chant. Secondly, Plato was of the opinion that music was a heavenly gift that could be used to better peoples lives if the right mix of music - from the Dorian and Phrygian modes - was heard, improving intellect and body.).

Fast track to the times of the Romans, who adopted the general themes of the Greeks, but renamed the pitches to better suit their own alphabet, and something close to the modern pitch names was born. A was firmly cemented in music theory, and all other note names were derived from this A based on the popular Aeolian mode. Music evolved mostly around the Roman Aeolian, Dorian, Lydian and Phrygian modes and their plagal counterparts.

Fast track a few more hundred years, and modern tonality starts becoming popular, also known under the banner of the exploration of the relationships between the Ionian and Aeolian modes. I suspect this is where the problem started, with the key of C+ becoming the base for the new system of organizing musical pitches. We havn't really looked back since the late 1500's.

Now, given note names, it makes no sense whatsoever that we base something around C as opposed to A. Mathematically, I believe you could compare this to starting at number 3, then eventually coming back around to talk about 1 and 2, probably from reverse order. There are also mathematical and scientific reasons why continuing to establish C as the basis for musical learning should cease at once.

A properly made tuning fork should sound a perfect 440 Hertz when struck. This frequency is equal to an A above middle C (I despise using middle C as a point of reference when discussing music theory or philosophy...). 440 is a nice number, easily divisible into a number of smaller parts. Applying some music theory, using this number, it is possible to determine the frequency of a middle C. For simplicity's sake and using the base interval ratios (mentioned above) instead of their conjugates, going from A to C would be equivalent to going down one octave and up a minor third. The ratio for the octave is 2:1, whereas the minor third's is 6:5 . Down one octave to A, we can easily calculate that the lower A has a frequency of 220 Hertz, and from there, that the C above it resonates at 264 Hertz, hardly as nice a number for mathematical calculations, if nothing else.

The thing that really gets me is that C has been delegated as the first note any aspiring music student learns in almost any course of study of any instrument. I'll agree that learning plain and old simple C as a first time student is far easier than wrapping your mind around the numerous complexities that a B flat might present, but A offers the same advantages, if not more, as all the notes then follow a logical flow - you get to G, hey, look at that, were back where we started, it sounds similar, therefore it's a new A. Try doing that from C - you get to G, and all of a sudden, you have to go to A, and then you're allowed to climb back up to see. I've seen my own pupils get confused at what seems to be so elementary to most of us, and only because all those books are taking the wrong approach in teaching note names. Fine, I do recognize that C has the advantage of immediately grounding the student in traditional tonal systems, but in this day and age, that's no longer enough - students must be familiar with more harmonic systems, including an A natural minor scale, the younger the better. The reason kids don't appreciate Messiaen's sense of tonality (he argues that it's there in his Technique de mon language musical, I tend to agree based on my definition of what tonality should be...) is partially because from the beginning we have them play nice little pieces in C+ that shy away from dissonance. We teach them that dissonance is bad because these cute little pieces alternate between the chords of I, IV and V, and anything outside that is a minor chord and thus to be avoided. If a minor chord is to be avoided, how are we supposed to appreciate the beauty of an augmented chord with a minor 9th added on top? Even on the other side of the musical learning, that thing called jazz, most books teach the chords and progressions and techniques from a base of C. How unoriginal.

Aside from affecting musical learning and the immediate issues that brings up, C is used even at professional standards. An orchestra tunes to a Concert C. You'd think these guys would be able to mix it up a bit and tune to any note the Concermaster would feel like on any given night, but no. It speaks to how restricted we've become in our choice of pitches for musical selection. Now, someone might argue that it's only a system of pitches and that transposition negates all of this, that the real difference is actually in the intervals and harmonics used. These people entirely miss the point - works are composed in certain keys either because they sound better to the composer in those keys (Mendelssohn's defense of why he wrote in Violin Concerto in E- comes to mind) or, especially in larger ensembles, certain keys ease the technical demands placed on the performers.

Speaking of composition, C is a very central key used in popular works. Here I am, trying to make a case for the overhauling of the system in favour of A, and for every 8 works or so I think up that are famous that are in C, I can only think up one that's in A. For the record, the only thing in the classical repertoire in A that I could think of was Mozart's Turkish March, in A minor. For C, I have Beethoven's Symphony #5 (-), Bach's First Prelude (+), Mozart's First Sonata (+), the opening to Wagner's Tristan und Isolde (kinda + and -), Chopin's Grand Polonaise Brilliante, his Revolutionary Etude, Terry Riley's In C and even childhood perennial favorite Big Teddy Little Teddy by Canadian Linda Niamath. Now, try as I might to plead a case for A here, it seems the favorites (and odds) are against me. Is the situation so far out of control that people just better respond to the key of C, or does the very great number of works written in C simply give probability the edge here?

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that if we are not to adopt A, then perhaps D would make for an equally good choice, for no reason other than a Dorian scale is its own inversion and that D would facilitate the learning of this new musical system. It's appeal is strictly theoretical, but a shift to the dorain mode could lead to some very interesting compositional results, given this characteristic. I refer the most interested of readers to Erik Satie's La balançoire, from his Sports et Divertissements for solo piano.

