There's also a Facebook page and a "Sizzle Reel" on Youtube.
I did a lot of text editing between the Script and Score for Wanda's World.
I also rewrote the synopsis for the CD notes.
|Creations in the Making||
My sister's musical released a cast album, finally. It can be found on iTunes, Spotify, and
There's also a Facebook page and a "Sizzle Reel" on Youtube.
I did a lot of text editing between the Script and Score for Wanda's World.
I also rewrote the synopsis for the CD notes.
Saw this post about someone calling the cops on a bassoon player, because they thought he had a gun:
Here's an idea:
Maybe all of us Americans AND cops should be required to carry binoculars wherever we go and also have a pair on hand in our homes.
(Also, Love to Tamir Rice and his family.)
Most people have heard this saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." It is credited to a few people and sources. I do not think at this time there is a definitive source.
In any case, I disagree with this saying.
The legal definition of insanity is “mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.”
A person who practices a craft such as a musical instrument, painting, baking, singing, composition, or writing and expects different results is not insane. This is a person who is hopeful that she or he can eventually create something beautiful and/or beneficial, and again then more beautiful, and over and over even more beautiful through time.
Yes, repetition of harmful habits can be fueled from uncontrollable impulsive behavior. That's not necessarily insanity. It could be OCD, or someone with not much common sense, or someone who has an addiction.
Just an itch... for now.
Musicians, SING WITH THOSE CHILDREN Separated from Families at the Border --- But we don't even know where they are all being sent.-- #2 Also, certain arguments are not productive.
I revised #2 a little AGAIN on June 24:
First Draft of #1: I was trying to find where the policy is that states children are to be separated from their parents. --I was confused. I looked some articles up to try and become less confused. I found this by NBC first: https://www.nbcnews.com/…/1-995-children-separated-families… where it says: "The administration's 'zero tolerance' policy, which was announced by the Department of Justice in April, separates children from their parents or legal guardians because the adults have been referred to DHS for prosecution for illegal entry into the United States." But when I clicked on the link inside the article and read it, https://www.justice.gov/…/attorney-general-announces-zero-t…, I didn't see anything about separating children from parents. So then I was thoroughly confused. I continued to search. I found a long but good article at Vox: https://www.vox.com/…/children-immigrant-families-separated… that states, "To be clear, there is no official Trump policy stating that every family entering the US without papers has to be separated. What there is is a policy that all adults caught crossing into the US illegally are supposed to be criminally prosecuted — and when that happens to a parent, separation is inevitable." But I wanted more, and I then found kind of unfortunately more information at The New York Times. Why did I say unfortunately about TNYT? Because something tells me many people on the far Right do not want to read TNYT: https://www.nytimes.com/…/fact-check-republicans-family-sep… ---- That last article states the combination of a class action suit started in the Reagan administration and ending in the Clinton administration WITH the new Trump/Sessions "Zero Tolerance Policy" is why the children are being separated from their families. But even TNYT article is not completely clear, in my opinion.
Now, I read somewhere that the children who are separated cannot be hugged if they are crying. There is a "No touch" policy or something. That prompted me to want to find these children and SING WITH THEM. How many Disney songs do they know? I don't know if I know any Mexican or Central American folk songs, but I SURELY CAN SIGHT READ and learn music, quickly by ear. (Go to my Voice Practice Page.) ---- I am way up here in Ohio. -- And my sister is getting married in less than two weeks. Not sure I could change my work schedule right now. I could try. ---- Ahhh though, on Aug. 3rd, I am adding these sentences: I don't think anybody is allowed near those facilities, except their employees and congress members, not completely sure.
And I want to CURSE! If ANYBODY knows anything about being separated from parents and family, IT IS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- I was separated from both parents and my sister for one YEAR, when I was sent to live with my Great Aunts and Uncles. This might end up being one of the first chapters of the memoir. I mean, it WAS the first chapter for years, and then I revised and so on...
