I rarely subject others to my singing, but I when I do I can be kind of obnoxious about it. I tend to be one of those people who thinks he can sing, but truth is, I really can't. It's not that I have a bad voice or that I can't carry a tune-- I actually think I have slightly above average musical abilities overall. I could never make a living at it, but I have a better aptitude for it than, I'd say, 60-70% of the population.
The problem with my voice is that I have absolutely no range. When I sing I have a natural tendency to mimic the performer. For most male tenor singers I have to go higher than my normal range to match them, and the result is always strained. I can hit lower notes easier than high ones, but my voice doesn't resonate well in the lower range for some reason. So I can sing along to Johnny Cash but my voice kind of gets swallowed up somewhere between my larynx and lips.
So I'm better in the middle ranges. If I could sing and had any range at all I'd most likely be your basic baritone.
There is one singer, however, who I have no problem matching for some reason, and that's Donovan. I can sing most of his songs, match his voice and it feels totally natural, not strained at all. So this leads me to believe that whatever key he sings in is what I should sing in. Also, I'd venture to guess, our phonatory systems are a similar size and shape. Too bad he's a brilliant musical genius and I'm not. See if you can match these too:
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Choosing My Religion
I've spent most of my life areligious. My mother grew up with a father who was a Unitarian minister, but she herself had (and still has) little use for organized religion. There was a Unitarian church somewhere in Pasadena that we used to go to when I was little. I think Unitarians are fine, but I tend to think of them as akin to agnostics. It's taking a position on religion without really taking a position on religion. Unitarianism is more of a hobby than a religion, I've always felt. My mother's mother was also a Unitarian, and her own father was a Unitarian minister as well. See a pattern?
My Unitarian minister grandfather was actually himself raised a Lutheran, as all old school Scandinavians were required by law to be. Lutherans are fine, I suppose. They remind me of Episcopalians in the sense that they're basically Catholics who just kind of took a different path a few hundred years ago. I actually admire Luther a lot for what he did, and how he attempted to bring what was then a very corrupt church (ahem, ahem) back to its basics, and made the emphasis the relationship between the individual and God, without all the horse and pony shows getting in the way.
My paternal grandmother was a Quaker and she took me to a meetinghouse in the San Gabriel area (Temple City?) a few times when I was little. I always liked the testimonies of simplicity and humility that Quakers adhere to, and the stripped-down stillness of unprogrammed worship has always been consistent with my personality. When forced to, I've often told people that I'm a Quaker, and they usually give me a perplexed look in return because they think I've just told them that I'm Amish. Anabaptist, sure. Amish, not quite.
My paternal grandfather and my stepfather's mother were both raised Catholic (as anyone born before 1950 who had a drop of Irish blood was required by law to be). My stepfather's mother (who I called Grammie) was a wonderful, strong woman who I have nothing but respect for and postive memories of. But she believed in fairies and thought that our pet cat was going to 'steal the breath' (a literal translation of a Gaelic phrase, apparently) from my younger brother when he was an infant (cue coo-coo clock noise). That has nothing to do with being Catholic, I realize, but furthers my argument that Irish Catholics tend to have one foot in Rome and one foot in pre-6th century Ireland when it comes to their belief systems.
I have great respect for Judaism but after living in New York for a few years I've come to the realization that culturally, I have nothing in common with American Jews and could never really feel a part of that community.
I have great respect for Islam in principle, but I don't have much use for the Islamic world. In order to get excited about a faith I have to look at its members and find something to admire. Most of the Islamic world seems hot, dusty, and angry. Also, extremists are in power in most Muslim-majority countries and I can't get around the fact that if you're a woman in an Islamic country your life just must be awful.
I have great respect for Buddhism and Hinduism on the surface, but once you dig a little deeper they both get very strange, especially Hinduism. In the same vein, I think Taosim has a lot of great principles but, at its core, seems better suited to a Chinese peasant living in the year 500, than it does for a Westerner living in the year 2009. Especially when that Westerner has already been exposed to concepts like "objective reality" and "goals".
I don't want to call myself an agnostic because I really hate the wishy-washy-ness that term implies. I don't want to call myself an atheist either, because I do believe in God, and I think there's something implicity antagonistic and anti-religious about the word.
I've called myself Protestant in the past, but, again, that has a stigma too. Put the word "non-denominational" in front of that and people assume you're a born-again.
So I guess I'll just keep calling myself Quaker and keep having people tell me that they didn't think there were any of us around anymore. So long as I don't run into any Quakers who actually attend services I should be fine.