And so, I hope that I have made a compelling case for dropping C as a musical basis. It has served its purpose, it is time we approached music from a different angle, if for no reason other than just to avoid the stagnation of the art.

The Exam

2005-08-18T17:02:00.000-06:00

I had my ARCT Piano Performance exam today.

It went super-duper. I'm thinking I'll hit the 80.

I now qualify to hold an ARCT Performance diploma. Yay!

Geeky gaming galore

2005-08-13T16:30:00.000-06:00

On the advice of my roomate last night, I went to a garage sale today, just across the street. Here I found a GameCube on sale, and for the measely sum of 50$ for the system, connections, two controllers and a 256 memory card (easily worth 175$ new, and it all works perfectly). Pretty sweet deal if you ask me - obviously the 15 year old kid either really wanted to get rid of it, or simply didn't know what proper 2nd hand value of such a set was. Regardless, I ran to the bank and all the way back, and now the system is mine. Muhahaha!

I purchased Resident Evil and RE Zero from the kid for a few measely bucks. On the immediate shopping list:

- An original version Metroid Prime game disc, possibly a Player's Choice version for casual fun.
- Zelda: WW
- Metroid Prime 2
- Pre-order Mega Man X Collection
- Pre-order Twilight Princess

If anyone has suggestions as to what I should be trying, comment away (I'm looking at you Nick, ie, I need you to lend me RE4).

The Strike: Further Addendum

2005-08-10T23:13:00.000-06:00

So I've already announced how awesome things at work are. To give a slight update on things:

- I got a free Telus T-shirt the week before last. It's awesome, simply by virtue of it having one of those very cool lizards that are running around in the commercials on the back.

- Anytime I work early or late, I get a cab ride to work/back home for free. Score!

- All 'bargaining unit' members (read: Union members) who continue to report are paid a 30$ 'supplementary expenses reimbursement' every time they report to work; in actual truth, I think the word 'bonus' in more appropriate, given that all the things they say its supposed to cover, we already get some other way. Security is paid for by the company. Meals are paid for by the company. Risky-hour transportation is covered. I'm clothed. It's a bonus. So if I work a 4 hours shift, I am technically making close to 21$ an hour answering phones. Not quite the same rate or excitement as piano lessons, but hey...

- And as of today, Darren, our CEO, has decided to offer every bargaining unit member who's working a new MP3 player. Not the hugest capacity or anything, but it's good for people who have been wanting to try out the tech without dropping a pound of bills for it.

Somebody wake me up.

Ce que j'aime le moins à propos d'être musicien

2005-08-04T23:01:00.000-06:00

Lors d'un voyage récent au Québec dans le cadre du 50ième anniversaire de marriage de mes grandparents, j'ai découvert ce que c'était que je détestais le plus à propos du fait d'être musicien. Ce n'est pas pour dire que je déteste le tout, plutôt le contraire, comme plusieurs d'entre vous l'avez probablement témoigné à diverses reprises.

Je crois qu'il y a malgré tout, même ces emplois rêvés que nous espérons tous un jour atteindre, quelque chose de négatif, quelque chose qui nous achale plus que la raison. Pour moi, j'ai trouvé ce que c'est.

Pour vous donner un peu de contexte, pour la fête, j'étais plus ou moins l'un des musiciens désignés. Mes tâches ont inclus chanter l'Ave Maria de Gounod lors de la messe spéciale, et présenter un petit spectacle lors du souper au piano (du Debussy, une étude et le 2ième Scherzo de Chopin). Rien d'exceptionnellement difficile.

Le problème est survenu après la messe. Si je suis au 50ième anniversaire de mes grandparents, c'est également parce qu'il y a des tas de gens que je ne connais pas. Immédiatement après la messe, c'était comme si, pour ces gens-là, je n'étais pas Guillaume, mais plutôt un chanteur qui avait donné une interprétation plus ou moins convaincante de l'Ave Maria. À partir de ce moment-là, tout ce que ces gens voulaient savoir sur moi c'était depuis combien de temps j'étudiais le chant, avec peut-être une mention passante de mes habiletés pianistiques. Tout à propos de moi autre que la musique n'était pas d'intérêt. C'était comme une dissociation totale de l'artiste et la personne dans un contexte social.

J'ai détesté l'expérience. Dites ce que vous voudrez à mon sujet, je suis plus que seulement un pianiste/chanteur. Je suis peut-être quand même plus pianiste que compositeur pour l'instant, mais même cela change un peu plus à tous les jours. J'étais pris dans le corps d'un interprète, sans pouvoir m'en échapper. Encore plus achalants sont les gens qui disent 'Bravo! Félicitations!' sans rien ajouter de plus. À quoi servirait de tels commentaires, ces expressions 'vides', superficiaux, lancés à moitié par politesse, l'autre juste parce que c'est ce que font les autres aux alentours. Si moi je chantais ou jouais de façon si vide et sans connexion aux oeuvres, est-ce que je serais convainquant? Si je ne comprenais pas les oeuvres de façon plus theorique, est-ce que je pourrais quand même donner le même genre d'interprétation?

