Well, the one thing we didn't need form a judge on AMERICAN IDOL is comedy. Ellen is worthless. The judges have been practically eliminated from the show editorially, their comments are hardly there at all.
Several of the people set up to be followed in the first round were quickly eliminated, destroying the fake drama that the editors had tried to create. But there were a few people to get through. There was the question of why everyone who played guitar was so damned out of tune, and why they didn't bother miking the guitars when they played, although I guess I just answered my own question.
Not sure how much longer I can watch this.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Saturday, February 06, 2010
THE INFORMANT!
THE INFORMANT! is one of the best films I saw this year. It's driven by a fascinating character study. It's best you go into the movie knowing very little, so I won't write much more about it, other than the fact that Damon gives one of the best performances of the year. As much as I liked him in INVICTUS, he should have been nominated for this instead.
Soderbergh does a great job with a relatively low budget creating the weird universe for the film, an amalgam of the real early 90s and his fictionalized version which is styled like the 60s and 70s. He also does a great job of casting comic actors in dramatic roles, giving the whole film an air of parody without actually becoming one. I lived Marvin Hamlisch's deliberately kitschy score as well.
This is definitely worth a rental.
Soderbergh does a great job with a relatively low budget creating the weird universe for the film, an amalgam of the real early 90s and his fictionalized version which is styled like the 60s and 70s. He also does a great job of casting comic actors in dramatic roles, giving the whole film an air of parody without actually becoming one. I lived Marvin Hamlisch's deliberately kitschy score as well.
This is definitely worth a rental.
AVATARD
I really went into AVATAR expecting to hate it, and was pleasantly surprised, as I have been a number of time this year with popular movies. You see, it pays to be a pessimist. You're constantly pleasantly surprised. It must really suck to be an optimist, you're constantly let down.
Anyway, even though the film was way too long, mostly in the first half, the story was very, very trite, and the main character was weak, I was still entertained. Most of the acting - other than the through-character - was actually quite good. But that's a pretty big weakness when the main character is bland, and it's tied tied to bad writing. (Good god, the voice-over was TERRIBLE. It was interesting watching THE INFORMANT in the same day, where the VO was brilliant.)
The visual effects were pretty brilliant. The sound design was amazing, and the music was pretty good too. From a technical standpoint it was probably the best film of the year.
We saw it in Imax3D at an AMC theater. Imax does not advertise which of the 3D technologies is on which screen. Unfortunately this theater uses the Real3D technology, which is the polarized lens system. The Dolby3D system is vastly superior. The glasses are electronic and use a shutter system to keep the two eyes in sync with the two projectors for a crisper image. The Real3D polarized lenses by definition allow half as much light through each lens, so the image is definitely darker. This was a big problem with this film, where much of it is in nighttime, and the characters have dark blue skin and all end up looking alike.
I am not at all a fan of 3D to begin with. I have poor vision, especially at night, and have always gotten headaches with the glasses. This was no exception. In fact, my headache started during the trailers for other movies and was in full force by the start of the feature.
I think 3D is a gimmicky fad which will pass again. It did not in any way add to the movie, and in fact detracted from it in many ways for me. It never looks like there is actual depth, instead to me it looks like a diorama, where there are a couple of planes of flat images, and not true depth. It's not like we're looking at a hologram. We're still looking at a two-dimensional image. The only places in the film where I noticed 3D were a distraction. There were quite a number of scenes where planes appeared blurred, or there appeared to be no depth at all.
I would probably not sit through the film again, but if I did, I would make sure it was in Dolby 3D. I'm not sure the Imax screen added anything. It was not shot in Imax, the only benefit was the size of the image.
Anyway, even though the film was way too long, mostly in the first half, the story was very, very trite, and the main character was weak, I was still entertained. Most of the acting - other than the through-character - was actually quite good. But that's a pretty big weakness when the main character is bland, and it's tied tied to bad writing. (Good god, the voice-over was TERRIBLE. It was interesting watching THE INFORMANT in the same day, where the VO was brilliant.)
