So You Want to Major in Drama...

Good.

The world needs artists but unfortunately most people won't respect you unless you end up on their favorite tv show. Even though people like Georgia higher education Chancellor Hank Huckaby think majoring in drama is asinine, you still want to do it because it is your passion.

Great.

Maybe you shouldn't though.

It's almost treacherous for someone in the theatre community to criticize studying theatre. If you majored in theatre or drama (like I have) you have several friends on your Facebook who post "arts education" statuses and articles all the time. I have posted some articles as well, as I feel the arts in secondary education are instrumental in the development of a person's self-awareness and self-esteem.

I'm not bashing theatre or the arts. But this major and this profession will grind you if you aren't prepared.

What inspires this post is a piece I read by Maureen Downey, whose "Get Schooled" blog is the best written work of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She recently presented two sides of "the to be a drama major or not" by posting a retort to Hank Huckaby's assertion that drama majors don't get jobs written by a drama major with a job. I will link the blog post retort, written by UGA alumnus Emily Paige Ballouwho: http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2013/jun/01/chancellor-students-choosing-wrong-areas-study-inc/.

I won't restate much of what she said (the post is brief and worthy to be read in her words), but I concur with most of her statements. In fact, a part of this post will piggyback on the post but with the perspective of someone struggling with being a drama major after graduation...and not wanting to do drama. This is imperative for me because I'm somewhere in the middle of Paige and Huckaby; I believe in realistic expectations but also in passion.

There will be so much put on kids these days that will seem scatterbrained and confusing. That's because it is. Adults above age 30 have no idea what college is like now and they want to impart that college is what you absolutely need if you don't want to flip burgers. Adults my age understand that even with college...you may end up flipping burgers...even with a petroleum engineering degree.

This isn't about college in general though, this is about majoring in drama.

If you want to major in drama and you have other interests that are not exclusively drama...don't major in drama.

This is a paraphrase of a quote my theatre management professor stated, which he was very much against. He was against the idea that you shouldn't major in drama if you also have other interests. I disagree with him. That quote, that "if you have anything else you're interested in besides theatre, do that" isn't designed to say "don't major in theatre period." It's designed to turn away people that aren't in it for the long haul.

See, majoring in theatre in general requires a substantial amount of life given to working into the art. In some cases it can be soul crushing and it can parallel "Hell Screen" by Ryunosuke Akutugawa. Akutugawa's short story is about an artist so consumed in what he is doing that he risks the lives of others in order to get what he wants (I know too many directors like this).

When I majored in theatre it wasn't uncommon for us to work until 11:30PM or longer to rehearse...after going to classes (which usually started at 8:00 or 8:30AM). On the weekends you might be lucky if you're a tech theatre major and don't have to memorize lines: you can do your homework. If you're an actor, you may end up getting some B's and C's in core curriculum. If you're serious you also have to continue reading scripts to find monologues, practice monologues and develop a portfolio, and also memorize lines for a show you're currently in. If you were an actor and not in a show you needed to find something to do that helps you improve. If you were in tech week you were working all night or all day. This is for a normal university/college theatre program; if you're at a conservatory...oh you're in some deep shit.

So if you don't want to do anything besides theatre...do you want to put up with that? Do you not want a relationship and dating time? Do you want to only see your friends on occasion?

For some (most) of us, that's a no. And in the real world that is only a beginning; I was given a tech rehearsal schedule for a show that was 16 hours for 13 days straight. That's some shit.

Do you really like "Glee?" They work typically 16 hour days during shooting (http://www.hypable.com/2012/02/17/breaking-no-concert-tour-for-glee-this-summer-but-theres-a-twist/); in fact they were so overworked they wrote a letter to their creator about it: http://perezhilton.com/2010-05-10-ryan-murphy-gets-an-angry-letter-from-glee-cast.

Entertainment in general has a hierarchy that is tough to penetrate. To get in requires years and it requires patience, flexibility, determination--often at the expense of a social life.

The problem with drama majors isn't that their skills aren't valuable; in fact their skills are highly under appreciated, given that a tech theatre major has to practically build a house, weld, wire, so forth. The problem is that many enter the major and one of two things happen. One, they see quickly that they have other interests and decide to major in something that will get them a slightly higher paying job. Two, they graduate with a degree and realize they want a life. They may have had a boyfriend or girlfriend and now they marry and they have to make compromises. They realize they want to take a break and see what else is out there.

That's what has happened to many of my friends. Many of my friends did continue on the theatre path and have received wonderful opportunities working in Atlanta, Chicago, and/or New York. Others, however, realize they need a life outside of theatre. Unfortunately, the idea of a "life" life and a theatre life aren't always compatible. I knew a married couple who both worked in theatre...and didn't live in the same state for the first 6 years of their marriage. For me, my desire to travel led me out; I touched on this in my South America post. It was also a desire to have a girlfriend and date; I had went to a women's college and I didn't have any substantial girlfriends...which is sad. Plus I realized what I really wanted to be serious on was writing and I went back to this passion.

