Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: How Pharrell's legal team blundered the "Blurred Lines" lawsuit. Or: How Marvin Gaye ripped off the Nazi anthem recently banned by the New York Youth Symphony

Hi everyone! Welcome to my blog. It hasn't officially re-opened, though I expect to be posting a lot more in the not-too-distant future.

The main focus of this post will be to discuss the legal arguments laid out by the Gaye estate via the use of expert witnesses. In the process, though (both to point out the absurdity of the claims, and to show how this precedent is a silly and dangerous one) I'll show how the same standards could prove infringement cases for some rather odious folks at the same time.

My normal reaction to outrageous events is often to use humor. So, at first, this post was originally going to be titled "How Marvin Gaye ripped off the Nazi anthem recently banned by the New York Youth Symphony," which would have killed two ridiculous birds with one very ironic stone (and would have put Godwin's law to spectacular use!) In the end, I decided to go in a different direction, though the arguments put forth by Gaye's music experts lay out a compelling case for Horst Wessel to rise from the dead and sue the Gaye estate for millions. I had never even heard of the Horst Wessel tune until the NYYS controversy erupted, so I thought it would be a fitting, outrageous foil to the claims made in this case.

First and foremost, I (for now) am not doing a ton of offline research, filing for copies of depositions/transcripts, etc. Also, I'm not spending the time (yet) to find the elements claimed by the Gaye estate in other tunes, both popular and classical, though they are definitely out there (and I could certainly find them with a little time investment.) Many of the musical conventions claimed as actual legal infringements by the Gaye estate are found in dozens, and even hundreds of works, which is part of why this verdict is so problematic.

Amongst many articles that I've read, this is the one that best describes the musical details that were claimed to be infringed upon:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-similar-is-blurred-lines-778635

Next, this year-old article is the best I've found that details the dissimilarity of the infringible elements of the tunes:

http://joebennett.net/2014/02/01/did-robin-thicke-steal-a-song-from-marvin-gaye/

Oh, and here's a link to that Nazi tune for comparison!

http://abcnotation.com/getResource/downloads/image/das-horst-wessel-lied.png?a=trillian.mit.edu/~jc/music/abc/Germany/HorstWesselLied/0002

...and a version with lyrics, necessary for some other arguments:
http://www.anesi.com/east/horstw.gif

Next, I have to say how much I enjoy Pharrell & Marvin Gaye as artists, and there are a number of Thicke tunes (including "Blurred Lines") that I enjoy. Beyond that, I actually root for Pharrell- his background & career story are inspiring, and he's a true, creative artist! For those that don't know me well, I'm firmly embedded in both the classical and the popular music worlds, and (alas) there are few folks in the biz that have serious study/legit credentials in (or simply enjoy participating in) both worlds. For instance, there are over 650 accredited music schools in the country; having a degree from a rando program does not equal legit credentials. The divide between the classical and popular worlds is not only manifested in the flaws in the copyright laws, but also in the myriad of problems we've seen in the classical world over the last few decades. That's a separate topic of discussion, but it plays in to the problems with this case.

Last, and most importantly, it is very clear that "Blurred Lines" was heavily influenced and inspired by "Got to Give it Up." Both Pharrell and Thicke have admitted as much, and (based on both the actual copyright law, as well as the documented history of music over the last 6 centuries) they clearly never imagined that they would lose this case. A simple listen of both tunes *does* pass the "ear test" that normally leads to infringement cases, and the similarities are striking (instrumentation, percussion choices, groove/beat, party noise, "whoo"s, falsetto use, extended time spent on the I chord, the Bass groove style, and more.) There's a reason, however, that the judge required the jury to base their decision on the lead sheet of the Gaye tune: simply put, the Gaye estate does not own the copyright to the groove on the recording. There's certainly a larger moral question (which isn't adressed by the copyright law) as to how much someone should be able to borrow from a tune, but juries and judges are supposed to make rulings based on law, not based on what they think should be the law. Jury nullification is a real thing, however, and that's exactly what happened in this case. Personally, I am of the opinion that the Gaye estate should have songwriting credit (about 10%), but I'm also of the opinion that current law & precedent gives them exactly 0%.

Most articles, to varying degrees of effectiveness and specificity, have dealt with the larger point that feel/groove/style are *not* copyrightable. Several of my brilliant musical friends, along with other blog and article writers, have pointed out the last half-millennium is rife with examples far more similar than this case. This side of the coin is well-covered, so I won't be typing a treatise on the Parody Mass genre from the 1500s. Instead, I'm going to focus on the arguments made by the Gaye witnesses as described in the Hollywood Reporter article linked above. In the end, these are the arguments that go directly to the heart of the case, and will leave most folks shaking their head. I realize the summaries in this article are not the complete testimony, but they well cover the actual (and flimsy!) similarities rather completely, which is why I'm comfortable using the article as source material.

This post also demonstrates what the Pharrell/Thicke team should have focused on...having Pharrell and Thicke play tunes of other artists as a defense likely falls in the category of "The Man Who Represents Himself Has a Fool For a Client." OK, off we go!
--------------------------------------------------
POINT #1: the Signature Phrase.

The Gaye estate claims that there is a signature phrase in both tunes, and that the similarities are "pretty stunning." Those phrases: the opening line ""I used to go out to parties" in the Gaye tune, and "And that's why I'm gon' take a good girl" in the Thicke tune. Here are the alleged similarities:

1. They begin with a repeated note. Says the expert: "one of the most important considerations in comparing melodies."
2. They end with a single word that finishes in a melisma.

Now, let's take an actual look at those signature phrases. First, the Gaye "SP" is also the main melodic hook of the entire tune, and is sung (at pitch) over a variety of chords. This works because the melody is pentatonic, and the basic tenets of Blues lets you put those notes (the pentatonic scale on I) over the chords I, IV, and V without transposition. The alleged Thicke "SP" is also pentatonic in nature. First, without getting sidetracked, if there is an "SP" in "Blurred Lines," this isn't it. Is a toss-up between the half-steps of the verse (which was referred to as "Theme X," and will be detailed below) and the chorus, which starts right on the words "Good Girl" (without the pentatonic run-up, and followed by the "1-1-1-2-3" melody.) Second, their pentatonic basis is where the melodic similarities end. To begin, let's look at the actual scale degrees of the alleged "SPs":

Gaye: 5 5 5 6 1 2-- * 1 5 6   (the dashes indicate holding over the barline, and the "*" indicates the barline)
Thicke: 3 3 b3 3 5 6 1 * 1 1

Gaye not only avoids scale degree 3 in the SP, he avoids it in almost the entire piece (save "Theme X, which will be covered below.) That's just good Blues, as the dichotomy between 3 and b3 is what makes Blues music awesome; hanging out on scale degree 3 makes it sound like Lawrence Welk. (Nothing wrong with that, by the way, it's just a different world of music from the tunes in this case.) Second, Gaye uses this SP throughout the song, the verse and chorus, over three separate chords. It really is the heart of the melodic content of "Got to Give it Up." In "Blurred Lines," the beginning of the alleged SP is a direct offshoot of the verse melody, which is almost exclusively repeated half steps (3 to b3 over the I chord, and 1 and out-of-tune 7/b7 OR 5 to #4 over the V chord.) The pentatonic lead-up only happens when leading up to chorus phrases, and never during the verses. Since the pentatonic nature of both lines is truly the *only* similarity, Ravel, Debussy, and hundreds of others (including a dead Nazi) would have something to say about that.

Point number 2 is so silly, I almost hesitate to address it. The "melisma" in Gaye's tune is actually written out on the lead sheet, is only 3 notes on the final syllable, is repeated verbatim throughout the song, and barely qualifies for a melisma. This is one of many things the Thicke expert should have pointed out...here's how I would describe it to musically-inclined folks:
Vince: "The melisma claimed by the Gaye expert is actually not a melisma at all. The word "Parties" starts with a fantastic 2-1 suspension over the I chord, a striking musical technique that is not even used once in the entire performance of "Blurred Lines." He then leaps down to scale degree 5, and resolves away to 6. This becomes important when we switch to the V chord, because we're now leaping down to 2, and resolving to 3- this is a centuries-old technique called an appoggiatura.This is the genius of Marvin Gaye: what begins as an embellished chord tone becomes something right out of the Chopin/Brahms playbook just by changing one chord." The Thicke SP is a true melisma, and is presented differently several times in the song. Also key: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IMPORTANCE OF A REPEATED NOTE IN THE MELODY? "Good Girl," and "Blurred Lines" repeat scale degree 1 to finish...that's an incredibly distinctive melodic element, and that repetition is mimicked by the backup singers. In short: the Thicke melisma is not part of the melody proper, which the Gaye alleged melisma is an INTEGRAL part of the melody. This also shows that the Gaye line is FAR more sophisticated and complex in its design, which is no surprise to anyone.

