I need to stop. Really.
But I can't stop eating these. They are utterly addicting. I have Lala to blame for this. She is the one who introduced me to these. She keeps them in her cupboard and adds them to salads. I really like the crunch it imparts to her salads.
I usually buy the raw kind bulk at Whole Paycheck, just b/c it's less packaging this way, and I can control the quantity I buy. But 2 weeks ago, I went to Trader Joe's, and these were staring at me, beckoning, "Try me. Try me." Thus, I gave in, wondering what the heck I'm going to do with a whole pound of sunflower seeds.
Well, what a ridiculous worry that turned out to be.
It turns out I can't get enough of these things.
Really, I don't know why, b/c it's just a roasted seed. But after two weeks, the bag is almost empty.
Did I mention that this is a one-pound bag? And that there are roughly 14 servings in a bag?
I've eaten them straight out of the bag by the handfuls.
I dumped (yes dumped) them on my salads.
I poured them into my yogurt.
I mixed them in with the world's easiest chickpea salad (compliments of Orangette, one of my favorite food blogs), which made this salad even better.
Actually, I have been mixing them with everything that I think might go with sunflower seeds.
Luckily, it has some nutritive value--vitamin E and high protein levels. Oh, and it looks like it provides me with 10 percent of my RDA of iron as well, which is good, b/c I'm borderline anemic. And I suppose I can always use more protein in my diet.
Ok, so it's marginally better than cashews, another weakness of mine, especially if I flavor them with curry leaves. (For that, I have Patita to indirectly blame, since she introduced me to the ever-so-useful curry leaf, though she's not responsible for my curry leaf-flavored cashew addiction.)
Oh yeah, I'm supposed to be losing 10 pounds, aren't I. . ..
04 April 2008
Phrase of the day
Ok, what does it mean when someone calls someone an "ex-_______-to-be"? (_______=wife, boyfriend, etc.)
Does this mean that I know something that the ex-boyfriend-to-be doesn't yet know? (Because you either are or aren't dating someone, right? So conversely, one either is or isn't an ex-boyfriend, right?)
Is this a roundabout way of saying, "I'm about to break up with ______" and am being not-so-oblique about it to make it seem like I don't want to talk about it, but really I do (want to talk about it), so please call me."
Hmmmm.
Does this mean that I know something that the ex-boyfriend-to-be doesn't yet know? (Because you either are or aren't dating someone, right? So conversely, one either is or isn't an ex-boyfriend, right?)
Is this a roundabout way of saying, "I'm about to break up with ______" and am being not-so-oblique about it to make it seem like I don't want to talk about it, but really I do (want to talk about it), so please call me."
Hmmmm.
01 April 2008
Conductors--the obsolete profession
I wonder what this NYT critic has against the younger generation.
First it was a criticism of Clang Clang's pyrotechnics. (They weren't quite on par with that of Rubenstein's.)
And now, a criticism of a 33-year old last-minute replacement conductor to fill in for Riccardo Muti.
Bernard Holland's main criticisms?
a) That this conductor didn't fill the shoes of someone twice his age
and
b) that he might as well have not been there, since ". . . an ensemble this good always plays more or less together, without help from anybody."
(As an aside, they also play more or less together, without any pedantic reviews from anybody. . ..)
By Holland's logic, great orchestras don't really need conductors. (Which is why the LA Phil just recently invested a lot of time and money to conduct a search to replace Esa Pekka-Salonen, and Berkeley SO is currently undergoing its own year-long search to find a successor for Kent Nagano, I suppose. )
And this patronizing attitude towards younger musicians. . . it makes me wonder what he might say about a 25-year old Mozart, if he were living in the present-- "this symphony has its shining moments, but Haydn it ain't. Mozart is a decent aspiring composer, with potential, but not quite of the grandeur of Bach and not nearly as prolific as Haydn. He's quite north of good, but considerably south of great. His symphonies have a few too many notes. . ."
May I request that the NYT find someone under 40 (or at least someone who will not look down upon people under 40) to review the younger artists and perhaps assign Holland to reviewing CDs of Rubenstein and other dead people?
First it was a criticism of Clang Clang's pyrotechnics. (They weren't quite on par with that of Rubenstein's.)
And now, a criticism of a 33-year old last-minute replacement conductor to fill in for Riccardo Muti.