My Unitarian minister grandfather was actually himself raised a Lutheran, as all old school Scandinavians were required by law to be. Lutherans are fine, I suppose. They remind me of Episcopalians in the sense that they're basically Catholics who just kind of took a different path a few hundred years ago. I actually admire Luther a lot for what he did, and how he attempted to bring what was then a very corrupt church (ahem, ahem) back to its basics, and made the emphasis the relationship between the individual and God, without all the horse and pony shows getting in the way.
My paternal grandmother was a Quaker and she took me to a meetinghouse in the San Gabriel area (Temple City?) a few times when I was little. I always liked the testimonies of simplicity and humility that Quakers adhere to, and the stripped-down stillness of unprogrammed worship has always been consistent with my personality. When forced to, I've often told people that I'm a Quaker, and they usually give me a perplexed look in return because they think I've just told them that I'm Amish. Anabaptist, sure. Amish, not quite.
My paternal grandfather and my stepfather's mother were both raised Catholic (as anyone born before 1950 who had a drop of Irish blood was required by law to be). My stepfather's mother (who I called Grammie) was a wonderful, strong woman who I have nothing but respect for and postive memories of. But she believed in fairies and thought that our pet cat was going to 'steal the breath' (a literal translation of a Gaelic phrase, apparently) from my younger brother when he was an infant (cue coo-coo clock noise). That has nothing to do with being Catholic, I realize, but furthers my argument that Irish Catholics tend to have one foot in Rome and one foot in pre-6th century Ireland when it comes to their belief systems.
I have great respect for Judaism but after living in New York for a few years I've come to the realization that culturally, I have nothing in common with American Jews and could never really feel a part of that community.
I have great respect for Islam in principle, but I don't have much use for the Islamic world. In order to get excited about a faith I have to look at its members and find something to admire. Most of the Islamic world seems hot, dusty, and angry. Also, extremists are in power in most Muslim-majority countries and I can't get around the fact that if you're a woman in an Islamic country your life just must be awful.
I have great respect for Buddhism and Hinduism on the surface, but once you dig a little deeper they both get very strange, especially Hinduism. In the same vein, I think Taosim has a lot of great principles but, at its core, seems better suited to a Chinese peasant living in the year 500, than it does for a Westerner living in the year 2009. Especially when that Westerner has already been exposed to concepts like "objective reality" and "goals".
I don't want to call myself an agnostic because I really hate the wishy-washy-ness that term implies. I don't want to call myself an atheist either, because I do believe in God, and I think there's something implicity antagonistic and anti-religious about the word.
I've called myself Protestant in the past, but, again, that has a stigma too. Put the word "non-denominational" in front of that and people assume you're a born-again.
So I guess I'll just keep calling myself Quaker and keep having people tell me that they didn't think there were any of us around anymore. So long as I don't run into any Quakers who actually attend services I should be fine.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Islam, Cat Stevens Style
Interesting but kind of odd interview with Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam) about being and becoming Muslim. Reminds me a lot of something you'd see on any Christian station broadcast, except with different clothes and Muhammad substituted for Jesus.
The man seems articulate though, and happy with the decisions he's made. This must be a British show that caters to the Muslim community. Part 1 of 3, I'm not bothering to post the other two segments. They're on Youtube if you really want to see the rest of the interview:
The man seems articulate though, and happy with the decisions he's made. This must be a British show that caters to the Muslim community. Part 1 of 3, I'm not bothering to post the other two segments. They're on Youtube if you really want to see the rest of the interview:
Monday, January 5, 2009
The High-Schooler is Father to the Man
I posted about high school memories earlier, and since I'm reading and just watched "Election" I've been thinking about my own high school experience a lot lately-- something I don't normally spend much time doing, believe it or not.
The Wife asked me what I was like in high school and I told her a few of my anecdotes and gave her a thumbnail sketch. She laughed and said, "I probably could have figured all that out."
It occured to me that the block of cement that is my personality probably finished drying sometime around 1992. Anything I've done with my life should come as no surprise to anyone astute enough who knew me back then. Some things never change:
1. I was definitely a smartass. Not in a class clown kind of way, but in more of a quiet, sardonic way.
2. I was not a hard-worker but would do well in classes where I either found the subject matter interesting or I liked the teacher.
3. Nothing came easy, except getting Bs.
4. I was horrible at math and science classes and didn't even bother to take any math after trig. I got a D in Chemistry.
5. I somehow ended up taking a "class" where I worked in the office for 1st period, junior year. It was an easy "A" and an easy 3 credits. My duties included getting coffee for a couple of the secretaries. This caused a minor controversy because I had to go into the teacher's lounge to get the coffee and one time Coach Porter saw me in there and got very upset that there was a student in the teacher's lounge. He complained to the principal and after that I was no longer allowed to get coffee for the secretaries. Completely true story.
