Thoughts on Music Education

Two posts on Facebook have gone somewhat viral regarding music education. 

Here is the original post by Geoffrey Keezer. 

Here is the response by James Falzone. (It's the text accompanying the photo.)

I think between the two, we have an understanding of some of the things that are wrong with higher ed at the moment. They both are right and they both are wrong.

I just retired from full-time teaching after 30 years (15 at USC, 15 at CU Denver). Here are my thoughts on what each of them got right and wrong, along with my observations of things they did not mention. Let’s start with James Falzone’s rebuttal first, with his three categories of “windows into what might be transpiring as both diagnosis and solution.”

1. HIGHER EDUCATION IS IN SHAMBLES

“[Policy decisions]… that have made the project of college teaching and learning absurdly expensive, highly regulated, overly assessed, and tragically unimaginative.”

Absolutely true. This creates several subcategories. 

1a) The Expense of School 

When I went to college, the middle class could get a quality education without going into lifelong debt, and in some cases, any debt at all. This is no longer the truth. For many, the cost makes them reconsider the value of education. 

1b) The Value of Education

The increased cost and the changes in higher ed have made it harder to justify a college education, especially a master’s degree. I know plenty of people who didn’t graduate high school and are successful in music and film. 

“From my experience, shame is never a good teacher and the ‘tough love’ Professor Keezer and many others seem to want to return to can resemble shame.” 

There are students for whom the only way to make the light bulb go on is to let them know how unprofessional they are. Often it is an otherwise “A” student who thinks they know everything, but still do not understand professionalism. I do believe that preparing students for employment is the primary job of secondary education. I tell students this in the syllabus and that I expect their work to approach a professional level. Many are not prepared for this. 

However, students (and parents) who think of higher ed as a job placement service are sadly mistaken. Our job is to prepare them for success when they get a foot in the door, not to find a job for them.

1c) Students as Paying Customers

This is a terrible attitude for administrators to have and it encourages the students to sue the school or to request that a faculty member be punished. I don’t know any faculty who think of students as paying customers. It allows the student to reject any part of their education even though most undergrads have no idea where they will end up in life or what they really need out of an education. 

One way in which this is problematic is that students are asked to review faculty, while taking the class, and without knowing what their final grade will be. These reviews hold a terrible amount of power over faculty. I know faculty who have been fired over poor reviews (which are anonymous to faculty and administration, so there is no accountability). If students knew what they needed, they wouldn't be in school. The original intent of these types of reviews was a guide for students so that they could decide which classes they want to take, and which teachers they want to study with. They should not be used to judge faculty. Followup with recent alumni is a far more important metric. They are now in a position to know what they learned in the class and how it has affected their careers.  

1d) The Pandemic Changed Everything

“The work is harder than ever.”

It was a very difficult two years for everyone, watching students who were miserable with their attention being split and with long-lasting mental issues created by staring at a computer screen for two years. Teaching undergrads, I have seen that students learned very little during those two years. I had freshmen the year following the pandemic, and they had no idea what college was supposed to be like. We are still dealing with students who lost two years of education, including social experiences. It was a terrible time for all of us. The pandemic also left faculty with mental damage and long-term physical damage as well. 

“'If I’m even a little bit right about this, that 9:30 AM class, no matter how great the teacher or subject matter, is diminished in a student’s worldview and is now just as important, or less so, as a host of other concerns vying for attention, including, indeed, long commutes, broken heaters and staying out to 3 am the night before.' 

"In my experience with students today, it can also include childcare needs, working several jobs, caring for ill parents, and housing instability.”

1e) “Kids Today”

“…it struck me as a caring but frustrated teacher who needed to vent after a tough day in the classroom. I’ve been there. But something about the tone of the lament, and, even more concerning, the disrespectful comments that have ensued from others about ‘kids today,’ has me flummoxed.”

The “kids today” attitude in academia has been around at least since ancient Greece. However, I have seen changes over the last 30 years. 

I am not just from a different time; I am from a different mentality than today’s students. Both my parents were in education. My father taught history and became a college administrator, eventually getting a Doctorate in Education. He had been in the services in WWII and was most well-known as a very successful football coach. Many of his best personality traits have come through me (along with some of the worst). My mother taught elementary school reading until she died, and when my father remarried, it was to a college English professor. 

Growing up, I was hardly ever late and hardly ever deliberately missed a class. Punctuality was driven into me. We had a great education in an upper-middle-class town. Of course, some students cut classes regularly. Many of them changed later in life and became more responsible. 

I went to two undergraduate schools with different attitudes towards education. At MIT, students were rarely late, but there were a lot of students who skipped classes entirely, and who went on to get A’s. This is why I do not grade using attendance as a metric. If you are smart enough to do well in the class and NOT attend class, that to me is a greater achievement than showing up and doing the minimum amount of work. If you do not attend class, you will find it very difficult to do well on the assignments, so there is no need for a separate attendance grade.  

Interestingly, at Berklee, some students got A’s without attending class, but many learned very little while there because they never went to class. At USC, the students were very different. Most of them were independently wealthy because it has always been an expensive school with few opportunities for scholarships. Most students were punctual and attended class, but if they skipped class, it was because they were working on their films. Because of their comparative wealth, there was little outside business to distract them. 

Moving to teach at CU Denver, I immediately had a different type of student. Almost all my students work at least part-time. Some of them work full-time. I had one student who worked an overnight shift at Coors Brewery and went on to get not only his bachelor’s degree but his master’s degree while doing so. I have students who have children and students who are caregivers for members of their families. I have students who cannot afford a computer or even a fast internet connection. I have students who share rooms with too many people for Zoom classes to function. 

Students HAVE changed, and their expectations have changed as well. This cannot be changed any time soon, which means teachers must adapt. In addition, every student is unique, and you have to try to teach them all regardless of your perceived notions about them. You have no idea what they are going through outside of class. 

1f) Neurodivergence 

As someone who checks off two boxes in neurodivergence, I understand and sympathize with students who truly need special assistance in learning. 

This is not going to be a popular statement, but I have found it to be true that some students exaggerate their issues solely so that they can put off work or have excuses for mediocre work. I regularly get requests to give students double the length of time for quizzes and exams. In only a handful of cases students needed more than the regularly allotted time and most finished in far less than that. 

Of course, some students do need assistance. It’s usually easy to see who does. But anyone who wants extra time gets it.

