I’m not sure how I was first introduced to Barbara Cook’s music.  Actually, that’s not quite true – I first heard her a a kid growing up listening to the broadway cast album of The Music Man she was the original Marian the Librarian. I clearly remember not liking her all that much – her voice was to “legit” sounding, too “operatic” for my 8 or 9 year old taste.

Barbara has had an amazing carier in musicals, but that’s not where I was reintroduced to her – somewhere I got one of her more recent concert performances – she’s been doing her own cabaret shows for at least the last 30 years or so – and at age 82 she’s still brilliant – maybe better then ever.  Just listen to this – recorded a few years ago in Melbourne:

Listening to Barbara I feel like I’m not hearing words or notes, but more like pure story and emotion.  She doesn’t tell you a story, she weave’s it around you.

Here’s some more

And the grand finale (at least for the moment)

On Friday one of her songs came up in shuffle on my iTunes – and it just stopped me – I stopped working and just listened. She does it to me every time.
Now that’s brilliant!

photo credit: libraryman

As promised in my post on Tuesday, today I’m going to give you a look behind the scenes at the technology that I used to create the projections for The Planets.

This basically breaks down into two sections, creating the media to be projected, and actually running the show.

Creating The Media

On Tuesday I mentioned the DigitalSky 2 software which I used to create the 3-D space visualization sequences. The system is extremely sophisticated, and in fact has its own scripting language. By writing scripts I’m able to “fly” the camera through the 3-D model of the universe. It can also manipulate what objects are visible, and increasing or decreasing their size. In order to create the effect that I was looking for, I often had to increase the size of the planets and moons in view. This is because the distances in space are so gigantic, compared to the size of even the largest planets and moons.

The other major elements in the piece are mostly NASA images. There is a tremendous amount of maturity are available here, which was a great blessing, though as you can imagine, it could complicate the process of selecting material. In general I was looking for a combination of the most spectacular, beautiful and highest resolution images available. Fortunately, many images were available at far above HD resolution. The higher the resolution of the image, the more choices I have in how to use it. With the largest images, I’m able to show a small portion of the image, and then slowly move across it. This is the so-called “Ken Burns effect.” This effect allows me to take a static image, and give it motion.

Projecting The Show

When I set out to do projections for any piece were I’m collaborating as a part of a live performance, one of my primary goals is to not do anything to get in the way of the performers. One of the things that this means, is that I don’t want to create projections as a movie. It would’ve been very easy to create the projections and burn them onto DVD, and then just hit play at the beginning of each movement. The problem with that, is that then the conductor would have to follow the timing of the projections in order to stay synchronized. To my mind, that’s an unacceptable compromise to ask for in most cases.

My answer is a software package called  QLab. This amazing Macintosh software allows me to create each “visual event” of the show as a separate cue. By doing that, I’m able to essentially “edit” the projections in real time, during the performance. I read the score as the orchestra performs, and trigger each cue at the appropriate moment in music. This allows the conductor the flexibility to adjust the tempo as it feels right, and I’m still able to keep everything in perfect synchronization.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this peek behind-the-scenes of The Planets. Do you have questions? Please ask in the comments, I’d be happy to do my very best to answer them for you.

So in my last post, which now feels like ages ago, I mentioned that I was going to be creating a gigantic projection design for Holst’s suite The Planets, to be performed with The Portsmouth Symphony Orchestra.

It had been my intention to blog about the creative process as I was creating the piece. As you may have determined by now, that didn’t happen. Instead, I ended up putting virtually every free moment I had into creating the projections. It was worth it.

The performance was really extraordinary, and received an extended standing ovation with the conductor being called back for additional bows three times.

More importantly, the audience was truly engaged by the combination of music and imagery. I was able to talk to a number of members of the audience after the show, and was really blown away by the response.

At some point, I will have some extended excerpts from the piece to share with you, I am dealing with some technical issues about how to convert them into a format that I can upload.

What I do have, that I can share with you now, is the trailer that I created as a preview for the orchestra’s website.

I’d also like to share with you my program notes, which I think will give you some idea of my thought process and creative process.

Creating imagery for “The Planets” is a daunting task for a projection designer. Holst’s amazing music was written about the astrological planets, that is to say, the significance that the planets have in classical astrology. In Holst’s time, the beauty of the astronomical planets
(the actual objects in space) was just beginning to be discovered through powerful telescopes, and was not widely known.

Today, we are fortunate to have an amazing and almost endless catalogue of images of the universe. Images, from ground-based telescopes  and spacecraft such as Hubble and the Mars Rovers provide an incredible wealth of scientific knowledge and also of visual texture and beauty. It is in this second capacity, as artistic images, that I draw on them for this piece. I also draw heavily on the 3-D space visualizations which it is possible to create using modern computers and the amazing DigitalSky 2 software. This software was created here in New Hampshire by Sky-Skan, and is used in
planetariums all over the world.