6. In Journalism I made minor contributions here and there by writing humor pieces and music reviews for albums I never even listened to. If you added up all the time I spent working on them over the course of my whole senior year, it would probably come out to well over 15 minutes. The journalism teacher was also the head of the show choir and basically could have cared less about the school newspaper and devoted all his time and energy to the show choir. One day after class he asked me if I knew how to operate a video camera. I was worried that my life was suddenly going to turn into an episode of "Diff'rent Strokes", when he asked if I would be willing to videotape the show choir's performance that night. I said 'sure' and ended up taping all their shows that year. As a result, I got an "A" in journalism and the teacher offered to write me a letter of recommendation for college. Being nice and reliable enough to perform a not-very-demanding task proved to be what earned me the greatest amount of respect and appreciation from an adult during my entire high school career.
7. I was horrible at P.E. I was the kind of kid who never dressed and spent time hanging out on the bleachers when I should have been out there Greco-Roman wrestling out on the football field. Despite this I joined the track team and made varisty my sophomore year. Despite this I spent most of my time on the track team trying to impress the girl high jumpers by jumping up and hanging on to the football goal posts.
8. The only classes I excelled at were Typing and German. I have no idea why I was good at either one because I have poor hand-eye coordination (suck at video games) and I was horrible at Spanish.
9. I was also horrible at Accounting.
10. I felt school was just a chore, something I needed to do. If I was really interested in something it was automatically relegated to place that existed well outside of and apart from the world of school.
11. After he graduates from law school, Bryan's first case is going to be to bring suit against the makers of "Napoleon Dynamite", for likeness rights on my account.
The Wife asked me what I was like in high school and I told her a few of my anecdotes and gave her a thumbnail sketch. She laughed and said, "I probably could have figured all that out."
It occured to me that the block of cement that is my personality probably finished drying sometime around 1992. Anything I've done with my life should come as no surprise to anyone astute enough who knew me back then. Some things never change:
1. I was definitely a smartass. Not in a class clown kind of way, but in more of a quiet, sardonic way.
2. I was not a hard-worker but would do well in classes where I either found the subject matter interesting or I liked the teacher.
3. Nothing came easy, except getting Bs.
4. I was horrible at math and science classes and didn't even bother to take any math after trig. I got a D in Chemistry.
5. I somehow ended up taking a "class" where I worked in the office for 1st period, junior year. It was an easy "A" and an easy 3 credits. My duties included getting coffee for a couple of the secretaries. This caused a minor controversy because I had to go into the teacher's lounge to get the coffee and one time Coach Porter saw me in there and got very upset that there was a student in the teacher's lounge. He complained to the principal and after that I was no longer allowed to get coffee for the secretaries. Completely true story.
6. In Journalism I made minor contributions here and there by writing humor pieces and music reviews for albums I never even listened to. If you added up all the time I spent working on them over the course of my whole senior year, it would probably come out to well over 15 minutes. The journalism teacher was also the head of the show choir and basically could have cared less about the school newspaper and devoted all his time and energy to the show choir. One day after class he asked me if I knew how to operate a video camera. I was worried that my life was suddenly going to turn into an episode of "Diff'rent Strokes", when he asked if I would be willing to videotape the show choir's performance that night. I said 'sure' and ended up taping all their shows that year. As a result, I got an "A" in journalism and the teacher offered to write me a letter of recommendation for college. Being nice and reliable enough to perform a not-very-demanding task proved to be what earned me the greatest amount of respect and appreciation from an adult during my entire high school career.
7. I was horrible at P.E. I was the kind of kid who never dressed and spent time hanging out on the bleachers when I should have been out there Greco-Roman wrestling out on the football field. Despite this I joined the track team and made varisty my sophomore year. Despite this I spent most of my time on the track team trying to impress the girl high jumpers by jumping up and hanging on to the football goal posts.
8. The only classes I excelled at were Typing and German. I have no idea why I was good at either one because I have poor hand-eye coordination (suck at video games) and I was horrible at Spanish.
9. I was also horrible at Accounting.
10. I felt school was just a chore, something I needed to do. If I was really interested in something it was automatically relegated to place that existed well outside of and apart from the world of school.
11. After he graduates from law school, Bryan's first case is going to be to bring suit against the makers of "Napoleon Dynamite", for likeness rights on my account.
Movie/Book Update
Election (film): 4/4 stars.