Ciel que non. Pourquoi donc est-ce que tous ces rodeurs me tournent autour, me lançant des commentaires sur comment ils ont apprécié, sans vouloir en savoir plus? Si j'ai vraiment réussi à développer un intérêt, ne serait-il pas logique que, par définition du mot intérêt, que ces gens soient plus intéressés que la petite minute où je récite, de façon catégorique, que j'ai 20 ans, je suis pianiste depuis l'age de 4 ans et j'étudie en musique à l'Université de l'Alberta à Edmonton.

Il me semble qu'à chaque fois que je rencontre un pianiste, j'essaye d'en savoir un peu plus sur la musique, sur le processus d'apprentissage, sur le cheminement de l'artiste. Je me dis que si l'artiste m'a vraiment marqué, je devrais m'efforcer pour concrétiser pourquoi. Donc, il y a deux semaines, quand ma prof de piano, Patty Tao, a interprété un concerto pour piano chinois avec l'Orchestre Symphonique des Jeunes de Hong Kong, nous avons parlé des différences entre jouer un concerto oriental et un concerto tonal, des technique d'appretissage, etc. Peut-être que c'était seulement parce que nous avons déjà une relation prof-étudiant d'établie, mais j'ose croire que c'est également parce que j'ai un intérêt développé de ce côté, et que je veux en savoir plus. Cela, après tout, fait partie du processus de l'écoute active. C'est pourquoi les meilleurs fans des groupes populaires réclament continuellement des entrevues, des analyses de pièces, des transcriptions - pour mieux pouvoir comprendre d'où vient cette musique, que ce soit conscient ou non.

Au fonds de tout ceci, probablement ce que je crains le plus, c'est d'être reconnu comme musicien, mais non comme individu dans la société. Pour moi, mes modèles, ceux que je regarde en me disant que j'aimerais être comme eux, ne sont pas simplement artistes. Ils sont avant tout des gens, grandement reconnus dans le domaine de la musique, mais pour lesquelles les contributions vont plus loin que la musique. On parle de Laurier Fagnan, de Tommy Banks, en passant par John Williams.

Est-ce vraiment trop à demander d'être vu pour qui je suis et non ce que je fais?

Can't we all just enjoy a little hot coffee?

2005-07-31T14:34:00.000-06:00

It has recently (read: 2 weeks ago, and I'm too busy to write anything worthwile here until now) come to my attention that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has been causing quite the commotion lately. For the clueless, basically, in a computer version of the game, a Dutch fan started messing around with the code, and stumbled upon a secret scene in which any of the "hero's" many girlfriends is seen in a rather revealing position whilst positioned for rather suggestive acts. This news quickly spread through the Internet, and soon GTA:SA games on all platforms were getting the 'hot coffee' unlocked through code-changing devices, usually intended for switching on invincibility or unlimited ammo or clipping or something of the sort.

In response to this news, the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, quickly upgraded its rating of San Andreas from 'Mature', for players 17 and over, to 'Adult Only', rated 18 and over. I find this situation to be rather disturbing, and not because 17 year olds will no longer have access to light porn on their PS2.

If I'm not mistaken, this would be the very first significant 'Adults Only' rating the ESRB has ever given out. Even Playboy Mansion didn't get that an AO, and my understanding of that game is that it is often more graphic in nature than what the people over at GameSpot described for the 'hot coffee' mod in San Andreas. Furthermore, the object of Playboy mansion is to have sex, while in GTA, this is only a 'sidequest' if you will, and not even intended to be in the final product. This means one of two things: either the ESRB doesn't know what an AO game should be and are afraid to label one as such, or that the current standards aren't an effective qualitative measure of video game appropriateness. Given that most of the time I agree with the ESRB, I'm tempted to think that they just have a poorly outlined vision of what an AO game should be. Some people of course are willing to jump on their backs at every possible occasion, which isn't any better as then the various courts and individual judges start defining parameters, where these boundaries should have been clearly established back in the 16-bit days.

As Penny Arcade adequately pointed out, the Adults Only description almost makes the Mature rating sound more serious - on one hand, this allows the ESRB to toss in whatever they feel is necessary into the AO category, but on the other, it 'restricts' what they can do with it, if games are meeting more criteria for M-rating than AO, than that just defeats the original purpose breadth intended by criteria-based assessment.

Furthermore, I think there is a pressing legal issue here - slapping something with an 18+ rating necessarily restricts the material's access to minors. If a Board is to be able to conduct legal matters, it must hold legal statute, something the ESRB currently lacks. Take a look at what the ESRB says about itself from its website:

What is the Entertainment Software Rating Board?

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory body for the interactive entertainment software industry established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), formerly the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA). ESRB independently applies and enforces ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the computer and video game industry.