Horst Wessel's case: The melody begins with a repeated note! After all, it's "one of the most important considerations in comparing melodies." In fact, 3 of the 4 phrases begin with a repeated note!! Even worse, look at measures 3 & 4: Horst Wessel uses a 2-1 against the a minor chord, and then a suspension at the end of the phrase in measure 4, just like Gaye did! Measure 6 has another strong 2-1 suspension as well, and the melody in measures 6-7 is completely pentatonic!

POINT #2 Hook

The Gaye team claims that the hooks from both songs share 3 of the same 4 notes, and the key words fall after the barline. The hooks in question: Gaye "Keep on Dancin'"; Thicke "Take a Good Girl." The alleged similarities:

1. The "key words" fall after the barline.
2. The phrases share 3 of 4 notes.

Ugh. First, this all should just be an extension of Point #1, as the "Keep on Dancin'" is obviously a partial quote from the SP "I used to go out to parties." (And, obviously, "Take a Good Girl" is literally a partial quote from the alleged SP claimed.) So, why the distinction by Gaye's team? Because of the rhythmic claim they make in claim 1 above. Changing the rhythm to the words "Keep on Dancin'" not only doesn't make it a separate musical idea, if two different people wrote those musical clips separately, the second person *would* likely be liable for copyright infringement!

Taking the above arguments with a straight face, however, to claim that a phrase that begins before a barline, then finishes the main thought after the barline is copyrightable is ridiculous. This happens in tens of thousands of tunes, including those written for propaganda around the WWII era (stay tuned!)

Let's now examine claim #2. Here are the scale degrees at work:

Gaye: 6 1 * 2 1
Thicke: 6 1 * 1 1

First (and again) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE IMPORTANCE OF REPEATED NOTES IN A MELODY, "one of the most important considerations in comparing melodies?" Next, both are pentatonic in nature, though barely so in the Thicke case, as there are only 2 separate pitches in that hook. Also, the Meatloaf-like claim that "3 out of 4 ain't bad" reminds me of the famous Idina Menzel "75%" quote, which gives me the opportunity to post this:

Horst Wessel's claim: His best case is the 75% argument. Look at the third measure, starting on the eighth note. Here are the scale degrees over the played a minor chord: 2 1 5 * 2 1. The first three notes are EXACTLY the same as the Gaye SP "Parties" melsima! Then, Horst Wessel does TWO 2-1 suspensions! (Yes, I know the first '2' is actually a passing tone, but I'm using the logic of the Gaye witnesses.) We also see 1-2-1-6 in measure 7, using the exact same 4 notes...BACKWARDS! (like subliminal messages in 80s hard rock albums!) The way key words fall over barlines also plays in HW's favor when compared to the SP! If you look at the lyrics version of the HW tune, almost every verse starts the key word before the barline in the 4th and 12th measures, and then finishes the word after the barline...That's what happens with almost every instance of the SP in the Marvin Gaye tune!

POINT #3: Keyboard-Bass interplay

The Gaye estate claims that the Bass lines are similar in style and groove. The specific claims:

1. Both use similar rhythms and moments of silence.
2. Both use "A and E chords." Then, as summarized in this article http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-blurred-lines-trial-expert-20150227-story.html  a Gaye expert showed how two different Gaye/Thicke tunes shared a ii-V-I progression, and that "If you placed a mirror in between, they'd be a reflection of each other."
3. The Gaye groove is unusual, and Thicke/Pharrell mimicked the Gaye tune specifically, not a genre in general. (Further remarks along those lines were stricken from the record.)

Claim 3 first: Thicke/Pharrell stated as much, and that by itself is not an infringement of copyright. As to claim 1, the article I posted above wonderfully adressses the fallacy of that argument. Claim 2 HAS to be a misquote, since "Blurred Lines" has no A or E chords (though LOL that the Thicke musical expert admitted that the Gaye tune uses eight chords, and the Thicke tune only two...though that sells the passing bass notes leading back to I a little short.) I'm sure her actual quote was that both use I and V chords, which is actually a WORSE argument. Simple: Every tonal tune written in the history of documented music has I and V chords, and (INRE the other songs) ii-V-I has been the foundation of tonal harmony for centuries. Since harmony has a big part in how a groove unfolds, let's look at the two songs:

Gaye: I I I I I I I I IV V I V/V IV V I V/V
Thicke: I I I I V V V V (descending 4,3,2 back to...) * I

At first, one might be compelled by the repeated I chords in both works, until you notice that the entire Thicke tune is a Schenker dream (or nightmare?): I V. (To be fair with that analogy, though, the 8 active chords in the second half of the Gaye tune would essentially be V in Schenkerian analysis, making the two tunes harmonically identical!) A more appropriate harmonic analysis of the two tunes shows that they aren't similar at all...and if containing I and V is important enough criteria for a jury, a dead Nazi has something to say about that...

Horst Wessel's claim: holycrap V and I all over the place! More holycrap, ii-V-I progressions as well! There was likely no Bass groove in this homophonic march, but we *can* look at the use of silences...every SP statement from the Gaye tune begins with a rest on the downbeat, and so does *every* phrase of the Horst Wessel tune!

POINT #4 Lyrics

The Gaye estate claims that the Lyrics are similar.

1. Both songs center on transformation. In the Gaye tune, a wallflower transforms into a dancer. (And presumably "gives it up.")
2. "Move it up / Turn it 'round / Shake it down" vs "Shake around / Get down / Get up."
3. The rap verse of "Blurred Lines" begins at the same point as Gaye's 'parlando'.
4. "Let me step into/ to your erotic zone" vs. "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two"

OK. claims #1 and #4 are the same: you can't copyright a general idea in a verse. No jury on the planet would see the quotes in claim #4 as actionable. Yes, they are further proof of what Pharrell already admitted: the Gaye tune was the inspiration for "Blurred Lines." That is not an infringement. Same guidelines apply to claim #2...the "Get Up/Get Down" lines have been in popular music well before Marvin Gaye. Claim 3 seems logical on its face, except just about every song that has a guest rapper appearance follows the exact structure; TLC's "Waterfalls" and Usher's recent release "I don't mind" are just two of hundreds of examples. (Side note on the Usher tune: Usher spends the whole song on how dancing "on a pole" doesn't make her "a ho," then the rapper comes in and essentially spends the entire time calling her a ho!) Again, claim 3 shows influence, not infringement.

Horst Wessel's case: did someone say a song that centers on transformation? Oh yeah! You can find an English translation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst-Wessel-Lied  I'll avoid actually quoting any of those lyrics here, but there's lots of calls for transformation in that song!

POINT #5 "Theme X"

The Gaye estate claims that there is a two-pitch theme that is prominent in both songs. "It's the same musical material. It's the same notes, the same rhythm, just ... the same." While "Theme X" is nowhere in the lead sheet, the estate claims that the theme is implied by the harmonies in the lead sheet.

This "Theme X" occurs on the Gaye tune in background vocals singing "Dancing Lady."  It occurs throughout the Thicke tune, including the beginning part of the alleged SP. In the Gaye tune, the pitches are simple: 3 3 b3 3. In "Blurred Lines," it's the repeated half-steps that occur throughout the verse as described in Point #1 above: 3 to b3 over the I chord, 1 and out-of-tune 7/b7 OR 5 to #4 over the V chord. Sometimes Thicke will repeat the 3, like this: 3 3 b3 3; other times, he'll start directly on the altered note: b3 3 b3 3.

**Before I discuss "Theme X," let me point out that Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, composed in 1943, uses Gaye's exact 4-note line as the main theme for the first movement. (E E Eb E.) This makes "Theme X" either public domain, or under the auspices of the Bartok estate, making Point #5 moot.

First, let's analyze how these half-steps are used. Gaye ALWAYS puts that b3 on the strong beat: beat 3. Thicke NEVER puts the b3/b7/#4 on a strong beat! Using the Gaye expert's own arguments, the stress point of the key notes is crucial...and exactly opposite of each other. Second, the 3 b3 3 convention has been around music for centuries, and is seen in composers from Bach to Bruckner. Third, Thicke's melody is not a two-note cell, repeated a la Beethoven; it's a boring, repetitive melody that involves hammering a half-step over and over. Gaye's "Theme X" is in the world of backup singers, backup brass sections, and dozens of other conventions that have been around for decades...not to mention a b3/3 dichotomy that has been around for centuries. In short: it's NOT the same rhythm, and half-step motion is not copyrightable.