The visual effects were pretty brilliant. The sound design was amazing, and the music was pretty good too. From a technical standpoint it was probably the best film of the year.
We saw it in Imax3D at an AMC theater. Imax does not advertise which of the 3D technologies is on which screen. Unfortunately this theater uses the Real3D technology, which is the polarized lens system. The Dolby3D system is vastly superior. The glasses are electronic and use a shutter system to keep the two eyes in sync with the two projectors for a crisper image. The Real3D polarized lenses by definition allow half as much light through each lens, so the image is definitely darker. This was a big problem with this film, where much of it is in nighttime, and the characters have dark blue skin and all end up looking alike.
I am not at all a fan of 3D to begin with. I have poor vision, especially at night, and have always gotten headaches with the glasses. This was no exception. In fact, my headache started during the trailers for other movies and was in full force by the start of the feature.
I think 3D is a gimmicky fad which will pass again. It did not in any way add to the movie, and in fact detracted from it in many ways for me. It never looks like there is actual depth, instead to me it looks like a diorama, where there are a couple of planes of flat images, and not true depth. It's not like we're looking at a hologram. We're still looking at a two-dimensional image. The only places in the film where I noticed 3D were a distraction. There were quite a number of scenes where planes appeared blurred, or there appeared to be no depth at all.
I would probably not sit through the film again, but if I did, I would make sure it was in Dolby 3D. I'm not sure the Imax screen added anything. It was not shot in Imax, the only benefit was the size of the image.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
THIS IS IT
It certainly is.
It's weird yet fascinating watching Michael Jackson prepare for the concerts that never happened. I think what struck me most is what a natural dancer he is. Even when he's clearly going through the motions in rehearsal, his motion is so naturally graceful.
Overall the film is very successful, especially considering the fact that it was never supposed to be a movie at all. It's basically home video that was supposed to be publicity and backstage documentary footage for DVD extras. So it was never planned to be released as a musical. The audio was never intended to be heard this way. And it totally rocks.
There are performance weaknesses from Jackson though. When he's on camera rehearsing, there was no way around using his half-assed vocals in some cases. Perhaps the biggest shock is actually how good he looks. Rumors were that he was so weak he could hardly stand, let alone dance. In reality, he looks very thin and pale, but in terms of energy, he acts a lot younger than 50. One thing is certain, no matter how much tickets would have cost, this concert would have been worth it. I imagine he would have been great to work with.
God only knows what would have happened if he hadn't passed away so young.
It's weird yet fascinating watching Michael Jackson prepare for the concerts that never happened. I think what struck me most is what a natural dancer he is. Even when he's clearly going through the motions in rehearsal, his motion is so naturally graceful.
Overall the film is very successful, especially considering the fact that it was never supposed to be a movie at all. It's basically home video that was supposed to be publicity and backstage documentary footage for DVD extras. So it was never planned to be released as a musical. The audio was never intended to be heard this way. And it totally rocks.
There are performance weaknesses from Jackson though. When he's on camera rehearsing, there was no way around using his half-assed vocals in some cases. Perhaps the biggest shock is actually how good he looks. Rumors were that he was so weak he could hardly stand, let alone dance. In reality, he looks very thin and pale, but in terms of energy, he acts a lot younger than 50. One thing is certain, no matter how much tickets would have cost, this concert would have been worth it. I imagine he would have been great to work with.
God only knows what would have happened if he hadn't passed away so young.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
I was prepared for a lukewarm feeling about INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, but I was mostly wrong. It's a pretty brilliant film, although as always for Tarantino, highly derivative. I really only had two issues with this film, one was the seemingly endless basement bar scene. What is it about filmmakers that make them think that two and a half hours is a reasonable length for a movie? Tarantino is a brilliant writer of dialogue, but not brilliant enough to pull off a scene that long in a single location with no action (until the end).
The other issue: why is he so afraid of working with a composer? Although most of the music choices were good, they are all over the place, and a single theme would have been a nice unifying factor for an otherwise episodic script. Is he really that afraid of allowing someone else to have a voice in his film?