If you want to major in theatre you need to understand this hard reality. Theatre is a cold place but it does get better. The difference between theatre and engineering is that being hardcore about engineering can get you a $50K+ job right out of undergraduate whereas theatre requires so much entry level crap. It requires a flexible schedule which is hard when you make very little and you will probably have to live in an urban area. That's why people end up waiting tables. It isn't because their drama degree was worthless; if you used your time to refine your talent and get gigs or jobs, it's not worthless. You just have to maintain a flexible income while trying to break in.

What makes drama look bad is this hierarchy and the people who drop from their majors. What isn't talked about very often is that this applies to many disciplines--including ones that require a bit more training. Yeah, the state of Georgia probably needs more skilled road workers and so forth but those working class jobs come with a physical toil that weaken your skills as you reach mid-career to late-career which will make you less valuable around 45 to 50 (and you still 16 years left for full retirement at age 50). Business is often a grind too, entry level, and many have dropped from business to teach math and so forth because they didn't want "Mad Men" hours. I mean really there are several people from skilled majors doing what drama majors are doing (waiting tables or doing odd-end jobs) because like any young person who thinks they have doubts. Not everyone gets it right the first time and hindsight is better than foresight. It would be better to be a drama major with no debt choosing to move into a different field than a medical school dropout with $200,000 in undergrad and med school debt. People might disagree because at least that science degree as job opportunities but there might be someone who wants to get completely out of science or into something like teaching, which would require more schooling and more loans to complete.

Paige talked about this and I agree with her. There seems to be this hindsight bias against people who didn't major in STEM degrees or trades but the reality is that if everyone did major in those jobs would be tough to find as well--in fact they actually are in some circumstances as described in these two links: http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2012/10/22/14542224-how-employers-make-it-hard-to-find-good-workers?lite and http://progressive.org/skills-gap-myth . Society requires a diversity of jobs and unfortunately that also means that there's often a diversity of failure. It's easy to pick on drama, but there are several people with Business Administration degrees who tried to start their own business and after taking out a loan they wind up bankrupt.

I do think if you want to major in drama you need to be steadfast in only wanting to do that profession; if you have any doubt then I'd highly suggest minoring in the drama field and majoring in something that can get you a day job. Peter Falk had a Master's in Public Administration for instance. Hell, use dual enrollment to get a vocational certification to get a job while you're in college or waiting on gigs. Nick Offerman worked (and works) as a woodworker and carpenter while trying to get acting gigs. There's actually quite a few people who do that.

What you shouldn't do is let Yahoo! tell you what to major in with their "5 Degrees That Make No Money," cosponsored by a for-profit degree mill online university. And you shouldn't let baby-boomers put you down with their "I'm better than you" attitude because they had it better than we did. You need to be able to understand that you will have a hard time regardless of what you go into, but having a passion for it matters. Chances are you may leave that major--it's tough, but that's life. Some of us learn better by doing and trying and sometimes what we do and try doesn't work so we have to do and try something else. Every generation has young people like that. Things will work out if you work hard and remain self-aware, but don't let Hank Huckaby tell you what to do.

In Defense of German Cinema: Why Your Stereotypes of German Cinema are (reasonably) False

I love German Cinema.

Maybe I don't quite love it as much as Mexican Cinema or Japanese Cinema, maybe not even as British Cinema, but I have more than a passing interest in the cultural output of Germany. This doesn't just include the early days German cinema of 1920s Expressionism a la Fritz Lang, GW Pabst, and FW Murnau (which I love) but also contemporary German cinema from directors such as Faith Akin and films like "North Face."

Yet, even among intellectual circles, there's a penchant for stereotyping the cinema of Germany. German cinema's stereotypes are epitomized in stuff like "Sprockets" from SNL. They're too weird, too experimental for experimental sake, too depressing and serious. If a film is from Germany it always deals with World War II, Nazism, or Fascism. If it doesn't, it's strange, aloof, and elitist.

That's bullshit.

And here's a few elaborations on said bullshit.

1) Of course German films deal with WWII and Fascism.

If you didn't know World War II is kind of a big deal. Everywhere. The UK, the US, France, Japan. That's why all those nations have made endless amounts of WWII films ranging from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Hope and Glory" to "Army of Shadows" to "Grave of the Fireflies" (which represents all the aforementioned nations, by the way). Of course Germany is going to make artistic statements and representations of what happened. Of course they are going to make films that deal with East German totalitarianism ("The Lives of Others") and German resistance fighters during World War II ("Sophie Scholl").

But it seems like that's all Germany makes films about. Right? Well why do they?

2) Germany has a non-profit film sector.

Why do German films do with Germany's past or political situations?

Because it's important, culturally speaking. And culturally speaking is a big deal in Germany.

Most European nations have film councils that use government subsidized funding to invest in films. European countries like the UK, France, and Germany are conscience of how important their cultural and artistic output are. Consequently there's more of an interest to keep an artistic cinema afloat;  an artistic cinema that has a posterity to it through its representation of big issues, questions, etc.

The US doesn't really have a subsidized cinema because of the diversity and amount of population we have; there's an audience for something, generally speaking. Plus, there's an economic advantage to making quality films via the interest of a film's aura of prestige cultivated by the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, and so forth. In a nutshell, as studio films get nominated for the Academy Awards, more people see them.