Now I skimmed through this https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/inside-casa-padre-the-converted-walmart-where-the-us-is-holding-nearly-1500-immigrant-children/2018/06/14/0cd65ce4-6eba-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.c826f3de17b4, and it says, "Federal officials have not allowed reporters to visit the facilities that house the youngest children, and it is not clear precisely how many of those children are being held or where.... Advocates for immigrants worry that shelters across the border, including Casa Padre, do not have enough employees or the experience to help so many young children in such difficult circumstances."
SING WITH THEM
NPR ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT THE "NO HUGGING" here; it is AWFUL.-- https://www.npr.org/2018/06/15/620254326/doctors-warn-about-dangers-of-child-separations
--- BUT AGAIN, what IS THE POLICY? In the NPR article, it states that two siblings were not allowed to hug; then at the end, it says in certain circumstances at Southwest Key, they allow hugging. Very good, common sense, please keep using it in EVERY SHELTER. AND SING WITH THEM.
#2. The argument “Where was your outrage then?” is a deflective device, an attempt to make the opposing side feel badly for not caring at some point in the past. Any of us could find negative examples from the time our opposing party was in power and say, “Where was your outrage, then?”
As a matter of fact, I could say, “Where WAS the outrage from ANYONE from any side for ANY things that happened to the immigrant children in 2014, and for that matter Native Americans, and African Americans in the past?” Were most of us unaware? Are we still unaware? I was unaware of the policies. Okay, I have read more and learned most of the children in 2014 came alone, but how they are treated when they get here is quite important. We need to get the facts straight about what was happening in 2014 and what the facts are about THIS administration’s handling of things on the issue of separating families. Is it justified for any President to do things in a harsh, negative, or cruel way to get what He (or She) wants in the end, his or her agenda? Is it justified for any President to do cruel things, period? Going about things in a negative and/or cruel way and then blaming others who may not have known what was happening, or if some did know in the past but maybe did not understand, is hypocritical. Take responsibility. Be a better human being. (None of us are perfect. When my memoir is done, hopefully one freakin' day, some may read it and see that I was not perfect and am not perfect, either. I'm trying to evolve, become enlightened so to speak, to understand and act from compassion. That is important. Everyone is evolving, but we need to elect more people into office who understand this. Collective karma, y'all, really.)
Also, how about we use history as examples in our arguments to back up new relevant ways to make things better, rather than using history to belittle someone who may have been dealing with any numerous things at the time said history happened and couldn’t pay attention as well as she or he may have liked. And let's not use history to spin the truth into lies. It's draining to try and find the truth when people do that on purpose.
From this article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-denial-history.html?smid=fb-share at the "New York Times," it says, “(The military operation began after Rohingya militants besieged government security posts in late August.)"
From me: The Dalai Lama fled Tibet when China invaded. He still exists, because he fled from violence. And thankfully, he exists to promote peace as he tries to do so here in this other article at "Lion's Roar" about the Myanmar crisis: https://www.lionsroar.com/dalai-lama-condemns-alleged-ethn…/
Rohingyas are fleeing the violence; they need to flee; the U.S. should help them flee. If the Myanmar government cannot stop the killing of Rohingyas the way the Dalai Lama, Malala Yousafzai, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have urged, then help these Rohingyas to flee and stay alive.
I am unclear as to why "Rohingya militants besieged government security posts in late August." This article at CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/asia/myanmar-un-security-council/index.html states that they besieged posts on the border. Were the militants trying to help other Rohingyas cross the border to flee? Is the government not letting the Rohingyas leave? It also states that the Myanmar government then forced Rohingyas from their homes. Where do they go, then? Are they being put into camps if they are not allowed to cross the border? Is that why Rohingya militants besieged the government in late August? Or is it as the government states, that the Rohingyas are terrorists?
I asked a Buddhist monk in Cleveland years ago, who was brought in by a Buddhist Nun, “What do you do when a person, even a family member, continually hurts you?” He said, “You run away.” He was right. I can’t change the way the person deals with me, but I can choose to help myself by getting away from them. Isn’t that the same thing as “turning the other cheek?” Instead of besieging the person who is persecuting you, you turn the other cheek and then get away from them.
The United States and the U.N. need to help them flee. Rohingya militants stop besieging the government. They will retaliate; it’s proven. U.N. rescue the Rohingyas.