Read between the lines. They don't hold any legal power whatsoever. They are a non-profit organization, (and to a further extent, an interest group) just like the local Soup Kitchen or the NRA. They get funding from the government (Hillary Clinton is particularly big on the ESRB) and probably some companies to evaluate games. Read further between the lines, as complimented by the wording of the following on their fact page:

More than 550 publishers have submitted products to the ESRB for ratings since 1994.

Companies aren't required to submit materials. They do so because it is the norm. At any time though, they could choose not to - it wouldn't look favorably on them, but currently, there doesn't appear to be a legal US statute that dictates otherwise. Not that this necessarily means a lot in Canada anyway. We mooch off the Americans anyway for game ratings.

Consider the above though. If one needs power to invoke special measures for 18+ material, but one lacks said powers, then the highly limited use of the AO rating so far is simply a reflection of the ESRB itself - that it realizes it can't impose anything and can only act as an interest group for responsible sales by merchants. What then would suddenly warrant an AO rating for San Andreas? None other than public pressure. Because it has no legal weight, and is therefore only tied to its own standards, the ESRB can follow where public opinion - which is in most cases, on any topic, highly general and filled with stereotypes and few personal experiences - tends to direct itself. This is most disappointing. While following public trends is good in democracy, if you are an organization sworn to the objective, criterion-based evaluation of a product, all exterior influences must be excluded for you to do your job correctly. Otherwise, not only are you unjustly according ratings for certain games, but you are also eroding the very foundation of your principles, all in the name of appearing positively in the public eye - your rating system becomes nothing more than a clever corporate marketing trick for the companies. Furthermore, take a look at the following link for job/volunteer opportunities at the ESRB. Organizations that hold legal power and that will enforce do not depend on volunteers in NYC with a few hours to spare every month reviewing games. Any organization claiming professionalism and professional standards would be demeaned to be employing these standards.

(All of this is to say nothing of the additional implications an 18+ game carries. This article confirms what we already all know, that parents essentially don't care what their kids play, but then blame it violence on video games. My mom had the common sense not to get me Primal Rage (dismal game anyway) or other such games when I was young. I got games like Zelda, Mario Paint and Tetris Attack (by the way, I am now the proud owner of a Game Boy version of the game as well). It also suggests that 18+ is seen as a way of promoting mature content as opposed to banning it for those to young, in which case a parent would only need to believe that their child is mature enough to handle the situations for them to buy the game for them. And quite honestly, what's seeing a nipple when you can go outside and beat cops dead? One of those seems a lot more serious than the other...)

With this in mind, despite the many objectionable topics explored by San Andreas, I believe the original rating should stand, not because of the material itself, but how that material stacked up against pre-existing standards, and therefore, its videogame peers. The game probably should have been an AO from the start, but obviously the ESRB didn't have the balls to slap that on until the public got on their back. This is not an example by which to lead the industry of professional evaluation.

The strike: addendum

2005-07-24T23:37:00.000-06:00

So I've crossed the picket line.

On my own feelings and some counsel from others, it's rather obvious that this is the right move. This was further supported when I walked into work today.

While the protesters outside are walking around the building with their flashy signs making not-so-hurtful comments at people going in, I'm inside, doing my job, earning a comfortable wage with plenty of opportunity for overtime (read: $19,58/hour), being given great feedback and attention, probably a good recommendation too once I quit. But best of all, they're actually feeding me. I seriously walked into the break lounge to a buffet - apparently the company doesn't want people unnecessarily entering/leaving the building for security reasons, so I'm provided with a fully catered meal(s) anytime I'm working. The people outside get Timbits.

I'm totally getting the better end of this deal.

So am I on strike or am I locked out?

2005-07-21T13:31:00.000-06:00

As many of you doubtlessly know, I work for Telus.

This fact came as a disappointing one this morning.

Let's start at the beginning. While I certainly won't pretend to adore my job, I do tend to think it's very good summer work. Staightforward task, clear objectives, enough repetition but also good variety, well paid. I never hate going to work, but I'm always glad when my shift is over. I suppose you could say I maintain a very neutral position vis-a-vis it.

Now, the union probably doesn't like me saying this, but I think I'm well treated in my office. My manager is an approachable guy who's always willing to help out. When I don't meet my objectives, he doesn't threaten me to get my act together, he asks me what he thinks is holding me back from attaining them, and then we work out a plan together.

In comes the union. The union lady I met was scary. She seriously painted a picture that my workplace was the seventh or eighth level of Hell. I totally disagree with her. And now, the union is just acting, well, stupid.

I'll make the record clear: I don't approve of a company unilaterally implementing an offer. But I also don't approve of a union where there hasn't been a vote on an offer in five years, where the executive tells the members what to do and not vice-versa.

Which brings me to my point.

CBC tells me we've talked off the job. My union webpage tells me we're locked out. My manager tells me I'm welcome when I please. My union boss tells me I'll be fined 10,000$ for accepting my manager's offer. I'm actually quite tempted to give her the finger and go, given we're not locked out, and that we have not voted for a strike as defined in Article XVII of our Constitution. The thing is poorly written enough so that even a non-law school, average debater such as myself can spot the myriad of loopholes I could exploit at my leisure at any time. The question then becomes if it's ethical to break out of your union because of its own incompetence - it resounds of an attitude of collectiveness when things work, but independence when they don't, and it's not a stance I particularly like, much less for myself.