Bernard Holland's main criticisms?
a) That this conductor didn't fill the shoes of someone twice his age
and
b) that he might as well have not been there, since ". . . an ensemble this good always plays more or less together, without help from anybody."
(As an aside, they also play more or less together, without any pedantic reviews from anybody. . ..)
By Holland's logic, great orchestras don't really need conductors. (Which is why the LA Phil just recently invested a lot of time and money to conduct a search to replace Esa Pekka-Salonen, and Berkeley SO is currently undergoing its own year-long search to find a successor for Kent Nagano, I suppose. )
And this patronizing attitude towards younger musicians. . . it makes me wonder what he might say about a 25-year old Mozart, if he were living in the present-- "this symphony has its shining moments, but Haydn it ain't. Mozart is a decent aspiring composer, with potential, but not quite of the grandeur of Bach and not nearly as prolific as Haydn. He's quite north of good, but considerably south of great. His symphonies have a few too many notes. . ."
May I request that the NYT find someone under 40 (or at least someone who will not look down upon people under 40) to review the younger artists and perhaps assign Holland to reviewing CDs of Rubenstein and other dead people?
28 March 2008
Great minds think alike
Ha! Another person who eschews the whole punctuation-inside-of-quotes thing.
(An aside that should probably be a comment on her page, but since this requires registering, divulging my real name, etc. etc., . . .) As for consist vs. consists, since footwear is uncountable, I think that if the manufacturer means "footwear" in the plural sense--which one can argue that he does, b/c he is comparing footwear to an orchestra--it's ok to use consist. However, if the manufacturer is talking about one set of shoes having these harmonious elements that are like an orchestra, then it should be consists. Now that I reread it, I think the analogy is more powerful (but still odd) if it applies to a single piece of footwear rather than their entire line of footwear.
(An aside that should probably be a comment on her page, but since this requires registering, divulging my real name, etc. etc., . . .) As for consist vs. consists, since footwear is uncountable, I think that if the manufacturer means "footwear" in the plural sense--which one can argue that he does, b/c he is comparing footwear to an orchestra--it's ok to use consist. However, if the manufacturer is talking about one set of shoes having these harmonious elements that are like an orchestra, then it should be consists. Now that I reread it, I think the analogy is more powerful (but still odd) if it applies to a single piece of footwear rather than their entire line of footwear.
27 March 2008
Decision made easy. . . and a side rant about subscriptions to Opera San Jose, etc.
Earlier this week, I was trying to decide between two possible music events--a concert with the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields and a certain very talented (aside: can someone tell me the adjective form of "prodigy"? Prodigious seems to mean something else) piano soloist whose name I won't mention, b/c every time I mention her name on this blog, I get like 30 hits and since I'm just mentioning her name and not really writing anything substantive about her, I kindof feel bad for these google-trollers who were probably expecting to find either a fascinating story about her or some sort of juicy gossip.
So anyway, a concert with she-who-shall-not-be-mentioned and Neville Marriner or a string quartet recital with the TinAlley SQ? Well, I've been trying to get tickets for the latter. I've left emails and phone messages for the past few days, to no avail. Then today, someone finally called me back.
Evidently, I spoke too fast for her to understand my phone #, which is odd, b/c I thought I was speaking very v...e...r....y slowly. (I, who wish that 80 percent of Californians and 99 percent of Midwesterners came equipped with fast-forward buttons, speak too fast? I who sometimes annoy my friend because I tell her, "can you speak faster? My mind is starting to wander," speak too fast? I who always end up wanting to strangle my landlord after talking on the phone with her for more than 2 minutes b/c she speaks a tad too slowly and repeats herself 10 times?? Would I ever speak too fast? Ok, I'll try harder next time.)
Well, after asking me a bunch of questions (are you a musician? Do you go to ______ school? Oh, you work at _________?), for some reason, this stranger who was selling tickets decided to give me a free ticket. I mean, this woman doesn't know me at all.
We went back and forth for 5 or 6 minutes. I don't often pay full-price for tickets, and usually don't go if tickets are over a certain threshold, so when I can actually afford it, and they program something I want to go hear, then I want to pay and support the musicians. I mean, they're coming all the way from Australia, and touring like mad. Not that my $30 or $40 is going to make much of a difference, but they've got to pay for hotels, airfare, maybe extra baggage/handling for their cello, etc., right? So I kept trying to insist on buying a ticket. But she was really sweet and for whatever reason, she wanted to give me a free ticket. ("Well, I told the other board members that they can bring their friends, so you can come as my friend." "But I barely know you. . ." etc.)