For many European countries, they don't have the market the US has, especially in countries like Germany which has a language not commonly spoken around the world. Consequently, as these countries are self-aware of their artistic contributions and the idea of "Hey, we're Italy, we had Donatello and stuff," Germany and these other nations have national funds to ensure a non-profit cinema that exists for artistic reasons, for posterity, etc to keep that "Donatello and stuff" or "We had Bach and Beethoven" thing going.

In order to get these grants a producer/director has to express why the film will be artistic, how it will deal with German culture, etc. For someone who works in theatre (like I have) or for an arts organization in the US you understand this because you probably had to do this with getting a National Endowment for the Arts grant. To get this grant in the US you have to prove that your work is doing some substantial service and artistic benefit; chances are the not so good theatre company that is doing plays about drug dealers in a drug laden community will get more grant money than a good theatre doing spectacle driven shows with low artistic impact in the suburbs.

Usually by getting this grant a filmmaker is getting very little money to depict an element of one's culture and this will consequently be sent to film festivals which will then boost the country of origin's prestige and artistic esteem. This will in turn lead to the film getting attention among film elites...but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Before I go into the topic of "film elites" this non-profit cinema is the reason why Germany often deals with political and social problems in its films. Not only do a good deal of films discuss Germany's WWII past but also its contemporary problems. I mentioned Faith Akin, one of my favorite filmmakers, who uses his films to discuss the problems of the Turkish diaspora and Turkish immigrant life in Germany. "The Edge of Heaven" and "Head-On" deal with this.

Not all of Germany's films are this artistic though. Not all films are made with prestige in mind. Just like most films are made in the US with profit in mind, there's a cinema in Germany that's for-profit as well. If you look at the box office smashes in Germany you're very unlikely to see "Lore" but are very likely to see a film made by Til Schweiger, who delves into comedies and more specifically contemporary romantic comedies. This includes "Rabbit Without Ears" which is about a pair reuniting after one has to do community service for the other's day care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keinohrhasen

Wait a minute, you say. Germany makes romantic comedies? Why don't I see those in the US?

Well...

3) There's Film Elites...and they like the nonprofit films wouldn't you know

The term "Film elite" seems an opaque concept if not pretentious. Let me explain.

Just like in politics there's political elites, people who know a lot about politics and who serve as gatekeepers for political topics via their commentary, their scholarly research, etc there's an equivalent in film that I will call film elites.

Any artistic medium has elites, people who are scholars, critics, etc. People who write film reviews for the Washington Post or Slate, or who run organizations and cinematheques like the Film Society of the Lincoln Center or the Gene Siskel Film Center are film elites for instance. They serve as informal gatekeepers for cinema.

Most casual film goers, people who seek entertainment emphasis films or individuals whose interest in film is passing at best, don't really flock to foreign films. Yet, there's a group of individuals who are super hardcore about films; these people read "Film Comment," "The New York Times," etc. They may even read scholarly articles about films. Therefore they gravitate towards films A.O. Scott, Michael Philips, or David Bordwell recommend or talk about heavily. They are also more likely to have an interest in films that win festival prizes, particularly at the major competitive festivals like Cannes, Venice, and Berlin. I know, because I read A.O. Scott and Stephen Holden and "Film Comment." I'm one of these hardcore fans of cinema.

Studios aren't ignorant of this. Distribution companies understand that in certain areas, like New York, Los Angeles, as well as Houston, Austin, Atlanta, and Seattle among many, many other primarily urban or university centered areas, there's an audience for these films. They can get these films and show them at the major cinemas because the film elites will talk about them and generate interest and all of a sudden "Lore" is coming to the UA Tara Cinema so I (or you) want to go.

It's much, much harder to do that for something like Til Schweiger. Film elites won't be interested in those for-profit films because unlike the non-profit films they were not made with any artistic integrity intended. So they aren't going to really talk about them; if they come to New York instead of having A.O. Scott or Manohla Dargis review it, "The New York Times" may have someone else review it as a blurb in the Arts section. It won't get a special screening at the Lincoln Center or by the Film Society of Austin. It won't win any awards at Cannes or Venice. So those hardcore fans of cinema aren't going to be intrigued to see it. Those kinds of films are the kinds of films casual film-goers would see except they don't want to see a foreign film because they do not want to "read" a film (unless it is a religious film in Aramaic or Hebrew). There's no point for a studio to take up a foreign genre/for profit film if they can make it and sell it to a bigger audience. If a Til Schweiger kind of film gets any attention it'll just be remade like the Italian film "The Last Kiss" which was remade with Zach Braff (yeah, I sorta forgot about it too).

Ultimately the kind of audience that would see a foreign film seeks the prestigious, culturally and artistically important films that for Germany often involve serious discussion about its kind of major World War II legacy. The kind of audience that wants a genre or all entertainment film in the US wants it in English so those kind of films are not bankable for studios. So while Germany has a surprising history of comedy, satire, and humour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_humour) due to language barriers and lack of profit motive this notion of stereotypically serious and depressing German cinema is reinforced, and unfortunately this motivates people to have the stereotype of the average German as a very serious, sterile figure.

Hopefully by now I've made a convincing case that this notion is stupid.

