This year has sucked a lot.

Well, as usual at the end of the year, I’m feeling pretty crappy about life.

I’m tired of everything. This year has sucked a lot. Yet, I’ve nothing to resolve for the new year. I don’t know what to do, really, to change. There’s nothing for me here. It occurred to me today that it would be difficult for me to move without having a job in place. I don’t know that I could find an apartment without proof of income. I have no income now, and no savings; my parents help me pay my bills. It’s pathetic. Also, I have no one significant in my life. I don’t only mean a “significant other” – a girlfriend – though that’s true too. I have no people, no group, no one that I feel I can count on to support me.

You might say, “You have family. Your parents help you pay the bills, so that’s something.” Yes, it is something. But I don’t get along with them. I do appreciate their help, but when I do go visit them, or even have a lengthy conversation on the phone, I feel quite clearly that I don’t fit - politics, religion, interests – we’re just not in the same place. If I met my family, and wasn’t related, we would never be friends. We'd say, “Hello, nice to meet you,” or some other pleasantry, then go on our way, probably never giving it another thought. The idea of go there, moving back in with my parents, which my mother has suggested more than once, feels like something that would make me more miserable. It’s not my home; I know no one at all there apart from my family, and around them I feel I just cannot be me.

So what about all my facebook friends? For a little while now it’s occurred to me, over and over, that people do not want to change the nature of their relationships. And by that I mean people who know me do not want to know me any better. They want to keep me at arm’s length, a facebook friend, someone they knew in college or with whom they did a show. But to actually try to change the nature of my relationship with such a person – unless it’s that they get offended or uncomfortable because of something I said (or more likely posted online) and then they unfriend me, or that they do something which I feel is a sort of attack on me and what I do (mainly my photography, but perhaps also some critique of my “politics”) – is a battle so steeply uphill that it’s realistically unwinnable.

What I mean is, it’s fine for people to have a relationship with me that consists of occasional comments and banter on facebook, but if I actually try to be their friend in real life, it simply seems impossible. Everyone is already too busy with their actual friends and family, and there’s nothing I offer in a real friendship. And speaking before of people unfriending me (tons have) – I also have this suspicion that many (or most?) of my “friends” on facebook may have just hidden me from their timeline. They’re not uncomfortable enough to unfriend me outright, but they don’t want to see my posts. Maybe it’s not true, but that’s how it feels.

Anyway, I’m just tired of this existence. It’s not horrific enough for me to want to end it. But I’m so alone, and I do not know how to be around people. When I am around people in a social situation, it feels awkward; I don’t fit. I think that both makes people not want to be around me and makes me not want to be around people. I do recognize the need for people. Yet, I often simply choose to not become involved in social situations. It’s a cycle: not being around people making me more and more awkward around people, and that making me not be around people. Sometimes I do stick my head out a bit and try, and them I’m reminded that nobody wants to be around me. Or at least, not enough to actually make the effort to be around me. So the cycle continues, despite the fact that I feel desperately alone. Not the alone and content thing that some people claim exists, but plain old lonely, desperately lonely.

I’m broke, jobless (and with no “normal” job experience), friendless, loveless. No one is going out of their way to hire me as a musician (which is one thing I actually like to do), and I can’t even get enough people (you know, singer/actor types who I know) to come over and have a sing-along type night. And I can’t convince people to let me photograph them (another thing I actually like to do). I’ve taken way too many pictures of myself; in fact, that’s one of the things that puts people off and makes people not want to hire me. 

I don’t know what to do. 

gay marriage stuff

Haven’t posted a rant lately. So, here’s my thoughts on this:

Alamance County takes center stage in NC gay marriage fight

People have their religious beliefs. They can pick and choose from their lists of man-made stone-age rules which ones they think their made-up stone-age gods still consider important or not. And I will be among those who’ll say those choices and rules are stupid and wrong, and those gods non-existent. But it’s not illegal to have ridiculous beliefs. So fine, have your beliefs.

BUT...

When you have a non-church, non-religious job—one that is not paid for by religious groups—and ESPECIALLY a publicly-funded job... Well, first of all, don’t take a job that conflicts with your closely held beliefs. And second, if, once you have that job, you discover that, or things change so that, your beliefs are now in conflict with your ability to do that job, then it’s on you to choose between the two: your job or your belief. There are other jobs; there are also other beliefs. That’s it. Simple. Choose.

Now, since it’s legal to hold offensive, stone-age beliefs, then I suppose it’s reasonable to let someone backing out of a job have a different job, perhaps in the same department, if it’s available and if that person is qualified, etc. But this “I’m not going to do my job for SOME people because they don’t live the way I think they ought to” thing is NONSENSE. If you want to hold a belief, fine. But then you have to take the consequences. So if these magistrates, etc, are not doing their jobs, then fine them, fire them, publicly shame them...whatever the appropriate punishment is. 

Composer, arranger, and orchestrator

Composer, arranger, and orchestrator – what is the difference? 

A composer is someone who creates original music. This could range anywhere from simply making up a melody to creating a fully realized orchestral work. 