Well, that's that and my dilemma is solved. Late Bartok and Haydn with TinAlley it is.
I'm grateful for the generosity of strangers like this who barely know me, but for whatever reason ("Oh, you work at the place that my daughter goes to school. I'll give you a free ticket.") I enter their lives at the right time and become the beneficiary of such random acts of kindness. I'll still give a donation so I'm supporting something, whatever that may be. But really, I love it when I find something that is affordable and I like your programming choices, so I want to support such confluence of events in some way and say "please keep doing this" by buying a ticket, especially if you are a struggling local outfit. (And who isn't these days?) It makes me feel like I'm voting and participating as an active concert-going citizen.
I know I'm not supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth, etc., but I'm still wondering if I should've just bought a ticket. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, but I wonder if she thought I might be a prospective season ticket subscriber. Because if she does think this, (and based on several key words mentioned during our conversation, I have reason to suspect this.) I'm afraid that I'm going to disappoint her.
Sure, I'll go to future concerts and events if the timing works and I'm interested in the program.
But I don't do subscriptions.
I've only done one subscription, and that was to San Jose Opera, long before they got too expensive for me to afford. I would probably still go see them if their cheapest "nosebleed" seat tickets didn't cost $66(!!) or if they had discounted rush tickets or standing room tickets. But they don't, alas, and when I can get rush orchestra seats to the SF Symphony for $25 or $10 standing-room tickets, the $66 balcony seats for SJ Opera just don't make any sense.
But where was I?
Oh yes, subscriptions. Actually, I think it wasn't a subscription, but a guild membership with a 1/2 subscription at a substantial discount and with flexible dates, but still a hefty bit of $ to pay upfront for someone who was then making barely $35K/year. I actually enjoyed the subscription and liked the idea of having a performance to look forward to every few months, but this woman called me whenever the opera performed works that weren't part of my half-subscription. The first two times, I thought, being harassed like this isn't my cup of tea, but gave her the benefit of doubt, in case she was trying to be nice. Then it started getting annoying. I really really hate that kind of harassment. I hate getting unsolicited calls and emails like that.
She made me feel guilty for not buying the other tickets. One time, she didn't ever outright say this, but I got the sense that she was telling me that the half-subscription w/ guild membership was at such a discount that I should really buy some of the other shows. She also wanted me to join the guild group for a pre-opera dinner outing. She didn't seem to understand that if I'm paying $30 for an opera, I can't afford to go to a fancy dinner on top of that, even if the dinner was a "special deal for only $25". Even now, though I make much more than $30K a year, I will still eat at home or on the cheap if going to a concert. Once or twice a year, I might go to a concert and do a fancy (=over $25) dinner if there's a group of us.
Dammit people. If any of you programming types are trolling this blog and wondering why young people don't subscribe to opera, or this-and-that, this is it. The one time we deviate from our usual mode and try the subscription thing, we get goaded into tacking on more shows and dinners we can't afford.
This kind of harassment makes me really mad. First, when you're 27 (note: this was several years ago. I am now 60 in base 5.6. ) and barely making $30K a year and paying $700 in rent and putting in another few hundred dollars in retirement and trying to squirrel away $ in the hopes of saving the $100K down payment needed to buy just a 1 bedroom 600 square feet condo, and it costs you $1,000 per trip to visit your parents and family once a year, because they live in a foreign country, (plus not to mention most people have student loans and possible car loans they might be paying off), and going to concerts is just one of 5 things you want to do, it doesn't leave you a whole lot of disposable income for stuff like more opera tickets besides the ones I already bought. So instead of buying more tickets, I often brought friends. She had no idea how many friends I brought to the opera. I invited at least 7 people that season, b/c I could extend this steal-deal pricing to 2 or 3 other companion tickets. I admit it was a fun year of opera-going, but that is the last subscription of any kind I plan to do.
Partly it is the money and interest issue--I do not ever know 8 months in advance that there are 6 concerts that I want to go pay $50 to go see. Plus, subscriptions are inflexible. I can't, for example, pick mostly balcony seats and then pick better seats for the one or two shows I have a strong interest in. One of the reasons the SJ Opera subscription was so enticing was because I could pick and choose seats and dates and change them for each performance. I didn't have to commit to all Saturdays, all orchestra seats, etc.
