One of my first EDH games was a random pickup game at a $5k with two other guys. I was playing white Akroma, another was playing a Goblin deck, and the last guy was playing Azami. I got an early Martyr of Sands out and one of the opponents ramped every up a land or something (possibly a world reduce cost card) and I got a Turn 3 Deathrender out. The Goblin player played Sensation Gorger and passed. By the time it got back to his upkeep, I had equipped my Martyr. He managed to trigger Kinship so we all had to discard. I responded by sacrificing Martyr revealing 6 white card (gaining 18 life from an untouched 40) and got to play Felidar Sovereign for free because of Deathrender. The Goblin player couldn't do anything and the Azami player drew half of his deck looking for an answer but couldn't find any. Best win for me so far. I believe I won at the start of my 5th turn.
(a) The original movie was terrible, so "ruining" it wouldn't exactly be a tragedy in my book.
(b) The ending is about as much a surprise as Luke Skywalker's father. Less, in fact; the Star Wars revelation would have been a genuine surprise before pop culture picked it up, whereas in Planet of the Apes the truth is so blatantly obvious from the outset that it's almost insulting to the audience to treat it like a big twist.
That doesn't have anything to do with my complaints. I was not talking about the quality or performance I was talking about the complete change in themes and established facts for the canon.
The original movie kept the mystery of the origins of the planet until the very last scene where it is fully realized that the planet is in fact Earth. Any prequel to a Planet of the Apes film automatically ruins that part of the original film if it is viewed before the original.
The original book explained how humans used apes for slave labor and became lazy and weak while the apes became strong and organized until they could overthrow them and become the dominant species. It was a long process of evolution and class/racial/species struggle rather than just scientist experimenting on apes. This new movie does it through genetic manipulation, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong about that detail though). This is a huge change in detail that alters themes and commentary from the book and 1968 film.
I'm not doubting that the new movie itself is good or not. I'm sure it is, especially given the reviews. But in the context of the 1968 film it is not a very good prequel.
The entire premise ruins the original movie. I'm sure it's a great film on its own but in the context of the original Planet of the Apes it destroys the point and weakens the impact of the original.
I understand that some of aspects of Glee are unrealistic, such as the "slushieing"; but I don't see how a chorus or band teacher would crush a student's dream based on the expectations of show choir presented on Glee. Unless your students are looking forward to being social pariahs, the Glee choir life isn't all that "glamorous".
I think he means more along the lines of performing pop songs and discovering themselves through the songs. Also, the fact that they perform different songs every week is setting up a wrong expectation because typically high school groups have one set repertoire for each half of the year.
I didn't know this thread was even still going, but as a music teacher, I'll weigh in again.
There is no music being taught on this show, from what I've seen. There's barely any teaching at all happening. What the teacher does is give them the right speech about self worth, and then they all feel a different way and sing how the feel. Obviously, if it were more like a real school, it'd be boring: who wants to watch and listen to kids try and sing or play instruments poorly?
The thing to keep in mind is, IT'S A TV SHOW. Of COURSE it's going to be unrealistic, it wouldn't be watchable otherwise. The only problem is, even though we realize that, 13 and 14 year olds who watch it might not.
I substitute taught for an elementary school music class the other day, and during this kind of musical show and tell deal, this girl sang the cover of "Baby" that Glee did. At that point, I really appreciate Glee for making kids more interested in music, even if it's terrible music. The fact that she's singing it in front of her peers really says something. However, I did have a word with the class afterwards: "How many of you watch Glee now?" *about 2/3rds put their hands up, great parenting, America*. "You know that it's just a TV show, right? That's not really how high school works.." I figured someone had to tell them before they found out the hard way, and got their dreams crushed by a chorus or band teacher.
Good on you for being straight with the kids. It's alright to let kids dream as long as those dreams don't turn into expectations.
I didn't need school to teach my how to play the genre I prefer. I don't think that children should need school. I never said that you can't learn anything from classical music, I'm just saying it's not nessisarily beneficial. Just because you will be better, doesn't mean it will help you in the long run. I stopped playing classical because it isn't enjoyable to play, and I don't remember any classical songs by heart anymore.
On last question.
I hate it when people talk about music education when they don't acutually play anything.
I think at this point we're pretty much saying the same things from different perspectives. If you want a vast knowledge about music you should go to school for it. If you just want to play what you love then go out and learn it for yourself because you'll learn more through exploration.
Well that is incorrect, because I learned in that manor. My father learned in that manor, and my best friend learned in that manor.
