On Murray Gold and the BBC National Orchestra of Wales

I'm sure most people (if not everyone) knows that my favourite show is Doctor Who. For those who don't know what it's about it's about space and time travel across the universe in a blue box, that's bigger on the inside.

I'd normally be happy to go on endlessly, I do have a specific goal in mind though: the music. I'm a classical junkie, same applies to those movie soundtracks. This brings me to my attempt: I shall attempt to critique an album from the Doctor Who Series.

There are the Series's Albums avalable on iTunes; and each contains most of the music featured on that particular Series. The Album in question, is the first one I fell in love with. The Doctor Who - Series 3 (Original Television Soundtrack) contains 28 tracks, about an hour or so long.

The first track "All the Strange Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)" effectively sums up that Series. Bombastic, expansive, firey and the lack of a better term, epic. I like how Gold uses all the segments of the orchestra.

The second track is titled "Martha's Theme". Martha Jones played by Freema Agyeman, is the Tenth Doctor's second compion. (the first being Rose Tyler) Martha's Theme is waltz-ey, and its overall mood fits Martha perfectly: somber, uplifting and empowering.

Aside from the first two tracks, the ones that really define the series, are found in the last three episdoes of the Series. The main track is the mildly creepy "The Master Vainglorious". The Master is the Doctor's nemesis; his archenemy. (one of them)

The Master Vainglorious plays heavily on his source of his insanity: the neverending drumbeat. Four taps; 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234. Throughout the track you hear the beat.

Another key track is "Martha Triumphant", after the Paradox Machine is destroyed (it was capable of maintaining the paradox of the Futurekind killing their ancestors: the human race), and the Master stopped; you hear it playing when Martha leaves the Doctor.

I'll have to stop here, it's getting to wibbly-wobbly, I don't want to blow a hole in 2/3rds of the known universe. More to come!

The Role of Music?

      How does music fit in with Western culture? It's easy enough to assume that our culture is heavily immersed in music, you can see that most people have some sort portable music player. Music has become commonplace in our minds, it's intoxicating. While music has became so common place, I think that many people don't really consider why it is so seemingly necessary.

A typical answer (I agree as well), I imagine would be simply: it would be boring. Music has been part of our species all throughout time; from back in the primordial days, through the Medieval Ages, through war, famine, plague, peace and prosperity.

What are the benefits of having music in our lives? What do we gain? What is it that only music can offer that nothing else can?

Music is an art. Different from visual arts (painting, sculpting, etc), music is an auditory art. We hear music; feel it if it's loud enough. Visual art is universal in humanity, and so is music. What is it that seperates music from a painting?
If you ignore the difference in media (canvas to violin, clay to drums, etc), in essence, there is next to no difference. I believe that the only difference between those two art forms is how "much" people can interpret them. I believe that visual arts are more open to interpretation than music.
For example, in a written song (usually) has a clear intent in it's composition ("I'm better than her/him, "go out with me instead", "slap me with a shovel", etc); whereas an oil on canvas is much more to interpretation. (especially nowadays; all those modern art movements)

Does music tap into that deep, primordial part of ourselves? Do we ritualize ourselves in the rhythm, tone, pitch and beat of music?

Of course with that being said, I'm listening to Yo-Yo Ma's Bach: The Cello Suites. Music, go figure. Whether or not there are benefits to listening to music, there is something undeniable: music is deep within our various cultures and civilizations.

The Olympic Problem?

The Olympics, who hasn't seen them; or at least a few events? There are two kinds of Olympic Games: Summer and Winter. They alternate every two years, from different cities across the world. As we know, the most recent was here in Canada; Vancouver to be precise. The next Olympic Games will be held in London, Great Britain, 2012.

No words can describe the excitement I feel during the Opening Ceremonies, and during the Events. However, from what I heard from various news sites, (CBC, BBC for example) "It has also been revealed that surface-to-air missiles could be deployed at six sites during the games."-(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17891223) I understand the need for security in such an internationally public event; however, I do not understand why surface-to-air missiles are needed in a heavily populated civilian area.

I was outraged when I heard about the security measures for the 2012 Olympics. In the highly unlikely event that the missiles are needed, what about the aftermath? Consider this: there are multiple explosions in a major metropolitan area; what about the shrapnel and ricochet?

Grr. I have always believed that fighting violence with violence is never the answer. If such defence mechanisms are necessary, could they not station such systems just outside of London? Somewhere the resulting damage would not be so serious.