But it is mostly a timing issue. I simply don't want to commit my schedule that far in advance, when I don't know what else is going on. In the case of anything in SF (SF Symphony, SF Opera, SF Ballet, etc.), I don't want to drive up more than once in a weekend and I rarely drive up more than once or twice a month. If I am going to see friends in the city on a Friday, I will not drive up again on a Saturday to go see a concert. Unless it's Gustavo Dudamel or something I really really want to go see. Also, during certain times of the year, I'm completely out of commission, because I'm too tired from dance classes, rehearsals, dress rehearsals, sectionals, etc. But again, I don't know this at the time that most subscription commitments are due.
Thus for a commitment-phobic p (scroll down for description of p temperament) like me, subscriptions simply don't work.
So to return to the ethicality of accepting a free ticket when I'm most probably not going to do a subscription. . . is this ok?
So anyway, a concert with she-who-shall-not-be-mentioned and Neville Marriner or a string quartet recital with the TinAlley SQ? Well, I've been trying to get tickets for the latter. I've left emails and phone messages for the past few days, to no avail. Then today, someone finally called me back.
Evidently, I spoke too fast for her to understand my phone #, which is odd, b/c I thought I was speaking very v...e...r....y slowly. (I, who wish that 80 percent of Californians and 99 percent of Midwesterners came equipped with fast-forward buttons, speak too fast? I who sometimes annoy my friend because I tell her, "can you speak faster? My mind is starting to wander," speak too fast? I who always end up wanting to strangle my landlord after talking on the phone with her for more than 2 minutes b/c she speaks a tad too slowly and repeats herself 10 times?? Would I ever speak too fast? Ok, I'll try harder next time.)
Well, after asking me a bunch of questions (are you a musician? Do you go to ______ school? Oh, you work at _________?), for some reason, this stranger who was selling tickets decided to give me a free ticket. I mean, this woman doesn't know me at all.
We went back and forth for 5 or 6 minutes. I don't often pay full-price for tickets, and usually don't go if tickets are over a certain threshold, so when I can actually afford it, and they program something I want to go hear, then I want to pay and support the musicians. I mean, they're coming all the way from Australia, and touring like mad. Not that my $30 or $40 is going to make much of a difference, but they've got to pay for hotels, airfare, maybe extra baggage/handling for their cello, etc., right? So I kept trying to insist on buying a ticket. But she was really sweet and for whatever reason, she wanted to give me a free ticket. ("Well, I told the other board members that they can bring their friends, so you can come as my friend." "But I barely know you. . ." etc.)
Well, that's that and my dilemma is solved. Late Bartok and Haydn with TinAlley it is.
*****
I'm grateful for the generosity of strangers like this who barely know me, but for whatever reason ("Oh, you work at the place that my daughter goes to school. I'll give you a free ticket.") I enter their lives at the right time and become the beneficiary of such random acts of kindness. I'll still give a donation so I'm supporting something, whatever that may be. But really, I love it when I find something that is affordable and I like your programming choices, so I want to support such confluence of events in some way and say "please keep doing this" by buying a ticket, especially if you are a struggling local outfit. (And who isn't these days?) It makes me feel like I'm voting and participating as an active concert-going citizen.
I know I'm not supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth, etc., but I'm still wondering if I should've just bought a ticket. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, but I wonder if she thought I might be a prospective season ticket subscriber. Because if she does think this, (and based on several key words mentioned during our conversation, I have reason to suspect this.) I'm afraid that I'm going to disappoint her.
Sure, I'll go to future concerts and events if the timing works and I'm interested in the program.
But I don't do subscriptions.
I've only done one subscription, and that was to San Jose Opera, long before they got too expensive for me to afford. I would probably still go see them if their cheapest "nosebleed" seat tickets didn't cost $66(!!) or if they had discounted rush tickets or standing room tickets. But they don't, alas, and when I can get rush orchestra seats to the SF Symphony for $25 or $10 standing-room tickets, the $66 balcony seats for SJ Opera just don't make any sense.
But where was I?
Oh yes, subscriptions. Actually, I think it wasn't a subscription, but a guild membership with a 1/2 subscription at a substantial discount and with flexible dates, but still a hefty bit of $ to pay upfront for someone who was then making barely $35K/year. I actually enjoyed the subscription and liked the idea of having a performance to look forward to every few months, but this woman called me whenever the opera performed works that weren't part of my half-subscription. The first two times, I thought, being harassed like this isn't my cup of tea, but gave her the benefit of doubt, in case she was trying to be nice. Then it started getting annoying. I really really hate that kind of harassment. I hate getting unsolicited calls and emails like that.