Horst Wessel's claim: Look at measure 5! He plays a note, he repeats the note ("one of the most important considerations in comparing melodies") then he moves down a half step...just like "Theme X" in the Gaye tune! Of course, HW moves down on the fourth note, but the HW "Theme X" shares 3 of 4 notes of the Gaye tune "Theme X!"
---------------------------------------------
The biggest question to come out of this case: how did the Pharrell/Thicke team fail so miserably? Of course, jury nullification played a big part; after all, the tunes do sound very similar in several ways. Also, Robin Thicke was not the best witness, admitting he was not honest about how the piece came together. The tabloid stories didn't help, either, and he definitely was not a sympathetic witness, but that shouldn't have affected the ruling. Also, everyone loves Marvin Gaye! Even when a judge tells the jury not to do something, it's hard for many people to separate their emotions & sense of justice from what their actual responsibilities are.

All of this said, most of the points that I mention above are *not* sophisticated ones; while many of the details above are described in Theoretical language, I'm also very confident in my ability to transmit those points in understandable ways to layfolk. This case involved three musicologists who have made court appearances as expert witnesses part of their careers. I am not looking to malign them in any way, just as I would generally never malign any attorney who takes unpopular cases. That said, the arguments they made are so absurd to anyone with a basic musical foundation, I am *convinced* that if I went out with them for drinks, we would all have a laugh at some of the things they said in the courtroom! Importantly, nothing that they said was untrue (except the claims of some of the similarities being 'unusual', which are a stretch at best.) It's the job of expert witnesses to make the best, most honest claim for their clients...and it's the job of the other side to answer those arguments.

Also of note: the claims made by the Gaye experts *only* work when presented in complicated language to a jury of layfolk. This point is worth repeating: the actual Theoretical musical claims made by the Gaye estate are absurd to anyone with a basic background in Music Theory. What the Pharrell legal team needed to do, in essence, was to educate the jury on the basic musical fundamentals behind each point- a mini-music appreciation class, of sorts. If a nuclear physicist claims, under oath, that two items are the same because aoierhgosnifuoaisurhtoigsnbtuhbgfiuhaosdkf, the other side has to describe "aoierhgosnifuoaisurhtoigsnbtuhbgfiuhaosdkf" well enough to demonstrate that the point is silly. (For instance, that "using I and V chords" and "putting the important word of a phrase on the downbeat" are not only common, they happen in almost every song written.)

In the end, this case will absolutely be overturned on appeal. The actual musical elements that are currently covered under copyright law were not infringed upon in this case. As I mentioned above, the Gaye estate does deserve a partial songwriting credit, but the elements borrowed from "Got to Give it Up" have, to this point in history, never been covered under copyright protection. Sometimes, it takes cases like Biz Markie/Gilbert O'Sullivan, Vanilla Ice/Queen, and Rob Base & DJ E-Z Rock/Maze with Frankie Beverly (Google them if you are curious) to update old law and to set modern standards. Here's hoping for an intelligent solution that is fair to both the old trendsetters and the new pioneers, but that doesn't dig up the bones of bad ghosts in the process.

Grammy Awards 2015: the predictions!

OK, now that the Super Bowl is over, we can get to much more important business: The Grammy awards! First, let me say how excited I am about the live performances scheduled for this Sunday, especially the collaborations. Some of the most unique and exciting live performances of Popular music happen at the Grammy awards every year, and there's one heck of a lineup on tap. Lady Gaga & Tony Bennett are going to be amazing, and Jessie J with Tom Jones will be an absolute HOOT. Annie Lennox with Hozier has the potential to become too heavy or too indulgent, but if done right, their collab could steal the show. Also, plenty of solo acts who are always entertaining: Pharrell, Usher, Common, Miranda Lambert...and AC/DC!!

Now, for my predictions! I'm guessing who *will* win, not who should win (though I sometimes give commentary to that effect.) I also only predict the categories where I have actual knowledge, and have listened to the material! So, no predictions for 44. Best Tropical Latin Album, for instance. There are a number of categories that I *do* usually listen to (like all of the Gospel & Jazz) but, alas, did not have time to do so this year. What do you think of the predictions? Have I missed the mark somewhere? Let me know either here on this blog, or on Facebook. Off we go!

1. Record Of The Year: Sia, Chandelier. This will be the year of Sia, and her video was one of the best works of audio/visual art all last year.

2. Album Of The Year: This is tough! It's gonna be between Ed Sheeran and Beyonce, and both of their albums are FANTASTIC. I'll avoid going into the full commentary of all the non-musical reasons why each might win, and instead predict Ed Sheeran by a nose.

3. Song Of The Year- slightly different from Record of the year, as this is a songwriting category. The Grammy voters often like to use this category to reward someone who might not otherwise win a Grammy, so Meghan Trainor's "All About That Bass" has a strong chance, but Sia should still win.

4. Best New Artist- Bastille hit the charts way too early in the year, I think, so Sam Smith will get the trophy.

5. Best Pop Solo Performance- Sia.

6. Best Pop Duo/Group Performance: "Say Something," Christina Ag/Great Big World.

7. Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album: Tony Bennett/Lady Gaga in a landslide!

8. Best Pop Vocal Album: For anyone that likes modern Pop, all of these albums are quite good! It will come down to Perry and Sheeran, but I think Sheeran will be the 'cool' choice this year.

11. Best Contemporary Instrumental Album- Chris Thile by a landslide!

12. Best Rock Performance: "Fever" by the Black Keys, though Jack White has a strong shot.

14. Best Rock Song: Paramore's "Ain't it Fun" should win, but should it be in this category? Voters turned off by this upbeat number might go for the Black Keys instead.

15. Best Rock Album: Turn Blue, The Black Keys (with Ryan Adams having a shot at the trophy as well.)

17. Best R&B Performance: Beyonce's "Drunk in Love" by a landslide!

18. Best Traditional R&B Performance: Tough category!  None of this year's nominees come close to Lalah Hathaway's REDIC Grammy-winning performance from last year! Antonique Smith probably has the best performance, but the song itself isn't the best, so I predict Lalah grabbing back-to-back wins.

19. Best R&B Song: STRANGE nominees in this category. Beyonce by a mile.

20. Best Urban Contemporary Album: Should be Beyonce, especially if the Grammy voters think that Sheeran will take Best Album. Pharrell has a strong shot, though.

21. Best R&B Album: Aloe Blacc will win this on popularity, though I think all of the other albums in this category are stronger.

22. Best Rap Performance: Another strange category this year. Underwhelmed by *all* of these choices! If you go by the title of this award, Lecrae's "All I Need Is You" is the best performance, followed by Eminem's "Rap God," but the Eminem song itself is a throwaway, so I predict Drake takes the trophy with "0 to 100."

23. Best Rap/Sung Collaboration: An interesting category, in a good way! Rihanna & Eminem's "Monster" was the most compelling collab by far in this category, so I think they take the nod.

24. Best Rap Song: Oh man, this could go in any number of directions! I think the Kim K factor will DQ Kanye (same for the category above.) Anaconda *shouldn't* win in this songwriting category, as the whole tune revolves around a 1-measure sample from Sir Mix-a-Lot! I hope Drake wins, but Minaj might win this one.

25. Best Rap Album: This will be either Common or Eminem, and will come down to the level of Eminem fatigue with the Grammy voters. Common, in a coin flip.

26. Best Country Solo Performance: Great category! Hunter Hayes is the hot new ticket these days, so he wins with "Invisible," with Carrie Underwood coming in 2nd.

27. Best Country Duo/Group Performance: The Band Perry, "Gentle on My Mind." (Though Lambert/Underwood's "Somethin' Bad" is fun, and has a shot.)

28. Best Country Song: Glen Campbell will be the sentimental pick with "I'm Not Gonna Miss You."

29. Best Country Album: Tough category, but I think Miranda Lambert wins it.

31. Best Improvised Jazz Solo: This is one of the most fun categories to dig into! Chick Corea will win.

-----BIG skip of categories---

55. Best Spoken Word Album: Grammy voters love politicos like Elizabeth Warren and Jimmy Carter, but they might cancel each other out, leaving room for Joan Rivers to win the posthumous Grammy.

56. Best Comedy Album: Weird Al's delightful surprise album "Mandatory Fun" will garner his second ever Grammy win.

57. Best Musical Theater Album: TOUGH, and diverse category. Neil Patrick Harris's "Hedwig" is the frontrunner, but a lot of this comes down to who gets to vote in this category! If the voter pool is large and not specialized, "Beautiful: The Carole King Musical" has a great chance. I'll predict Hedwig.

58. Best Compilation Soundtrack For Visual Media: Gone are the simple days of "best soundtrack," thus this strange category. The battle will be between a true compilation (American Hustle) and a movie with a bunch of great original songs (Frozen.) This clearly highlights a flaw in this category, but the problem is that there aren't enough movie musicals written each year to make a separate category. So, Frozen either has to compete against what are essentially 'Now That's What I Call Music' albums, or against orchestral underscoring, so I guess this is the better category? Frozen wins (I think.)