Well, since I can't put my most serious essays on my website, because I have to revise some and try to get them published, I figured I could show my sassy, possibly sarcastic, Buffa side. Up at 3:30 am, and thought, "Why don't we plant a towering border hedge or a border forest? Isn't the wall now going to be a fence, anyway?" Plant thick, thorny, hedges to give landscapers jobs. I'd be a Part-time trimmer. Actually, miles of hedges would need Full-time trimmers. If anybody set a part of it on fire to get through the hedges, we'd see the smoke, go right to the spot and catch 'em. If they try to poke through the hedges, when they pop out, we'd see 'em, like a deer coming out of the woods into a clearing. I suppose they could take their guns and shoot through the hedges at the trimmers. Ain't there some sort of infrared instruments we can use to spot a person getting close to the other side of the hedge? Maybe, if the hedge was wide and thick enough, the bullets would be slowed down by the hedge. 3:30 am, taking care of borders.
After I thought about a border hedge to replace a border wall or fence, I went looking for hedge pictures to make my case, and voila, see what I found.
Let's create a maze of hedges to slow 'em down. But how to maintain the maze without being attacked by someone trying to get to the other side? I'd have my landscaping trimmer sheers with me as a weapon. A patrol helicopter would have to follow me and my team of trimmers from above, maybe.
They can trim on their side. That's fine. As soon as they'd cut straight through, they'd be like that deer popping into the clearing. We could have rows of hedges; they'd quit trimming to get to the other side after a while: wall of hedge, followed by another wall of hedge, followed by another wall of hedge, and then a good old-fashioned row of "Kiss my border buns." If America is offensive enough, maybe nobody will want to cross the border, anyway, and maybe Mexico will plant their own hedge wall. The debate tactics of President Trump overflow into foreign policy. What are the good solutions to America's problems?
My philosophy professor and reader just messaged me about a show he has seen. He asked if I have seen it. It's called "Mozart in the Jungle." I wrote him back and said, "Nope, never heard of it. Why? Do you recommend it?" He's on vacation, and I wished him a happy vacation.
Welp, I go looking up that title, and it is a TV show based on a female classical musician's memoir from 2005. Oh gee.... so, I just HAVE to look up different synopses of the book, and then, I just HAVE to go looking up the reviews. Oh my, wow.
I even found a review of the book from one of my former female music students. I have a theory on why she wrote what she did, because for seventeen years, I lived in the city in which she grew up and am nearly ready to move back because of my several loyal and appreciative students and friends.
After I read the reviews and synopses of the book, I felt like quitting classical music, altogether. Do I read the book? Do I not read the book? Was she sexually harassed? Teased until she dropped? Did she get her gigs, because she slept around? That's all I want to know. I really have a cynical side to me.
Maybe I want to move to Dharamsala, instead.
Ya see.... I'm still writing my memoir, and it is not about what I read hers is about. It is about growing up without knowing what happened to my mother when she disappeared, not knowing why or how she disappeared, and being confused over it for my entire life.
But... there is a teensy weensy part in my book... well... that may not really fit the true theme of the book after all. It's about a handful of experiences that were strange, sometimes lovely, sometimes inappropriate and confusing throughout the years in Cleveland. And I pretty much ignored them but never forgot them. I didn't have a choice but to ignore those experiences at the time. Ya know, not having a mother and enduring other environmental circumstances probably did effect how I have navigated the world so far. And that particular teensy, weensy part may have been better navigated with a supportive mother to navigate it with me. Maybe it belongs in the book.
Or that teensy, weensy part may deserve its own niche, like in the song cycle I started to compose something like seventeen years ago but put down. I could expand the cycle into some sort of opera. I could fictionalize it and put in some humor, but truly it's not funny at all. It was all hurtful. The man did not have good intentions for love with me or toward me.
Since I haven't read that oboist's book, I can't remark on how it is written. And since I never really have been a successful classical performer, as in never won a position in an orchestra or tried to freelance like on purpose, my cumulative experiences can't be compared, exactly.