She made me feel guilty for not buying the other tickets. One time, she didn't ever outright say this, but I got the sense that she was telling me that the half-subscription w/ guild membership was at such a discount that I should really buy some of the other shows. She also wanted me to join the guild group for a pre-opera dinner outing. She didn't seem to understand that if I'm paying $30 for an opera, I can't afford to go to a fancy dinner on top of that, even if the dinner was a "special deal for only $25". Even now, though I make much more than $30K a year, I will still eat at home or on the cheap if going to a concert. Once or twice a year, I might go to a concert and do a fancy (=over $25) dinner if there's a group of us.
Dammit people. If any of you programming types are trolling this blog and wondering why young people don't subscribe to opera, or this-and-that, this is it. The one time we deviate from our usual mode and try the subscription thing, we get goaded into tacking on more shows and dinners we can't afford.
This kind of harassment makes me really mad. First, when you're 27 (note: this was several years ago. I am now 60 in base 5.6. ) and barely making $30K a year and paying $700 in rent and putting in another few hundred dollars in retirement and trying to squirrel away $ in the hopes of saving the $100K down payment needed to buy just a 1 bedroom 600 square feet condo, and it costs you $1,000 per trip to visit your parents and family once a year, because they live in a foreign country, (plus not to mention most people have student loans and possible car loans they might be paying off), and going to concerts is just one of 5 things you want to do, it doesn't leave you a whole lot of disposable income for stuff like more opera tickets besides the ones I already bought. So instead of buying more tickets, I often brought friends. She had no idea how many friends I brought to the opera. I invited at least 7 people that season, b/c I could extend this steal-deal pricing to 2 or 3 other companion tickets. I admit it was a fun year of opera-going, but that is the last subscription of any kind I plan to do.
Partly it is the money and interest issue--I do not ever know 8 months in advance that there are 6 concerts that I want to go pay $50 to go see. Plus, subscriptions are inflexible. I can't, for example, pick mostly balcony seats and then pick better seats for the one or two shows I have a strong interest in. One of the reasons the SJ Opera subscription was so enticing was because I could pick and choose seats and dates and change them for each performance. I didn't have to commit to all Saturdays, all orchestra seats, etc.
But it is mostly a timing issue. I simply don't want to commit my schedule that far in advance, when I don't know what else is going on. In the case of anything in SF (SF Symphony, SF Opera, SF Ballet, etc.), I don't want to drive up more than once in a weekend and I rarely drive up more than once or twice a month. If I am going to see friends in the city on a Friday, I will not drive up again on a Saturday to go see a concert. Unless it's Gustavo Dudamel or something I really really want to go see. Also, during certain times of the year, I'm completely out of commission, because I'm too tired from dance classes, rehearsals, dress rehearsals, sectionals, etc. But again, I don't know this at the time that most subscription commitments are due.
Thus for a commitment-phobic p (scroll down for description of p temperament) like me, subscriptions simply don't work.
So to return to the ethicality of accepting a free ticket when I'm most probably not going to do a subscription. . . is this ok?
26 March 2008
The premature death of classical music
Here's to all those people prognosing the death of classical music:
"There are exactly 237 known reasons why people have sex. There are at least as many reasons why they listen to classical music, of which to sit in solemn silence on a dull dark dock is only one. There will always be social reasons as well as purely aesthetic ones, and thank God for that. There will always be people who make money from it--and why not?--as well as those who starve for the love of it. Classical music is not dying; it is changing."
--Richard Taruskin
I like the image of classical music as evolving and in flux, rather than dying.
"There are exactly 237 known reasons why people have sex. There are at least as many reasons why they listen to classical music, of which to sit in solemn silence on a dull dark dock is only one. There will always be social reasons as well as purely aesthetic ones, and thank God for that. There will always be people who make money from it--and why not?--as well as those who starve for the love of it. Classical music is not dying; it is changing."
--Richard Taruskin
I like the image of classical music as evolving and in flux, rather than dying.
25 March 2008
I heart Rube Goldberg
Thanks to Rwal for sending me this wonderful site. (Turn the sound on enough to get the effects, but for the end, you won't want it too high.) I can't stop marveling over the the brilliant Rube Goldberg-esque design.