Five boys, nine kidneys, twelve nipples, one direction...

"Double double toil and trouble", memorable lines indeed, from Shakespeare's Macbeth. I was on a grad trip to Australia/New Zealand/Hawaii, and during that trip our group seen Macbeth at the Sydney Opera Theatre. Macbeth is a famous tragedy, in which Macbeth kills his king so that he can that the throne. (on advice of (a) witch(s)

I feel that people get too caght up by the negative aspects during Shakespeare's plays.(Shakespearian language, plot ines, etc) While Macbeth isn't exactly all smiles and laughter, it does warn against the dangers of ambition, the effects guilt has on people, and of the all importancy of balance.(or karma)

The cast of the play had a few modern inpretations (wearing skinny jeans, polos; there was one witch instead of three), everything else aside from that remain true to the play. (dialog and so on) I liked how they varied up the performance with comedic moments; Macbeth took an exaggeratedly slow step then walked normally off stage for example.


As much as I loved the play, I felt that it was a bit... drawn out. There was a huge wind up in killing the king, post death after a little guilt, Macbeth has no problems abusing his authority. Personally I felt that some scenes could've been worked on; such as Macbeth's final fight with Banquo. I felt that more emphasis should've been placed that Banquo was technically "not of woman borne".

Overall I felt that the play was exactly how I imagined it; with little twists from what I was expecting. The play was one of my main highlights of the gradtrip. (others including rolling in a hampster ball and seeing a sheep show.)

A subtle observation

Stareotypes?

Just earlier a few weeks ago, I opened a page in the iTunes store under 'Classical', and I've noticed a simularity in the albums. The majority of the album artworks are of young(ish) people either alone or with their instruments.
Ordinarily I would not have had a problem with that, but I remembered a podcast episode from 'The Age of Pursuation' (a CBC podcast on iTunes, that is about the media; in succinct. It covers some issues in marketing, such as women in the workforce in the 1900's, ageism, and so on).

Ageism is as defined by Wikipedia: "Ageism, or age discrimination is stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination."

Example: how are old people portrayed in television? We see them typically as derranged, senile, boring, loud, technologically illiterate and well... old. Some examples include: that old guy from Disney's Up (initially), "that crazy grandma in the attic", and so on.

It seems that the mass media prefers young people 18-35-ish to market their products or services. It seems that the only way for an older person to be placed in an advertisement is either in a retirement commercial, or in an ad advertising something relating to famillial matters.

Television commercials asside, how are older people portrayed in movies and in television? Take the classic example in a martial arts movie, where that random old guy knows anything and everything about combat. Or that old lady 'kicks everyones' asses', where as a moment earlier she seemed helpless.

Are these not stareotypical images of people?

I am not endorsing or promoting to cast older people; but wouldn't it be more of an advantage for an older person to play in a movie? They do have more experience with codes and conventions, how to portray one's self and the like. I'm not saying that there aren't talented, young people; it's just that I find it a bit unfair for young(er) people seem to hold the spotlight in the media.

Concerning bias

What is bias? According to "Lord Wikipedia"; it is defined as: "inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms."

I find that very fitting. Which leads me to a question: is it possible to be completely unbiased? Can one make judgements without any sort of predisposition?
I don't think that it is possible to be comepletely unbiased. Everyone has their own motives or desires, and it can usually be seen through their actions.

I meant to have some sort of point to this post, but I forgot.... I left this entry too long; I'll get back to you guys...

Concerning the mass media..

There are some Youtube accounts that are made specifically made to mock the mass media and/or pop culture.
I found this video funny:

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonlajoie#p/search/0/ijr4rwb2WbE
I am sorry if this video offends anyone. All credit goes to the artist.

This video is a bit coarse.

Evolution of...