Otherwise, there is a lot of great stuff in the film. Tarantino seems to have been watching one of my favorite directors, Sergio Leone, at least for the opening sequence and the music choices. It's a strange style for a film about Nazis in Paris, but somehow it works. I did like the movie, a lot of great acting and visual design. But he still has a lot of room to grow as a director.
The other issue: why is he so afraid of working with a composer? Although most of the music choices were good, they are all over the place, and a single theme would have been a nice unifying factor for an otherwise episodic script. Is he really that afraid of allowing someone else to have a voice in his film?
Otherwise, there is a lot of great stuff in the film. Tarantino seems to have been watching one of my favorite directors, Sergio Leone, at least for the opening sequence and the music choices. It's a strange style for a film about Nazis in Paris, but somehow it works. I did like the movie, a lot of great acting and visual design. But he still has a lot of room to grow as a director.
AMERICAN IDOL Leftovers
I can't believe I watched this. It's a friggin' clip show and we haven't even gotten to Hollywood yet. At least we get to make fun of Ellen next week.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
AMERICAN IDOL: DENVER
You’d think that since tonight’s show was on the town I’m living in, that it would be watchable, but it wasn’t. They need to get to Hollywood. They are about two weeks overdue.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
IT'S COMPLICATED
IT'S COMPLICATED?
No, it isn't. It's about 20 minutes of sitcom material stretched out to ten times its normal length, mostly with dialogue scenes that would never actually happen in real life. (I'm supposed to believe that three adult children in their 20s are all crammed into one bed listening to their mother talk about her divorce??) It's only been an hour or so since I watched the movie and thankfully I've already forgotten most of it.
About the only thing that makes this movie watchable is the cast. Meryl Streep is excellent, and so is Steve Martin. Unfortunately his character is pretty one-dimensional. Alec Baldwin is very likable but his character his harder to judge since no man of his age would act like the character in this film. It's pretty clearly a divorced woman's fantasy. He does his best in an otherwise ridiculous scenario.
This is a chick flick that is insulting to chicks.
No, it isn't. It's about 20 minutes of sitcom material stretched out to ten times its normal length, mostly with dialogue scenes that would never actually happen in real life. (I'm supposed to believe that three adult children in their 20s are all crammed into one bed listening to their mother talk about her divorce??) It's only been an hour or so since I watched the movie and thankfully I've already forgotten most of it.
About the only thing that makes this movie watchable is the cast. Meryl Streep is excellent, and so is Steve Martin. Unfortunately his character is pretty one-dimensional. Alec Baldwin is very likable but his character his harder to judge since no man of his age would act like the character in this film. It's pretty clearly a divorced woman's fantasy. He does his best in an otherwise ridiculous scenario.
This is a chick flick that is insulting to chicks.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
AMERICAN IDOL Dallas
Well, I thought tonight was the last night, but it looks like there's a whole nutha week ahead, including the night in Denver. That's too bad, as I'm sick of this show dragging on and on. Tonight the only person worth watching was the fat black guy who was very likeable but as a singer was only mediocre. I've yet to see anyone I was really excited about. The alleged jazz singer was only okay as well, but maybe she will get better in the next round. A lot of singers get more comforatable after the first a cappella audition.
MONSTERS V. ALIENS
The bar on animation has been set very high by Pixar, but MONSTERS V. ALIENS falls low on any scale. It's a kids film that isn't even good for kids. The writing is terrible. After the whole film, I have no idea who the main character is. She has no backstory and no purpose and is completely unsympathetic.
The character animation is weak, as are the characters themselves. Unlike 9, which I watched last night, the casting here was terrible. Even actors I like were completely wasted in the film. About the only good ting I can say about the film is that it sounded good.
Can't recommend this mess.
The character animation is weak, as are the characters themselves. Unlike 9, which I watched last night, the casting here was terrible. Even actors I like were completely wasted in the film. About the only good ting I can say about the film is that it sounded good.
Can't recommend this mess.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
AMERICAN IDOL Los Angeles
It's always surprising to me when they go to a city where the music industry is strong, yet they can't find any good singers. Don't any of the talented people bother auditioning for the show? Or do the producers weed them out because it would not be interesting to watch real talent from the beginning?