God do I ever hate this situation.

And now for something completely different...

2005-07-07T22:37:00.000-06:00

Adapted from somewhere else:

01. Reply with your name and I will write something short about you.
02. I will then tell what classical music work that I think aptly characterizes you.
03. If I were to apply a day of the week to you, it would be...
04. I will try to name a single word that best describes you.
05. I'll tell you the most memorable moment I've had with you.
06. I will tell you what animal you remind me of.
07. I'll then tell you something that I've always wondered about you.
08. Put this in your journal.

Fier d'être Canadien

2005-07-01T21:45:00.000-06:00

Bonne Fête du Canada à vous tous!

Donc, pour donner un peu de contexte, aujourd'hui, j'étais au travail, et ce qui m'a surpris comme rien d'autre était la nonchalence de plusieurs Québécois vis-à-vis la fête nationale. Ce n'est pas nécéssairement cela qui m'a intéressé, mais plutôt les conditions entourant ce sentiment, et à quel point certains individus politilisent cet évènement. Je m'explique.

Ma grand-mère habite un petit village qu'aucun d'entre vous n'a jamais entendu parler. Une petite place qui s'appelle Racine, au Quebec, pas trop loin de Valcourt, où Bombardier fabrique par milliers ses Ski-Doos par l'hiver et ses Sea-Doos par l'été.

Ma grand-mère a toujours été fédéraliste. Elle me compte bien des histoires de son temps dans les 1970 et 1980. Mon grand-père également, et, homme influentiel dans son temps, on me dit qu'il y a souvent eu des noms importants qui sont venus rendre visite chez eux - René Lévêque et un très jeune Pierre Trudeau figurent parmi la liste d'après ma grand-mère. Peu importe qui passait par la porte, ma grand-mère a toujours cru à l'entité Canadienne, telle qu'elle existe (toujours) aujourd'hui. Dans un contexte politique, elle comprend qu'il y a d'autres points de vue, mais jamais elle ne traite les gens qui représentent ces idées de mauvaise foie. Tant qu'elle reçoive sa pension à la fin du mois, elle est heureuse. Malgré tout ceci, elle tout de même une personne pour qui la culture compte beaucoup - toutes ses filles et fils sont instruits à un niveau amateur compétent en musique, elle fête ouvertement toutes les célébrations culturelles et religieuses, incluant, bien sur, la Fête du Canada.

Une chose qu'elle m'a racontée l'été dernier par contre m'a marqué. Elle a beau respecter les opinions politiques des autres, ce qu'elle n'accepte pas, c'est qu'on mèle politique et culture (j'exclus ici dans la définition de culture toute forme de religiosité). Effectivement, il semblerait que le maire, François Côté, soit séparatiste. Pas que ce soit une bonne ou une mauvaise chose en soit (du moins dans le contexte que je le présente...). Ce qui m'a touché c'était à quel point cet individu n'avait pas honte de détruire le Canada pour remonter le Québec à toute occasion.

L'évènement en particulier auquel je fais référence est le fait que M. Côté refuse carrément de voir, à partie égale, le 24 juin et le 1 juillet. En effect, depuis qu'il est maire, la municipalité de Racine refuse essentiellement de reconnaître le jour du Canada de façon officielle (et je suspecte cela malgré la vacance qu'il doit s'offrir ce jour-là). Pas de feux d'artifice, pas de cérémonie, rien - tout cela est réservé uniquement pour le 24 juin.

Essentiellement, voici ce que j'essaye de dire: que l'on soit d'accord avec des sentiments nationalistes ou non, dépendent de la définition de 'nation' d'après individu, je ne vois aucune raison pour laquelle des hommes (ou femmes) politiques devraient se servir d'un jour pour servir à leurs ambitions politiques, un jour sur lequel nous devrions tous célébrer notre patrimoine canadien à la place d'en argumenter ses qualités et défauts. Évidemment, il n'y a rien de sacré de ces jours-ci, au point où un individu avec de l'influence fait dévaloir un certain point de vue à travers ses gestes avec l'intention d'en populariser un autre.

J'espère que vous êtes fier de vous, M. Côté, car manipuler le publique, je trouve que ca manque de cran de votre part, et qu'il y a peu de fierté qu'on peu découler de gestes si lâches. Bravo.

Comme qui dirait, bonne Fête du Canada.

Question de leadership

2005-06-21T23:31:00.000-06:00

Le leadership est une chose bien curieuse. Bien des gens le recherchent, sans jamais savoir ce que c'est, ni pouvoir le quantifier. On développe des cours entiers dédiés à l'enseignement d'une telle chose. Sans jamais vraiment savoir si ca donne des résultats.