The wife got me a copy of this DVD for Christmas and I watched it again after not having seen it for a number of years. I watched the commentary with the director, Alexander Payne, also. An interesting thing about the commentary is how clearly it comes across that Payne detests movie cliches. A few he mentions are: a person being hung up on and there's an instant dial-tone, the fact that most people in movies live in houses that are much nicer and larger than they'd ever possibly live in in real life, and how cars in movies are always spotless, especially period cars, when in real life most cars are always a little bit dirty.
He doesn't make mention of this in his commentary, but I have a feeling he carried this idea too far in one regard, that makes the film less believable than it would have otherwise. The actresses who play Matthew Broderick's wife and her friend who he ends up having an affair with simply aren't attractive enough. I have a feeling he purposely didn't cast really good looking actresses for these parts because he probably feels people in movies are too good looking. Here's why it doesn't work fo me:
1) Matthew Broderick is a good looking guy. Even if someone wasn't famous and was just a suburban high school teacher, if he looked exactly like Matthew Broderick he'd still end up marrying someone who was more attractive than the woman who plays his wife in the film.
2) If we're to believe that he's willing to cheat on his wife with another woman, we have to find the woman attractive too. The woman who plays the role in the film isn't unattractive, but she's not nearly good looking enough to have us believe that he'd be willing to risk his marriage for the chance to sleep with her.
If this opinion sounds male-biased, I'll have you know that my wife agreed with me 100% on this one.
I'm also reading the novel that the movie was based on. It was published in 1998, I bought it in 2002, and I'm just reading it now. So far it's good. As is always the case, it differs from the movie somewhat. One unique thing about the book is that it's broken down into short 'chapters' each a couple of pages long, that are told from the point of view of one of the characters. So, for example, there are two pages written in the first person by Mr. McAllister, then two pages written from the perspective of Paul Metzler, etc. I'm about halfway done.
The wife got me a copy of this DVD for Christmas and I watched it again after not having seen it for a number of years. I watched the commentary with the director, Alexander Payne, also. An interesting thing about the commentary is how clearly it comes across that Payne detests movie cliches. A few he mentions are: a person being hung up on and there's an instant dial-tone, the fact that most people in movies live in houses that are much nicer and larger than they'd ever possibly live in in real life, and how cars in movies are always spotless, especially period cars, when in real life most cars are always a little bit dirty.
He doesn't make mention of this in his commentary, but I have a feeling he carried this idea too far in one regard, that makes the film less believable than it would have otherwise. The actresses who play Matthew Broderick's wife and her friend who he ends up having an affair with simply aren't attractive enough. I have a feeling he purposely didn't cast really good looking actresses for these parts because he probably feels people in movies are too good looking. Here's why it doesn't work fo me:
1) Matthew Broderick is a good looking guy. Even if someone wasn't famous and was just a suburban high school teacher, if he looked exactly like Matthew Broderick he'd still end up marrying someone who was more attractive than the woman who plays his wife in the film.
2) If we're to believe that he's willing to cheat on his wife with another woman, we have to find the woman attractive too. The woman who plays the role in the film isn't unattractive, but she's not nearly good looking enough to have us believe that he'd be willing to risk his marriage for the chance to sleep with her.
If this opinion sounds male-biased, I'll have you know that my wife agreed with me 100% on this one.
I'm also reading the novel that the movie was based on. It was published in 1998, I bought it in 2002, and I'm just reading it now. So far it's good. As is always the case, it differs from the movie somewhat. One unique thing about the book is that it's broken down into short 'chapters' each a couple of pages long, that are told from the point of view of one of the characters. So, for example, there are two pages written in the first person by Mr. McAllister, then two pages written from the perspective of Paul Metzler, etc. I'm about halfway done.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Subways and Public Transportation
A few I've been on:
Los Angeles:
Has a subway that's always been completely empty whenever I've been on it. The Metrolink is a convenient way to get into Downtown, I suppose, but it's still easier just to drive in. Biggest problem with the subway: it doesn't take you anywhere worth going. Every bus ride I've ever taken in Los Angeles has been a Kafkaesque nightmare. Still a car town, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
San Francisco:
BART is a good system but not real comprehensive. On the east side of the bay the stops are really far apart and when it crosses into San Fran it makes a weird diagonal of the city that makes it hard to access the northwest (around Golden Gate Park) and southeastern (whatever's down there) parts of the city. The buses are fine though. San Fran itself is small like New York but all those damn hills make it hard to walk around. There are about three taxis in the entire city of San Francisco and they're always occupied. I've never been on the cable cars but I've always assumed they're more for tourists and have limited practicality.
San Diego:
The light rail that takes you into Downtown is nice. It even has a stop at Petco. As of five years ago, however, wasn't comprehensive at all.