I doubt anyone from this episode will make it to the top 12. At least not the way they were presented tonight. Even the few that they were raving about were boring.
Tomorrow is, thankfully, the last night before the go to "Hollywood."
I doubt anyone from this episode will make it to the top 12. At least not the way they were presented tonight. Even the few that they were raving about were boring.
Tomorrow is, thankfully, the last night before the go to "Hollywood."
Monday, January 25, 2010
9
9 is an animated film, not to be confused with the musical. It's based on an animated short that was nominated for an Oscar.
It's a very strange film, much closer to an experimental film than a traditional narrative. Very little happens in the film. It's also very dark, taking place in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is gone but machines have taken on a life of their own. The main character appears to be the 9th in a series of puppet-like robots that are sentient. 9 is born in the opening of the movie. He has no idea what is going on and learns about this dark world through his experiences.
In many ways, 9 is the audience. We are exactly the same as he is, thrown into this universe in medias res, and we try to grasp at tiny clues to establish the logic of this bizarre world. I like this. It assumes the audience is an active participant in the movie's storytelling, and does not insult the audience the way certain other mainstream movies do.
There's a lot to like in this movie. The animation, and the whole visual style, are amazing. The voice casting is magnificent. It was not distracting stunt-casting, but every voice fit perfectly. The sound design was great. There was a lot of use of quiet in the film, yet there were also great action sequences. Each character was unique, even though they all looked like the same type of puppet. The score was very good.
Unfortunately, this is not exactly a mainstream movie. There are almost no humans in the movie. There's very little plot or action. Even after it's over, there's a lot to discuss about what happened in the film. It's an intelligent film, for adults, but it's animated. All of this is pretty much box office death, yet it is one of the most original films I've seen in a while. If you haven't seen this, please rent it, and support filmmakers who try to do something different. I think you'll find yourself rewarded.
It's a very strange film, much closer to an experimental film than a traditional narrative. Very little happens in the film. It's also very dark, taking place in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is gone but machines have taken on a life of their own. The main character appears to be the 9th in a series of puppet-like robots that are sentient. 9 is born in the opening of the movie. He has no idea what is going on and learns about this dark world through his experiences.
In many ways, 9 is the audience. We are exactly the same as he is, thrown into this universe in medias res, and we try to grasp at tiny clues to establish the logic of this bizarre world. I like this. It assumes the audience is an active participant in the movie's storytelling, and does not insult the audience the way certain other mainstream movies do.
There's a lot to like in this movie. The animation, and the whole visual style, are amazing. The voice casting is magnificent. It was not distracting stunt-casting, but every voice fit perfectly. The sound design was great. There was a lot of use of quiet in the film, yet there were also great action sequences. Each character was unique, even though they all looked like the same type of puppet. The score was very good.
Unfortunately, this is not exactly a mainstream movie. There are almost no humans in the movie. There's very little plot or action. Even after it's over, there's a lot to discuss about what happened in the film. It's an intelligent film, for adults, but it's animated. All of this is pretty much box office death, yet it is one of the most original films I've seen in a while. If you haven't seen this, please rent it, and support filmmakers who try to do something different. I think you'll find yourself rewarded.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
2012
I'm not sure this movie (2012) is even worth reviewing. Anyone who had wanted to see the film has probably seen it by now. The level of absurdity in the plot is beyond description. But there are a few points I feel can be made.
I feel it is very disturbing that audiences find entertainment in watching world destruction. 9/11 just wasn't enough for some people. There were several points in the movie where all I could think about were people who died in real life. The fact that the Haiti earthquake just happened didn't help the viewing of this film.
As far as technique is concerned, the film looked and sounded great. Especially in the opening of the movie, there were a number of effective sound moments. In the destruction sequences, most of the visual effects were excellent.