I know so much music theory, it makes my head hurt. I can apply all of that theory to any genre I want, however, I am certain that making all of the children learn Classical Song X makes everyone technically better, but if that music doesn't speak to them, it shouldn't be the type of music they are playing.
I do think that all children that want to play X need 1 Music Theory Class. After that, they should have an independent study in which children should learn the genre that they are most interested in.
Do you even play an instrument?
You shouldn't need a school to allow you to pursue your passion is my main point. If you want to study music in school you are going to have to study the technical aspects as well as classical and jazz. Pretty much all other genres you can learn on your own, but there isn't as much complexity that would warrant an actual class for schools.
In English classes you study poems and novels to learn something about them. It won't always speak to you but that doesn't decrease its importance. The same goes for music. Just because a classical piece doesn't speak to you doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. If you want to play because you love to play, then why do you need to take a class on it? Go out and do it. You're pretty much saying that music classes aren't good because they don't cater to your passion when only you can satisfy your own passions.
For your last question, yes. Piano for 17 years, saxophone for 11 years, composing my own pieces for 8 years, singing for 5 years, teaching music for about 2 years. Either way, what would me playing an instrument have to do with my ability to make a point?
I'm basically saying the same thing you are. I took a job last summer, where I went to a local Recreation Center twice a week and taught 10 kids how to play guitar. I had an hour with the kids, and I would work with half of them on one day, and half on the other. I didn't teach them from the book, just asked them what style of music they wanted to learn. I went home and tranposed some of that style and had them play the music.
^ That is how music should be taught in schools, after the basics are learned, students should have choice in what they want to play.
It's impossible for music to be taught in schools like that because everything needs a grade so there needs to be some objectivity, like learning how to read music and learning about music's history and various rules and concepts that were developed. However, just because music has some objectivity to it does not mean that all passion is removed from music. A good teacher will stimulate their student's passion for music by working on things the students are interested in. Just because studying music in school wasn't for you doesn't mean it's a flawed system. If you are studying music in a classroom setting you are either studying the technical aspects of an instrument or voice, studying how to read and write music, and focusing on music that has a lot of history and complexity to it, like classical and jazz. That doesn't mean you can't take the principles you learn about those styles and apply it to other genres, but technically speaking there isn't much complexity in the majority of genres of music out there nowadays.
Even with auto-tune, the Glee cast sounds awful. Cory Montieth comes to mind really quickly of a guy who has absolutely no business singing. Murphy took the pleasure of searching for the actors with the most juvenile voices possible. -.-
I have no faith that any of the actors or actresses could actually sing aside for the guy who plays Scheuster and girl who plays Rachel.
Cory (Finn) never really sang before Glee apparently. Morrison (Scheuster) has performed on Broadway, so obviously he has a lot of talent and I think it really shows. Lea Michele (Rachel) has also been on Broadway so she knows what she's doing. However, not everyone on the cast list has anywhere close to the experience these two have and it is apparent.
Actually (I don't want to go back and find it) someone said earlier that they didn't think autotune was used.
And then someone mentioned that the actor who plays Finn admitted to using autotune in the first season. Not to mention that it's blatantly obvious they use it on the guest stars like Gwenyth Paltrow in her episode.
They are very important, but, most band classes are horrible because the teachers don't understand that music isn't just about getting a grade, it is about the feeling you get when you play it. Blues really speaks to me, but we had no blues guitar classes/bands in my school so I started my own.
I did have a horrible teacher, but there were only 4 kids in my 100 minute guitar class, we all got 10 minutes, then an hour to practice together. I took private lessons before that, and the class was horrid. It wasn't really a class aside from getting graded on preformences.
If you're talking about high school, then I wouldn't expect there to be any specific genre classes for you to take. That's not how you go about learning music you love. If you want to learn how to play an instrument, sing, or how to read and write music then you should take a class at school. Bands and choirs allow for the learning of performance and practice for ensembles while reinforcing what the students know about their instrument and their ability to read music. If you have a good teacher you should learn to experience the music as well, but because a lot of students are still learning to be competent at their instrument and reading abilities the focus is going to be more on that aspect.
@ Tyler: We know they are autotuned. That's what we've been saying. When we say they have talent we mean that they can sing but the show doesn't really allow them to show it because they overproduce everything.
3. It sets a very happy attitude about Highschool Bands/clubs centered around music. Back in high school I took a guitar class and my teacher was an evil *****. This is just a very very clean version of what the art of music really is.