Sage advice about cutting yourself
No, no, this isn't advice about cutting wrists.
If you are a klutz like I am and have a tendency to cut yourself in the kitchen, then I have two points of sage advice to offer.
First, do yourself a favor, and if you are going to cut yourself anyway (I mean, it's better to prevent these cuts if you are the sort of person who can do that. But if you're like me and have a penchant for accidentally piercing/puncturing your skin with a microplane grater or knife, some cut locations are more convenient than others.), try to avoid cutting or grating the index finger of your dominant hand--particularly the side that is closest to the thumb. The index finger is usually the finger that you rest on a knife, so if you cut something acidic, the juice will seep right in. It is also the finger you'd most likely use to peel an acidic citrus fruit, so again, the juices will seep. If your dominant hand is the right hand and you happen to be of a bow hair-loosening ilk, then it is also the finger that you use to turn the (whatever that thing is called--a nut?) to tighten or loosen the bow hairs, as I found out tonight, when I took out my violin and tried to tune it.
Second, if you have the misfortune of having such a cut that is strategically located somewhere that it will easily come in contact with things you might chop, you probably want to delay making that dish that calls for a chopped up chili pepper until your wound heals. Or you can omit the chili pepper and just make a mild-tasting dish. Just trust me on this. Really.
And while I'm in the business of distributing sage advice, if you have an onion and a chili pepper to cut, always always cut the onion first. You want to get the crying and tear-wiping out of the way, before you tackle a chili pepper.
If you are a klutz like I am and have a tendency to cut yourself in the kitchen, then I have two points of sage advice to offer.
First, do yourself a favor, and if you are going to cut yourself anyway (I mean, it's better to prevent these cuts if you are the sort of person who can do that. But if you're like me and have a penchant for accidentally piercing/puncturing your skin with a microplane grater or knife, some cut locations are more convenient than others.), try to avoid cutting or grating the index finger of your dominant hand--particularly the side that is closest to the thumb. The index finger is usually the finger that you rest on a knife, so if you cut something acidic, the juice will seep right in. It is also the finger you'd most likely use to peel an acidic citrus fruit, so again, the juices will seep. If your dominant hand is the right hand and you happen to be of a bow hair-loosening ilk, then it is also the finger that you use to turn the (whatever that thing is called--a nut?) to tighten or loosen the bow hairs, as I found out tonight, when I took out my violin and tried to tune it.
Second, if you have the misfortune of having such a cut that is strategically located somewhere that it will easily come in contact with things you might chop, you probably want to delay making that dish that calls for a chopped up chili pepper until your wound heals. Or you can omit the chili pepper and just make a mild-tasting dish. Just trust me on this. Really.
And while I'm in the business of distributing sage advice, if you have an onion and a chili pepper to cut, always always cut the onion first. You want to get the crying and tear-wiping out of the way, before you tackle a chili pepper.
23 March 2008
My never-ending dilemmas
Another dilemma, though perhaps the kind that shows how spoiled we are in this area:
Go listen to an amazing pianist and great ensemble
or
Listen to some of the best string quartet repertoire written?
Make a decision based on the ensemble/soloist
or
repertoire?
Yuja Wang and Academy of St. Martin in the Fields
or
Bartok 4, Haydn Op. 76 and Mendelssohn Op. 13?
I've gushed about Yuja Wang in the past. She's coming again to the Bay Area, to perform Mozart and Mendelssohn w/ the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. Stuff I like.
Normally it would be a no-brainer to get these tickets.
But then there is this performance of Bartok #4, Haydn Op. 76 #5 and Mendelssohn Op. 13 performed by a youngish string quartet from Australia that just won the ninth Banff International String Quartet Competition. The TinAlley String Quartet is playing in a venue with amazing string quartet acoustics (or so my friend says. I've actually never been to the Petit Trianon, but have been meaning to, because I've heard wonderful things about the acoustics.). I am not familiar with the group, but they look young and hip-ish on their website. Not that this should be a decision factor, (though I wish they had some recordings and more information on their website) but I like the idea of supporting a young, aspiring group. (I hope that doesn't sound patronizing, but they really are young--according to this website, their average age was 24 in 2006, which makes them 26 years old! Though when such young, aspiring groups perform, do they get any or part of the proceeds?)
Right now, as much as I would grab any opportunity to hear Yuja Wang perform live, I'm leaning towards going to hear the young, hip Aussie string quartet perform Bartok, Haydn, and Mendelssohn.