1g) Metrics in Education

In addition to not using attendance to grade, I make sure that quizzes and exams are a very small part of their overall grade. Also, the quizzes are extremely easy for students who attend class and take notes. In my current grad class, it is only 16% (about one-sixth) of their grade. I do not see that the value of being a good test-taker has anything to do with success in the music or film industry. I grade primarily on their semester-long projects. 

1h) Playing Nice

One of the ways I encourage professionalism is to have them do group projects. Nowhere in music or film will you find people who work completely alone. That’s not how life works. If I get reliable information from students that one group member is not carrying their weight, their final grade will be affected. The ability to work well with others is one of the most important goals of education for me. 

(2) PROVIDING CONTENT VS TEACHING

“I see far too many faculty members merely providing content as opposed to truly teaching.”

2a) Critical Thought

Teaching requires that students participate in critical thought. I have far too many students who have the attitude of “just tell me what to do” rather than thinking, how was this accomplished by other artists that we discussed in class, and how can I do it differently to seek my own voice as an artist?”

Critical thought is almost completely missing from today’s college students. It is very frustrating to have to teach upperclassmen like they are freshmen and freshmen like they are still in high school. 

The Socratic Method fosters student engagement through discussion. I find it harder and harder to get students to participate in class discussions. 

“One particularly disheartening comment on the original post suggested we need only teach to the really good students ‘because they are the ones that will amount to something.’”

Yikes, I do not know any faculty who have this attitude. However, it is almost always the best students who come to me for help outside of class time. It’s difficult to give everyone personalized instruction, so we tend to lean towards the students who are already doing well. 

2b) Learning from Criticism

Maybe I was just lucky, but at all points in my education, my best teachers were always the ones who were most critical of me. This is how you learn. If you were doing everything right, what are you doing in school? Go get an entry-level position (mostly unpaid internships) and get some real-life experience. This is how, historically, people have gotten jobs in music and film. 

I have had many “A” students who complained that I was too hard on students. The vast majority of my students who turn in their work on time get an A or A-. Most of the rest get a B+ or B. I can probably count on both hands the number of times I have given a “C.” Yet the students think I am too hard on them in my criticism. 

(3) LESS FOCUS ON THE INDIVIDUAL, MORE ATTENTION TO THE WHOLE

“… even a great player and teacher like Professor Keezer will not be able to sustain the concentration of a modern-day college student if they are not studying within an ecosystem that is healthy and created to nourish their interests over time.”

I rewrite my syllabi every semester, and every semester, I get off schedule and need to revise it during the semester. I know this is frustrating for students, but every individual and every group of individuals is unique. For instance, my grad class this semester is excellent, and I have already had some of them in similar classes. This has allowed me to rewrite the syllabus to include several guest lectures from working professionals. I know the students will appreciate this. 

“If we take a student’s seeming lack of interest as “blatant disrespect,” we are putting ourselves and our egos before their education.”

I’ll admit I felt this way when I started teaching. I was an adjunct who had come back to school to share my professional experiences with students. Having gone through the program at USC myself, I knew how much they were missing. It was insulting that there were students who didn’t even want to be in my class. In my old age, I have changed and am much more patient with students. (Every current and recent student is currently saying “How is that even possible? You mean you were worse at one point?”)

“Acknowledging the difficulty of the moment, honing our craft as teachers, and working together to build a healthy ecosystem in which students can flourish, is where my mind and heart are these days.”

Amen!

Now let’s look at the original post by Geoffrey Keezer. You can see immediately that it is not as well-written or even as well-thought-out a post. I’m sure he did not expect this to go viral. However, he does make some valid points. 

Attendance and Punctuality

“They can't be bothered to show up on time for a 9:30 AM class. Nothing but lame excuses. The trains were messed up. Was up hanging at Small's till 3 AM. My heater is broken. Ad nauseum. And when they do show up a half hour late (if at all), they haven't practiced and are unprepared.”

I agree that punctuality is important, but we are living in a post-pandemic world, and we can’t always expect students to be there on time. Again, this seems to be the instructor taking this personally instead of professionally as an educator. 

Grade Inflation

“This culture of ‘everybody gets an A", and "everybody gets a medal" regardless of students’ blatant disrespect for their lesson plans and their teachers.”’

I agree that there is a problem with grade inflation. This is what happens when you treat students like customers. But students have been living in that environment for decades. Using low grades purely as punishment does not encourage the student to change.  

“Back to tough love because it was still love. My mentors and bosses gave it to me straight if I was out of line. It might have hurt my feelings for a day or two, but then I got my shit together. Students - if you're serious about wanting a career in music when you graduate, then GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER. Practice your assignments, do the work, and SHOW UP. Thanks.”

If I am being honest, I can’t disagree with any part of his last statement. He puts it bluntly, but it is sometimes necessary to put a student in their place to let them know how far they are from being employable. Just don’t do it all the time. 

The Future is in Jeopardy

Some of the proposed hosts

 
I've been watching Jeopardy since Art Fleming was the host. One of my fondest memories of my mother (who died when I was twelve) is of watching Jeopardy with her. The Art Fleming version went off the air the same month she died. 

I was in college when it was brought back with Alex Trebek as host. I was a bit of a game show nerd growing up and knew him from two previous game shows: High Rollers, which introduced the concept of gambling through craps to a generation of kids who pretended to be sick so that they could stay home and watch TV, and The $128,000 Pyramid (scheme). Even in these two goofy shows, it was clear that Alex was much smarter than the average game show host. 

Alex and co-host Ruta show off their Hair

When Jeopardy returned, I was thrilled and recorded it every day, "binging" on the stacked-up episodes when I got home from college for a weekend or a vacation. This continued when I moved to California for grad school, and continues to this day. My wife and I generally watch it when we are eating lunch. I'm usually a week or two behind air dates, but catch up in the summer reruns. 

Well played, Google. Well played. 

It was a sad day when Alex died as he left big shoes to fill. It seemed as though it was likely that Ken Jennings would be his hand-picked successor. In addition to his records as a contestant on Jeopardy, Ken has hosted a few game shows and made appearances on many others. 

I was surprised when Jeopardy announced a series of guest hosts. It began to make sense when I realized that Jeopardy's taping schedule interfered with Ken's tapings as host for another game show, The Chase. I still figured that it was Ken's job to lose, and somehow, it looks like that happened. 

News leaked that Executive Producer Mike Richards was the top-runner for the spot. It was indicated that there were a few others still on the shortlist while they negotiated his contract. Did they reject Ken because of some tweets that were in poor taste? Well, if they did, they had better look into the past of Mike Richards. When he was EP on The Price is Right, he fired model Brandi Cochran for getting pregnant. From the Hollywood Reporter:

'Cochran said she originally kept her pregnancy secret because she didn’t want to be fired. Later, she did tell others that she was pregnant with twins. When Cochran did so, she testified, Richards “put his head in his hands.” The next day, Richards allegedly stormed up to her and said, “Twins? Are you kidding? Are you serious?