Germans are as unique as any culture but also as similar as anyone who is a human being. They enjoy romantic comedies and action films as anyone else. The difference is that the US rarely gets to see that side because they won't be shown. That's ok too because for those of us that have made an effort to actually go beyond the stereotype of sterile German cinema understand that German films are quite rewarding. Most of them have a modernist emphasis on characterization and not just style for style's sake--they are actually more Victorian than given credit. They deal with history and responsibility that the US or any country should deal with (even if like "Django Unchained"), they deal with big questions about existence ("Wings of Desire,") and they even have some with quite a bit of comedy ("Soul Kitchen"). The stereotype of sterile German cinema in the US needs to end.

Why I am going to South America

The first reason is obvious: I love Spanish language culture. 

This is something relatively recent...say around sophomore year of college. Of course there were moments in high school such as my affinity for Guillermo del Toro, Alfonso Cuaron, Luis Bunuel, Pedro Almodovar, and the magic realists among other things. What set me to being a Hispanophile was Pablo Neruda. This was my gateway to the realm of Spanish language literature and really set me in motion to my interest in going to South America.

Well then, I like Spanish language culture and am reasonably a Hispanophile (reasonably because I have a more than passing affinity for British and East Asian-Japan, China-culture as well). Why didn't I go to Mexico or Spain?

Or why go to those countries? Go to Italy, France, Canada, so forth. I will...later.

The idea of going to South America confounds so many people and, frankly, it annoys me. Now, part of this is people who know me worrying about me. Their idea of South America is Colombian drug lords and Venezuelan communism. Others, however, are confused why anyone would go there when they could spend a week in Tuscany. Not to knock Tuscany, but it's not my priority. South America is my priority, specifically Andean South America. All the time people asked me, with derision, "Why are you going?" They have their mind's idea of vacation, of where they would go if they had endless money (which I don't by the way). That's what old(er) people ask. Young-ish people (mid-thirties) suggest backpacking Europe. These seem conventional, but being adamant about South America definitely makes me seem contrarian and therefore pretentious. I'm not a contraraon; I intend to go to Germany and the UK in the future. Therefore I want to list out the genuine reasons why I would take on a trip like this. You've got the first reason.

Reason number 2: I want to better my Spanish.

This makes sense if I'm growing into a Hispanophile.

It's imperative for me to learn a second language even if it isn't Spanish. It will increase my job opportunities. It will increase my social awareness. Learning Spanish is more important in this hemisphere. Plus, it will allow me to enjoy my favorite films (next to Japan probably Spain and Mexico have produced my favorite films). It will allow me to enjoy Neruda, Borges, Paz Molina, Violeta Parra, so forth. I feel like learning Spanish takes time but it requires immersion for proper learning. Therefore, as a result of reason number 1 I have a deep interest in learning Spanish and that means being in country that operates purely in Spanish. 

But why not go to Spain?

Reason number 3: It's cheaper than Europe...

much, much cheaper than Europe. The plane tickets were less expensive. I have roundtrip tickets to Lima from Atlanta and multi-trip tickets from Lima to Buenos Aires and from Santiago to Lima. Combined the total ticket price is around $1100. That is cheaper than almost destination to Europe aside from Dublin or London. The roundtrip ticket to Madrid is around $1300-$1400. 

Plus the currency rate is very generous to Americans. Argentina, which is probably the wealthiest of the three countries I intend to touch (the others being Chile and Peru), has a conversion rate of AR$1 to US $.19. Now, unfortunately prices are gouged for various activities such as visiting Machu Picchu and there are inconveniences like bus travel versus no train travel. Yet, I'm budgeting my trip with around $40-$60 a day and...it might actually work. Most of the hostels are $9-$15/day. Many of the activities in the cities are free. 

Now most people will say you have to pay more in Europe but it's safer. I don't know if that's absolutely true. Most definitely in Germany and Scandinavia it is safe, but aside from Peru Argentina and Chile are no less safe than Washington DC or any major European city. Most crime against tourists are pickpockets and theft. Even Peru is supposedly safer than Brazil or India or Eastern Europe. If you watch your ass, know your surroundings, keep a level head it shouldn't be hopeless. 

Now, if expense is an issue why not Mexico (which was my backup if something happened to prevent me to go to South America...FYI)?

Reason number 4: Nature

My travel destinations tends to veer into various interests, particularly culture (arts, history, etc) and food. What draws me to many places, though, is its proximity to nature. My love for nature came about around the same time as my discovery of Neruda oddly enough though it really was there from my life in North Georgia. I grew up in nature and developed a love for anything interesting in nature with a particular emphasis on water areas (coasts, rivers, waterfalls) and mountains. 

Mexico has a lot of those, but South America outdoes it all. I mean the second tallest mountain outside of Mount Everest is in Argentina, which also has landscapes ranging from desert (Talampaya) to tropical waterfalls (Iguazu), and port cities (Buenos Aires). It's the same deal in Chile and Peru. The idea of being near the second tallest mountain in the world is exceptional to me. Why would I pass it up?

Reason number 5: This is what I've wanted to do since I was young

Let's go back about two years. I was working as a stage tech for a visiting dance company. During the time I was reading "Look Homeward, Angel" by Thomas Wolfe and during a break I picked up the book for a few more pages. The more I read into the book the more I felt related to Eugene Gant. Our parents are similar and we both grew up in Appalachia as dreamers. We both dreamed of going to places far away. 

