Music reflection part 2

Cover to Philip glass’s Einstein on the beach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5FgyZkx7Ag&feature=related

While this only the opening of the song it still defiantly puts a twist on the song. The original opens up with a piano. The cover starts with a guitar, which to me, sounds cooler. I like the sound of a piano, but I’d pick guitar any day. Obviously the notes are the same but the sound is different, obviously from the instrument. It gives the song more of a “chill” feeling rather than an uptight fancy musical presentation feel. It still gives a feeling of similarity, cause for whatever reason, I can’t identify.

                As for the successor part, that would be a no. first of all the cover only covers the beginning while the entire song lasts about 12 minutes roughly. The fact that I also like the song (as weird as I find it) also makes the smaller version blow. Had the whole song been redone with guitars, or even instruments not used in the original piece then it could go either way. I’d have to be very well done to surpass the original, which makes me doubt that it’s even possible. That also says that the original piece is so well done that there can never be a proper successor.

I think interior design is a very creative way of expressing art. It's art that you see everyday and use on a very regular basis. Whoever built this or even came up with the design was a true artist.

Album artwork is a great example of art, besides the fact that it has the word art already in it. Not only is music art, but album covers reprent a picture for music that has no image, at least not until a music video comes out, but thats besides the point. Its a true work of art to represent other art.

I think computer generated images are art because they can reach new capabilities. They provide new level of design to put art on to paper or even the internet. While others think this isnt art, I respectfully disagree. I think this is only a newer and more modern way to design art.

Fairy tale meanings

While researching the histories of fairy tales I stumbled upon a certain story I thought had a very interesting history and back story, the princess and the Frog. Not one of my favorites but I know it well enough to understand the message. I’m also aware there have been remakes of the story in various forms, like the Disney movie remake. I’ll just say right now I did not watch that to research the story more. As interesting as that would be I wouldn’t enjoy myself what so ever. When I did research this story I was looking back on the older versions, not the newer.

 There are many differences and similarities between the “modern” and “classic” versions. One of the weirdest changes from the two versions (one told to children the other used to almost to scare children and or even adults ) was the lesson. The children’s version teaches to not judge a book by its cover and to not be quick to act. While this is a true lesson and is still sown into the original tale, the main theme has changed drastically. Instead of the main idea being to not judge a book by its cover, it teaches the consequences of greed, ignorance and taking advantage of others.

The newer version reads like this, the princess sees the frog and can only see him as something ugly. She takes pity on the frog and grants him a kiss. He then turns into the handsome prince and they live happily after ever, the biggest fairy tale cliché. In the older version the princess drops her most prized possession, a little golden ball, in a lake. A frog pops out of the water to comfort the princess and says “I do not want you pearls or your diamonds or your crown, but if you will promise to love me, and let me eat from your plate, and drink out of your cup, and sleep on your bed, I will bring your ball safely back to you.”

The princess agrees thinking silly of the frog for trying to get the ball back. Sure enough the frog succeed in his task and is ready to eat, drink and yes, even sleep with the princess. In astonishment and happiness the princess returns back to the castle and forgets about the frog. The next day the frog comes to the castle and says “from the deep and mossy well, little princess, where I dwell, when you wept in grief and pain I brought your golden ball again.” The princess explains to her father of the deal she did not follow through with. The king tells her to keep a promise when one is made. So the frog began eating, drinking and sleeping with the princess. While he was there the princess had nothing but thoughts of disgust and dread that such an ugly creature was to enjoy the royalty of a princess.

For three days the frog slept in the same as bed as the princess. But on the third night she awoke to find the frog to be replaced by a handsome prince. When she saw him he explained that he had been cursed as a frog by an evil fairy by offending her. A key note to see here is that the fairy is evil and represents a witch, but that the so called “picture perfect” prince was the one who brought his fate upon himself. He had what was coming to him. After the prince had been restored to his human form he married the princess. They lived happily ever after, same cliché ending.

It’s true that the story (both modern and classic) have similarities but the changes were major and close to drastic. I think they were quite easy to see as well. In the older version, the princess takes advantage of the frog and acts greedy. Apparently that’s to mean for today’s very sensitive generation. So they changed it from greedy princess to one that pity’s the frog. Another change is that the there is never a deal between the frog and princess in today’s version, only conversation, some flirting and finally the kiss, there is no kiss in the original version. The last change is in the older version the frog teaches the princess not only to judge a book by its cover, but that it pays to be a person of your word and not to be greedy. The newer version does not teach any lesson close to that. It sticks with the one lesson and never changes.