Richards defended not rehiring Cochran (who had a miscarriage with one of the twins and pointed to the stress she endured) because of the show’s evolving format. At trial, he testified the show was relying upon fewer models and while Cochran was a “good model,” she “would not take us to great.”' 

Jeopardy has had 16 guest hosts. I guess the appeal of Mike Richards is based on ratings. He had the second-best ratings after Jennings. However, this is not really a fair metric. Ken's ratings were lower than Alex's last few weeks, and Mike's ratings were lower than Ken's. The downward trend has continued overall since then, but for obvious reasons. 

First, the novelty of guest hosts ran out quickly. Just make a decision already! Second, Ken and Mike were on in the early spring, when TV viewing is at a high. Ratings typically drop all summer long. They even run reruns in August because they know the audience is small. Finally, the last two weeks have had the Olympics. A third of the syndicated markets that run Jeopardy are NBC affiliates, which carry the Olympics. For a third of the stations, the show is pre-empted and runs either late-night/early-morning, or even worse, they are lumped together over the weekend in a late-night/early-morning schedule. Both of these make it difficult for the viewer to find the show, and if you are recording it at its regular time, the pre-emptions may not record at all. This is a very raw deal for Levar Burton. 

When I heard that Levar Burton was guest hosting, my hopes shot up that he might get the job. Jeopardy leans heavily towards a white audience (as well as male-dominated, and an older audience that continues to get older), and the new host could be used to bring in an untapped audience. Burton has several things going for him. He came to the public eye winning an Emmy for Roots, which was landmark television. Not only was it the first African-American series, but it was also about slavery, something that has always been a hot topic in the US. Growing up in a lily-white suburb of Boston, I have to admit that seeing Roots opened my eyes to US history. It should really be required viewing. (Interestingly, ABC had so little faith in the project that they decided to burn it off in a mini-series run over a week instead of running it as a series, which was the original intention.) 

For more than 20 years, Burton hosted Reading Rainbow, essentially making himself the "Mr. Rogers" of a generation. I was too old to watch it, and never had kids, but the show has won a Peabody and 26 Emmys. His presence on Jeopardy could open up a whole new audience to the show. He was also Geordi LaForge on Star Trek: The Next Generation, which made a black engineer a model for many younger viewers. 

I have not yet seen his appearance, but the general consensus is that he did not do well. Even he admitted he was rocky at first. 

Looking at the 16 hosts, there were only 4 that were minorities. Bill Whitaker, who put me to sleep, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who was quite good but probably not looking for a new job, and Robin Roberts. I was pleasantly surprised by Roberts, who is a Peabody-winning journalist for covering her own complex health issues. She has a very amiable demeanor and a very pleasant voice. She is also the only minority woman who has hosted. I think she would be an excellent choice, she would likely get more women viewers and more minority viewers, which the show needs badly. 

Three other women have hosted the show. Katie Couric had very good ratings, but is not looking to be a permanent host, and was not particularly good in my opinion. Mayim Bialik was mediocre, although her presence on a long-running sitcom might bring in a younger audience, which the show also needs badly. Savannah Guthrie was very weak in my opinion. 

None of the other men have impressed me. In particular, Dr. Oz, who is essentially a snake-oil salesman (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167233/), is the oddest choice of all. I can't imagine why he was invited. Same with Joe Buck, whose most famous quote was his World Series coverage of "Pujols squeezes out number two" (although his shows have not aired yet).

I'll be very happy if Robin Roberts or Levar Burton gets it, and I'll be satisfied if now dark-horse Ken Jennings gets it. Anyone else, it's likely to be a letdown. 

ADDENDUM: 

I like David Faber too, but I'd rather see Levar or Robin get it. 

Mike Richards has already been fired as host, but he continues to be the showrunner. If these comments were bad enough to keep him from hosting, why should he be the one telling the host what to do? 

He has been replaced with Mayim Bialik, who also brings baggage:

'In her 2012 book, Beyond The Sling, the Big Bang Theory actress wrote that she and her husband “made an informed decision not to vaccinate our children, but this is a very personal decision that should be made only after sufficient research, which today is within reach of every parent who seeks to learn about their child’s health regardless of their medical knowledge or educational status.” Bialik’s comments have circulated in the years since, positioning her as an anti-vaxxer, a label she rejects, as she has since vaccinated her children and has publicly announced that she has also received the Covid vaccine. Bialik, who is a proponent of attachment parenting and holistic birthing, is also a critic of the birth control pill.'

https://decider.com/2021/08/25/will-mayim-bialiks-controversial-opinions-get-her-fired-from-jeopardy/ 

In addition, like Oz, she is a huckster: 

Jeopardy Co-Host Mayim Bialik Promoted Fake Brain Supplement Neuriva 

https://ctwatchdog.com/health/supplements/jeopardy-co-host-mayim-bialik-promoted-fake-brain-supplement-neuriva

The actress has a PhD in neuroscience. She should know better. I don't think she is an appropriate host either. 

Recommended Viewing

Recommended viewing for sound design and/or music.

2001
32 SHORT FILMS ABOUT GLENN GOULD
THE ABYSS
ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1939)
ALIEN
ALIENS
ALTERED STATES
AMELIE
AMERICAN GRAFFITI
AND GOD SPOKE
APOCALYPSE NOW
BACK TO THE FUTURE
BACKDRAFT
BARTON FINK
THE BEAR
BEAUTY and THE BEAST (animated) 
BIRDMAN
THE BLACK STALLION
BLOW OUT
BROADCAST NEWS
DAS BOOT
CAST AWAY
CHILDREN OF MEN
CITIZEN KANE
THE CONVERSATION
DELICATESSEN
DISTRICT 9
DIVA 
ERASERHEAD
THE EXORCIST
FARGO
FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FEW DOLLARS MORE, and THE GOOD, BAD and the UGLY
FRANKENSTEIN (1931); BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN
GODFATHER I; II
THE GRADUATE