Seattle:
Has a tourist monorail that goes back and forth within locations downtown. The buses are fine.
Chicago:
The L or "el", however you spell it, is pretty good. The buses are fine too. I had no problem getting back and forth between my friend's place near Northwestern and Downtown, via subway, bus, or taxi.
Washington D.C.
Good subway. Clean, comprehensive, easy to use. One of the better urban subway systems in the U.S. Unusual feature: really far underground.
Boston:
The T is pretty good. Not a super-extensive system but covers the city and a few surrounding towns pretty well. The cars are old and noisy, that's about it.
New York:
Incredibly comprehensive system but the cars themselves can be kind of nasty. Not a nice way to get around but a very convenient way. Am currently using it five days a week. Buses are about the same.
London:
Cleaner and more pleasant subways than the one in New York, and just as comprehensive. The red double-decker buses are fun to ride in because they make you feel like you're in a Beatles documentary.
Paris:
Once I figured out how to use the Metro I found it very convenient. The cars (as of 10 years ago) were green and I remember that as a passenger you could manually open the doors. The buses were fine but I could never figure out how much I was supposed to pay.
Amsterdam:
Light rail system that I had no clue how to buy tickets for. I took a few free rides. I don't remember it going much further out than around the center of the city and I think the route I took from my hotel to the train station I could walk in about 10 minutes (as opposed to 5 minutes on the light rail).
Philadelphia:
Forgot about this one. Took some kind of a train from the airport to the city center, but not sure if it was really a subway. Also, the most terrifying, frightening bus ride of my life was out of Philadelphia and through Camden, New Jersey.
Los Angeles:
Has a subway that's always been completely empty whenever I've been on it. The Metrolink is a convenient way to get into Downtown, I suppose, but it's still easier just to drive in. Biggest problem with the subway: it doesn't take you anywhere worth going. Every bus ride I've ever taken in Los Angeles has been a Kafkaesque nightmare. Still a car town, and there's really nothing wrong with that.
San Francisco:
BART is a good system but not real comprehensive. On the east side of the bay the stops are really far apart and when it crosses into San Fran it makes a weird diagonal of the city that makes it hard to access the northwest (around Golden Gate Park) and southeastern (whatever's down there) parts of the city. The buses are fine though. San Fran itself is small like New York but all those damn hills make it hard to walk around. There are about three taxis in the entire city of San Francisco and they're always occupied. I've never been on the cable cars but I've always assumed they're more for tourists and have limited practicality.
San Diego:
The light rail that takes you into Downtown is nice. It even has a stop at Petco. As of five years ago, however, wasn't comprehensive at all.
Seattle:
Has a tourist monorail that goes back and forth within locations downtown. The buses are fine.
Chicago:
The L or "el", however you spell it, is pretty good. The buses are fine too. I had no problem getting back and forth between my friend's place near Northwestern and Downtown, via subway, bus, or taxi.
Washington D.C.
Good subway. Clean, comprehensive, easy to use. One of the better urban subway systems in the U.S. Unusual feature: really far underground.
Boston:
The T is pretty good. Not a super-extensive system but covers the city and a few surrounding towns pretty well. The cars are old and noisy, that's about it.
New York:
Incredibly comprehensive system but the cars themselves can be kind of nasty. Not a nice way to get around but a very convenient way. Am currently using it five days a week. Buses are about the same.
London:
Cleaner and more pleasant subways than the one in New York, and just as comprehensive. The red double-decker buses are fun to ride in because they make you feel like you're in a Beatles documentary.
Paris:
Once I figured out how to use the Metro I found it very convenient. The cars (as of 10 years ago) were green and I remember that as a passenger you could manually open the doors. The buses were fine but I could never figure out how much I was supposed to pay.
Amsterdam:
Light rail system that I had no clue how to buy tickets for. I took a few free rides. I don't remember it going much further out than around the center of the city and I think the route I took from my hotel to the train station I could walk in about 10 minutes (as opposed to 5 minutes on the light rail).
Philadelphia:
Forgot about this one. Took some kind of a train from the airport to the city center, but not sure if it was really a subway. Also, the most terrifying, frightening bus ride of my life was out of Philadelphia and through Camden, New Jersey.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Movie Update
Man on Wire: 3.5/4 stars. Very good but not great documentary about an amazing undertaking. The feat itself is so impressive that any competently-made documentary on the subject should be entertaining and watchable. The film itself doesn't add much, which is sometimes a good thing-- Petit is portrayed as neither kook nor god-- though it might have been nice to get more information on his background and how on earth he was able to finance all his endeavors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)