To be honest, you probably had a terrible teacher. Also, guitar classes in high school really aren't the best representation of bands/choirs/clubs because 1) it's an actual class and not an activity and 2) you're essentially taking a group lesson for an individual instrument, which means you'd be better of taking private lessons if you want to really learn something.
I actually really enjoy the positive outlook it gives the arts in schools. Arts are incredibly important to education and they are so often the first to be considered for cutting in schools. If there's anything I like about this show it's that it will most likely increase some interest into the performing arts in schools and give kids a good experience.
How so? The characters are all over the top mockeries of otherwise standard character stereotypes(the sassy black girl, the cute gay kid, the obnoxious know it all diva, the prom king/queen, the heinous ***** who is just hiding a latent homosexuality, the dumb blonde, etc).
The plotlines or more or less the same. The show is just a TV show that subtlely makes fun of other TV shows, and on occasion even makes fun of itself.
Also, there isn't that much auto-tuning to it. Obviously there is some, but mostly just for Finn, and it seems like it happens less now than when the show originally started.
Autotuning has declined since the first season, but there is so much processing on voices that don't need to be processed that it kills a lot of the talent in the show.
I don't really see these characters as being any more over-the-top than any other teen dramas/comedies. Even if everything is a bit exaggerated, that's more because of the nature of musical theater rather than there being any satire.
If it is a satire, it's not an enjoyable satire. It constantly begs for realism in its drama and then complete disregards its serious moments for exaggerated characters, relationships, and situations.
One of the main moments that really killed the show for me was when Rachel and her mother are saying goodbye to each other. For a highly undeveloped plot (the whole "I'm going to find my mother, oh look she's the coach of a rival glee club, and now we just met" arch was incredibly rushed), this was a major moment for Rachel's character. She just found her mother after years of wondering who she could be and realizes they can't reunite for whatever reason was given, so she asks her mother to give her a chance to sing with her since that was her dream. So what heartfelt mother/daughter duet do they sing? Poker face. A song about fantasizing about sleeping with another woman while you're having sex with a man. At first I was thinking they were just trying to reinterpret the song to fit with how they would have to act around each other, but that theory was out of the window when they decided to include the bridge with the line "bluffin' with my muffin" while singing to each other. So much for a dramatic moment and an artistic interpretation of a pop song.
To me, that's not satire. That's poor writing. It wasn't funny, it was disturbing.
Am I the only person that realizes that the show is a raging satire?
Seriously, it even makes fun of itself with tongue in cheek jokes at various points in the second season.
All of the characters are as over the top stereotyped as can be humanly possible, and they range the entire spectrum of human emotions on a constant basis. None of them ever actually learn anything, instead just generally making the same mistakes repeatedly.
It seems very apparent to me that this is all done intentionally. It's a social commentary on human nature, which is pretty much as fickle as the show makes it out to be.
If it's a satire it's doing a pretty bad job at it, IMO. I've considered that it could be, but after watching it with that in mind I can't buy it.
That doesn't have anything to do with my complaints. I was not talking about the quality or performance I was talking about the complete change in themes and established facts for the canon.
The original movie kept the mystery of the origins of the planet until the very last scene where it is fully realized that the planet is in fact Earth. Any prequel to a Planet of the Apes film automatically ruins that part of the original film if it is viewed before the original.
The original book explained how humans used apes for slave labor and became lazy and weak while the apes became strong and organized until they could overthrow them and become the dominant species. It was a long process of evolution and class/racial/species struggle rather than just scientist experimenting on apes. This new movie does it through genetic manipulation, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong about that detail though). This is a huge change in detail that alters themes and commentary from the book and 1968 film.
I'm not doubting that the new movie itself is good or not. I'm sure it is, especially given the reviews. But in the context of the 1968 film it is not a very good prequel.
I think he means more along the lines of performing pop songs and discovering themselves through the songs. Also, the fact that they perform different songs every week is setting up a wrong expectation because typically high school groups have one set repertoire for each half of the year.
Good on you for being straight with the kids. It's alright to let kids dream as long as those dreams don't turn into expectations.
I think at this point we're pretty much saying the same things from different perspectives. If you want a vast knowledge about music you should go to school for it. If you just want to play what you love then go out and learn it for yourself because you'll learn more through exploration.
You shouldn't need a school to allow you to pursue your passion is my main point. If you want to study music in school you are going to have to study the technical aspects as well as classical and jazz. Pretty much all other genres you can learn on your own, but there isn't as much complexity that would warrant an actual class for schools.