Then it hit me; I'm working in a job that to get where I want, in a creative position where I control my own destiny, I'm going to have to do nothing but work. For two years, for ten years. Did I really want to do that? Or did I want to write and travel? 

For two years I've been dating my decisions, about whether or not I should apply to graduate school, about whether or not I should\ have majored in theatre, about what my direction should be. Should I get on as a P.A. if I want to make films or make shorts on my own? Will I ever do theatre again or has my passion waned? How will I get published?

But one thing I knew for certain was that I need to get out. For 22 years I never traveled. I went to New York once and it was...anticlimactic (not because of the city, just the experience). My parents never took us outside the South if we ever went on vacation. During college I didn't have the money to study abroad, travel anywhere, etc. Then I went to Chicago and it was a life changing experience. I realized I need to have more of these experiences, while I was young, before I had kids, before I could no longer do it. 

It became essential for me then, to save up and get myself somewhere and travel. That's why I saved up for this trip. That's why I am going alone. Even though people fret, I had no one who could go with me. Some didn't want to and had other priorities with their money (which is fine). Other's couldn't spare a month or didn't have the money. I couldn't revolve around those people though when I feel strongly this is what I need to do. I owe my 12 year old self this opportunity. 

If these reasons aren't convincing, there's this: http://www.iceaxetv.com/Aconcagua/photos/Aconcagua-2_LG.jpg .

8 Pieces of Advice for Young Musicians (particularly guitarists)

I realized while I was a jamming yesterday that I have been playing guitar for 13 years. Playing guitar is one of the things I've had that's remained consistent from my late childhood and early adulthood aside from writing. It is more of a hobby compared to writing which I aim to make my job. I do find much joy from playing as well as learning about and tinkering with the mechanics of guitar playing and electric guitar. I'm such a nerd for the guitar that I watch guitar demos on youtube for gear (I just discovered the MXR Hendrix compact effects collection and I want them now). I often wonder if I should've majored in electric engineering purely to work for Fender, Soldano, or Dunlap.

Perhaps this comes with my substantial appreciation of pop culture like movies (& tv), books, and music (all of which I consume). Yet, whereas I went through phases with various hobbies and aspirations like many of us guitar playing stuck with me. I look back though and think of how much of an amateur I was and how delusional I was, how selfish...how much of a teenager I was. So in light of these reflections, I wanted to share some advice with and for young guitarists (and beginning musicians in general).

If you want to be a serious musician (rockstar) you need to...

1) Focus on learning the basics.

Learn about the structure of your instrument. Learn about pickups, bridge, body, neck, and strings. Why? Because if you want to rock (or something similar) you need to understand your equipment. You need to understand how to get the desired sound you want. You may think it doesn't matter when you start...but it does. All those rock stars you listen to may seem like meatheads but they are serious about their art and they are serious in their knowledge about what equipment they use, about what they do with their guitars, etc. There's a reason some guitarists prefer Fender with bright single coil pickups vs. Gibson and its fat, warm sounding PAF (or EMG if that's your thing...ugh) humbuckers. There's a reason your guitar shop has different gauges for strings. It's not to fuck with you. It's there because people get a different sound from how light and how heavy the strings are. Jimi Hendrix used light gauge strings so he could bend them crazy and according to Eddie Kramer he sometimes even used banjo strings.

It's not just pickups, resonant holes, and so forth. You need to understand keys, chords, and how to tune your guitar without a tuner. Learning how to tune a guitar is something I struggled with and it is something I wished I learned to do when I was younger.

Now there is a basic that requires it's own section which is...

2) Timing.

Learn timing. Learn the shit out of timing. If you don't know timing you aren't a musician.

Ever notice how math minded majors seem to be guided towards music or why child prodigies learn violin? Music isn't just free ass do whatever the hell you want. There's a quantitative element to music, a design. Even free form jazz and improvisation is performed with a reasonable design and by people who are insanely skilled musicians.
Want to play punk? Great, but you still need to learn 3/4 and 4/4 basic timing and you'll have to learn it in a fast tempo. If you don't you'll sound like shit. Want to know how Greg Ginn or Johnny Ramone get acclaim yet don't do solos? Because they can keep time and still play more than 400 and 500 bpm.
If you want to be a rockstar, especially in a band, you are going to need to learn how to count 1 & 2 & 3 & 4.

3) Start with simple songs.

You need to learn melody, tempo, timing, so forth.

Don't start with Dragon Force.

Or if you're me, don't start with "Stairway To Heaven."

Any art is work. Learning to be skilled requires practice. You don't just learn to play guitar with no effort. Just like learning to cook requires time, effort and diligence, so does guitar. You don't start to cook by learning to cook soufflee. No, you start with scrambled eggs and you learn to perfect scrambled eggs and then move on. Same thing with guitar. You don't start off with "Manic Depression" by Jimi Hendrix because you'll need to learn timing, pentatonic scaling, and blues/jazz style guitar. You'll get there, but you need to start off with something like AC/DC. I don't mean learn Angus Young's part either; start off with Malcom Young's part.