59. Best Score Soundtrack For Visual Media: See? Here's the problem. Frozen is also in this category, and should only be measured by the underscoring, but that's not gonna happen. Or maybe the voters are tired of their toddlers singing "Let it Go" non-stop, and will draw a defining line between the categories? In that case, it comes down to Trent Reznor's "Gone Girl" or Steven Price's "Gravity." I pick Gravity.

60. Best Song Written For Visual Media: "Let it Go" in the easiest category to pick this year. (It's a great song, and Idina's performance of it on the album is spectacular.)

61. Best Instrumental Composition: One of the strangest categories, where an odd conglomeration of Jazz, Movie Sountracks, Nouveau Bluegrass, and Modern Classical meet up every year. Edgar Meyer & Chris Thile will win with "Tarnation."

62. Best Arrangement, Instrumental or A Cappella: PENTATONIX with their first Grammy!! And their arrangement of "Daft Punk" (which will win) isn't even their strongest arrangement.

69. Producer Of The Year, Non-Classical: This will be between Greg Kurstin and the famous Max Martin. Max Martin's offerings, while huge hits, are all essentially the same, while Kurstin has Ellie Goulding, Sia, Katy Perry, Lily Allen, and Kelly Clarkson. Kurstin should win the trophy.

72. Best Engineered Album, Classical: Tough category, and the voters are notoriously unpredictable where there isn't a clear frontrunner. I'd lean towards John Luther Adams: Become Ocean, but it's one of *two* albums by that team of engineers. (Also, the 'other' John Adams is nominated on that second album, but the voters in this category won't get them confused!) If the two Seattle recordings cancel each other out, look for Muti & Chicago to win.

73. Producer Of The Year, Classical: *Lots* of buzz about the work of Dmitriy Lipay, the long-time audio man at the Seattle Symphony. I think he takes the nod, otherwise my long-time friend Elaine Martone adds another trophy to her already humongous collection!

74. Best Orchestral Performance: Another highly unpredictable category! I think Robertson & St. Louis take it with John Adams: City Noir.

75. Best Opera Recording: Thielemann/Dresden with Strauss: Elektra

76. Best Choral Performance: Andrew Davis, BBC with Holst: First Choral Symphony.

77. Best Chamber Music/Small Ensemble Performance: A close one between my friends in A Far Cry, and my old friend from IU (Cory Smythe) accompanying Hilary Hahn. Based on Roomful of Teeth's win last year, I will predict that the voters will continue to avoid the safe choice, and go with "Dreams & Prayers" and A Far Cry!

78. Best Classical Instrumental Solo: Leon Fleisher will be the sentimental favorite, but Daniil Trifonov should take the trophy.

79. Best Classical Solo Vocal Album: COME ON, LB! Another old friend from IU, Larry Brownlee, should walk away with his REDIC album of Virtuoso Rossini Arias.

80. Best Classical Compendium: Another weird category, which usually contains strange bedfellows. Britten To America is my prediction.

81. Best Contemporary Classical Composition: A composers award, different from the recording awards above. Normally, John Luther Adams would walk away with this award (it's a fantastic composition, and has received lots of buzz) but, tragically, Stephen Paulus passed away just in October. His composition is also fantastic, though I believe the Adams is a stronger piece. The Grammy voters have a history of voting with their hearts, so I predict Paulus will receive the posthumous Grammy.

82. Best Music Video: OK, maybe *this* is the easiest category to predict this year. Sia in an almost unanimous vote!

83. Best Music Film: Some *great* choices, but 20 Feet From Stardom wins easily- the industry won't miss the chance to give those amazing backup singers their due this Sunday.

'Meh'verland: the actual problems behind NBC's Peter Pan Live.

Hi folks! This is not yet the official re-opening of my Music Blog, but a “coming soon” sneak preview of what's to come. Welcome, and enjoy.

In my career as a kid stage performer, there were only three shows (of any genre) that I got to perform in two separate productions of: Carmen, Peter Pan, and The Sound of Music! (Though in the case of The Sound of Music, the second 'production' was a concert version/recording that immediately followed the stage production, so it didn't feel like a separate process.) NBC has chosen two of them for their live shows; how great if a non-PBS TV network did a live, made-for-TV production of Carmen! But I digress...the point is that NBC has chosen two works that I am very familiar with, and it's safe to say that many of the decision-makers at NBC were far less familiar with the material at hand.

Before getting underway, here comes one of the most important statements from this entire review: it is fantastic that NBC is doing these productions! They are high-risk, high-cost endeavors, and the arts world is a far better place with these productions on the air. However, there is no reason for these productions to be done poorly, for a wide variety of reasons to be discussed further below. Onward!

Let's deal with the most obvious and problematic issue: most of the material in the musical Peter Pan, as written, is neither particularly strong nor particularly compelling. The music from the show can be divided into four groups: Throwaways ("Tender Shepherd"); 2-second songs, where it's only necessary to sing the title since everything that follows is unnecessary ("I've Gotta Crow," "I Won't Grow Up," "I'm Flying"); Camp/Cheese (All 3 of Hook's dances, "Wendy," "Ugg-a-Wugg"); and Money Numbers ("Never Never Land," "Distant Melody.") While the 'Money Numbers' will stand up relatively well despite mediocre performers or directors, all of the numbers in the first three categories rely on the strength of both performance and concept to be successful. Peter Pan is a show that only works when the actions, motives, and intentions of the characters are painted with bold, bright colors, and this was NBC's biggest failure. When the color of the sets and costumes out-dazzles the color of the characters, Peter Pan is doomed to fail.

The plot is also problematic, but for two very different reasons. First, when reduced to the essentials, the story is an unnecessary one: kids run off to a land of make-believe, have adventures, and return. For most of the show, if one were to ask "Why is this happening?" there would be no good answer. Secondly, however, the two 'money' numbers, along with the epilogue, point to a much more complicated problem: where do the metaphors and symbolism end, and reality begin? "Never Never Land" and "Distant Melody" were added to the musical after it was first premiered, and both songs add a significant, world-changing new dimension to the character of Peter Pan. Several important questions must be answered: is Peter Pan in on the whole joke, like a clever puppet-master in the guise of a naive boy? Is it the traditional Mary Martin model, where Peter Pan is indeed a naive boy, and is accidentally profound in the way kids can tend to be? (This traditional model happens to be the easiest way to solve the plot problems. Draw everyone into your world, rather than have them wonder why they are there in the first place.) Further metaphorical questions are posed by the epilogue, along with the fact that Hook and Mr. Darling are usually played by the same actor. Many spinoffs from the Peter Pan story have addressed these questions in clever and inventive ways, but to carelessly delve into this world is risky business. NBC's production of Peter Pan painted many of the characters in shades of gray. I'm likely giving too much credit thinking it was a purposeful choice due to the questions posed above, rather than a simple lack of creative vision/depth/understanding. Either way, it was a huge mistake, because whether the world of Neverland is fact or fiction, the *characters* are still real. Whether real or imagined, how boring is a far-away land if it's not much different than ordinary life? And where is the payoff, or big-picture moral, if those worlds are too close together? It's like the Wizard of Oz without Technicolor.

Let's get a bit more specific by examining the three 'tribes' on Neverland Isle: The Lost Boys, the Pirates, and the Indians. Using the two extremes above, they are either literal boys/pirates/indians, or they are ordinary people who (through their imagination) are sharing the world of Neverland, like a live-action online game. (Side-note: in the second case, it would make sense to have the full-grown men who played the Lost Boys in the NBC production!) In *either* case, they are going to play their role! How lame is it when a group of people are playing a game that involves roleplay (improv comedy, charades, theater shows, D&D, online games, more sultry endeavors like "playing doctor") and there's that ONE buzzkill that refuses to play along, but insists on playing anyways? That's how much of the cast seemed in NBC's Peter Pan, as if everyone was in on the secret that this was all one big metaphor, and thus should not fully commit to their role. The Lost Boys should be giddy in "Wendy," defiant and ornery in "I Won't Grow Up," and always wide-eyed and youthful. Otherwise, their choice to go to London- the metaphorical and literal decision to “Grow Up”- loses its impact. The Pirates need to be over-the-top campy; instead, they all fell in to the same, too-cool-for-school, completely in-on-the-joke style of Christopher Walken (more on him later.) The premise that your leader (Hook) needs a musical style to inspire his next dastardly plot is one of the funniest and most unique plot devices in Musical Theatre; to make that process mundane and uninteresting is a Theatre crime equal to forsaking Sondheim, Tommy Tune, and Ethel Merman. The Indians, admittedly, are a trickier quandary. For the record, NBC handled most of the basic changes quite well (and yes, it was necessary for the material to be changed, as “Ugg-a-Wugg” is the 1950's version of the famous “Ching Chong Ling Long Ting Tong” YouTube video from a few years ago.) But (as with anything in life) just because something needs changing doesn't mean that every change is a good one! Replacing the nonsense syllables with authentic language was brilliant; replacing other nonsense syllables with nursery rhymes was nonsense. The bigger mistake, however, is that the end product wasn't very good. “Ugg-A-Wugg” (now “Blood Brothers”) is the only true, old-school production number of the entire show; in their pursuit to be reverent and non-offensive, they ended up being boring instead. Not only is it OK for the Indians to be campy and cheesy, they need to be! Alas, most of the group numbers in the entire production were boring. The swordplay at the end was laughably lackadaisical, because (once again) they aim for a shade of gray. They should have either spent the time to do fantastic fight choreography, or instead make it campy slow motion (a la The Matrix.) That was an easy one to fix, as were many of the problems in the show.