John Cusack brings a lot of likability to the film, and some of the early writing made me care about ancillary characters enough to carry me into the third act. But the film is so derivative that you could probably make a game out of listing all the other films referenced throughout. And I don't mean good films being references in a smart way. I mean many of the awkward moments from the original POSEIDON ADVENTURE were replicated in the final act of the film. Not to mention THE TOWERING INFERNO and various other 70s disaster crapfests.
I'm not sure why the filmmakers found it necessary to kill off the Russian characters one by one, other than the fact that the director was German. I did care about those characters at least as much as the other ones.
In the end, it's just another big dumb action film that insults the audience.
I feel it is very disturbing that audiences find entertainment in watching world destruction. 9/11 just wasn't enough for some people. There were several points in the movie where all I could think about were people who died in real life. The fact that the Haiti earthquake just happened didn't help the viewing of this film.
As far as technique is concerned, the film looked and sounded great. Especially in the opening of the movie, there were a number of effective sound moments. In the destruction sequences, most of the visual effects were excellent.
John Cusack brings a lot of likability to the film, and some of the early writing made me care about ancillary characters enough to carry me into the third act. But the film is so derivative that you could probably make a game out of listing all the other films referenced throughout. And I don't mean good films being references in a smart way. I mean many of the awkward moments from the original POSEIDON ADVENTURE were replicated in the final act of the film. Not to mention THE TOWERING INFERNO and various other 70s disaster crapfests.
I'm not sure why the filmmakers found it necessary to kill off the Russian characters one by one, other than the fact that the director was German. I did care about those characters at least as much as the other ones.
In the end, it's just another big dumb action film that insults the audience.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
MOZART at the CSO
Don't get me wrong, Mozart was a genius. He composed a number of pieces that move me no matter how many times I hear them. Yet, an evening of all Mozart is tough to pull off, especially when three of the four pieces are not among his best work. There is a certain sameness to the music of the high Classical era that makes it redundant after a while.
Tonight's concert had several problems. The first was the choice of material. The "Chaconne" from Idomeneo is not one of his best works. I suspect it works better when there are dancers. La Clemenza di Tito might be a great late opera, but the Overture is somewhat messy, lacking the structure that we know from Mozart's greatest works.
The feature piece of the first half was the Piano Concerto #18, performed by Benedetto Lupo. Mozart wrote 27 piano concerti. Unfortunately many of them were banged out over a three year period, and the quality varies drastically. This is not one of his more interesting works. There is one inherent problem in the Classical solo works: the individuality of the performer is often a slave to the style and the strict nature of the music. Lupo did not show much in terms of interpretive skills, with the exception being his wonderful read of the slow movement. Undoubtedly the best section of the piece, the lyrical nature of the piece allowed Lupo to show his melodic skills.
I would love to see more artists improvise their cadenzas. It would breathe more life into music that seems to have become academic in nature. I am also annoyed at the contemporary practice that frowns on people applauding between movements. This was not the case in Mozart's time, and the interplay between performer and audience would inherently make the music more involving.
What I had expected to be the highlight of the evening, and the main reason that I attended the concert, was Mozart's brilliant Symphony #40 in G Minor. This is one of my favorite pieces. From a compositional standpoint, it is absolutely perfect. It is full of interesting and unique musical ideas. (This may be the happiest piece ever written in a minor key.) It's a shame that it was ruined by weak conducting.
Bernard Labadie is the most annoying conductor I have seen. He is the stereotypical example of over-conducting. Both of his hands are constantly in full motion, even when completely unnecessary. He gave entrance cues for every single musical line of every single instrument throughout the entire evening. My wife gave up and closed her eyes for most of the evening. Mozart does NOT need this hand waving. It made me think back to one of the first concerts where I saw Jeffrey Kahane conduct. In mid-performance, he stopped conducting entirely and leaned back off the podium. He trusted his orchestra. This is a lesson Labadie could follow.
Mozart is so well-known that there is no reason to give entry cues to most performers (especially on the G Minor!). Labadie needs to trust his orchestra more. (This also points out that he was using a score. Why? He's supposed to be a Mozart specialist!)