Each movement begins with imagery of the planet that it is named for, from there we go wherever the music and the visual rhythm of the
imagery lead. In some movements we explore the planet and its moons, in others we fly to the very edge of the visible universe. I’ve made a choice not to be bound by the science of what these objects are, but simply to allow the music to lead my eye wherever in the universe it is drawn. So I invite you to approach experiencing this
piece as I do, as a feast for the ears and the eyes, and let your heart take flight.

I’ll have another post going up on Thursday where I’ll talk about some of the technology behind the show.

And by the way,  I’d love to bring The Planets to a performance hall near you!  If you know of a local performance of The Planets that might be interested in projections, please let me know!

A couple of years ago, I was fortunate to be invited to do a massive projection design for The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace when it was performed by The Community Church of Durham.

This is a massive choral work by composer Karl Jenkins, and is the single most powerful piece of music I have ever experienced.

You can listen to the opening movement here:

Sorry – the service that provided that (lala.com) has been shut down.  All I can suggest now is that you buy the album, but it’s totally worth it.

Click here to buy from iTunes!

Or click here to buy the CD or MP3s from Amazon

And just to give you a peak behind the curtains:

Here’s a photo of all of the computers and the main projections that made everything happen.

I sat down at my compute tonight, and something promoted insisted that I look at Twitter.  I knew somehow I had to listen.  Almost immediately, my eyes fell on a retweet by Natalie Christie (The Tiny Soprano) which had a link to the video below.  I don’t want to say anything about it, other then to ask you to take the time to watch it.  It’s 9 minutes long, and so worth it.  Don’t miss the surprise at the end.

I have so much I want to say about this, and at the same time, I don’t want to say anything quite yet.

So I’ll do something different, and ask you to begin the conversation in the comments, then I’ll chime in there as well. There is so much here to talk about!

Need I say more? Just watch:

I’m not sure whether I should give Havi Brooks credit for pointing this out in her Item! post this week or not.

I think she would appreciate it, so I will. I mean, she does have her own duck after all.

I was first introduced to Edmar Castaneda when I heard him on an album by Marta Topferova, the friend who recommended her music (which is wonderful) pointed out that the sort of unusual sounding, flamenco guitar was in fact not a guitar but a HARP.  I was blown away.

Then today @hiddenplace tweeted this video of him playing solo:

Then, fascinated, I dug deeper and found another NPR story on Edmar:

And even a full 1 hour concert recorder at Tanglewood as a member of a wonderful quartet.

I have to say that Edmar is on of my absolute favorite new musical discoveries, I’m really excited by his solo work, and can’t wait to hear more of him.

What do you think?

Today, particularly in this economy, it seems to be very popular among the “art” crowd to moan about the financial problems of orchestras, opera, and particularly more avant-garde forms of art and performance. To these folks, losing these institutions is a great tragedy, and I agree with them, but maybe not for the same reason.

This was brought into focus for me by Nathalie Christie, “The Tiny Soprano,” in her post Can Art Afford To Ignore An Audience.

I think it’s really an important question, particularly for those of us who are artists and performers, to consider what is it that makes a piece of art or performance “good” or “important”? Is it the opinion of a small group of experts: other artists, reviewers, etc.? Is it only the opinion of the creator of the piece that actually matters? Is it a matter of the audiences opinion? Or is it even something to be discussed? Something left to be determined by the divine (if the artist believes in such a thing)?

I have a very strong opinion about this, and it’s one that’s not currently popular in many circles. I believe that the quality and the importance of a given work can only be determined by the audience who is experiencing that work. Yes, I really do think it’s up to the audience. Now, does that mean that we should all program to the lowest common denominator, of course not. We, as the creators get to define who we are creating for. However, if we’re creating a piece that is difficult to grok, we need to be prepared when people who don’t like difficult work don’t like it. That’s okay.

But there’s more to it, if we’re not happy with the size of our current audience (symphony orchestras and opera companies, are you listening?) It’s up to us to reach out in some way. I see two basic ways of doing this, either find stuff to perform which more people will like, or find more people who like the stuff we perform. I want to talk about both of these.

Finding stuff to perform which more people will like, is often a very unpopular thing to do. It’s seen as programming to the lowest common denominator, and somehow that’s bad. I think it can be bad if it’s the only thing that we’re doing. On the other hand, it can be a way of extending a hand and welcome to people who might not otherwise come. It also generates needed funds from people purchasing tickets. So, it can be one important part of building a larger audience.

Finding more people who like the stuff we do can also be hard, often many of them are already coming, and it takes a lot of work to find a few more.