Whereas I would probably get nosebleed seats for $50 at the SF Symphony Hall (Yuja Wang concert), at the Petit Trianon, I could probably get close by seats for $40ish. The space is much more intimate.
Ah, decisions, decisions, decisions. But I want opinions, opionions, opinions (even if I ultimately might not listen to them. . .).
Go listen to an amazing pianist and great ensemble
or
Listen to some of the best string quartet repertoire written?
Make a decision based on the ensemble/soloist
or
repertoire?
Yuja Wang and Academy of St. Martin in the Fields
or
Bartok 4, Haydn Op. 76 and Mendelssohn Op. 13?
I've gushed about Yuja Wang in the past. She's coming again to the Bay Area, to perform Mozart and Mendelssohn w/ the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields. Stuff I like.
Normally it would be a no-brainer to get these tickets.
But then there is this performance of Bartok #4, Haydn Op. 76 #5 and Mendelssohn Op. 13 performed by a youngish string quartet from Australia that just won the ninth Banff International String Quartet Competition. The TinAlley String Quartet is playing in a venue with amazing string quartet acoustics (or so my friend says. I've actually never been to the Petit Trianon, but have been meaning to, because I've heard wonderful things about the acoustics.). I am not familiar with the group, but they look young and hip-ish on their website. Not that this should be a decision factor, (though I wish they had some recordings and more information on their website) but I like the idea of supporting a young, aspiring group. (I hope that doesn't sound patronizing, but they really are young--according to this website, their average age was 24 in 2006, which makes them 26 years old! Though when such young, aspiring groups perform, do they get any or part of the proceeds?)
Right now, as much as I would grab any opportunity to hear Yuja Wang perform live, I'm leaning towards going to hear the young, hip Aussie string quartet perform Bartok, Haydn, and Mendelssohn.
Whereas I would probably get nosebleed seats for $50 at the SF Symphony Hall (Yuja Wang concert), at the Petit Trianon, I could probably get close by seats for $40ish. The space is much more intimate.
Ah, decisions, decisions, decisions. But I want opinions, opionions, opinions (even if I ultimately might not listen to them. . .).
21 March 2008
My spell-check boycott
I'm boycotting auto spell-check.
It's not that I don't need spell-check. In fact, I'm turning it off, b/c I've become so dependent on it that I've become a sort of spelling idiot and that thought is freaking me out more than the embarrassing possibility of making a really idiotic spelling mistake when I email one of my friends.
I'm sick of outsourcing my brain like that.
Spell-check is the root of all things evil and stupid.
Perhaps I'm exaggerating slightly, but only slightly. It probably isn't the cause of the current war we are in, but I do believe it has led to a dumbing down of American culture, as well as a deterioration of my own spelling skills.
I mean, have we become so illiterate that we now have to have the auto spell-check activated on even our evite responses and Facebook board posts?
Way back when, I used to be a proficient speller. And that was without the help of auto spell-check.
I once caught my college Expos 101 teacher making a really dumb spelling mistake, which wouldn't have been so egregious if she weren't making fun of someone else's spelling. In fact, I remember this so vividly, even though it was (gasp!) almost 15 years ago. She said something like, "well, everyone knows that there aren't two s's in 'necessary'." My entire class (it was an honors class, so we all knew how to spell pretty well.)--we all looked at each other and shook our heads.
Ever since the advent of ubiquitous automatic spell-check, I've felt my spelling powers slowly declining. "Necessary" is a great example of my dumbed-down spelling. I am 90 percent sure that I'm spelling it correctly 94.5 percent of the time. But one time, I couldn't remember if the s or c was doubled. Granted, that was once out of 80 times that I've used that word, but back in high school and college, I was 100 percent certain, 100 percent of the time of how to spell this word, without the aid of a dotted red line to tell me that the correct spelling is with 2 s's rather than with 2 c's.
Back in the days before the ubiquitous dotted red line (i.e. all throughout high school, college, and grad school) I used to consult a thing called a dictionary--the book form with actual pages that need flipping, rather than the online versions--if I was the slightest bit uncertain of the spelling of a word. I am so lazy that after looking up a word once or twice, the incentive to not have to spend an extra two minutes to look up the word again was enough of an impetus to learn the spelling of whatever the troublesome word was.