Regardons d'abord le contexte le plus souvent utilisé pour le leadership: le service communautaire. Peu importe ce que diront les plus grands comités de bourse, je suis convaincu que le service communautaire et le leadership n'ont rien à voir l'un avec l'autre. Ca prend plus que ça pour être vrai leader. Être impliqué au sein de la communauté signifie participer à un changement en cours, d'une façon ou d'une autre. Être leader, c'est initier le changement qui viendra. La nuance est loin d'être subtile. Poussons plus loin - s'il y a un changement qui est initié, c'est qu'il faut des gens pour suivre et se conformer à ce changement s'il va réussir et devenir la norme. Ce qui veut essentiellement dire que, dans le service communautaire, il y a des 'suiveux' et des 'leaders'. Ca prend les deux.

Pourtant, j'ai déjà vu des gens très impliqués gagner des bourses de leadership, et ce sans être leader. Et ne parlons même pas d'élections scolaires, où le leadership est réduit à un concours de popularité, et non celui de plus compétent (les élections de la SU de cette année prouvent amplement et entièrement ce concept. Désolé Zita.). Je crois qu'il est important de clarifier quelque chose: tous les leaders passent à l'action et implantent leurs stratégies (du moins je l'espère, par pure définition du mot), mais pas tous les 'suiveux' prennent l'initiative. Je dirais même que certains d'entre eux sont très satisfaits de suivre. Et c'est correct ca. Tant qu'ils reconnaissent qu'ils ne sont pas leaders dans le champ et ne se promouvoient pas comme cela.

Bon, deuxième chose: s'il faut un leader et des 'suiveux' pour effectuer un changement, c'est évident que pas tout le monde peut être leader. D'où viennent alors les questions sur l'utilité du développement du leadership. J'offre quelques exemples. Premièrement, les 'cours' de 'leadership' donnés au secondaire. Je ne nierai pas que ces ateliers sont formatteurs, mais je questionne si ils le sont tant qu'au leadership. Dans ces petites fins de semaines, on parle de comment s'entraider, comment travailler en équipe. Youpi. Encore une fois, toutes des choses avec un lien direct au leadership, mais sans tout à fait en être par soi-même. Si les seules choses qu'on pratique dans ces ateliers sont les habiletés requises pour bien mener à l'innovation, la seule chose qu'on accompli vraiment est de discipliner ceux qui ne sont pas portés, à ce moment-là, d'être leaders et de mieux se soumettre aux approches que prendront les leaders pour les faire travailler à leur compte. Pas nécéssairement une mauvaise chose, mais pas la meilleure des choses nonplus, car c'est ultimement renforcer l'idée qu'il y a ceux qui sont 'nés pour mener' et les autres qui sont condamnés à suivre. Pour un atelier qui cherche à développer le leadership chez tous et chacun, ce n'est pas tout à fait un résultat qui parle hautement de la valeur réelle de l'atelier en question.

Deuxièmement, c'est ce que je vais appeller la compétition des leaders. Voici une approche moderne pour trouver qui est le meilleur leader, souvent pour les besoins d'une compétition quelquoncque. Mon avis franc, c'est que le leadership ne se mesure pas par le nombre de mots sur papier qui phrasent le mieux les contributions d'un individu, et qu'on ne devrait pas essayer de le mesurer de cette façon nonplus. Le leadership pourrait s'exprimer par des lettres écrites avec une intention de pousser le changement en question (mais seulement si fait de façon occasionnelle, un détail qu'un certain M. Smith et The Gateway voudraient possiblement remarquer), mais non comme une évaluation de son leadership par le passé.

Il faut donc témoigner du leadership directement pour bien l'évaluer, mais cela en soi-même devient de moins en moins positif. Je cite notamment les Jeux de la Francophonie Canadienne qui présenteront un volet 'leadership compétitif'. Malgré que j'applaudi l'initiative par son concept, en pratique, je ne vois pas de meilleur moyen de dégonfler la volonté et la confiance en soi des équipes (et en conséquence, les jeunes) qui arriveront au bas des rangs. Je connais plusieurs gens qui participeront au nom de la délégation albertaine, et je détesterais voir une mauvaise expérience nuire à leur désir évident de transformer la communauté. Parmi l'équipe est celle que je vois (et que je souhaite) devenir la présidente de Francophonie Jeunesse de l'Alberta en 2009 ou en 2011. Il lui reste beaucoup de chemin à faire, mais cette petite-là m'a convaincu dans les trois premières minutes que je l'ai connue qu'elle sera compétente pour le poste en temps et lieux, et ce malgré ses 15 ans. Voir une telle jeunesse, influençable, facilement changée (parfois à jamais par une seule expérience), s'aventurer dans une telle chasse aux crocodiles m'inquiète; est-ce vraiment la meilleure chose pour le leadership et ultimement, la communauté, de voir qui est le meilleur leader? J'ai peur que ca crée une hiérarchie, premièrement en dedans de la compétition, et deuxièmement, à l'intérieur du groupe, qui ne se déplacera jamais.