(There are some reasons why I didn't take more than three auditions on clarinet or put myself out there as a freelancer in NYC or elsewhere when I was younger. They have nothing to do with what I read this author got into. And I didn't mean to imply that all women who get freelance gigs or any gigs get them from sleeping around. Oh, but the question is in my mind for some, now, because sometimes, young women fall into the wrong situations and are taken advantage of, even sold on markets, eh? I guess I need to read the book.)
Now I'm asking, "What's success?" I have been paid to be a soprano soloist. I have sung in an opera chorus and performed on stage with them. But I never won a job in an orchestra. And I haven't become a famous or semi-famous soloist or composer. And I don't play in a well known chamber group or any chamber group for that matter, because I didn't start one or audition for one. And I really have stayed to myself performing clarinetally except to have given a bunch of recitals in the beginning up there and then again a handful of them years later.
I guess then.... I think if a person TRULY has talent and TRULY practices her ARSE OFF and TRULY LOVES THE MUSIC and PERFORMS OR COMPOSES for a short time or until she dies, she succeeds ---- whether or not she ever wins a competition or a prize or whatever ---- and whether or not she slept with, or sleeps with, or is sleeping with a bigwig.
What is love? Is it gnarly?
Is it gnarly
REVISED April 28th: Yo Michael Reagan, all sorts of things arouse people. President Reagan's son, Michael, tweeted on April 21st, "If women are going to wear low cut dresses that show cleavage don’t be harassed when we men look. Or shld we sue for sexual arousal?" --- UHHH --- A fully covered woman may or may not arouse a man (or another woman); a bit of cleavage may or may not arouse another person; ANYTHING may or may not arouse another person. Painted toenails might arouse one man and not another. Hair up in a bun might arouse one man and not another. (I'll use the word "man" instead of "person" from now on until the very end, because the recent news topics have been about sexual harassment from a man to a woman.) One man's cause for arousal is not always another man's cause for arousal. No matter what a woman does, a man may become aroused. Next, people will be tweeting that men and women can't work together, because we arouse each other.
If a man is aroused, he needs to have enough self control to let it go. Sexual speech, grunting sounds, looking a woman up and down, other sexual body language, and inappropriate grabbing and touching are choices, most of the time. If the behavior is repeated, then, it's hard to believe the aroused person does not realize what they are doing. Why does a man harass a woman in the workplace? To intimidate? To build himself up? If a man is already successful, why not give back? Why not build up others? Is it some sort of fetish for men in power to harass? --- Just trying to put it together. I need to revise this several more times, probably.
Knowing what our INTENTIONS are with other people seems to be tough.
[ I said, “Most of the time,” in the second paragraph, because I've been researching Asperger’s and read some people with Asperger’s do have difficulty being aware of their body language and responses around others. That’s a tough topic to talk and/or write about. AND NOW, the term Asperger's is not officially used, anymore. Nowadays, there is an autism spectrum. I had a series of confusing experiences with a man, fairly recently over a prolonged period of time, and am trying to figure them out. What I found was that what was called Asperger's pretty much fits him, but I don't even know if he is on the autism spectrum. This was an ongoing thing and not because I wore a low cut shirt. I actually never wore a low cut shirt in front of him. Maybe my beautiful personality and intelligence caused his behavior. There's more to this story, but it doesn't fit the theme of this post. I did write something almost the length of a fictional novella based on these experiences, though, hee hee; I might go back and rewrite it as nonfiction, but anyway... - I guess I should say that I don't know if people on the autism spectrum can LEARN from their former experiences with others or not. I also don't want to be an enabler and say they cannot learn more appropriate behavior or become aware of themselves. One of my student's parents who is a doctor said some people just like to tease. Well, friendship teasing, sexual teasing, and relationship teasing are all hurtful. WHAT ARE THE INTENTIONS? ]
Alrighty, so what about an employee who might be harassing another employee at work? Who decides which employee has more power than the other? Well, a man who is in a higher position than the woman, whether or not he is the boss, has more clout or power. The lower ranked person may feel scared to confront the other in fear of losing her job. And I hate to say it, but a woman at the same job level might be afraid to confront or report it, too. I think what I stated in this paragraph has been stated for a long time. Then, why do people get away with wrongdoing for so long?