GRAVITY
HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
HUGO
INCEPTION
INCREDIBLES
INTERSTELLAR
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1972)
IRON GIANT
JURASSIC PARK
KING KONG (1933)
LIFE OF PI
LIVING IN OBLIVION
LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY
M
M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY, MON ONCLE, PLAYTIME et JOUR de FETE (Tati)
^^^*** MUST SEES***^^^
MALCOLM X
THE MATRIX
MONSTER'S INC.
THE NAKED GUN
NEVER CRY WOLF
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
NORTH BY NORTHWEST
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST
PI
POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE
PRIMARY COLORS
PSYCHO
PULP FICTION
QUIET PLACE
RAGING BULL
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
RATATOUILLE
RAY
RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER
REVENANT
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM 
RIGHT STUFF
SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
SEVEN SAMURAI
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
SNEAKERS
STAR TREK II: WRATH OF KHAN and IV: VOYAGE HOME
STAR WARS; EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
TAXI DRIVER
T2
THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE
(original German version, NOT the dubbed version which is edited & remixed)
TOUCH OF EVIL
TOY STORY I, II, III and IV
TROIS COULEURS: BLEU, ROUGE et BLANC (Kieslowski), THE DEKALOG and DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE
TWIN PEAKS 
UNFORGIVEN
USUAL SUSPECTS
VERTIGO
VIVRE SA VIE
WALL•E
WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE WRONG TROUSERS
WHEN HARRY MET SALLY
WHIPLASH
WIZARD OF OZ

2017 Best Picture

I have not yet seen Fences. It just became available for purchase on iTunes and I expect to view it this week and update this post.

Of the other eight nominees, here are my short reviews, ranked from eighth to first. I liked all of them a lot. However, since they are up for Oscars, I still have to be critical.

8) Hacksaw Ridge
Hacksaw Ridge is an almost instantly forgettable war film. It's based on an interesting true story, and I like Andrew Garfield, but the film is far too Hollywood and the script is extremely predictable. The film also overstays its welcome by taking far too long to get where it is going. It's worth seeing, but it is not Oscar material in my opinion.

7) Arrival 
I know a lot of people really loved Arrival. I did too. But it has a lot of problems. From a science fiction standpoint, little in the film makes any sense. And what makes it worse for me is that the film looks like a low budget film. Here we have an event that is about to change the world, and we have what feels like four or five speaking roles in the entire film. Except for a few news shots, I don't think any scene has more than half a dozen people in it. The filmmakers created a very closed universe for a film which is about opening up the universe to the audience. The visual effects were effective, but they were deliberately murky much of the time, and I kept thinking of the old Outer Limits series, where that was a budgetary choice and not a creative choice. It's a very good film, but I don't think it should have been nominated for Best Picture. What I did like was the fact that they made the film about communication, and that humanity had to learn to work together to overcome challenges. Even without an alien visit, we need to learn to do that now.

6) La La Land
I really liked La La Land a lot, but it is a severely flawed film. I'm not sure why they made the main character a jazz musician, because nothing he plays is anything like what he claims to like. He claims to worship Thelonious Monk but I don't think there is a minor second anywhere in the film. I agree with the criticism of whitewashing in the film, which Kareem Abdul Jabbar wrote about much more eloquently than I could in The Hollywood Reporter here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-how-la-la-land-misleads-race-romance-jazz-975786. Although the two leads did sing their vocals live, neither of them is good enough to maintain musical interest, and the dancing is kind of lame. The songs are forgettable. However, when the film does work, it works extremely well. The dance scene shot overlooking the valley at sunset is gorgeous. I know many people think this film is favored to sweep the awards, but it is not worthy in my opinion. In 2011 the Academy gave Best Picture to The Artist. Although I loved that film a lot, I think the worst thing the academy could do right now is give the award to another nostalgia film. It's the equivalent of Hollywood giving the Oscar to itself. There are several other films that are far more worthy, and that will stand the test of time better than The Artist or La La Land.

5) Manchester By the Sea
I know a lot of people really loved this movie, and I liked it a lot as well, but I think since I grew up only a few miles from where the movie is set, it was not as involving, as I know too many people like the characters in the movie. In fact, one of the first shots in the film is of the gas station my family went to in my hometown. Maybe it was too close to home for me, literally. I did like the acting and the script. What I did not like was the ending, where the film just stops. I had this complaint about a number of films this year. You don't need to tie up every thread in the film, but I need to know what I am supposed to take away from the film, and I really took nothing with me after the film was over.

4) Hell or High Water
In any other year, Hell or High Water might have been best picture. The move fires on all cylinders. The script and acting are excellent. This film certainly has me looking forward to more by the same filmmakers. But for me, there were several other films that mattered more than this one.

3) Lion
We are now getting into territory where it is harder and harder to delineate excellence. Lion is an outstanding piece of filmmaking with several amazing performances. I hope a lot of Americans see this film so that they are reminded how much worse their lives might have been if they had been born into the abject poverty that the main character was. My only real criticism of the film is that the last third of it is fairly predictable, by-the-numbers Hollywood screenwriting, when the fist two thirds felt completely fresh. Nonetheless, I highly recommend this film to everyone.

2) Hidden Figures
Hidden Figures is far from perfect, but I found it one of the most emotionally involving films of the year. The first act of the film is written a little sloppily, but once it gets underway, the film really grabs the viewer. This film is also guilty of whitewashing, as the Kevin Costner character did not really exist in real life, but the studio insisted that there be a bankable (meaning white) star for the film. The acting was really outstanding. In addition, this film fills in some important Afrincan-American history that has not been widely known. And the film is about science, which is something that is being overlooked nationally right now.

1) Moonlight
Moonlight is in a class by itself. I sincerely hope it wins. Like many of the other films I enjoyed this year, the film is important socially. The main character is a closeted gay boy that we see in three periods of his life. I think most people have no understanding of how difficult it is to be black or to be gay in America now, and this movie tackles both very well. Also in terms of filmmaking, they pulled off the impossible. If you write a script with different actors playing the same character, you are likely to be told the script is unmakeable. It is very, very hard to pull off performance continuity, especially when one of the actors is fairly young. But this film does it very well. I cannot recommend the film highly enough.

2017 Animation

Animation is one of my favorite forms of filmmaking because you can do anything imaginable with it. This year the animated films were excellent.

A company called Shorts HD has packaged four of the five animated Shorts nominated for the Oscar for $8. They can be viewed here: https://play.google.com/store/movies/details/2017_Oscar_Nominated_Shorts_Films_Animation?id=U1xlQnR4Auc&hl=en#details-reviews. 

The fifth film is Pixar's nominee Piper, which is available on iTunes. As always, Pixar's nominee has it all. The character animation and lighting are amazing, and the story, although very short, is engrossing. I'm not sure this is the best short of the year though. 