In English classes you study poems and novels to learn something about them. It won't always speak to you but that doesn't decrease its importance. The same goes for music. Just because a classical piece doesn't speak to you doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it. If you want to play because you love to play, then why do you need to take a class on it? Go out and do it. You're pretty much saying that music classes aren't good because they don't cater to your passion when only you can satisfy your own passions.
For your last question, yes. Piano for 17 years, saxophone for 11 years, composing my own pieces for 8 years, singing for 5 years, teaching music for about 2 years. Either way, what would me playing an instrument have to do with my ability to make a point?
It's impossible for music to be taught in schools like that because everything needs a grade so there needs to be some objectivity, like learning how to read music and learning about music's history and various rules and concepts that were developed. However, just because music has some objectivity to it does not mean that all passion is removed from music. A good teacher will stimulate their student's passion for music by working on things the students are interested in. Just because studying music in school wasn't for you doesn't mean it's a flawed system. If you are studying music in a classroom setting you are either studying the technical aspects of an instrument or voice, studying how to read and write music, and focusing on music that has a lot of history and complexity to it, like classical and jazz. That doesn't mean you can't take the principles you learn about those styles and apply it to other genres, but technically speaking there isn't much complexity in the majority of genres of music out there nowadays.
Cory (Finn) never really sang before Glee apparently. Morrison (Scheuster) has performed on Broadway, so obviously he has a lot of talent and I think it really shows. Lea Michele (Rachel) has also been on Broadway so she knows what she's doing. However, not everyone on the cast list has anywhere close to the experience these two have and it is apparent.
And then someone mentioned that the actor who plays Finn admitted to using autotune in the first season. Not to mention that it's blatantly obvious they use it on the guest stars like Gwenyth Paltrow in her episode.
If you're talking about high school, then I wouldn't expect there to be any specific genre classes for you to take. That's not how you go about learning music you love. If you want to learn how to play an instrument, sing, or how to read and write music then you should take a class at school. Bands and choirs allow for the learning of performance and practice for ensembles while reinforcing what the students know about their instrument and their ability to read music. If you have a good teacher you should learn to experience the music as well, but because a lot of students are still learning to be competent at their instrument and reading abilities the focus is going to be more on that aspect.
@ Tyler: We know they are autotuned. That's what we've been saying. When we say they have talent we mean that they can sing but the show doesn't really allow them to show it because they overproduce everything.
To be honest, you probably had a terrible teacher. Also, guitar classes in high school really aren't the best representation of bands/choirs/clubs because 1) it's an actual class and not an activity and 2) you're essentially taking a group lesson for an individual instrument, which means you'd be better of taking private lessons if you want to really learn something.
I actually really enjoy the positive outlook it gives the arts in schools. Arts are incredibly important to education and they are so often the first to be considered for cutting in schools. If there's anything I like about this show it's that it will most likely increase some interest into the performing arts in schools and give kids a good experience.
Autotuning has declined since the first season, but there is so much processing on voices that don't need to be processed that it kills a lot of the talent in the show.
I don't really see these characters as being any more over-the-top than any other teen dramas/comedies. Even if everything is a bit exaggerated, that's more because of the nature of musical theater rather than there being any satire.
If it is a satire, it's not an enjoyable satire. It constantly begs for realism in its drama and then complete disregards its serious moments for exaggerated characters, relationships, and situations.
One of the main moments that really killed the show for me was when Rachel and her mother are saying goodbye to each other. For a highly undeveloped plot (the whole "I'm going to find my mother, oh look she's the coach of a rival glee club, and now we just met" arch was incredibly rushed), this was a major moment for Rachel's character. She just found her mother after years of wondering who she could be and realizes they can't reunite for whatever reason was given, so she asks her mother to give her a chance to sing with her since that was her dream. So what heartfelt mother/daughter duet do they sing? Poker face. A song about fantasizing about sleeping with another woman while you're having sex with a man. At first I was thinking they were just trying to reinterpret the song to fit with how they would have to act around each other, but that theory was out of the window when they decided to include the bridge with the line "bluffin' with my muffin" while singing to each other. So much for a dramatic moment and an artistic interpretation of a pop song.
To me, that's not satire. That's poor writing. It wasn't funny, it was disturbing.
If it's a satire it's doing a pretty bad job at it, IMO. I've considered that it could be, but after watching it with that in mind I can't buy it.