      I've noticed somewhat recently that things have a sort of 'Darwinian' approach. This has been brought up in class a few times. Things are going to have to evolve or die out. So, I was thinking... Is our society too  geared on moving on?
I'm sure we've seen this scenario "[insert name here]'s MIRACULOUS COMEBACK!'. This star's miraculous comeback brings me to mind of an analogy. One must ride the wave of fame, or end up being swallowed up along with all the could have beens, the forgotton and the unchanged. Like the never ending waves, one must adapt to each minute current and ripple; or risk toppling off.
I suppose it is understandable that nothing can remain static forever; look at humanity's erratic history. Plagues, wars, diasters, weather anomalies, etc. In order to survive we must adapt to these changes in order to master wherever or whenever we are.
Personally I think that North American culture is too geared on moving. We are carouselling in an endless loop of media, pop culture, cars, sex, drugs and money. I've heard that we reap what we sow, and I believe that we are facing the consequences of rushing forward with little concern of our consequences.
How many times do we ask for a ride in place of walking or an alternative mode of transport? How many times do we leave or throw our garbage? How many resources do we gobble up for modern convienience?
[these questions are obviously generallized, and there are many execptions; only to make a point].

Mix and mingle, or isolate?

Is it important for cultures to protect themselves from outside media infuence?

What a broad question... Personally I think that it is all very circunstantial. Say that a target culture or group was prosperous; ie) wealth, a sizeable population, so an and so forth. I'd say that it is okay for the group(s)/culture(s) to "mix and mingle"

However, say a group/culture is endangered; not many people, poverty, etc. In  that circumstance, I'd say efforts should be placed into perserving, protcting, and rekindling this said group.

My own philosphy is very "live and let live". Ultimately, it is that bunch of people's choice to mix and mingle, or to seclude themselves.

While I generally think that it is beneficial to meet new people, adopt more ideas and values, and the like. However, I think that there should be a sort of 'fail safe'. Something to record or keep track of one's culture or values.

-Simon

List of media(s) I've encountered..

Here's a list of some of the media related things I've encountered in the past two days:

-Diana Krall (jazz musician)
-My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (television show)
-Facebook (does it need explaining?) [if so, it's a website]
-Koji Kondo (composer; for 'The Legend of Zelda 25th Anniversary')
-Nintendo's 3DS (handheld consol)
-Doctor Who (British television show)

These are all I can think of at the moment.

How much are we immersed in media?

I find it kind of funny, that how unaware I was of how much, or to what degree we are immersed in media. In class, we were asked to record what encounters we have had with media. I thought that, since I do not own a television and I rarely listen to the radio, I would not have much to record.
However, I took into consideration the areasof advertisements and music.
I'm always listening to music. Jazz, classical, soundrack, alternative, blues, country, Latin, the list goes on. Now that I am armed with more information; I see a bit more of how much we are immersed within media, pop culture and trends. Kind of depressing LOL
I expect to post of what media I have interacted soon....
TTTTEEEEEAAAAA TTTTTIIIIIMMMMMMEEEE!!!!! :D :D

Fads, Icons, Trends and a Vampire

What is a fad? What is a trend? What is an icon?
In class, we discussed the differences between fad, trends and icons. Several questions had arisen upon the differences between them.
I think an example of a fad would be Guitar Hero (all copyrights reserved), in school, for a brief amount of time (a few months) Guitar Hero was all the rage. I heard discussions, conversations and the like on the subject. Now, about two or three years later, I have yet to hear a discussion at all relating to Guitar Hero.
Hmm... Icons... What of icons? Well, I think that icons are a broad term. There are many different icons in the world. Icons represent things, objects, companies, and so on. Some are well known, such as a four leaf clover representing luck. Some are a bit more obscure or implied, such as red lipstick representing lust.
Trends, to me are a bit harder to define. In my mind, they stand as a middle point. Where icons last for many years, and fads fizzle out into the murky lands of obscurity; leaving trends somewhere between the two. There have been some trends I can think of, none of which have been "in my time''. When I hear of trends, as shameful as I think of it; I think of the 60s' where it was all flower power, peace signs and the like.

Food for thought

      Is it possible that we, as people in North America, are too immersed in labels? Look around in school, and perhaps everywhere. Virtually everyday we are bombarded by the slogans and trademarks of companies; we see it on our clothing, on books, school supplies, on bottles, boxes and the like. I understand that copyrights and so on play a factor; but what I'm most concerned about, is how it could affect people.
Since we're constantly being exposed to advertisements, I feel that we have became desensitized to how it influences our minds and ergo, our behaviour. How do we know that we are not influenced by advertisements already?
Advertisements at heart, are meant to appeal or decieve people into buying or supporting their product, and over the years, these ads have become very efficient at drawing people's attention. That is understandable with the many different ways of communicating with one another. These days, I think that advertisements have become hyper-aggresive when you compare it to any other time in history. With that being said, what will happen in the future?

My first post

TO BE CONTINUED