It may hurt your ego to be told not to learn something juicy like Jimi Hendrix...or Dragon Force if that's your thing...but what will hurt your ego even more is the absolute frustration of fucking up a song. Doing that might lead you to decide to not do it again, that there's something innate about playing guitar and you don't have it. No. You're just being asinine and you're trying to dunk without knowing how to dribble. Learn "TNT" or "Blitzkreig Bop." Why? Because you can learn those songs with basic knowledge, work on it for days or weeks (yes weeks) and get it down pat. That looks more impressive than shitting on a Led Zeppelin song.

4) Don't try to embellish yet.

When you get good, when you learn timing, chords, melody you'll develop the ability to embellish, solo, play fills (if you play drums), etc.

That takes time though, learning the song, getting its melody, song structure, rhythm down.

I say this because when I started a skilled player told me to learn rhythm guitar first instead of trying to learn lead. I didn't quite listen and now I know he is right. If you try to learn solos and so forth you'll be a selfish player and you won't get the songs down well.

The same goes for drums especially. If you play drums your job is to keep rhythm. You may hear John Bonham and Keith Moon and want to play fills to look impressive but those guys are ridiculously good and they put in those fills when they learn the rhythm and the timing.

I once learned to play drums and a friend's brother got onto me. "Every time you play a fill you're messing up the timing." He was right. I was of course affronted by the confrontation, but he was dead right.

In reality you don't even need to embellish. Phil Selway, the drummer of Radiohead doesn't embellish; he plays straight and Radiohead ends up getting a killer beat because they don't need a drum solo for every song.

Learn to play rhythm, then solo.

5) Don't take out a loan to buy your equipment


...at first. If you get good, play for a few years, there's nothing more satisfying than getting a Fender Jazzmaster or a Marshall JCM2000 or a Guild Acoustic or whatever you fancy.

But don't start off with those. Why? Because if you're a young musician you're less a musician and more young. That means, like anything, this could be a phase you're going through. You don't want to get professional equipment unless you're a professional. Don't ruin your parents' credit because you wanted the guitar Jimmy Page uses.

That being said, there's not just a monetary reason for this. You need to learn to play first. You need discipline, you need something that you can train with.

At the same time, understand unless playing guitar or being a rockstar is what you absolutely want to do, there's no reason to buy a ridiculously expensive piece of equipment. There's no reason to have three Marshall amps if you're just playing for yourself. Get a 15 or 30 watt amp, a reasonably priced guitar, and just play.

6) You're not going to sound like the album

There's a difference between live and studio recording. What is done in the studio involves 15 guitar track songs ie 15 different layers of guitar versus your puny one. It means that all glitches are erased, some post-production glimmer like reverb (or Mutt Langeing it), mic set up. Studio musicianship is a whole different animal and that requires the understanding of studio recording, mic set up, mixing, so forth. You don't need to worry with that yet. Worry about your live sound; now we have youtube and it is fantastic. Find live versions of your favorite songs and learn to play from those. You should still play from your records, cd's, MP3's, etc but don't expect them to sound so damn perfect because they won't.

7) Don't just play with yourself

Hehe.

What makes one better at anything is being around people with your similar interest and learning from each other either through collaboration and/or mutual criticism. That means you need to find people interested in playing other instruments than what you have and start a band or at the very least have cohorts you jam with.

As a young or aspiring musician you need a band if you want to be a rockstar, but you also need to understand selflessness, to learn your part, and better your knowledge of a song and timing.

Plus, when you're with musicians that are talented you feed off each other. There's a reason your favorite musicians are usually bands or had talented collaborators. There might  be one or two primary authors of the music (auteurs), but when you're in a band with the baddest ass members you'll be bad ass yourself.

Does that mean you'll always play with bad ass musicians? No, especially if you're starting out. You'll play with people who suck, who have issues, who are vain, or who are just going through a phase. That's part of the learning process too. Chances are you're not going to marry the first person you date; chances are you have hangups, he or she has hangups, or you have conflicting interests and aren't compatible. That's fine because you use that to learn about who you can't be with and what qualities you want or more importantly don't want from someone. The same principle applies in a band; you learn who can't play with, why you can't play with someone, so forth. Learn from your experiences.

8) Don't just play for yourself

Notice the "for." If you are serious about being a rockstar and you have a band, timing down, an understanding of basic chords...go play. Play for friends, a party, open mic night, whatever. Just like you get better with people playing with you giving you feedback, you get better when you play for someone and get live reactions.

There will be applause, silence, so forth. People will walk out. It all matters though.

This is something I always regretted. I always made excuses to not perform in front of people in high school and I should've just played. I didn't play in front of an audience until I was 20. What I discovered was that in front of an audience I had an urge to please which meant no sloppiness, intense focus. It makes you a better musician. Play for people. That's the point of art; it's for someone.

Dear Amazon...about your genres...