Of the four on Shorts HD, I prefered Blind Vaysha, which has dark animation to accompany a thoughtful Russian folk tale. The style of animation matched the tone of the story perfectly, and it's a film I will remember and think about for a while. 

Pear Cider and Cigarettes is by far the longest of the shorts, at 35 minutes, but it sustains its time well. I liked the animation, and the music matches the main character of Techno, who is apparently based on a real person, but I think this was a missed opportunity for sound design. The music gets old fast, and the film is wall-to-wall voiceover, but the character is engrossing enough to justify watching it. 

Borrowed Time is a nice short, but it has a student feel to it. The characters and animation are good, but the story has no emotional resolution, which makes it feel long even though it is only three minutes. It almost feels like a demo reel for a feature. 

Pearl is the weakest film of the lot. An extended music video, with music that is not very good, the film has its heart in the right place, but it does not payoff. The style of animation looks like it was shot on video and digitally animated, but the animation is quite rough. I'm not sure how this got nominated. 

This year's features were all excellent. My personal favorite is The Red Turtle, which is still in a few theaters. It's a feature-length film with no dialogue, and most of it with only one human character. And a turtle. It's really beautiful, and like Blind Vaysha, I will be thinking about the film for a long time. 

I also loved Zootopia. This is a very important film right now as it has a moral - that anyone can be anything regardless of what they look like. I wish everyone saw this film. 

I really loved Kubo and the Two Strings as well. A beautiful story with characters you will really care about. 

Moana was also entertaining but I honestly felt like it was a little too long, and the mood shifts were somewhat jarring. I know a lot of people thought it was the best animated film of the year though. 

I have not seen My Life as a Zucchini. I believe it is still in a few theaters. 

There was one more animated film I loved this year that was not nominated. The Little Prince is a film that will last through the ages. Unlike other films which have tried to adapt short books into feature length and failed, this film adds a nice layer of depth to the book with the new material that they added to flesh it out to feature length. It is also great family entertainment. 

I also very much enjoyed The Jungle Book, which has a live action main character, but almost everything else in the film is animated digitally. This one was of the best films of the year in my opinion. It's nominated for Visual Effects and I think it will win as most of it passes as live action even though it is not. 

2017 Documentaries

NOTE: Updated with Shorts reviews below.

Here is my take on the Documentary Features nominated for the major awards this year, starting with the five films nominated for the Oscar. It was another truly outstanding year for documentaries!

OJ: Made in America is probably the best documentary series on TV in ages. We watched the entire series in a few nights. The runtime without commercials is a little under 8 hours. At the end of 8 hours, I actually felt like I could watch more. The later part of his life is not covered as fully as I had hoped. This film won the IDA Documentary Feature award, beating several other excellent contenders.

Four of the five Oscar nominees deal with racial issues in some way. Three of the five nominees for the Documentary Feature Oscar deal with African-American relations in the US. OJ deals with it quite well, I believe all of Part II (if I remember correctly) was about setting the racial tone in Los Angeles when the first trial happened. If you only saw part one, you should really watch the entire series. It's online at ESPN:
http://www.espn.com/watchespn/index/_/id/2840463/ 

However, I find it odd that this is nominated for the Oscar when it was a TV series. I know it is legal by their rules, but voters are supposed to vote ONLY on the part that was theatrically released, which was Part I. In some ways this gives it an unfair advantage as no other nominees had the scope of a miniseries. On the other hand, I think the association with television might turn off AMPAS voters.

Side note, I cannot bring myself to watch the miniseries based on the trial. I tried but I could not watch it as entertainment. I lived through a lot of it in Los Angeles, and even stopped working to watch the Bronco chase. Some things just don't work as entertainment.

13th was nominated for the IDA Doc award and is nominated for the Film Independent Spirit Award in addition to the Oscar. It's available on Netflix. It's a doc produced by Ava DuVernay about the American prison system and the racism inherent in the system. It's a brilliant documentary, and may very well win the Oscar and/or Spirit award. I'm not sure it is my favorite doc of the year; I felt the filmmaking was a little too choppy on some of the issues, but I certainly recommend viewing it. It's on Netflix at:
https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741

I am not Your Negro was also nominated for the IDA Doc award and is nominated for the Film Independent Spirit Award in addition to the Oscar. I found this film very interesting and it holds up better than I expected, based on the fact that is adapted from an unpublished manuscript (which I believe was very short) by James Baldwin. It makes very effective use of stock footage to bring the story to life. If there is any criticism, it is that the movie feels smaller in scope than some of the other nominees. I do not believe it is easily available for viewing.

Life, Animated is about a young man with autism who discovers that he can communicate using dialog from Disney films. It;s a fantastic film and completely worthy to be in this group.
http://a.co/8SiSLdC

The fifth Oscar nominee was Fire at Sea, which was also nominated for the IDA Doc award. I found this film to be one of the most powerful of the year. It's a very well made documentary that, for the most part, lets the story tell itself. To me, this is a more interesting way to structure a documentary than through voiceover. The film is about a small island which acts as a welcome port for refugees fleeing from all over Africa and the Middle East. This should really be required viewing for people who think we should be closing borders to immigrants. It can be rented on YouTube or iTunes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbTcre_Sbno

Here are a few other documentaries that were not nominated for the Oscar, but for other awards.

Cameraperson was nominated for both the Spirit Award and the IDA Doc Award. Describing it makes it sound a lot worse than it is. It's basically a doc cinematographer's reel. But the work is indeed outstanding, and very well edited. In fact, it contains footage from some of the other nominees this year. It's on Amazon Prime: http://a.co/iAwWboY 

Sonita was nominated for the Spirit Award. It is an excellent doc about a 14 year-old girl who is an Iranian refugee in Afghanistan who is about to be sold into marriage, but she takes a huge chance and decides to write and perform a rap about her dilemma. It's amazing that she managed to pull it off. Although some sections appear to be staged for the camera, it is still an outstanding film. I don't think there is currently any way to see the film in the US.

Under the Sun is a very strange movie. I really liked it a lot because it is original. While making propaganda for the North Korean government, the filmmakers manage to also make their own film by leaving the camera running between takes. As a filmmaker, this feels odd, as they were lying to the subjects, yet at the same time, it is a rare look into North Korea that most Americans would never otherwise know. This was also one of my favorite films of the year. It can be rented on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDl207dCyRE

Weiner was nominated for the IDA Doc award. It's what you would expect, a documentary about Anthony Weiner. I am amazed at how much footage they got and how open he and especially his wife were on camera. This is probably the least moving of e the docs I have listed here, but it is still worth a watch. It's available on ShowTime and for purchase on a few sites.