            The ways these lessons are learned are on different paths and ones almost exactly the same. In the end they teach different things, expect not to judge a book by its cover. I feel the older version has more lessons than the newer version and teaches them in a story that is more interesting to the reader. Sure the modern version is good, but there’s so much more the audience could learn by reading or even watching. It makes me wonder why they scared the other half of the story and just kept that one lesson in particular. Maybe as time went on people thought the story was real to for younger viewers and decided to edit out the other parts and put them into a new story? Whatever their reasoning I think they could have knocked out two birds with one stone. http://www.childrenstory.info/childrenstories/thefrogprince.html

Music composed by Glass (Operas)

When I listen to operas by Philip Glass I cant help but think, wow, I do enjoy this but what must have been going through his head when he wrote this? Its unique but almost in a way where its weird. Some parts can be catchy and yet very annoying, as some catchy songs are. I don't dislike this music, in fact i have some more classical type songs on my playlist, but this is honestly quite good. It's interesting and quite relaxing to listen to I find.
Philip Glass has something going up in his brain when we write music, cause his work is very "out there". It stands on its own and you'd you know when you heard a song by him (if you've listened to his pieces before). When I listen I feel a increased sense of epicness, if you will. It builds up and reaches a climax and doesn't dissapoint when you think it cant get any more hectic. Some parts are a little cramped but nothing that really take away from a song.
Overall, Glass's music is a combination of musical suspense and build up. If you wait long enough however, you'll be satisfied with the overall feeling of the song. I feel goosebumps in certain points because the music literally makes me think of epic scenarios that the music would fit. When music makes you think, and kind of takes control of you mind while it plays then the composer or artist is doing something right.

Heroes (not the show)

The title “hero” can mean a lot of different things. I believe that a hero is different for everyone and that it really depends on the person. Just how everyone is different, so are their ideas. A hero to me (in a nutshell) is someone who does good for just the sake of doing good things. One such person that fits this description is Nathan Wolfe, the leader of the CIA of infectious disease. For many different reasons Nathan deserves more credit than he gets.

            One of the reasons this is true is because Nathan’s job is no walk through the park. He risks his life on numerous occasions and has actually almost died from malaria in the line of work.  Now you might say, well so do police officers and firemen, and this is still true. But Nathan’s case is much different, he risks his life preventing horrible diseases from spreading to the rest of the world. It’s almost disturbing how many horrific ways he could die just from work, you really have to be determined to do this every day of your life. Not only is this risky but imagine dealing with a threat you have limited knowledge of. Firefighters just need to know which building is on fire and where the nearest fire hydrant is. In Nathan’s case he’s fighting an invisible enemy. To prevent a disease from spreading you have to destroy the source, so imagine going to the source of a disease you can’t find or fight and your expected to eliminate it completely. Doesn’t sound like any easy task.

            Another reason Nathan Wolfe is a real hero is because he takes these dangerous risks for people. Not just for people he knows or people he’s met one time, no, just all the people here as a whole. He’s responsible for all or nearly all of the planet’s health and well-being. This is a huge responsibility for just one man to take on. Nathan really and truly cares for the people of his planet because otherwise he probably wouldn’t still be working in his field. Yet what’s really amazing is that he does this with such confidence, that he can get up and take all this responsibility and risk so much and still think in a positive way. Mentally, Nathan has to be unbreakable and smart at the same time, again not an easy task. He must really care about all the people in the world to go against all those odds every day and still love doing what he does for a living. Personally I think he doesn’t get enough credit for his work and abilities.

            The last reason I believe Nathan Wolfe to be a hero is because of the sheer skill he possess in his field of study. To think what kind of schooling and hands on practice he must have gone through to become this kind of skilled scientist. It couldn’t have been easy to study all the information to become a highly respected virologist. Some might say he’s a guardian angel for our planet. I would feel completely safe knowing that he cares so much and has the skill to back it up. What good is saying something if you can’t do it? This is something all heroes should be able to do, to ensure they know what they can and can’t handle, and Nathan shows this quality in his work.

            Nathan Wolfe defiantly displays characteristics  of a hero in my opinion. He risks his life for the sake of people on this planet and he’s good at it. He only gives and never takes and is always willing to help those in trouble, even at the cost of his own health and safety. Nathan Wolfe is truly a hero.