Of course, much of what I discuss above simply comes down to poor acting, directing, and quality control. Allison Williams was a terrible choice for the role of Peter Pan. She had none of the star power or name recognition of Carrie Underwood, the demographic that watches her HBO show is completely different from the target audience of Peter Pan, and the brunt of her acting experience is getting faux-boned while topless on screen. Underwood was not a strong actor, but at least she understood how to carry a thought/idea between phrases in songs. Here I'll let slip a small trade secret: it's the silence between musical phrases that defines the acting, and this is the biggest mistake that non-singing actors make when they sing. You could *see* Williams's thought process on her face during every pause in her singing, and (alas for her) it was at its worst in her debut number. It went something like this: "I've gotta crow" ("OK, where's my next floor cue") "I'm just the cleverest fellow 'Twas ever my fortune to know" ("OK, this next line goes higher, I need to remember to place this where the coach showed me, and take a good breath, here goes...") etc. Given that much of Williams's acting experience involves simulated sex, perhaps the producers might have considered having Nana (the dog) hump her leg during that number? For the record, I think her singing was largely OK: she hit most of her spots, she was mostly in tune, and the sound was generally fine.

It did seem, at times, that Williams was aiming for something far more complex dramatically, but it fell far short. It also added several layers to the narrative, some unintended, that simply don't fit in a production of this musical. (This is a much longer ramble that I've decided to leave out of this review, but suffice it to say that NBC's track record of social engineering and integrity in decision-making is horrendous: The Olympics, Last Comic Standing, America's Got Talent, and more provide plenty of examples.) In the end, some NBC exec thought it would be cute to hire the daughter of their news anchor to star in the show. A similar thought process led to the casting of Tiger Lily, who simply couldn't sing the role. It's a lovely idea (and politically savvy) to hire a Native American for the part, but it does no one (especially her) any good to cast a person that can't handle the role.

The casting of Walken was a stroke of genius, and was the biggest wasted opportunity in the entire production. Stage direction has many parallels to my world of orchestral conducting; any mediocre conductor or director can help a mediocre orchestra/artist perform better, but a true test of a great conductor or director is improving people who are already world-class artists. Every viewer was expecting much more from Walken, but where does the fault lie? Sure, Walken should have been better, but there are several important points to put this in context. First, we've all seen Walken do better, so we know he is capable of it. Second, as I've mentioned above, the show was already rife with poor choices in acting, concept, and direction; Walken's low-key approach was congruous with the many shades of gray that engulfed this production. Third, what is the director there for? Going back to the conducting analogy, a conductor (among other things) helps to provide a unifying vision that brings all of the musicians together to work towards the same goal. While musicians are certainly expected to come prepared and to play at their best, the duty of quality control ultimately falls on the conductor. In the unique case that a musician is completely missing the mark, the responsibility falls on the conductor to (put simply) find a solution to make it work. I've been fortunate to see a bunch of orchestras from behind the scenes, and this type of scenario happens more often than you would think! While I might be wrong, I can't imagine that Walken was un-directable. In fact, I'm convinced (especially given what I've already typed above) that everyone on set thought he was HILARIOUS. It was Walken playing the role of Walken, which the NBC folks found funny in a drunk-at-midnight-watching-Saturday-Night-Live sort of way. The lack of sensible quality control in the rest of the show makes this scenario very likely (Occam's Razor), and I seriously doubt Walken was any different in the rehearsals prior to the live show. So, just like so many SNL skits that were clearly funnier to the writers than the audience, the Walken deadpan was a colossal failure, and no one on set saw it as a problem leading up to the performance. Ultimately, the director of Peter Pan was unable to utilize or improve the many tools that Walken brings to the table, and thus Walken's performance became the main topic of conversation for all the wrong reasons.

There were several bright spots in the show. First, Wendy was the only main character to fully commit to her role. She was wide-eyed with wonder at the youth (Pan) who was going to help her run away, and she fully believed in the real-ness of Neverland. She is the perfect example of the importance of the bold, bright character colors that I mentioned above; the weight of Minnie Driver's reality would have made no sense without it. There were two other shining lights: Kelli O'Hara as Mrs. Darling, and Christian Borle as Mr. Darling and Smee. They certainly brought weight, legitimacy, and high standards to the table. Unfortunately, they were not utilized enough (or on screen enough) to counterbalance the many problems with the show. A great comparison to make is with Audra McDonald, who had a significant impact upon the quality of The Sound of Music Live, despite minimal screen time. Importantly, she was also able to draw the best acting out of Carrie Underwood, during the song “Climb Every Mountain.” In contrast, Borle was unsuccessful in drawing Walken out enough in order to be his foil, and thus did not have the opportunity to portray a proper Smee. If Audra would have been cast as Smee (which would have been an amazing casting choice!) would she have done any better? Likely not, but the novelty of having Audra and Walken as Smee and Hook would have likely resulted in better and more focused direction.

Since music is normally my primary focus in any critique, it's surprising to me that it has taken this long to finally speak of the orchestra! As I've already mentioned, the musical material is not particularly strong, with lots of 'boom-chick' numbers and time fillers. Compounding this is the terrible trend in Pops/Musical Theatre to treat popular music like Guitar Hero: just push the buttons down at the right time. This was especially noticeable in The Sound of Music Live, where none of that fantastic score was treated like music- no phrasing, no subtlety, no use of color or texture...not much better than a MIDI recording. I'm pleased to say that Peter Pan Live is an improvement, which was immediately heard in “I've Gotta Crow”: the brass added fantastic shape to each 'answer' of Peter Pan's invocation of the song title. In fact, the brass was making great shapes, phrases, and colors in several places throughout the show! Alas, the strings and winds were largely in Guitar Hero mode, which leads me to believe the Brass innovations were a result of the brass section itself, and not from the music direction. Kudos also to the consultant who made adjustments to “Ugg-a-Wugg,” because it would have been silly to change the lyrics, but not change the musical components that were equally problematic. These changes gave “Blood Brothers” a new feel, and would have worked great had the choreography and performances been stronger. Last item: that terrible Synth sound they used for Tinkerbell's 'voice'. In the original show, her voice is supposed to be represented by a Celesta, which (simply put) is a piano that uses bells for keys. Of course, hauling around a Celesta is both expensive and difficult, so most shows use a Synthesizer Celesta sound instead. The sound used in Peter Pan Live was an anemic cross between a windchime and a toy piano; you can also file this choice in the already-stuffed “quality control” folder.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, why is any of this important? Anytime an artistic event of this magnitude occurs, you get plenty of people (like me) who express their opinions in different ways, followed by a small (but vocal) group that sets their target on the expressers. The most common phrases from this group: “Who are you to judge?”; “Why don't you try to do it better?”; “These people put hard work into it, and you are disrespecting their work”; “We've all had bad days”; “You're going to discourage them from doing more shows”; “__________ show was far worse”; “What does it matter? _____________ is happening (fill in the blank with a true story of suffering.)” I will hear these (and other) comments occasionally, and I feel it's always important to address them directly. The basic answer is this: that's not the way the world works! When people invest in something, they will have an opinion on what they've invested in. When it comes to the arts, that investment is usually time, money, or resources. Three hours is a significant time investment, so people are going to express their opinions. Now, here comes the better answer: quality matters. In the worlds of symphonic music and opera, a major selling point is that the audience will get a more special experience in the concert hall than they would watching TV or listening to a recording; the quality of the experience is an oft-cited reason. Why, then, would quality not matter when it comes to art and music in the popular realm? Sadly, a significant number of individuals in the classical world believe that the quality of a popular performance is not important to its success, and (worse) that the general audience will not be able to tell the difference (and thus critical reviews only serve to hurt future audience numbers.) This is a much longer topic of conversation that will need to be addressed in a separate article, but nothing could be further from the truth. Today's general audience, for a variety of reasons, is more attuned to the quality of performances than ever before. It's not enough to throw a famous name on stage/screen- the viral negative social media reaction to Walken's performance is a great demonstration of this.