I've seen 4 of the 5 shorts nominated for the Oscar this year.

Probably the most notable is The White Helmets, which won the IDA Doc award for short. It has recently received publicity because the Syrian cinematographer was denied a visa to attend the awards. This is an extremely important film about a group of volunteer doctors who willingly go into the most dangerous war zones in Syria to aid the injured. This is incredibly brave, as were the people who risked their lives to make the film documenting this important work. This is a must-see film, available on Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/watch/80101827.

Extremis is a short doc about doctors dealing with end of life decisions. It was also nominated for the IDA Doc award. It's also a very moving and very relevant film. It can be viewed on Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/watch/80106307.

4.1 Miles is a nice companion piece to Fire at Sea (mentioned above). The 4.1 miles refers to the distance between the Greek island of Lesbos and the mainland. It sounds short, but the waters are treacherous, and the island deals with thousands of refugees passing through. Resident on the island risk their lives on an hourly basis to help them reach shore. I believe this short was made by students. It is available to view for free on the NY Times web site: https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004674545/41-miles.html 

Joe's Violin will make you cry. It's the story of an elderly Holocaust survivor who donates his century-old violin (through the Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation) to a 14 year-old African-American girl in the Bronx. It's available for free viewing at the New Yorker's Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D5h_Y8N4tg .

The last of the five Oscar nominees is Watani: My Homeland. I believe the only way to see this is to go to a theatrical screening of the nominees released by Shorts HD. Shorts also has the films available on Google Play

The other IDA doc nominees were The Above, which is a very lyrical doc about a balloon permanently stationed above Kabul by the US government, with little explanation as to its purpose. It can be viewed online for free here: https://fieldofvision.org/the-above.

Pickle is the only uplifting film in the bunch. It's about a quirky, wealthy couple and their devotion to their pets. It is available for free viewing on the NY Times web site: https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004769329/pickle.html

Red Lake is a very interesting documentary about the survivors of a school shooting on an Indian reservation in Minnesota. It is very interesting, but I do not believe it is available for online viewing.

Clinica De Migrantes: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is about a clinic that is addresses the medical needs of undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately this is not available for viewing either.

Watching documentaries is one of the reasons I look forward to awards season. There is not a bad film in the bunch.

The American Dream

I am second-generation American.

I'm the youngest in my generation, and both my parents were the youngest in their generations. My grandparents were born in the 1880s and emigrated to America in the early years of the 20th century.

My father's parents were illiterate immigrants from Poland. They never learned to speak English or to read or write any language. They came over dirt poor. My father was born in a tenement in Boston. His father worked his ass off in a factory and, after a few years, saved enough money to buy a small farm in Acton, Mass., where my father grew up. My father was the first person in his family to go to college. He eventually got a doctorate in education.

My mother's parents were from Ireland. They were in better shape when they came to America. They were better educated, there were many teachers in the family, and my mother's father was a skilled carpenter. However, it was still difficult for immigrants to find work, regardless of schooling, skill or experience. It has never been easy for immigrants in America. It has always meant hard work.

This country was built by and on the backs of immigrants. I don't understand how we went from a melting pot to an immigration ban in one century. It certainly does not make America look good. People do not come to America for a free ride. They come here because they are out of options and they believe in The American Dream. The REAL American Dream, not the dream to win the lottery; they believe The Dream that if they work hard enough, one day, they may help create a better world for their children, and their children's children. I have many students who are immigrants or children of immigrants. In them, I see the same hope that my Polish and Irish grandparents had when they moved to America. And, like my father, many of them are the first in their families to attend college. They love their adopted homeland of America, and just like my grandparents, they love the things that make this country great, especially the freedoms afforded us by the Constitution.

I haven't posted on my blog in a long time, but I felt this is important.

The Accidental Bernstein Festival

Over the course of the last three weekends, my wife and I had a sort of accidental festival of Leonard Bernstein's music, culminating with the Colorado Symphony's live orchestral performance of West Side Story, accompanying the projected film version.

Two weekends ago, the Colorado Ballet performed several short works, including Bernstein's ballet sketches Fancy Free. I had wanted to see this for a long time. I'm a huge fan of Bernstein as a composer. (I can only imagine what American music would be like if Bernstein had committed himself fulltime as a composer, instead of spending the majority of his later life as a conductor.) Bernstein, more than anyone, was successful at merging jazz and classical music, as well as merging art music with popular music. Fancy Free, like many of his works, is just too short, so much so that it is unsatisfying. It seems like a great set of ideas that he never had time to fully develop. I can see why he was talked into taking this short ballet about three sailors on shore leave, and adapting it into the musical On the Town. That movie is fun, but it is not the development of these ideas that I wanted to see.

Also on that program were two other short works, one a brief scene accompanied by a Bach Violin Concerto. It was almost as though the group were still warming up during this opening piece. The second piece on the program was outstanding, a piece title In Pieces, with music by Poul Ruders. But both the Ruders and the Bernstein were worth seeing.

Last week, the Colorado Symphony started a series called The American Festival, featuring modern works by American composers. (We will be at the second concert in the series next week.) The major reason I was interested in this concert was that they were playing Bernstein's Second Symphony (which is really a concerto for piano). Like Fancy Free, it is short. It is, however, a major work aesthetically, and very complex. I had never heard it before and immediately I went to the library to check out the score. The orchestra played extremely well, and soloist William Wolfram fluidly played very difficult passages in many different genres (including some jazz sections). This piece must have required a tremendous amount of rehearsal.

I like the direction that conductor Andrew Litton is taking the orchestra, including concerts like this that are pure art music. The other two pieces on the program were by contemporary composer Kevin Puts, Two Mountain Scenes, and his Clarinet Concerto, featuring Bill Jackson. Both were lovely pieces, and the Clarinet concerto was played very well.

Last night our accidental festival ended with West Side Story. The screening had an excellent turnout. I had never seen the film with an audience before, and it was pretty amazing seeing the audience react to the movie. There are some things about the film that have dated, most obviously the casting of non-Latinos as Puerto Rican (in brown makeup). Also, the very highly stylized production is more reminiscent of Broadway staging than it is realistic, and I think most contemporary moviegoers would be put off by that. However, the power of the story and the music is still overwhelming. I could hear numerous people in the audience crying during "Somewhere." (Ironic, as the stage version has the song sung by an offstage voice (the Greek Chorus effect), whereas in the movie is was moved onstage to be sung as a duet.) One of the biggest changes in the movie adaptation turned out to be the most moving moment emotionally.