Dear Amazon,

I like you. You're not as special as the library to me, but I like you. You offer options, unlimited affordable options. People will depreciate you, say you are putting indie bookstores out of business. You are not putting them out of business; Barnes & Noble and Borders did that 7-10 years ago. You are putting them the Borders type of suburban bookstore/cafe reasonably out of business (B&N is still strong). Instead you allow indie booksellers to sell their books along yours over the internet and frankly as a rural citizen (which will one day change even if that one day is 10 years from now) I don't care about indie bookstores because rural communities' indie bookstores are usually faith based or severely limited. I mean I want to read Adolfo Bioy Casares or Saul Bellow which may not be at the local bookstore. You make great literature accessible to people in rural areas. Wonderful.

I even like how you are able to present book recommendations that are pedestrian friendly versus other websites. I also like how you're able to present recommendations based on category. After all, I'm more of a scifi reader. I want to know what scifi recommendations of the month there are.

Yet, I have a complaint that I'd like to present. See, besides scifi I devour poetry and comic novels. The problem? You do not have these in separate categories.

Sure, you have Humor & Entertainment, but that is mainly Chelsea Handler memoirs and humor nonfiction a la David Sedaris. If I want something akin to Douglas Adams I'm probably not going to find it in that section. Daniel O'Brien perfectly elucidated on this in his post on Cracked.com, "5 Reasons its impossible to Find Funny Books" (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-itE28099s-impossible-to-find-funny-books_p2/). As he said, there's an audience of people who want a deep comic novel, like a "Simpsons episode but in a book."

As difficult as it is to find rewarding comedy fiction, it is ridiculously arduous to find poetry. Look, I understand; not everyone devours poetry like I do. That being said, there's still an audience, and the main reason that audience is small is because most people aren't aware of what poetry is out there. Yet, poetry doesn't have its own section; it's labeled with Literature & Fiction and I'm sorry but it is poorly labeled because each month all ten of those books of month will be fiction prose narrative unless Anne Carson release an epic poem. This is especially frustrating when you finally get to the category of poetry  under "browse books" and it's mainly revisions or collections. What if I want a contemporary collection of poetry? I could set the engine to search for "date release" but that'll go all the way into 2014 with unreleased poetry and even then it'll mainly be a new translation of "The Odyssey."

You are now a gatekeeper. Just like the New York Times Book Review, Publisher's Weekly, and so forth you are now a gatekeeper for literary exposure and taste. That means you have power. A lot of power. You are now a proxy for the bookstore that used to have "employee recommendations." With that power you have the capacity to reasonably change the exposure an individual has with certain literature. That means you can put a Poetry collection of the month or Comic Novel of the Month and make it accessible.

You should do this. Please do this. I like Poetry Foundation, and I still have a lot of Douglas Adams to read. But I grow tired of googling and so forth when it would be much easier to have it in one central location.

Comic novels and poetry; make it a distinguishable Books of Month Recommendations whatever genre.

Thank you,
M

Why I Prefer Poetry

A number of posts ago I discussed why I've transformed in a book snob. I love literature; the reason I embarked upon a life of artistic creativity via writing and other production mechanisms (ie filmmaking, directing on the stage) is because of how much art has helped me discover transcendent moments. My big three are probably everyone else's big three which are moving images (film, tv), music, and literature (creatively and artistic written work). That being said I am unwilling to lumber through fourteen hundred page books. Is that a problem?

I worked for the library in my home area for a year and two months and encountered people who checked out 10 full novels in one visit and would bring them back within two weeks finished and read. I encountered people who would look at dense Robert Jordan novels that another patron was checking out and say "I read those in about three days." Yet I am an individual who barely gets a book done in two weeks...even if said book is 200 pages. I still remember a classmate of mine, K---, asking me why it takes so long to read. To her I said something pretentious like I usually did which is that I read literature and not fluff. Indeed I was reading "The Tin Drum" by Gunter Grass and "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. Still, now that I embrace fully my love of scifi and read (or read past tense) "Consider Phlebas" by Iain M. Banks (which by the way was meh) in 3 weeks at best I have to wonder if I'm a reader.

Yes I am a reader; just not of the Robert Jordan or George R.R. Martin variety. Or even Leo Tolstoy (Tolstoi if you want to be old school). As I discussed in mentioned previous post, however, I prefer brevity. I prefer works of literature that can stand on their own in one reading. This was elucidated by Poe in his essay "On Poesy" and I absolutely agree with him. "The Black Cat" by Poe, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" by Vonnegut, "A Good Man is Hard to Find," "Revelation," well anything by Flannery O'Connor are better than most novels. To me, the best contemporary writer of science fiction aside from Neal Stephenson is Ted Chiang, a technical writer who has won a lot of Hugos for his novelettes and short stories; his stories are more breathtaking than anything by China Mieville or Martin. Hell, last year's Hugo for short story "The Paper Menagerie" by Ken Liu was better than most novels I've read (and here it is: http://io9.com/5958919/read-ken-lius-amazing-story-that-swept-the-hugo-nebula-and-world-fantasy-awards). 

The point is I like literature that can pack a punch within a brief read. I prefer novels to be no more than 300 pages and to read like they're only 100 (a la Douglas Adams). Maria Semple's "Where'd You Go Bernadette" was like this. The reason is because...well I don't know. I worry it might be because my attention wonders, but when I read "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson in its 900 page glory I didn't have this because it was so full of awesome stuff. I think it is because I can read into information quickly. I think this not because of ego (ooh look me I can take it in quickly) but because of my drama experience. I'm used to scripts, I'm used to a character's psychology being revealed in dialogue and dramatic action. I can read into a character through action to where I don't need the prose to dwell so damn much into anything else.