I actually think, the most important thing to do is a third thing. Help people who don’t know that they love our stuff, even the difficult, not so accessible stuff, to discover that they can love it. Let me tell you a story:

When I was in college, I joined a coed professional performing arts fraternity called Kappa Gamma Psi. One of the things about this group which was really amazing is the variety of backgrounds, and performance styles which members came from. This is a great thing for me to be exposed to, and that was illustrated by one particular experience that I want to share with you. Early in my association with the group, it might even have been while I was pledging, although I don’t remember, my big sister Ruth called me one night and asked me to come down to one of the practice rooms in the music school. She was working on a piece for her recital, and wanted to play it for somebody.

I went, and sat in this tiny practice room, maybe 3 feet from her cello as she played a suite for solo cello by George Crumb. Crumb is a modern composer, who writes some very strange stuff, which was not at all my taste at the time. As I listened, I found the piece very, very strange, but I also found it captivating and powerful. A number of things happened that night, one of them was that I fell in love with the cello, and another one was that my mind was opened to a new kind of music.

As I was putting my thoughts together for this post, I searched YouTube for a performance of this piece, and when I found it I was surprised that it didn’t seem as strange as I remembered. I find that fascinating, but I have been stretched in what I listen to by experiences like this.

So what was it that allowed me to expand my definition of “interesting and good” music? Well, part of it is an invitation, if I hadn’t been invited to hear it I would’ve never had the opportunity to like it. But there’s more to it than that, it’s also being able to experience it at full power, at close range. That’s a different experience than listening from the back of a concert hall. And there’s also learning about it, discussing it with people who know, so that I can listen in a way that it feels less foreign.

So I think that there is some important lessons here about how to build an audience:

1. You have to invite them in
2. Create opportunities to have optimal, full power experiences of the material
3. Give audience members an opportunity to learn more about what they are going to hear or have just heard

I think that Benjamin Zander, in his work with the Boston Philharmonic has demonstrated the power of this. He gives brilliant pre-concert lectures about the music that is about to be performed, typically 75% of the concert audience comes to the lecture, and they sell out virtually every concert that they give. I think this is a really good model.

It’s also helpful to mix the familiar and the unfamiliar, this was Arthur Fiedler‘s great innovation as the conductor of the Boston Pops Orchestra. He would create a program in three parts, the first part was selections of the recently popular favorites and light classics that the orchestra was known for. Then, having made the audience comfortable, he would present a “heavier or more difficult” major piece, then in the third segment of the program he would play timeless, favorite music. It gave people in his audiences a gentle introduction to stretching their palette. I think this is also a really good model.

So what do you think? What makes good art? How do we build the audience for the art that we think is important?

I want to share with you a YouTube Concert in tribute to one of my very favorite performers, Victor Borge.  Victor’s secret was that he was both a brilliant comedian and a virtuoso pianist – and he never let his comedy get in the way of great piano playing, or his great music get in the way of brilliant comedy.  He was known as The Clown Prince of Denmark and The Great Dane. So let me get out of the way now, and invite you to enjoy a most unique and wonderful artist, preserved through the magic of YouTube.

To end with a grand finale, one of Victor Borge’s most famous pieces, Phonetic Punctuation, performed here by Victor with Dean Martin.

I hope you have enjoyed this concert/tribute as much as I enjoyed putting it together.  Victor was a true master, and is very much missed by many, including me.

I’d love to hear your thoughts, responses and memories in the comments.

Nathalie Christie is THE tiny soprano. (She calls herself that.)

Natalie Christie - The Tiny Soprano

When presented with a tragedy on the scale of what’s happened in Haiti, or what happened in New Orleans after Katrina or any major disaster, it’s natural to want help. Many of us give money or volunteer our time to help in whatever way we can. This is a terrific thing to do. But some of us are moved to do more. Natalie was moved by what happened in Haiti and by what she saw other bloggers doing — offering something of themselves, of their own work, and donating the proceeds to relief in Haiti.

So Natalie turned to her gift, her art, her voice, and decided to share with us an amazing performance of a song cycle by Samuel Barber. I’d like to encourage every one of you that reads this to go to her blog and click the “buy now” button. Make the $10 donation and download this wonderful recording.

Now, if the term soprano sends chills up your spine, and conjures pictures of a very large woman wearing a horned helmet, let me ask you to set your prejudice aside, and let me assure you that Natalie is not anything like that. She has a truly lovely, lyric tone, and communicates beautifully in what she sings. So even if classical music or opera is not your thing, take a chance, you’ve probably never heard these songs before, sung by anyone, and I think it’s likely that you’ll never have a chance to hear them sung better.