The CSO played it with a full orchestra. Due to the fact that Bernstein was overbooked,  he did not do the orchestrations for any version of the musical. The Broadway version used a small pit orchestra with some nice additions (bass sax, 5 percussionists, etc.), and Bernstein probably had the most involvement with that version. Reputedly, Bernstein HATED the movie orchestrations, which more than tripled the size of the orchestra, and took some weird chances like using FIVE baritone saxes in some sections. The version played last night was somewhere in between. It was indeed a huge orchestra, but it seemed much more in line with what Bernstein had wanted.

The CSO played the music extremely well, and it is very demanding. The brass and percussion sections are especially challenged by the writing.

I should mention the oddity that Bernstein himself was incapable of creating a defining version of his own work. His late recording of the entire piece replaced the musical theater voices with opera singers (something he had apparently wanted from the start) but it really a travesty, as the main voices are both completely miscast. In addition, if you watch the video about the recording of the piece, it's pretty difficult to view. People who think that the movie Whiplash was not realistic have obviously never performed under a diva like Bernstein.

I have to mention the problems with last night's screening. Remember, I have worked as a music editor for decades, working with the best musicians in Hollywood, recording complex scores for film and television. The CSO seriously needs to rethink the method that they are using to project films in Boettcher. These tickets are not cheap, and the audience deserves a much better movie-going experience.

The screens are very small, and are very, very far from the audience. So far, that even with our excellent seats, the entire movie was clearly five or six frames out of sync for the viewing audience. This completely destroys the illusion that the people onscreen are singing when they are out of sync for the entire movie. This would be fixed by using a large single screen above the orchestra. The image is just too far away and too small to show the movie the proper respect that it deserves. (I know, Boettcher is a theater in the round, so going to a single screen would eliminate 75% of the available seats, but the audience deserves better.)

In addition to the sync problem with the vocals, there were also sync problems with the orchestra. This is some of the most complex orchestral music ever written, and trying to play it AT ALL would be a challenge for most orchestras. But trying to play it with a click track (especially with an orchestra that is not used to using a metronome in performance) made it tough in parts. For the most part, the orchestra was in sync with itself, but rarely were they in sync with the vocals. Other than more rehearsals, I'm not sure how that could be fixed.

Finally, the live mix was terrible. Every time I have seen a movie in Boettcher done with live orchestra, it has been impossible to hear the dialog from the film. In this case, that means the vocals were completely drowned out, and the lyrics in this film deserve to be heard. "Officer Krupke" should have gotten plenty of laughs from the audience, but it did not, apparently because the audience could not hear the lyrics.

I do love the CSO, but I really wish they would give the movies the respect that they deserve.

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you probably noticed that I have not been writing much lately. I have been ignoring most of the concerts we go to, and I don't think I wrote a single movie review during awards season. This was a deliberate choice to see if anyone noticed. No one noticed. This does not suprise me, this blog averages about 1-2 hits per day, and most of those are hit and run (they stay for less than half a second before going somewhere else). So this is the last of my experiments to see if I should close up this blog. I'm leaning towards hanging it up, as clearly this is not making a difference, other than chewing up valuable time in my life. I do not enjoy writing, and I think of my blog as yet another chore that I have to do. It would be a relief to know that I don't have to do this any more.

THE CASE AGAINST 8

I've followed the Prop 8 case closely, having lived in California for 22 years. Even with a pretty complete knowledge of the sequence of events, I have to say that THE CASE AGAINST 8 is one of the best documentaries I have seen, period. Not only is it a very well-made film (expertly edited by Kate Amend), it is also very entertaining, with humor and pathos. Bring your handkerchiefs. The film has a lot of nice details that I did not know about the case, including some real shockers. It also does a great job of showing to gay couples throughout their journey to help make sure that gay marriage becomes (and stays) legal in California. It's an incredible story, and one that everyone should see.

I have been remiss on my blog for the past few months, but with screening season upon us, I do expect to get a lot more reviews up here soon.

Bartok and Reich

Donovan Pavilion, Vail

Today is the first anniversary of the death of my stepmother, Pat. I was informed of her death last year while we were in Vail for the music festival, and that day I walked across the street to listen to a performance of the Barber Adagio for Strings. The first concert we went to this year with NY Phil also played the piece, in honor of Lorin Maazel. My wife also lost her grandmother this year, and the same day the NY Phil played the Adagio would have been her 101st Birthday. Sunday is also the anniversary of our move to Denver, so it has been an emotional week for us.

This concert was Monday night. It featured two pieces for keyboards and percussion by 20th century composers, Béla Bartók and Steven Reich. The venue is beautiful, but they need to turn off the air conditioning during a quiet performance; most of the Bartok was overwhelmed by the fan noise. I had not heard the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion before, But I have always liked Bartók's approach to composition, and this piece was quite nice. Both pianists, Anne-Marie McDermott (who is also music director for the Bravo Vail series), Gilles Vonsattel had their hands full and played quite well. Third Coast Percussion was featured on both pieces.

The Reich piece was very well received, his Sextet for two keyboards and percussion. The piece made use of four percussionists, playing vibraphones, marimbas, crotales and various other percussion. Perhaps the most interesting orchestration in the piece was the use of bowed vibraphone, which gave a very eerie sound to the piece. (The player could have used more rosin, though, it lost volume as the piece progressed.)

I've always felt that Reich is everything that most people wish Philip Glass could be. His music is much more coherent and has a better overall arch to it, and his orchestration is at least interesting, which is more than I can say for Glass. The only thing I did not care for in this piece was the use of synthesizers, which seemed to wish that they were a horn and a tuba. (Why not just get the real thing?) Other than that, it was a very interesting piece from start to finish, and the crowd enjoyed it.

The whole concert was under an hour long (excluding an insanely long break between the two pieces). It might have been nice to open with some short fanfare so that people feel like they got a full concert out of the program. Otherwise, this was a nice way for us to finish our stay in Vail, and I look forward to next year.

NY Phil in Vail

Photo from earlier this year with the Dallas Symphony

Rachel and I made our annual trip to Vail to see the NY Phil at the Bravo Vail music festival. This year is a little more difficult for me as it brings up some memories. Last year while we were at the festival, I awoke one morning to find a message that my stepmother Pat had died. (We are now only a few days shy or the anniversary.) I decided to go to the chamber concert that was playing across the street from where we were staying, and they happened to be playing the Barber Adagio for Strings. (Review here.)