In addition to his over-conducting, Labadie had tempo choices on the G Minor that were so poor that they ruined the evening for me. He took the second movement, an andante, at an allegretto tempo. This robbed the lyrical nature of the movement of any meaning. The orchestra desperately tried to slow down throughout the entire movement. Even worse, he took the minuet at a scherzo tempo, gutting it of any rhythmic importance. (The hemiola stops feeling like a hemiola when you conduct each measure in one!)
Taking the previous two movements so quickly forced him to rush the final movement as well. This one stood up the best. This was also the only time in the evening where I saw the conductor give any interpretation whatsoever. If he had stopped using his left hand exclusively for cuing, he would have been able to give more interpretation throughout the night to the orchestra. I also noticed that the orchestra hardly ever looked at the conductor. They were on auto-pilot because they knew they would get nothing from him. (This has not been the case with other conductors, even on repertoire standards.)
It's a shame, I really wanted to enjoy this concert. I hope for the orchestra's sake that they are not considering Labadie as a replacement for Kahane.
Tonight's concert had several problems. The first was the choice of material. The "Chaconne" from Idomeneo is not one of his best works. I suspect it works better when there are dancers. La Clemenza di Tito might be a great late opera, but the Overture is somewhat messy, lacking the structure that we know from Mozart's greatest works.
The feature piece of the first half was the Piano Concerto #18, performed by Benedetto Lupo. Mozart wrote 27 piano concerti. Unfortunately many of them were banged out over a three year period, and the quality varies drastically. This is not one of his more interesting works. There is one inherent problem in the Classical solo works: the individuality of the performer is often a slave to the style and the strict nature of the music. Lupo did not show much in terms of interpretive skills, with the exception being his wonderful read of the slow movement. Undoubtedly the best section of the piece, the lyrical nature of the piece allowed Lupo to show his melodic skills.
I would love to see more artists improvise their cadenzas. It would breathe more life into music that seems to have become academic in nature. I am also annoyed at the contemporary practice that frowns on people applauding between movements. This was not the case in Mozart's time, and the interplay between performer and audience would inherently make the music more involving.
What I had expected to be the highlight of the evening, and the main reason that I attended the concert, was Mozart's brilliant Symphony #40 in G Minor. This is one of my favorite pieces. From a compositional standpoint, it is absolutely perfect. It is full of interesting and unique musical ideas. (This may be the happiest piece ever written in a minor key.) It's a shame that it was ruined by weak conducting.
Bernard Labadie is the most annoying conductor I have seen. He is the stereotypical example of over-conducting. Both of his hands are constantly in full motion, even when completely unnecessary. He gave entrance cues for every single musical line of every single instrument throughout the entire evening. My wife gave up and closed her eyes for most of the evening. Mozart does NOT need this hand waving. It made me think back to one of the first concerts where I saw Jeffrey Kahane conduct. In mid-performance, he stopped conducting entirely and leaned back off the podium. He trusted his orchestra. This is a lesson Labadie could follow.
Mozart is so well-known that there is no reason to give entry cues to most performers (especially on the G Minor!). Labadie needs to trust his orchestra more. (This also points out that he was using a score. Why? He's supposed to be a Mozart specialist!)
In addition to his over-conducting, Labadie had tempo choices on the G Minor that were so poor that they ruined the evening for me. He took the second movement, an andante, at an allegretto tempo. This robbed the lyrical nature of the movement of any meaning. The orchestra desperately tried to slow down throughout the entire movement. Even worse, he took the minuet at a scherzo tempo, gutting it of any rhythmic importance. (The hemiola stops feeling like a hemiola when you conduct each measure in one!)
Taking the previous two movements so quickly forced him to rush the final movement as well. This one stood up the best. This was also the only time in the evening where I saw the conductor give any interpretation whatsoever. If he had stopped using his left hand exclusively for cuing, he would have been able to give more interpretation throughout the night to the orchestra. I also noticed that the orchestra hardly ever looked at the conductor. They were on auto-pilot because they knew they would get nothing from him. (This has not been the case with other conductors, even on repertoire standards.)