So, why would any organization spend so much money, time, and resources to put on a production, but not put in the effort to make sure that it is good? I'll have to save the detailed answers for a separate article, but it's often a combination of bad decision-making by the powers-that-be, a complete misunderstanding of the viewing/listening audience, and laziness. It never ceases to amaze me how many arts organizations (both intentionally and unintentionally) will completely gut the quality of their outreach, educational, popular, or even subscription programming, and then lament their poor sales numbers. How many TV shows have 'jumped the shark,' and then, years later, lamented the cancelling of their show on a “Where are they now” retrospective? In most cases, money is not the issue. All it takes in one person behind the scenes that understands the audience enough, cares about quality enough, and is willing to work hard enough to fight for the highest artistic standards. It's no accident that a small subset of decision-makers (directors, producers, conductors, etc.) are responsible for so many successes in the arts world. These are the people that can lead and motivate the legions desperate to settle for “good enough” to instead aim for something greater.

Most of the problems with Peter Pan Live were both easily noticeable, and easily fixable. While it seems crazy that not a single person involved with the production was aware of these problems, that is not an uncommon occurrence in this industry. With all of the millions of dollars that NBC spent on this production, it's a shame that they didn't spend a fraction more to bring in a hired gun, with credentials in the worlds of both Music and Theatre, who is known for their exacting standards. (P.S. NBC: I'm relatively inexpensive, and willing to make myself available for your next project!) In the end, it is such a shame that the reviews of the production were so poor, because that could lead to fewer viewers in the future. However, this is why detailed analysis of what went wrong is crucial, otherwise the blame will be deflected towards the common excuses (dwindling audiences, technology, too much competition, lack of the arts in schools, etc.) instead of the actual reasons: poor decisions, and poor quality control.

So, kudos to NBC for its courage and vision to bring live, designed-for-TV musicals back to the small screen. Now, let's be sure to get it right next time!

Music School Rankings hysteria!

(Originally written in March 2012, updated March 2013.)

Hello world!

I've taken a long break from blogging, for reasons that I'll delve into on a future blog. I do anticipate a return in the not-too-distant future, but I'm coming out of hiding for a one-off post.

MUSIC SCHOOL RANKINGS!

A mysterious list materialized last year, from a site unimaginatively titled "uscollegeranking.org." It included a list that was similar in its lack of imagination (though quite creative in the Engrish category): "Top 30 America’s Best Music Schools and Colleges Ranking in 2010."

The list caused a bit of a stir (Why is this school so high? Where is that school? This school is above that school? etc etc.) Even more curious was that the methodology was missing. They now have a general "ranking methodology" page, which assigns a percentage to various criteria...many of which aren't helpful/accurate in assessing the strength of a music program. They also note that they borrow from a variety of sources, with US News & World Report being the first source listed. Still, lots of discussions and debates were spurred by this random posting on this random page.

I happen to be a self-created follower/expert/connoisseur of Music Programs. Without going into a long ramble (I'll save that for my book!) I had *no* idea how the college game worked as I was leaving high school, and I had no idea how the graduate conducting game/Kabuki dance worked as I was finishing my undergrad. It turned out that most (all?) of my friends/teachers/mentors/colleagues didn't really know much, either. Of course, specific people knew specific teachers at specific schools, and people knew general things about the big-name schools, but that was it. So, ever since I started grad school, I've eagerly soaked up every bit of information I can get about schools. (In fact, I got a detailed lowdown on NEC's voice program this past weekend, which filled in a long-standing gap in my knowledge base!) I then eagerly (and long-winded-ly) counsel and advise anyone and everyone who comes to me looking for college advice, and I've had a ridiculously awesome track record at helping folks get in to GREAT schools. It's not that I'm some crazy savant...it's just that few (if any?) really delve into the topic the way I have over the years.

Why do the rankings matter in the first place? Many folks react to these lists with derision or feigned indifference, saying "these lists are pointless" (or something else to that effect.) While this topic is one of my big soapbox issues, my big manifesto will have to wait for the proverbial book I'll be writing in a few decades! Here's the short of it: it DOES matter. Here are a few, non-controversial bullet-points as to why:

1) Rankings affect enrollment. Strong, confident students will be more likely to apply towards the top of the list, and less-confident folks will aim lower (or aim completely off of the list.)

2) Quality matters. I'm purposely avoiding dangerous waters in explaining this one...I'll just say that all music degrees are not created equal. Stronger schools have a stronger faculty base, and have higher standards/expectations which will lead to higher results. Also, the stronger the students are, the further the students will grow. The magic of music (as well as the arts in general) is that you always become a product of your environment; better environments almost always lead to better students. (I know there are exceptions, individuals that had bad experiences, etc etc...a more detailed discussion will have to wait for a later time.)

3) Reputation matters.

Speaking of reputation, does anyone know how USN&WP did their music school rankings in the past? They sent a survey to deans and prominent music teachers at schools around the country. So, the music school rankings from US News were based solely on reputation. To my knowledge, 1997 was the last year that US News did a music school survey (Several Eastman sources cite a 2004 ranking, but I wasn't able to find it in a database text search; I'll head to the library this weekend to check for sure.) Does anyone know why US News stopped ranking music schools? According to a few sources I spoke with ages ago, many survey recipients simply didn't return their surveys!

So, this 2010 list was quite an event! I don't want to give away the punchline just yet, but here's the "new" 2011 list, according to uscollegeranking.org:

1 University of Rochester (Eastman School of Music) NY
2 Indiana University-Bloomington IN
3 Juilliard School NY
4 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor MI
5 Curtis Institute of Music PA
6 New England Conservatory of Music MA
7 Northwestern University IL
8 Oberlin College Conservatory OH
9 University of Cincinnati OH
10 University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign IL
11 Yale University CT
12 Florida State University FL
13 Manhattan School of Music NY
14 University of Southern California CA
15 Johns Hopkins University (Peabody) MD
16 University of North Texas TX
17 Cleveland Institute of Music IL
18 University of Texas-Austin TX
19 Arizona State University AZ
20 Mannes College of Music NY
21 Rice University TX
22 University of Colorado-Boulder CO
23 University of Wisconsin-Madison WI
24 Ohio State University OH
25 University of Hartford (Hartt) CT
26 San Francisco Conservatory of Music CA
27 SUNY-Stony Brook NY
28 University of Kansas KS
29 University of Miami FL
30 Boston University MA

The first red flag is that the ONLY difference from 2010 is that Michigan and Juilliard swapped places. Of course, there are FAR more red flags. Here are a few:

1. Rice! Rice has aggressively hired some of the top orchestral musicians across the country to build one of the best music schools in the country.

2. Colburn! Colburn is the "Curtis of the West," and is easily in the top 30, which leads to

3. USC. Still a great school, still top 30, but many students choose Colburn over USC.

4. There are several schools that have slipped over the past 10 years, but those specifics will have to wait for my book.

So, remember how I said I'm a big follower of music schools? Well, I knew what was up the moment I saw the 2010 list. Allow me to post the 1997 (!!) list from US News and World Report, which (to my knowledge) was the final list they published:

1. Univ of Rochester-Eastman School of Music (NY) 4.9
2. Indiana University-Bloomington 4.8
2. Juilliard School (NY) 4.8
4. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4.7
5. Curtis Institute of Music (PA) 4.5
6. New England Conservatory of Music (MA) 4.4
6. Northwestern University (IL) 4.4
6. Oberlin College Conservatory (OH) 4.4
6. University of Cincinnati 4.4
6. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign 4.4
6. Yale University (CT) 4.4
12. Florida State University 4.3
12. Manhattan School of Music (NY) 4.3
12. University of Southern California 4.3
15. Johns Hopkins University-Peabody (MD) 4.2
15. University of North Texas 4.2
17. Cleveland Institute of Music (OH) 4.1
17. University of Texas-Austin 4.1
19. Arizona State University 4.0
20. Mannes College of Music (NY) 3.9
20. Rice University (TX) 3.9
20. University of Colorado-Boulder 3.9
20. University of Wisconsin-Madison 3.9
24. Ohio State University 3.8
24. University of Hartford-Hartt (CT) 3.8
26. San Francisco Conservatory of Music 3.7
26. SUNY-Stony Brook 3.7
26. University of Kansas 3.7
26. University of Miami 3.7
30. Boston University (MA) 3.6
30. Michigan State University (MI) 3.6
30. Temple University (PA) 3.6
30. University of Maryland-College Park 3.6
30. Westminster Choir College (NJ) 3.6

The uscollegerankings list is a complete, shameless, 100% ripoff of a 15-year-old list from US News! No methodology, no research, just a straight-up 211! Even worse, they didn't bother to show the ties in score- they just listed them in order (and chopped off MSU, Temple, UM, and WCC, which were also tied for 30th!)

So, the uscollegerankings site is useful for anyone who wants to know how music schools were thought of back in the 90's. It still generally reflects where a lot of great music-making is happening, but it misses the boat on the current landscape. That said, the least this mystery site could do is post that they are stealing directly from an old source.

---------------------------------------
UPDATE!

So, the mystery site has a brand-spankin' new list for the 2012 year. What has changed since 2011?

