Everyone should hear the Creston Sonata -- at least once

It is curious that I write this as a person butchers the second movement on You Tube.  Since Paul Creston (Guiseppe Guttoveggio for those of us fortunate enough to study under Dr. Kenneth Fischer) wrote more than one sonata (two from what I've gathered), I need to clarify that I'm listening to the one for Alto Saxophone (Op. 19).  Perhaps it is my bias as a saxphonist, but I can hear the Sonata in every other work I've heard by Creston.  I mainly hear harmonic similarities (perhaps enough to be quotes), but there are some melodic hits in his other pieces; Concertino for Marimba for example.  Truth be told, I think the harmonic similarities only exist because of the similar harmonic language, and the melodies are simply outlining the various harmonies underneath.

The beauty of Creston's harmonic language is his ability to provide V-I to his audience without us hearing "boring old Common Practice V-I that we had beat into our heads since the ancients thought it sounded cool in the 1400s--" though I do enjoy that V-I as well.  Creston makes use of whole-tone tonalities in a most curious way.  For me, he doesn't use the whole-tone scale to destroy our sense of tonic.  Rather, he uses it to, for lack of a better term, modulate to new tonics.  Now, for readers of mine versed in music theory, I'm not saying you lose the sense of tonic when Creston utilizes the whole-tone scale, I'm simply saying that's not his purpose.  He uses it as a tool to get to where his ear tells him to go--just like Bach would hop around the circle using V7-I progressions--or the like how the Romantics would pound the note they wanted forever then drift off into their overstated tonic using what's now called a common tone modulation.

I have to stop myself and refocus for a moment; otherwise, this blog post will become a treatise on music theory by a washed up theory student with no specific measures to cite to defend his position.  I have yet to hear an acceptable recording of the second movement of the Sonata, Op. 19 on YouTube.  Eugene Rousseau has a recording of the entire Sonata on his album Saxophone Masterpieces.  It is by far the best recording I've heard of the Sonata.  The second movement is the easiest of the three to play in terms of sheer finger technique.  In my opinion, it contains the most music of the three, and it bothers me to see video after video of YouTube folk stabbing at it with commenters singing praises for jobs well done.  Perhaps they mean well done in terms of incinerating meat.

On the other hand, I'm happy to see saxophonists attempting to learn Creston's great work.  One hundred years from now when my existence has long been over and will the existences of all of the saxophonists I know, I hope there will be performances of the second movement of the Sonata.  Where is my recording of the Second Movement?  Why am I not YouTube making my stab?  I performed it as a sophomore in college.  I am well aware of my inadequacies as a saxophonist.  I will not insult Creston's great work by making my attempt publicly available.

I do encourage you to seek out Rousseau's recording of Creston's Sonata, Op. 19.  It's not off-the-wall avant garde "music."  Even if you have no ear for music before 1950 or have ever listened to a saxophone outside of a bar, I think you will enjoy it.  Post comments on your experience with hearing the Sonata, I am most interested in reading them.  I warn you, so far I haven't heard an acceptable recording of it on YouTube.  I hope you will not use that as your only tool for hearing Creston's work.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2: A review of sort

I've been debating for about a day what I intend to write for my next couple of posts.  If you don't already know, I keep strict control over what people know about the inner workings of my mind.  Even though I do ramble, I'm always aware of what I'm saying.  Perhaps I do this to a fault.

The matter at hand:  Potter.

I'm going to provide my review in two ways.  One is what most people should gather from the film.  Then I'll take the same review and put it through the lens of what I actually experienced.

The movie was well done.  I elected to see the 2-D version at 12:01 Friday morning.  I'm thorougly unimpressed with 3-D movies.  The technology is nifty, but its attraction doesn't go beyond that.  The score was well-composed; however, it wasn't present through much of the movie.  Usually when I see a film like Potter, I can hear a movie through the score as well as watch the movie.  This wasn't the case with Part 2.  It seems like an average Hollywood movie where the music is simply there as support, rather than a story within itself.  I found myself plugging in musical holes in my head with Sheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov).  The ending music was appropriate and enjoyable.

I have no criticism of the effects in the movie.  Unlike Twilight and Saw, the effects were complementary to the movie, rather than trying to command the audience's attention.  There were a few times where fire occured, and I thought that was well illustrated -- not corny, but the fire seemed to act in the way fire should (even magical fire).

The performance of the actors was acceptable.  Even Rupert Grint has finally learned something about how to act.  Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson were fine as always, and the rest of the regular cast did their parts well.  The dialogue was a bit predictable for me.  The theater erupted in applause and other outbursts at the appropriate times.  The times where these occured were during either comical scenes or scenes of power, and unfortunately these had a staged feel to them.  There were a couple of scenes with Neville Longbottom where this occured.  I understand why such dialogue and scenes are there, but I'm more interested in being affected  by the story, than being manipulated by dialogue tricks -- which I'm immune to most anyway. 

On this same subject is Ron, Hermione, and Severus Snape.  I will not give away details, for their story is integral to the film, but I will say this.  They have a few moments that are obviously made for their characters (hence the previous paragraph); however, I do not levy the aforementioned criticism to them.  They were appropriate, tasteful, and, in my opinion, were as close to the reality of the human condition as you could see.  The audience responded in kind with cheers and tears as appropriate.  

If you are a book purist, you will find some factual errors -- as you will in all of the films.  They do not ruin the film, but there are a couple noticeable enough for me to mention their existence.  I will not say what they are, for I fear that may be spoiling information for some.  You'll only notice them in the back of your mind, again they do not ruin the movie.

The movie was a fine work overall, and I highly recommend its viewing.  I hope it fares well on Rotten Tomatoes.

The review though my lens is mostly the same.  The only difference is that I felt nothing through the film.  I felt no happiness nor saddness--there was nothing.  This is not a criticism of the film at all; it is a criticism of me.  The reality of this bothers me, but it is my reality nevertheless.  I wanted to experience the same cheers and tears as my fellow audience members; however, it is beyond me.  The cheers were easy to mimic, for I know how and when to do them appropriate.  Tears are beyond my abilities to recreate--they cannot occur when you feel nothing.

I know why this is, and that knowledge is not germane to this post (hence the first paragraph).  The reason I mention this inability to feel is this.  As much as I love everything about the Potter series, I was curious if seeing this film and knowing that it markes the end of cinema fantasy for me, would cause me to experience some kind of emotion.  Clearly, it didn't.