La dernière raison que tout ceci m'inquiète, c'est que ca transforme le leadership en ambition d'être le meilleur. Le vrai leadership se développe de l'intérieur, sans désir que ca nous ammène quelque part. Ajoute l'élément compétitif, et puis l'ambition, possiblement incontrôlée, est seulement la prochaine étape à l'échelle. Dans l'ambition incontrôlée, je ne vois que des problèmes. Des gens qui se mettent en position de pouvoir simplement pour en bénéficier, par exemple. Il n'y a rien de mal avec poursuivre des objectifs et utiliser des expériences comme tremplin vers ces buts, mais il y a là de grandes différences avec la simple ambition de détenir un pouvoir quelquoncque simplement pour le désir de l'avoir. Désirer être leader simplement pour en récolter les fruits est quelque chose duquel nous devrions tous nous tenir loin. Surtout si nous nous disons leaders pour commencer. Vaut donc mieux ré-évaluer les raisons pour lesquelles nous, leaders, choisissons de changer notre monde.

Hmm... je semble être plutôt éloigné des petites notes que je m'avais dressées ici avant de commencer. Bof, peu importe - j'aime encore mieux les conclusions que j'ai tirées.

The first step is admitting you have a problem

2005-06-16T19:34:00.000-06:00

I'm quite fond of my SNES. For the most part, it's still in very good condition. I should seriously be thinking about replacing my controllers (very easy via Ebay), but besides that, it works fine. Unless you want to play Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, as Jordan and myself recently discovered; it left us both in a deplorable mental and emotional state.

However, I must confess that I'm addicted to one title in particular. Tetris Attack, as it's known ,was first published in the fall of 1996. I remember getting it for Christmas that year. I think it's the only video game my parents ever bought me. It enjoyed relatively little success, but I still consider it to be excellent. In fact, the people over at EGM seem to agree: they recently ranked Tetris Attack as the 5th most underplayed game of all time. I also find it interesting to note that none other than the late Gunpei Yokoi, the man behind Metroid, my favorite series of all time, directed this project. A good abstract of the game can be found here.

Now, just to explain this title briefly, you basically start with a lot of different coloured blocks, somewhat like this:

The trick is to align the of the same coloured blocks. Doing so will make them disappear, also called a 'clear' (the three hearts on that screen shot would disappear momentarily if we were playing).

Seems relatively simple, eh? Now why would I be addicted to such a game? Simple answer: two player mode.

Consider this:



See that 'blue thing' on the right hand screen? Or the red of grey stuff on the left? That's 'garbage'. It's actually the technical term. A player can create garbage by doing one of three things:
1) put together MORE than 3 blocks simulaneously (Combo)
2) have one 'clear' result in another clear (Chain)
3) slap together three or more special silver blocks (Special Combo: creates silver garbage)

It's hard to describe all of this, do just watch this video to get an idea of it. Unfortunately it's only one player. I can't seem to find a non-score based 2-player video. You get rid of garbage by making a clear that touches a garbage block. It then converts into coloured blocks and these drop onto your pile and you can use them like any other block.

This game is seriously addictive. I've been playing since December 25, 1996 and I'm still not bored of it yet. Last night, I actually had a best-of-99 against the computer. I won the series 50-2 on the hardest difficulty level. Most of the matches take around a minute and a half, but they can be as short as fifteen seconds or even go into four or five minutes in length. Do the math yourself. Not that that's an abnorally long playing time, but playing the same game over and over - 52 sessions of it - is enough to convince me I have a problem of some sort. I no longer derive satisfaction from it, I just do it compulsively when I turn on my SNES. Especially now that Nick has my copy of Super Metroid.

And then I come to my computer and am amazed not to see letters rise from the bottom of the screen or those above drop onto the paragraph I'm currently working on.

Can't somebody help me?

Art is where the heart is (if you're educated)

2005-06-13T23:52:00.000-06:00

Every now and then, Nick and I end up having discussions about some aspect of art theory. Usually they are part of a debate of a tournament that we're competing in or the resulting discussion after the round. I quite honestly like discussing the many aspects of art theory.

The other day, Wendy and myself were having a debate about something arguably trivial when she blurts out that something that basically amounts to 'art is reserved for society's most educated.' As a musician and composer, I was taken aback by such a statement; I effectively told her that I needed to think about that topic a bit more before agreeing or disputing her view. Now that I've done that, I certainly won't pretend to have all the answers, but I'm certainly leaning towards this being false.

Now, let me begin by saying that if Wendy had stated this as 'art is reserved for society's most intelligent', or 'for society's richest', I would have reluctantly agreed. On the question of wealth, simply because those who have money generally have more art (and I use the term to mean fine arts and connected disciplines) available to them and/or are able to commission works for an occasion of some sort. In music as in other forms, this is as true back in the 1750's with celebrities such as Prince Esterhazy and F.J. Haydn as it is today with lesser known supporters, such as J. McIntyre (of the McIntyre Ranch in southern Alberta) sponsoring Canadian Howard Cable (best known for his orchestral rendition of Hockey Night in Canada) for a work about Alberta. For intelligence, I defend this claim by pointing that one's appreciation of art is often determined by the conscient recognition of patterns (or lack thereof), and that standard 'intelligence' measurements examine how well people recognize patterns, and this in any of the eight types of intelligence.