1    University of Rochester (Eastman School of Music) (Same)
2    Juilliard School (up 1)
3    Curtis Institute of Music (up 2)
4    New England Conservatory of Music (up 2)
5    Indiana University-Bloomington (down 3)
6    University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (down 2)
The rest of the list is exactly the same, except one addition and one subtraction:


7    Northwestern University (same)
8    Oberlin College Conservatory
9    University of Cincinnati
10    University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
11    Yale University
12    Florida State University
13    Manhattan School of Music
13    Berklee College of Music (New!)
15    University of Southern California
16    Johns Hopkins University (Peabody)
17    University of North Texas
17    Cleveland Institute of Music
19    University of Texas-Austin
20    Arizona State University
21    Mannes College of Music
22    Rice University
23    University of Colorado-Boulder
24    University of Wisconsin-Madison
25    Ohio State University
26    University of Hartford (Hartt)
27    San Francisco Conservatory of Music
28    SUNY-Stony Brook
29    University of Kansas
30    Boston University
...and U of Miami, ranked 29, was bumped from the list.

We already know that this website is a sham, as it is plagiarizing a list that was published 15 years ago. Here are the 'new' problems with this year's list:

-UNT and CIM tied at 17? What a coincidence! The 1997 USN&WR list had them exactly tied for 17th as well!

-For the 3rd year in a row, the schools ranked 7th-30th are in the *exact* same order, except for the addition of Berklee, and the subtraction of U of Miami.

-Speaking of Berklee, there's a reason that school was never included in the USN&WR lists. That would be like including USC's film scoring program (a great program!) in a list of top composition schools, or including Juilliard's Theater program on a list of top 10 Music Theater schools (which happened on a LOLworthy list I saw today!)

Plus, all the things wrong with last year's list are still problems this year. The omission of Colburn, and the low rating of Rice, confirm that this list is based on outdated material. The fact that #s 7-30 have remained UNCHANGED for three years show that no actual methodology is being used. Hell, the fact that no methodology is even listed on the website shows that no methodology is being used! Double-hell, the fact that the 2010 list is EXACTLY THE SAME as the USN&WR list from 1997 shows that no methodology is being used!

Also, a handful of schools have emerged over the past 16 years that are definitely stronger than some of the names on that list. And, one of the top 30 schools above was recently on the verge of major restructuring, and perhaps even disbanding!

So, as I mentioned in my original post from one year ago, this list is a good representation of many of the strong music programs in the US, as they are all solid programs. In terms of an actual ranking, however, take it with a huge grain of salt...there are some clear errors on the list.

We Are the World: USA For Africa vs. 2010 Haiti. A Comparison. Side by side in an epic battle. Who wins?

Here is the first post in my blog dedicated to music discussion, review, and criticism. Enjoy!

There's been a lot of talk about the new "We Are the World" video. For those that grew up when the '85 version came out, the reaction seems to be largely negative. While there were a number of things I did not like about the 2010 version, I actually enjoyed much of it.

A lot of criticism comes from taste. Some vocalists that are classically trained tend to cringe anytime they hear a belter or rocker, so they instantly discard the performance without truly 'hearing' any of it. They don't realize this is parallel with folks that change the channel the moment they hear an opera singer. Genre preference is also an issue. Some people hate rap, some hate country, some hate classical, etc. Some hate the Jonas Brothers, but did you see their performance with Stevie Wonder at the 2009 Grammys? Taylor Swift has been a popular punching bag of late (and rightly so) but did everyone forget her performance with Miley Cyrus at the *2009* Grammys? Dionne Warwick and Kenny Rogers might be their own punchlines today, but they were major artists in their time. With apologies to all of my friends who are classical vocalists, Josh Groban actually brings something to the table that people enjoy, and his performance at the 2008 Emmys addresses this issue better than my words ever could. (YouTube it, it's worth it.)

Age is a factor as well. It seems that every generation has their crotchety, "back in my day..." rant. Parents in the 50's complained about Rock; parents in the 60's complained about Psychedelia, parents in the 70's complained about Disco, parents in the 80’s complained about Madonna, parents in the 90’s complained about Rap… my contemporaries now complain about auto-tune. (My complaint with auto-tune is with quantity/quality, not with its existence.) For those who grew up in the 80's: there was plenty of silly-ass music that you LOVED listening to. "Walking On Sunshine?" "Safety Dance?" "Electric Avenue?" I could go on for ages. T-Pain and Miley Cyrus do not corner the market on this subject. (For the record, I have all of those tunes on my iPod.)

So, what happens if you actually size the two videos up, back to back? I decided to see what happened if you pitted the videos against each other, artist for artist. I'm a fan, critic, and performer of all of the genres involved, and think I can bring a neutral but humorous perspective to this comparison.

The rules are simple: each unique artist feature will be compared with the same snippet from the opposing video. Most incidental riffs are listed and included, with a few exceptions from 2010 that weren't substantial enough to include in the tally. The judging will be based upon performance quality and artistic contribution, *not* on reputation or stature. Absolutely no draws (no matter how painful that may be) and all decisions are final. Away we go!

Lionel Richie vs. Justin Bieber. Really? 1-0, and a horrible choice to begin 2010. If this were a race, it would be the equivalent of tripping over your shoelaces at the start, tumbling ass over teakettle, and straddling the nearest utility pole with your scrotum. No wonder so many folks dislike the new version.

Stevie Wonder & Richie vs. Nicole Scherzinger & Jennifer Hudson. This would have been closer if Bieber wasn't singing along. 2-0

Wonder vs. Hudson. This one is close, but Wonder rocks/leans/lurches to the right at the finish line to edge out Hudson. 3-0

Paul Simon vs. Jennifer Nettles. Jennifer who? (She's the lead singer of Sugarland, if you were wondering.) 4-0

Kenny Rogers & Simon vs. Josh Groban & Nettles. Close, but...5-0

Kenny Rogers vs. Josh Groban. For those who think Groban should win this one: he just copied what Rogers did, only lamer. And squarer. 6-0

James Ingram vs. Tony Bennett. Yikes...it takes effort to make Tony Bennett sound uncool. 7-0. This is getting ugly.

Tina Turner vs. Mary J. Blige. Some folks might hate me for this; blame whoever decided to put Tina in the basement of her range. Mary J by a mile. 7-1, and 2010 is on the board!

Billy Joel vs. Mary J. Blige. Somehow, Billy brought more soul to this battle? 8-1, and I love Mary J.

Michael Jackson vs. Michael Jackson & Janet Jackson. Perhaps the sound mixer is trying to revive the rumor that Janet & Michael are the same person, as you can't hear her voice at all. (Well, to be more specific: the clip is so overmixed and overproduced that the two voices are not distinct, and the layman’s ear will not hear her at all.) Plus, she lip-synched at every MJ tribute, including the Grammys, which deserves a negative point if it were in the rules. 9-1

Diana Ross vs. Barbra Streisand. This is closer than some people might think. Babs loses by trying just a bit too hard. 10-1.

Dionne Warwick vs. Miley Cyrus. Forget the bad press, but Miley can actually sing (when she’s not lip synching.) Little Achy Breaky actually had a chance to win, but not by copying Dionne. Put your phone down- no psychic required to predict who wins this one. 11-1.

Willie Nelson (& Warwick) vs. Enrique Iglesias. It pains me to do this, as Iglesias is a running joke in the music world, but Willie blew his entrance! 11-2.

Willie Nelson vs. Celine Dion (i think?) I love Willie's spin on this, but Celine wins. Celine haters can go away now. 11-3.

Al Jarreau vs. Jamie Foxx. For those that have seen the "making of" videos, Al was never able to harness his riffs, which led to the boring clip that made the cut. Also, Foxx brings it. Four in a row for the new guys! 11-4

Bruce Springsteen vs. Wyclef Jean. Without a doubt, the former/current/former-again Fugee delivers the most self-serving, arrogant solo from either video. PS: when are you going to explain how so much of your organization's money went into your pockets, Wyclef? PPS: Thanks for finally getting around to filing a few years worth of tax returns. PPPS: Thanks in advance for filing the rest of them in the near future. (For anyone who is curious about details, check out thesmokinggun for more info.)12-4

Kenny Loggins vs. Adam Levine. Loggins gets Footloose at the end with an effeminate ending. 12-5.

Steve Perry vs. Pink. Tightest contest so far. This is going to hurt, but I'm going to err on the side *against* my personal biases (sorry Steve.) 12-6.

Daryl Hall vs. BeBe Winans. It's a shame so few people know who BeBe Winans is! Props to the 2010 producers for using at least (or only?) one soloist who isn’t a prop for the record companies 12-7

Michael Jackson vs. Michael Jackson. Blame the 2010 sound mixer/producer again. 13-7.