And besides if you’re to make a donation to relief in Haiti, who do you trust more to deliver your $10: your cell phone company, or a professional musician and mother of three.

So do it now, just go to Natalie’s blog, click the “buy now” button, you make your donation through PayPal easily and securely, and be downloading the music in moments.

Thank you, all of you, for participating in this, and thank you Natalie for letting us make a difference through you!

PS — please excuse the somewhat hard-sell in this blog post, this is me, doing what I can do to help the people of Haiti.

A few days ago someone on Twitter (I wish I could remember who) mentioned cellist, Zoe Keating. I was not at all familiar with her or her music, though I’m a great fan of the cello ever since a college friend asking to be the test audience for a piece she was working on for her recital. Sitting in a little tiny practice room, maybe 3 feet from her instrument, was an incredibly powerful, visceral experience, that left me with a great love of this instrument.

Zoe takes an extremely unusual approach to the cello, or rather to what can be done with the sounds that the cello makes. She creates her music by playing segments, and using electronics to record them and loop them so they play over and over again. By doing this, she creates amazing layers of sound, and creates an entire orchestra from her cello alone.

Listen to this:

Now here’s a short interview with Zoe where she talks about how she makes this amazing stuff:

If you like this music, check out her website at http://www.zoekeating.com.

So of course when I discovered how cool Zoe’s music is a naturally followed her on Twitter. She is @Zoecello.

Then today she tweeted about a new band that she just found out about called The Finches.

You’ve got to see this:

Pretty amazing, isn’t it. And by the way, if you’re thinking that this is faked, I’m quite confident that it isn’t.

This was done as a part of an art installation called “Rhythms of Life,” at the Barbican Art Gallery in London. It’s an installation piece done by the French artist Céleste Boursier-Mougenot.

I know these are far from the typical music most of us listen to on a daily basis (me included.) I’ll be interested to hear what you think of them.

One of the most amazing things that technology is making possible is long-distance collaboration. We are able to work together in ways that we never have before. Blogs like this one are a perfect example, people comment, and join in the discussion from all around the world. But much more intimate and direct collaboration is also possible. Over the last few days, I’ve been talking with folks in the southern US about giving a talk at a conference in Kentucky. Thing is, I’d be giving the talk from New Hampshire through Web conferencing. It’s pretty cool.

It struck me this morning just how powerful this is when I ran across a link on twitter to this video:

It was created by a group called Playing For Change. They believe, and I agree, that one way to create peace is to bring individuals from around the world together collaborating in creation. One of the really cool things about this type of project, is that even when it’s “finished” we can still continue to collaborate, by sharing the work across the Internet, and in person. Here’s another video from Playing For Change which is fair introduction of themselves, and has another great song.

I hope you’ve enjoyed these videos and music, I know I did, but the real question is, what are you going to do now? How are you going to use this to make a difference? Share it with the people you love. Pass it around the Internet. Maybe host a party to show the Playing For Change film. I’m looking into showing it at the theater were I am the technical director.

How have you been moved by technology enabled collaboration? Please share in the comments.

With all the talk about the “blue moon” on New Year’s Eve I thought it would be fun to talk about the “other” Blue Moon, that is to say the song written by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart.

If you don’t immediately recognize the song title, I’ll let the amazing Ella Fitzgerald remind you with her version:

The thing is, that this song actually has a rather long and complex history. In the early 1930s Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart were under contract to the MGM Studios to write songs for their movie musicals. The music which would eventually become Blue Moan was originally written (with completely different lyrics) to be sung by Jean Harlow in the film Hollywood Party. The song at that time was called Prayer. It’s not clear how the song would have fit into the film, and it was never recorded in this version.

The music (but still not the familiar lyric,) was first heard in the 1934 film Manhattan Melodrama. As you watch and listen to this scene, you’ll recognize the familiar melody sung by Shirley Ross.

As a part of the film release, sheet music for this song was published, but it was certainly not a hit. Jack Robbins, the head of MGM’s publishing company, like the melody and thought it was worthy of a commercial release. However, he felt that it required a more commercial lyric. Lorenz Hart was not happy about providing this, but he did and the result is the classic song that we know today. Of all the music that Rodgers and Hart wrote, much of which has become known in the American songbook as jazz standards, Blue Moon was the only one that was a major commercial hit at its time of release. Though I haven’t been able to find confirmation of this tonight, some years ago I was told by a friend of mine who has studied Rodgers and Hart in depth that Lorenz Hart absolutely hated this song even though was the only one that they really made money with.

By the way, there were two other unpublished versions of this song, with different titles and entirely different lyrics that I haven’t even talked about here.

So the next time you listen to Blue Moon, maybe while you’re looking at the blue moon tomorrow night, you’ll know a little bit more about the complicated history of this great American standard.