Thank you Franz Schubert. Thank you John Dowland. Thank you Sam Cooke. Thank you Paul and John. Thank you Kurdt. Thank you Black Francis. Thank you Boss. Thank you Elvis Costello. Thank you Bobby Dylan. Thank you Baez. Thank you Joni Mitchell. Thank you Tin Pan Alley. For songs. For the development of that bold statement that, while so concise, is also a jump off to larger contexts, and even larger tangents that can be explored. But, can a song have multiple planes? Does it have to be a single statement or affect to get inside the listener and change their current sense of stasis? Why is simple considered "better"? Why is concise usually met with a higher regard than the longer, loping, sometimes meandering types of musical forms? Or, rather, forms in general? Written, choreographed, sung, orated, it seems to me that the general sensibility is to say more with less. One thing I've been accused of in the past, and, I usually got defensive about, is, saying less with more. I don't think there is a value difference in this aesthetic, rather, its the polar opposite with regards to display, but, in conceptual design, the same. For instance, the song "Wild Thing" is great. 3 chords, the lyrics, which have almost a kindergarten "wheels on the bus" kind of basic(ness) to them, is world reknowned. I've known the song all my life. Its part of the lexicon, in the oxford dictionary of pop music hooks, a pbj sandwich. But, what if that song was given to Wagner, or Bjork, or Hanz Werner Henze, and its arrangement stretched, its contour enlarged, its rhythmic sensibility complicated and exoticized, would it still make it on to the "Major League" soundtrack? Prolly not. Would the YES network use it as a bumper? Hell no. Would Jimi Hendrix have played it at Monterey? maybe. And that is the bar for todays accessibility standards. Can it be broadcast on television? Is it good for an acura ad? Never do you hear, "Will it stand up to Mahler's 7th?", If we programmed this at Summer Stage, would it start riots in the audience similar to Stravinsky's premiere of the Rite of Spring? I wish the iflip was invented then, I'd pay in personal organ currency to get a look at that concert hall during the premiere. Violence, shock and awe, all due to a new harmonic language that was being utilized by Igor. Is it because of our general, collective attention spans? Did the MTV style of quick cuts ruin our patience for longer form music? These questions keep floating around my brain partly due to my interest in writing music that gets away from the all mighty 3:30 mark, and can breathe more, and have moments of respite, as well as moments of fury and intoxicating condensement. All for the sake of relating it to life, and (hopefully) being able to portray time as we as humans experience it. Not everything in life happens in 3 minute 30 second cells, rather, it varies from the 2 second hand wave acknowledgement of a neighbor across the street, to the 6 minute email check middday, to the 45 minute sitting in traffic on the deagan, to the 3 hour dinner with friends, to the romance filled night with your love, to the 6-8 hour sleep you ritually get, to the 4 month duration of heart wrenching pain you go thru after a breakup. In short, it all varies. Also, in addition to the "length" of musical moments, the intended mood, or color, or attempted emotion that one tries to conjure, I feel, could be widened. So often, I listen with pointed curiosity, mainly to see if every element is really getting the point across. If it is a "sad song" what does that mean? Is the tones, the harmonies, the delivery, the lyrics, really evoking "sadness"? or, the composer's idea of sadness? Is the composer well versed in sadness? Is it a superficial sense of sadness or is this mother fucker really longing, and bent out? And undoubtedly, you find the answers in the sound of the end product. does this piece of music grab you? Are you left with a door in your soul slightly opened, spilling out a little bit of your sadness? Or is it merely a billboard for sadness? Flat, on the highway, sponsored by Viacom. I don't have answers, just raised questions, hopefully leading me to a truer sense of creating. What is so fun, dangerous, sexy, and daunting about the creative process is the fact that the finish line is unknown until you get there. There is no prescribed route to creating a work that speaks to people, and truly evokes what you as the creator is trying to say. Trial by fire, is my best way of describing it, but ultimately to leave no stone unturned. And to be sensitive to your findings and hone what works, and to hone what doesn't.