An arranger is someone who takes a piece of music that already exists, written by someone else, and “arranges” it, that is, re-works it, changes it. This might mean changing the instruments that play the piece, or adding harmony – for example, taking a piece for guitar and solo voice and re-working it for a large choir and piano. An arranger might also change the accompaniments and the rhythms of a piece – turning a slow number into a jazzy up tempo piece, or vice versa. An arrangement may be very simple or very complex, but as long as you still recognize the original material for what it is, it’s still considered an arrangement. 

A composer may do any and all of that sort of arranging work with his/her own piece, as part of the composition of the work, and it not be considered an arrangement, unless it exists in separate versions. But even then, as the original composer did the arranging it’s not generally called an “arrangement”. Now, a composer might take a piece of music by another composer and re-work it to the extent that it is no longer considered an arrangement, but a new composition – for example, variations of a theme by whomever, or a work that quotes another pre-existing work. 

An orchestrator is someone who takes a piece of music that is not originally for “orchestra” (or whatever medium-to-large instrumental ensemble – for the purpose of this discussion it need not actually be an orchestra) and creates a version for orchestra, deciding which instruments will be play and what notes, rhythms, etc, they actually play. Or, an orchestrator might do a new orchestration for some music that has already been orchestrated. An orchestrator may, as part of an orchestration, do some “arranging” work – adding harmonies, creating new accompaniments, etc. In such cases, that work may be considered simply part of orchestrating the piece, or the work may be considered “arranged and orchestrated by” this person. 

I personally feel that orchestration is a type of arrangement. It’s a re-working of the original piece, an “arrangement” for orchestra. But you generally won’t hear an orchestration being referred to as an arrangement unless it includes significant changes in the harmonies &/or rhythms &/or accompaniments. 

In the (legit) classical music world it’s not so common to find orchestrators. You do find arrangements, but, typically, classical works for orchestra were orchestrated by the composer as part of the process of composition. You will, by necessity, have orchestrators in the more commercial sort of “classical” music – background music, “light” classics, possibly pops concerts...anything that has the feel of “The Three Tenors” doing music that a general audience will actually recognize (i.e., not opera or other music originally for a big solo voice and big orchestra), someone had to do those orchestrations. 

In the contemporary popular music world (of whatever genre), you don’t generally find orchestrators or arrangers because most of that sort of work ends up being considered part of writing the music and is typically credited that way (either “music by whomever, if lyrics are credited separately, or simply “by whomever”, often a list of several contributors). It seems that the place you’ll most likely find orchestrators separately credited is in musical theatre. New orchestrations and arrangements are often written for Broadway revivals. And, while a theatre composer may do his/her own “arranging”, it’s much more common that there is a separate orchestrator. 

on manhood

We all know that our culture has some really problematic (i.e., fucked up) concepts of womanhood and pressures applies to girls and women. But out concepts of manhood are just as problematic. 

A lot of men react dismissively or negatively or even angrily to discussions of gender – gender roles, stereotypes, feminism, rape, etc. When this happens, I wonder if the reason is, perhaps, that our cultural definition of manhood and what it means to be “a man” – for good or bad – is such a huge part of many men’s identity. 

It’s as if their “man-ness” IS who they are. There’s such a strong sense of “BE A MAN!” thrust upon boys. A man acts this way and doesn’t act that way. It’s so very central to the behavior and attitudes of many men. They’re lost with their identity as a man. 

And while we are starting to question these concepts, it’s still very much what our culture expects and assumes. It’s what we see in our “stories”, our cultural icons, our role models. But it’s also what a lot of men expect of each other, and a lot of women expect of men. It’s no wonder many men have trouble identifying outside of their “man-ness”. 

So to question that, to criticize male behavior on the individual or societal level, is a very real attack on who they are, who they see themselves as being. Because without that central core of man-ness, they don’t know who to be, or how to be. That’s a scary, scary place. It’s so much easier to deny any reality of the pathology of this ideal of manhood. It’s easier to attack critics than to examine ourselves. 

on Elliot Rodger

If you don’t know who Elliot Rodger is, you can google him. But he’s the guy who this past weekend shot a bunch of people in Isla Vista because he felt alone and unloved and had never had sex, while lots of other “less deserving” people were having sex.

The following rant—like the one earlier today—comes mainly from my comments on a facebook post by a friend of mine, partly in response to other people’s comments.

To say this guy is a psychopath (or crazy, or whatever) absolves the rest of us of guilt, of responsibility. It makes it easy for us to go about our lives feeling okay about ourselves. Maybe he was a psychopath, but saying that like it's the answer to the question of "What the fuck happened here?" ignores the much greater danger. (And we are awesome about ignoring greater dangers.) This guy's ideas about women and sex and all that didn't just develop on their own inside his head. They came from a culture that taught him to expect certain things--women, sex, adoration. 

Sure, this guy seems to have had some serious brain issues. Reading a little of his plans and watching a little of his videos was very disturbing. It seemed oddly like he was almost playing the role of the villain in some drama/action/adventure thing. I couldn't read or watch all of it. It was too much. But what I saw there is that he hates himself and blames his pain on a lack of sex. Somewhere (or everywhere) he's picked up the idea that we all deserve to get sex "just because". And that somehow having sex would fix all his problems. That's nonsense. Nonsense that he learned from TV & movies. It’s a general sense that’s just “out there” in our culture. It's absolutely one of the stories we tell nowadays. 