Now, let's get to poetry.

I love poetry. The way those patrons at my library would devour Robert Jordan is how I devour poetry. "Native Guard" by Natasha Trethewey is to me one of the top 5 greatest works of literature in the past 20 years and I read it all in one day...actually 2 hours. I have the same regard for contemporary poets like Philip Levine, Fred Chappell, Lucille Clifton (who passed away in 2010), and Sharon Olds. I love poetry because I can read into action and images; I can read into brevity and I prefer to read into brevity because brevity can lend itself into arresting moments. My favorite poet of all time is Pablo Neruda and within a line would come a revelation that just knocks you down. One of his lines is better than a 1400 page novel.

A lot of people don't prefer poetry because they prefer the story format, which is fair enough. To me, though, a poem is a story. It is the story of a moment. There is character (the voice) and action (the revelation, the moment); it is a story of something akin to a goosebump. To me life isn't just a story but a poetry anthology or collection, a collection of moments.

I prefer poetry because I can get a story's worth of revelation, or transcendence in a line or in a page. The poet ee cummings could do that. In fact I prefer minimal poems because of how breathtaking they can be.

People should read more poetry or poetry should be more available to more people. I'd like for people to know more than one non dead poet. To me poetry is so much better than the novel. 

The necessity of recitative in quality scripts

Recitative is a term I first learned about in Theatre History while our class lecture detailed opera. It refers to the spoken dialogue of the opera singers, as opposed to the arioso and aria which are the peaks, so to speak (think "Un bel di vedremo" when you think of arias ie you should youtube the aria, particularly with Maria Callas because it is awesome).

It's an important term to me as a writer, and one with a penchant and love for writing scripts, because I've adopted the term to refer to the moments in a show that are not climatic moments. Aristotelian theatre structure would possibly refer to these moments as rising action or falling action, but I use recitative. Why? Because it serves my criticism slightly more accurately than the Aristotelian terms (or I'm just difficult. Also, because "Downton Abbey."

Many that know me know that I have a very substantial disdain for "Downton Abbey." For me, it is a show that attracts intellectuals but is not intellectual. It's actually the opposite. It is "The OC" essentially, but because the actors have British accents and wears suits and dresses in a manor it has become lumped with the idea of thought provoking. It's not.

I know of several critics of "Downton Abbey," oddly enough mostly British. Simon Schama lamented the lack of accuracy in the show. Accuracy doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is structure, dialogue, characterization; the mechanics that are at best simplistic and direct (in season 1 particularly) and at worst dreadfully overdramatic as it panders to the basic impulses of its (American) viewers.

By mechanics I refer to how it presents its climactic drama. The show I often compare it with is "Mad Men" which also shows dramatic moments and to the once a time viewer seems soap operatic. I strongly disagree with this critique of "Mad Men" because unlike "Downton Abbey," "Mad Men" has recitative. It has spoken moments, as opposed to just arias.

See, "Downton Abbey" is a show that doesn't relent on dramatic, climactic moments. It's as if one is watching an opera that is all aria. Arias are great and are often transcendent (once again, listen to "Un bel di vedremo") but if there is no recitative the aria is meaningless. An all aria show translated to modern rock music would be like grindcore, like Napalm Death: an onslaught.

This is "Downton Abbey"; it is a grindcore all aria opera. Dramatic and climactic events happen all the damn time on the show. Worst of all is the seemingly random choices the writer (s) make with the death of characters. One character dies of miscarriage; that happens, but is it the right choice? Or killing a character in a car accident? Just because it could happen doesn't mean you should write an event like that.

A great show (a great work of art really) requires dynamism, it requires peaks and troughs, it requires arias and recitative. In a script it requires rising action, build-up, dialogue that sets up characters as full individuals with self-interests and motivations. That seems basic, but "Downton Abbey" (and many other shows) neglect these imperative elements in quality screenwriting. A show needs this balance of recitative and aria to make the aria, the climax, memorable.

Let's get back to "Mad Men." When you describe "Mad Men" it seems a soap opera but because the writers employ a dynamic style the show is able to balance the climactic arias with recitative that builds motivation and character relationships. In technical style, "Mad Men" doesn't pander; there's no underscore of sweeping strings during climactic moments. There's moments of genuine humor, of characters relating to each other and building relationships but it creates climactic moments that when they swell they truly swell and remain memorable because of a) its buildup through recitative and b) its special quality in relation to its place in the episode/work.

An all-aria work of art, in particular an episode of a television show, the climax or dramatic moments feel diluted and become meaningless. I am reminded of Emily Dickinson and her theory of deprivation; Dickinson felt deprivation is necessary because when one was deprived of something that something feels more important. Imagine eating your favorite food every day; chances are you'll get tired of it. There's a reason after college ramen noodles are wretched to you now.

This same principle of deprivation applies to art as well. Too much aria a la "Downton Abbey" makes those special, climatic moments not special anymore. That's why shows need recitative.




"Mad Men" is better than "Downton Abbey" is really what I'm trying to say.