It's a shame, I really wanted to enjoy this concert. I hope for the orchestra's sake that they are not considering Labadie as a replacement for Kahane.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
AMERICAN IDOL Orlando
"My pantz done split" pretty much says it all. The only moment worth watching in the show.
The judges are letting too many attractive women through on their looks. Even Simon is not being critical enough. They really need a better judge than Kara to round things out.
The judges are letting too many attractive women through on their looks. Even Simon is not being critical enough. They really need a better judge than Kara to round things out.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
AMERICAN IDOL Chicago
This show needs to get to Hollywood, stat. It's just boring. Shania Twain was too easy of a judge, and the bad singers trying to get on TV are not interesting, and getting redundant.
Monday, January 18, 2010
NAMM Wrapup
NAMM is the biggest trade show related to musical instruments, hardware and software. This year it was slightly smaller than the last few years, but is still one of the biggest shows in the country.
With the downturn in the economy, there was not a lot of new stuff to look at. Roland moved their setup off the main floor and into the old dome, which made them looks smaller. I'm not sure they were showing anything new.
The pro audio section had a lot of exhibitors. Handheld recorders seem to be popping up all over the place. Major hardware manufacturers did not have anything new to show.
Apple did not attend.
I'm always happy to see the number of booths related to acoustic musical instruments. For a while the show had become almost exclusively electronic, but now we're back to real music, which is heartening, although I really feel the drum manufacturers should be moved off site. Pianos have their own separate area upstairs, can't they do the same with drums?
The show is a lot of fun. I missed Day 1 as I arrived that evening. I think next year I will try to be there for Day 1 as it is the easiest day to get around. I've learned to avoid Saturday completely, it's too busy. Sunday is OK for avoiding crowds, but it's a short day and many reps leave the show early, so if you want to talk to people it can be tough.
This year we had three students attend from UC Denver. One was given both a NAMM Scholarship and a Presidential Award, another was given a NAMM scholarship, and a third was given a SPARS scholarship. This is a particularly good group of students, I'm very happy to have had a great lunch with them and talk about the show.
NAMM has a foundation which supports education. I attended their awards ceremony and their faculty mixer, both of which were excellent events. I hope to continue this relationship with our school as it is very beneficial to the students.
With the downturn in the economy, there was not a lot of new stuff to look at. Roland moved their setup off the main floor and into the old dome, which made them looks smaller. I'm not sure they were showing anything new.
The pro audio section had a lot of exhibitors. Handheld recorders seem to be popping up all over the place. Major hardware manufacturers did not have anything new to show.
Apple did not attend.
I'm always happy to see the number of booths related to acoustic musical instruments. For a while the show had become almost exclusively electronic, but now we're back to real music, which is heartening, although I really feel the drum manufacturers should be moved off site. Pianos have their own separate area upstairs, can't they do the same with drums?
The show is a lot of fun. I missed Day 1 as I arrived that evening. I think next year I will try to be there for Day 1 as it is the easiest day to get around. I've learned to avoid Saturday completely, it's too busy. Sunday is OK for avoiding crowds, but it's a short day and many reps leave the show early, so if you want to talk to people it can be tough.
This year we had three students attend from UC Denver. One was given both a NAMM Scholarship and a Presidential Award, another was given a NAMM scholarship, and a third was given a SPARS scholarship. This is a particularly good group of students, I'm very happy to have had a great lunch with them and talk about the show.
NAMM has a foundation which supports education. I attended their awards ceremony and their faculty mixer, both of which were excellent events. I hope to continue this relationship with our school as it is very beneficial to the students.
UP IN THE AIR
UP IN THE AIR is a very good movie that is marred only by a weak ending. The last ten minutes of the film are the only problem. A predictable plot twist followed by some pointless meandering undercut an otherwise great film. All of the performances are very good, most especially the two women characters. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick steal every scene they are in from George Clooney, which is note easy to do. The script is very smart, and is very timely as it deals with the massive unemployment issues that the country is dealing with.
I recommend the film, but I don't see this as best picture.
I recommend the film, but I don't see this as best picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