Back to "Should we sue for sexual arousal?" -- I have been told the phrase: "No one can make you. . ." followed by "happy" or "angry.” It’s difficult to put the word "aroused" at the end of that sentence. It's the "Did the person try or intend to make you happy, angry, or aroused on purpose?" part that might be fuzzy. -- Did the person try or intend to make you angry? Just because you became angry doesn't give you the right to go back and punch them in the gut. Did they try or intend to make you happy? Just because you became happy doesn't mean that you capture them, take them home, lock them up, and release them when you want to be made happy. Did the person try or intend to make you aroused? Just because you are sexually aroused doesn't give you the right to grunt, touch, look the other person who you think tried to arouse you up and down, catcall, stare at them, or do anything sexual with them or around them.
On the other hand, why would a person intend to make another person angry or aroused on purpose? I mean the former makes no sense unless you are a lawyer in a movie questioning Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men. Doing the latter in the workplace is not appropriate. If a person has intentions to arouse another, because s/he likes them, maybe it's best to talk outside the workplace, maybe ask a person on an old fashioned date and take it from there. --- Sounds like a lot of common sense and yet there are so many people hurting others.
And if person 1 did NOT try or intend to make person 2 happy, angry, or aroused, and person 2 became happy, angry, or aroused, person 2 doesn't have a right to punch, capture, or do anything sexual with them or around them.
Communication is tough. Awareness of our thoughts, speech, and actions is tough. Knowing what our INTENTIONS are with other people seems to be tough. That's why there are rules in SOME workplaces. --- Life doesn't have many guidelines to help outside the workplace. Our intent and motivation need to be checked, frequently.
Good Luck to everyone.
If you care about someone, ask to hold their hand. "Holding someone's hand was always my idea of joy" (Lispector 9).
Lispector, Clarice. The Passion According to G.H. New Directions, 2012.
Revised on April 8th, 2017:
The President wants to cut the arts funding. Does he dislike the arts so much? Creating "alternative facts" seems to be an art form in and of itself. We could say he is being artistic, bring it to his attention in some grand way, and maybe he'll hate that he is creating art and stop. Maybe it's not art if it's created to mislead or confuse or harm? But maybe art is only art if created to help people become less delusional and more empathic? Maybe it's created to make us more aware of ourselves. Maybe it soothes some souls, the creators' and the audiences'.
This man has made me more aware of needing to pay attention, to listen closer, to read closer, to think more, and also made me more aware of negative speech. In turn, he has made me think about history and want to learn more. However, alternative facts are lies for agendas created to mislead and deflect our energies. We have to constantly think about what the truth is and that depletes our energies for other positive helpful things we could be doing. And he doesn't soothe me.
Will I become more aware of my own speech, now? Will I become more aware of harm being done to others? Will I become more compassionate? Will I become what people call an activist? Will I become more aware of harm being done to me? Will I start speaking more negatively? Will I think negative thoughts? Will I create more art? -- Is it the intention behind the art that makes art art? Do artists think about their intentions? Can negative speech be art? Is it the reaction from its audience what makes art worthy of the classification as art?
Hold up! Artists, musicians, thinkers who believe he will cut the NEA: Maybe the news about cutting the NEA was put out to distract us, so we focus on trying to save it, spend precious time thinking about that, rather than using our artistic talents in ways to create change, create awareness of fairness, create beauty, connect to others in peaceful ways. -- Maybe we need to come together and allocate energies.
What is this man's motivation? All beings have the potential to do good; I suppose all beings also have the potential to do harm. Many Americans put their trust in this President to do good, not harm.
Programs such as operas aired late at night on PBS can bring joy. Consider that my all-inclusive statement of what the arts when shared do, because right now I have to go write part of my book and finish an essay for class. (Oh yeah, I do have a job, for those who may think I don't really work. --- Will need full-time job very soon when out of school. Might have to settle for more hours at two part-time jobs or three. These subjects belong in another post, not here, though.)