Dismissing that because he's crazy or disturbed is much the same as what gun rights activists say: it's not that guns are dangerous; it's that these individuals who went on a killing spree are disturbed, or that those individuals whose kids accidentally shot someone weren't acting responsibly with the storage of their weapons. But it's both: guns ARE dangerous, AND these people are disturbed and those people were irresponsible. 

In this case, this guy was disturbed, AND there are serious dangerous problems with our attitudes about sex and gender...and violence. Yet we just ignore that later part. It's easier and more comfortable, and that way none of us are responsible.

I do not think with my penis.

A facebook friend of mine posted this link (or “liked” it or something) :

5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women

I made this really long rant/comment on it. But I decided that it was more of a blog rant than a comment on a facebook post. So I deleted it there and am posting it here instead. 

I started out liking this article (the first 2 "ways"), but then he lost me, and by the end he'd just made me angry. Sure, he's exaggerating for comic effect. But...NOT ALL MEN ARE WHAT HE IS DESCRIBING! I'm so tired of hearing about how men "think with their penis". I don't. Not all the time, like David Wong (the author of this article) is saying. 

Of course I sometimes have sexual thoughts, and occasionally they're strong enough that I even get a little distracted by them, but not all day every day. That is simply not true in my experience, and it never has been. Yes, I have a sex drive, but my brain is in charge. 

I've never understand the way a lot of men act when it comes to sex. Okay, maybe I'm just a freak. Maybe I'm a mutant. Maybe my brain was dosed with some rare radiation when I was a child. Maybe the reason I haven't had sex in so long is that my urge to stick my penis inside something is not uncontrollable. And it wasn't when I was 30 or 21 or 15 either. 

I don't get mad if a woman rejects me. Frankly, I'm used to it. I don't think women are conspiring with my penis to ruin me. That would be craziness; it's nonsense. And I don't care if a Supreme Court Justice is pretty or not, nor do I care how much weight Christina Aguilera gained or lost. 

Yes, I am a sad little man who sits at home alone in front of the computer most of the day, with little or no social interaction. And sure, I complain about it, but it never occurs to me to blame womankind for my issues. It never occurs to me to write hate speech about women on "Men's Rights" forums. And it certainly never occurs to me to act violently towards them because I'm unhappy. 

Okay, that last bit is definitely flavored by the recent stuff about that guy (Elliot Rodger) who shot some people at Isla Vista because he wasn't getting laid and women didn't seem to recognize how he deserved sex from them. 

Anyway...rant over...for now.

P.S. (See, that’s why I said “rant over…for now”)

I hadn’t really “weighed in: yet about the Elliot Rodger shooting/Men’s Rights reaction to feminism, etc.So I’ll just say this: 

This idea of the expectation of sex, the lack of appreciation for men, etc., is, to my mind, part of the larger issue of sex in our culture—the fact that we don’t deal with sex very well. We use sexual imagery all over the place, yet we don’t really want to talk about it. We want sex (a lot), yet we think it’s dirty and shameful and ought to be kept hidden (just like our bodies are shameful and ought to be hidden). 

This attitude is unhealthy and dangerous. We need to stop running away from sex. It is a part of us, part of being human. We desperately need to deal with it, talk about it, be open and honest with each other as individuals and as a society. 

That's the wrong word.

Just a little while ago I was in my car and heard on the radio about this rich businessman, Tom Wolf, who just won the Democratic nomination for governor of Pennsylvania. The suggestion of the reporter (or commentator?) was that this primary win by a relative unknown was at least in part due to Wolf’s using his substantial personal wealth to flood the market with ads.

From the (very) little that I’ve read about him, he sounds like a decent fellow. Apparently four years ago he delayed his planned run for governor to instead re-purchase and bail out the business he used to own. However, the fact that he has $10 million of his own money to spend on a political campaign (so far) makes me rather suspicious. Yes, I’m prejudiced against wealth. I don’t know what the man’s net worth is, but it must be a lot that he can spend $10 million on a campaign. Then again, maybe that’s better than special interest groups funding him.

Anyway... That’s all set-up to what I really wanted to say:

The reporter mentioned that Wolf inherited the family business, and that he had a PhD from MIT. His very next sentence was “It’s an interesting combination of talents.”

Perhaps some people reading this will be aware of my position that words have meanings. Well, I think this is a misuse of that word, “talents”. Obviously it’s not the most egregious misuse of a word I’ve heard lately. (That would be something of a religious nature.) But it’s still the wrong word, unless you’re trying to make a point that seeming to be born with a musical or artistic or athletic ability or some other tendency is akin to being born rich and “inheriting” the family business.

Of course, he didn’t exactly inherit it the business. After college and two years in the Peace Corps, he came back home and worked as a fork lift operator for a few years, then bought the business along with a couple of his cousins.

So, I’ve written all this for two reasons. One, I have way too much free time. And two...

Stop using the wrong words, people! It’s annoying to smart people who know what words mean. Or at least to me.