Huey Lewis vs. Usher. I love Usher, but he's up against one of the most iconic solos from “We Are the World.” If he would have brought his A-game, he might have won, but...14-7.

Cyndi Lauper vs. Celine Dion (with Orianthi on guitar). Celine's up against the *other* iconic solo from “We Are the World.” Plus, Lionel had to coach/conduct you? Really? Orianthi (who?) brings nothing to the table to assist. 15-7.

Kim Carnes vs. Celine Dion. It's only two words, but it counts. Carnes wins by an upper neighbor. 16-7.

Lewis, Lauper, & Carnes vs. Fergie & Dion. Not as big of a mismatch as some might think, but Lewis' F# gives context & foundation to Lauper's riff. (Oops, went into analyst mode.) Now for some math: Celine copying Cyndi < Cyndi. Perhaps having Orianthi (who?) in the mix might have given the new folks a better chance? 17-7.

Here's where the judging gets interesting. The 2010 version has 7 choruses, each with a plethora of soloists. There's also a rap break in the middle. The original version has 8 choruses (the 9th fades out), but 2 have no soloists, and 2 use duplicate soloists from earlier choruses. So, we can't match up chorus vs. chorus, but we also shouldn't penalize 2010 for more creativity/ingenuity/artists. So, here's how the scoring will work: Each chorus will be awarded 1 point for each artist that makes a distinctively positive difference to the chorus, with a 3-point maximum for each chorus. This gives 2010 the chance for a comeback! If you don't like the scoring system, go away and do your own. I'll keep the chorus scores separate for clarity's sake. Here we go!

1985 1st chorus: no soloists, still 17-7.

2010 1st Chorus: Nicole Scherzinger, Nick Jonas, Toni Braxton, and Mary Mary. I like how they bring this chorus down a bit. Nicole is fine, Nick was used about as badly as was possible in that spot, and Toni sings about "you and May" even though it is February. (The word is “me,” hon, as it was supposed to be in all of your hits in the 90’s.) It’s a bad sign when the choir is far more compelling than your soloists! Mary Mary saves this chorus at the end. +1, which makes it 17 to 7(+1)

1985 2nd chorus: Bob Dylan! This was the most debated, divisive solo from ’85. The rehearsal video for this is one of the funniest things ever. Poor Bob is surrounded by rockers and soul singers singing in octaves he’s never heard before! (The melody is supposed to be sung where?) In the end, Quincy & Lionel probably wrote a whole-note E and said, “Sing any notes around here, Bob.” It's endearing and distinctive, though, so +1. 17(+1) to 7(+1)

2010 2nd chorus: Mary Mary, Isaac Slade, Tony Bennett, Toni Braxton, Lil' Wayne, Carlos Santana (on guitar,) Usher. Tony & Toni do much better here than they did on their previous features, but not enough for a point. Isaac Slade (who?) is from the group The Fray (who?) who sing the song "How to Save a Life" (Oh!) Lil' Wayne was obviously chosen as the Bob Dylan for the 2010 rendition, which I think is fantastic (+1)...especially since their rehearsals were probably incredibly similar! Usher also gets a +1 for the best riff of this chorus. I’d love to give a -1 for completely wasting the appearance by Santana. 17(+1) to 7(+3)

1985 3rd chorus: Bob Dylan again. Alas, it's more of what we’ve already heard, but less. No points.

2010 3rd chorus: Pink, Mary Mary, Akon, Orianthi. Pink gets a +1, while Mary Mary & Orianthi don't quite do enough for a bonus. Akon was the 'original' Auto-Tune man, and this clip shows how it can be used without annoying the f**k out of people. +2! 17(+1) to 7(+5). 2010 puts on the accelerator!

1985 4th chorus: Ray Charles. Man, I'd give this two points if I could. 17(+2)-7(+5)

2010 4th chorus: T-Pain, Jamie Foxx (as Ray Charles.) T-Pain haters can skip this section. Yes, T-Pain's autotune might be played out, but (for better or worse) he changed the direction of the mainstream Rap & R&B worlds...or, at the very least, created a new sub-genre. Do you think Kanye ever dreamed he'd do a 'singing' album before T-Pain? (We'll leave the question of whether or not he should have for another time, though I think we can all agree his SNL appearance was a nightmare.) As for this clip, T-Pain is a little too square/safe for my tastes, but he still manages to squeak out a +1. +1 also for Foxx's good (but not great!) Ray Charles tribute, and I'd even give a +1 for the look Jennifer Hudson gave him (before smiling) if I could. As it stands: 17(+2) to 7(+7)

1985 5th chorus: Stevie Wonder & Bruce Springsteen. Yes. 17(+4) to 7(+7)

2010 Rap Break: Will.i.am & LL Cool J are the only ones you distinctively hear, so they are the only ones eligible for points. This SHOULD have been epic. The possibilities were endless, and the talent pool was amazing. Give LL a line, give Busta a line, give Snoop a line, etc etc...and let each of them write their own verse. Instead, we get yet another lame, square rap verse by Will.i.am. Go ahead and listen to every rap he's ever done with the Black Eyed Peas- any of them could fit here, as they all sound the same. An anonymous source actually sent me the secret, patented Will.i.am composition process: Do the same rap rhythm every two bars. Over and over again. For 4 minutes. Instant hit! Someone will eventually teach him about syncopation and inflection...hopefully. (Luda? Busta? J? Anyone?) +1 to LL for giving this bland verse some semblance of style, though I should DQ the 2010 version entirely for this massive waste of talent.17(+4) to 7(+8)

2010 5th chorus: Jennifer Hudson, Pink (with a small riff), Mary Mary. +1 for Hudson, of course. 17(+4) to 7(+8)

1985 6th chorus: Stevie Wonder & Bruce Springsteen (again.) Stevie gets a huge +1 for his riffs in the first half. The second half of this chorus is the only time I've seen Bruce nervous. A new analogy coming to an SAT test center near you:
Bruce : Sheet Music :: Deer : Headlights. No points for him this time around. 17(+5) to 7(+8)

2010 6th Chorus: Kanye West, Wyclef, Will.i.am. In a big shock, a rap full of eighth-notes, no syncopation, and no originality from Will.i.am. Kanye didn't do quite enough for the +1. Wyclef's declamations work a lot better here, though, so he earns the +1 as a huge show of fairness from the Russian Judge. 17(+5) to 7(+9)

1985 7th chorus: No solos. Man, does their chorus sound good.

2010 7th chorus: Mary Mary, Wyclef. Mary Mary needed one more lick for the +1. No surprise that Wyclef's pronunciation of Haiti begins with "I." No points.

1985 8th chorus: James Ingram & Ray Charles. Two easy points at the finish line.

Final score: 17(+7) to 7(+9), or 24-16.

So, there you go. The use of star power in the 2010 version leads to a higher score in the chorus section, but the strength and artistry of ’85 leads to a blowout in the verses (though some of the races were incredibly tight.) Why the strong reaction against 2010? First impressions are huge, and this imbalance between the videos is why so many people are reacting so negatively. Using Justin Bieber, arguably the least-respected performer in the 2010 lineup, as the opening vocalist was a particularly bad idea. Not to crack on Bieber too much, as I’ve never had the chance to hear him live…but that’s only because he lip-synched on both TV performances that I saw him (crack!). By contrast, Lionel Richie sang live for an early-morning TV show in Japan in October 2009. (He was certainly the last person I was expecting to see on Japanese TV!) Look at the recent 2010 Olympic opening ceremonies: KD Lang, Sarah McLachlan, and Measha Brueggergosman sang live, while Bryan Adams and Nelly Furtado did not. Yes, singing in a huge stadium is hard, but that’s what separates the real artists from…well, you can fill in the rest.

Also, the producers of 2010 made a point of not using anyone from the ’85 cast (except for Lionel himself, of course) but then they mimic many of the solos from ’85!! Those solos weren’t composed the way they were eventually sung, which is clear from the ’85 ‘making of’ video. Thus, the excuse of ‘looking to the future’ by using a completely new cast wears a little thin, as many of the new solo cuts are buried in the past. I also get the feeling that Lionel and Quincy aren’t really tapped in to the current popular music scene…in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t know the music of some of the artists they used! They obviously used Bieber to try and draw in the tween market, for instance, but I don’t think they could hum any of his tunes. Look at some of the artists who were in the choir but were not featured as soloists: India.Arie, Jason Mraz, Raphael Saadiq, Musiq Soulchild, and Rob Thomas! You can’t use everyone, but they used so many folks that I feel there were a few glaring omissions. There are other huge stumbles on the production side: Santana’s guitar solo was overproduced and lackluster; Tony Bennett’s first solo made him look out of place and out of style; Usher’s first solo didn’t come close to what he is capable of; the Rap break was one of the biggest missed musical opportunities in years.

Summary: 1985 wins. 2010 is marred by poor production and musical choices, but is still a great video. See you all again in 2035?