This year our first concert was the first that the NY Phil had played since the death of their previous conductor Lorin Maazel. Conductor Alan Gilbert opened the concert (after the "Star-Spangled Banner") with an unscheduled memorial reading of the Barber Adagio, which brought back a lot of memories.

That concert was on the 18th. In addition to being my sister's birthday, the 18th was usually a day we would plan on being in Michigan for my wife's grandmother's birthday. Last year she celebrated her 100th birthday, but she then passed away in January. So the date, and the Adagio, brought back memories of two loved ones that we have lost over the last year.

We had planned on being in Vail on the 18th because we really wanted to see the NY Phil, and in years past it has been difficult to get here with the travel to Michigan. This year we wanted to be sure to be here to see the concert with Midori which had been scheduled for the 18th. Unfortunately, she is pregnant and her doctors advised against late-term travel for her. This required a program change. Instead of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, we got Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto played by Yefim Bronfman. A bit of a letdown, but a good concert nonetheless. Bronfman played well, but a little more sloppily than one might expect from him. He had already agreed to play the First and Fifth Concerti the next night, so I'm sure he had his hands full rehearsing.

The highlight of the Friday concert was an excellent read of Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite. I've never seen Gilbert conduct in person before, but I really liked him. He is not as flamboyant as some conductors at his level, but he gets a great performance out of the orchestra.

Saturday's concert was all Beethoven. The Overture to Fidelio opened the concert. As a trumpet player, I'm more fond of the other Leonore Overtures.  This was followed by the two piano concerti. The First Concerto is not the most interesting work by Beethoven, with the exception of the lengthy cadenza. Finishing the concert with the Emperor Concerto was a smart move, yet at the same time, the orchestra looked a bit bored playing so much Beethoven over two nights. They looked a lot more alive on Sunday night. Bronfman really brought it for the Fifth, though, and it was a nice finish to the evening.

Sunday the orchestra played one of the most difficult concerts I have ever seen and it reminded me why the NY Phil is the NY Phil. Very few conductors would have opened a concert with not one but TWO of the most difficult orchestral showpieces in the repertoire, Strauss's Don Juan followed immediately by Till Eulenspiegel. The horn section must hate Gilbert for putting these two back to back. The orchestra played extremely well, especially on Till Eulenspiegel.

This was followed by the Oboe Concerto of Christopher Rouse. I was extremely impressed with this work. It is very modern, but it is also much more listenable than a lot of contemporary works. There seemed to be jazz influence not only in the orchestration (harmon mutes featured in the trumpets) but also in the harmonic structure of the opening chord, which is a recurring harmonic structure in the piece. I liked it a lot. The soloist, Liang Wang, had a beautiful tone quality, and certainly knew how to make it look like a difficult piece. Phrases were all very long, and I had wondered if he were using circular breathing to complete some of them, but it was difficult to tell. He did look close to passing out a couple of times.

Sunday's program ended with a fantastic reading of Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet Overture. This performance reminded me of why we come to their concerts. They were fantastic, and it was obvious that the orchestra was having a great time playing the piece. As an encore, they performed Glinka's Russlan and Ludmilla Overture, another orchestral showpiece, resulting in one hell of a program for the night!

We will be seeing one more concert at the Bravo Vail festival, but not the NY Phil, it will be a chamber concert featuring works by Bartok and S. Reich, both of which I am excited to see.

Beethoven and Gershwin

Last night we attended our last Colorado Symphony concert of the regular season. It was an interesting lineup, starting with the Beethoven Triple Concerto and ending with conductor Andrew Litton's arrangement of songs from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess.

The triple concerto is a bit of an oddity and is rarely performed. Even though it is part of Beethoven's middle period, having been composed after the third symphony and the third piano concerto, it is more representative of an earlier style and is not one of his best works. Of course, with Beethoven, the bar is very high, yet I can't help feeling this work seems more appropriate for Michael Haydn or another Classical composer. Even the orchestration is more reminiscent of a concerto grosso than a concerto, using three soloists (not unlike the Brandenburg Concerti). The winds are grouped in twos, with no clarinets or trombones. The piano part is simple compared to his piano concerti and sonatas.

The performance featured three regulars of the orchestra, conductor Andrew Litton at the piano, concertmistress Yumi Hwang-Williams on violin, and principal cellist Silver Ainomae. I do not like the sound of the piano with the sounding board removed, and I do not like looking at the back of the pianist while performing, which is how Litton set up to conduct and perform. I also have to say the group was a little sloppy on tempi and could have used a conductor for the piece. Especially in the first movement, the violin and cello had some intonation issues as well. However, the final two movements were played very well. All told though, the piece is not particularly memorable.

The second half of the evening was quite a change, featuring Litton's adaptation of Porgy and Bess. I have to admit I was skeptical about hearing this version featuring chorus. The original opera is bloated and pretentious. Gershwin himself cut 45 minutes from it before it opened. The story it is based on is melodramatic and full of clichés and stereotypes. Gershwin's only foray into opera, it was widely considered a flop in its original version. Perhaps the only reason that it has survived is that it is full of incredible songs. Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong's version will always be the best to me, but there are many other fine interpretations, including the one by Miles Davis and Gil Evans.

Over the years many, changes have been made to the show, replacing the recitative with dialogue, abbreviating it even further, giving the title character crutches instead of a "goat cart" (what were the writers thinking when they put the lead actor on wheels?), even changing it to a happy ending. None of these have worked. Two orchestral suites have been popular, including Gershwin's own Catfish Row. It seemed to me that all possible permutations had been tried, including lifting the songs and playing them in an orchestral "pops" version, which I have heard several times and always been let down by. When I heard that Litton had arranged it for chorus, I thought it would be a similar schmaltzy style.

I was wrong. This is without a doubt, the best way to see this opera. Litton's version is an hour long and retains all the songs, with soloists singing in front of the orchestra. All of the great musical moments are still there, in close to their original form, with the horrible plot removed almost entirely. I suspect most of the audience had no idea how dark and depressing the storyline really is, instead focussing on all the great songs. It always struck me that the only well-developed character in the story is Sportin' life, who is supposed to be a supporting character. Porgy is barely in the opera compared to other characters, and in this version, you really can see that Sportin' Life and Bess would have been a much better story.

The four soloists were all excellent. Howard Haskin gave the best performance as Sportin' Life, although his breathing choices were odd at times. Janice Chandler-Eteme was outstanding as Bess. Karen Slack Blackwell was excellent as Serena, although underutilized. Gordon Hawkins was very good as Porgy, but also underutilized.

However, I strongly recommend checking out this version. It was a great way to end the season!