But no, Wendy had to make things complicated and tell me this was for society's most educated. Let's note right now that being educated does not necessarily mean being wealthy or intelligent, although there certainly is a tendency for these three traits to be connected.

I suppose the first step to solving this puzzle is determining what art is. Now, I certainly won't claim that this is the best answer or even a remotely correct one, but here goes: art is a form of self-expression that is delivered with the intent of artistic interpretation. How you go about the creative process of self-expression is different for everyone though. I see two approaches: self-expression through the judgement and consideration of what one feels, or simply letting out what one feels unaltered. There are famous artists in both categories - I cite Johannes Brahms and Beethoven in the former, and the young Mozart in the second. Given that these were famous artists, and that fame is a result of social admiration, we can logically conclude that society doesn't prefer one method of creation to another. Similarly, I would argue that the educated therefore don't favour one approach over the other, and this simply by virtue that education generally leads to more exposure to art, and we havn't seen movements crying out against any one form of creation despite this exposure. If anything, the most educated have traditionally pushed for newer art forms with new interpretative challenges, although I recognize that there are sometimes other forces at work behind these pushes; for instance, nationalism in a post-1871 France pushing Impressionism into the local spotlight.

It is said that, in art, understanding builds appreciation. Some might then go on to assume that since the educated often have a more holistic understanding of life, society, what have you, this would prove that the original statement is correct because understanding leads to appreciation (which can be positive or negative, I realize, but appreciation of the art no less - we should not fuse together the concepts of appreciation and that of judgement of the appreciation, often in comparison to other works of art.). I disagree simply on the idea that even if the educated could therefore possess more breadth of relations for comparison purposes, that in no way means art is reserved for them. The contrary would almost suggest that art is targeted specifically at the educated. But is art actually targeted at anyone or anything? Save politicized art, such as this famous example, created with the intent of raising some controversy and delivering a message, it is difficult to assess. If it can be, how does one consciously go about targeting the art? In particular, this troubles me as I'm getting set to do a commissioned composition within a year. Some have suggested that targeting a specific audience can be done through subtle, intellectual references that, correctly understood, greatly heighten the enjoyment. For example, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot is filled with Biblical references. But the question then becomes if you're targeting the work at a specific audience, or if you're inviting the uneducated to discover the subject at hand by teasing them. Such intentional fallacies, a situation where the artists' intents can be interpreted more than one way (I'm sure Nick will give us a more complete definition), greatly complicate the problem. And isn't the best art said to have broad appeal anyway?

The last theme that I reflected upon was that if expectations vis-à-vis art (you know I'm going to make it an 'à' and not a normal 'a'). We all have different opinions about works of art. The wide variety of opinions on something as common as movie reflects this, and often the opinions are more or less a reflection of the expectations one had of the work going in. Another example: children's art, be it visual arts, music or drama. We often don't expect children to be able to perform artistic function very well, and as such, when we see a particularly 'good' piece, it sticks out as such. Now I say 'good' because implied is that we have a different set of expectations for children as we do, say, a street caricaturist. You expect the latter to be able to draw nice ly curved, elliptical lines. On the whole, we're basically artificially lowering (or raising) our expectations of art depending on who is producing it. Being willing to do this ultimately leads to more (or less) appreciation being available. We understand that children do not yet have perfect motor coordination skills, and it influences our appreciation of their work. This situation described, would we rationally expect someone educated to derive more satisfaction from something that's supposed to look like a horse than someone who isn't? Of course not. And therein is the suggestion that expectations and understanding are not directly linked to appreciation. It seems to have to do more with personal connections with the art at hand.

Now, I suppose that some people would argue that you can have more connections if you're more educated, and maybe that's true, but given what I've described above, it seems like circular logic to me.

So in the end, I suppose I disagree with Wendy on the issue. I suspect that her view was created more as a response to a social perception that the educated are the only ones that have time to comtemplate art in its many forms. But this in itself does not necessarily mean it is reserved for them.

Sorry Wendy, seems we're disagreeing again.

For English, press 1... Pour Français, appuyez sur le 2.

2005-06-10T19:50:00.000-06:00

The time has come.

The time has come to get me a blog.

You can look forward to a whole bunch of things around here... I'll try to be as open-minded as possible, but don't be surprised if there are major recurring themes coupled with bad humour, as is common in other places.

Autre point très important: Vous pouvez vous attendre à voir certains messages affichés en anglais, d'autres, en français. J'ai aucune idée ce qui déterminera quelle langue j'utiliserai pour quoi, mais je vous assure qu'il y aura une certaine variété. Vaut mieux venir explorer cet endroit prêt pour toutes les éventualités!

I might even switch language halfway through a post if I feel like it. Why? Because I can. Why else would I? Most of you know me well enough to know I can be a tad... pompous at times.

Alright, the first serious post will come later. Right now, I need to figure out this interface.