However, now that the ubiquitous auto spell-check feature helpfully underlines misspellings, I can change the letter combinations around until the red line disappeareth, without troubling myself to get off my comfortable perch and pull the dictionary off my shelf to look anything up.
(In fact, I am now wondering if I have opened my 9th edition Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary once in the past three months, and I am embarrassed to say that I don't think I have. Oh great tome-- how I have neglected thee!)
This convenience isn't necessarily a bad thing. I agree that looking up words on an online dictionary is so much easier than getting up, going to my bookshelf, grabbing my dictionary and looking up a word the old-fashioned way. On the one hand, this motivates me to look up words more frequently.
The problem is that the convenience that auto spell-check offers also gives me no incentive to learn my top-10 trouble words.
On the rarer and rarer occasions that I have to hand write a memo and I don't have the auto-red-line feature to obsessively track my spelling, there are several words that I get quite insecure over.
Necessary was never one of these words, but last winter, while writing Christmas cards, I did actually have to think twice about whether it was necessary or neccesary. The second one looked obviously wrong, but the fact that I had even a slight doubt over a word that I was once so confident about made me uneasy. (I'm a control freak like that.)
Here are some of my top-10 trouble words. They trip me up half of the time:
• occasionally--another word in which I cannot remember for the life in me whether it's the c or s that is doubled. I think I have since resolved this by remembering that it is the inverse of necessary. (And this is another reason I need to be ROCK SOLID on the spelling of "necessary": I use it as a mnemonic to base other spellings on!)
• embarrass--I forget to double the "r" 50 percent of the time. I want to spell it like harass.
• mnemonic--another one that kills me. I always want to insert a "u" in there, because it looks so much like pneumonia.
• rhythm--usually a word I get right, but I want to insert a phantom "u" b/c it looks like it has too little vowels.
• no one--I've always wanted to turn this onto one word. Somebody, everybody, nobody. Someone, everyone, so why not noone?
There are a couple of other words that always give me trouble, but I can't think of them right now.
Also, relying on spell-check has made me a lousy editor of my own work because I focus more on the spelling errors. (Yes, there is also grammar check, but it is so useless that I have mentally shut it off. In fact, it doesn't even register in my brain anymore.)
The following potentially embarrassing errors would go by completely unnoticed if one were to rely solely on spell-check for their error-checking:
1. I gave a pubic performance of Beethoven.
A few years ago, sage broccoli and I went to a talk and I think we saw "pubic spending" or somesuch thing on a slide and we couldn't suppress our giggles. For the rest of the talk. We were really embarrassed for the speaker. I don't know what was the problem with the rest of the audience--whether they simply didn't notice or whether they had better self control than the two of us did, but we were the only ones with this uncontrollable giggling problem.
It's one thing to mistake "rent" for "rend" but gosh, if I ever give a public presentation and present a slide on "pubic spending", I will absolutely die, unless I'm giving this presentation to the Bush administration. Then it would be kind of funny.
2. We got a standing ovulation.
Ok, this is not necessarily a spelling error. Someone--a cute seventh-grader--did actually once say this. The mother of erstwhile-seventh-grader, now-25-year-old, never lets her live it down. It is actually quite funny, but again, I don't want to write a review and inadvertently write about standing ovulations.
3. The bored of education deliberated on xyz.
I admit that when I was the president of the student congress back in high school and was charged with the task of rewriting the student constitution, I did deliberately misspell every instance of "board of education" and spelled it "bored of education"--well, because that was a more befitting description of them--but my advisor made me change every instance of it before we sent a draft to the board of ed for approval.
For my irreverent advisor, it was fine to misspell "board" thus and forget to change it, but not everyone in the real world has his sense of humor. I don't think it would fly at my current job, for example. I have on several occasions almost forgotten to change a similarly worded entity (nowadays "bored of trustees") when switching from my "unofficial facetious draft" to the "official draft for VIPs".
When I say "boycott" though, I'm not entirely turning off spell-check. If only my spelling were so reliable! I still plan to spell-check at the end, but at least this way, it forces me to proofread first.
Thus, dear reader (all 4 of you? Though yesterday, according to my handy dandy site checker, there were 12 of you. . ..), I apologize in advance for all dumb spelling (and other) errors I make and have made whether in email or on this page or in any other context.
Trust me. I who kvetch about people who can't distinguish between its and it's or properly use comprise--find it infinitely embarrassing to make such mistakes.
But there are times that embarrassment is a good thing; for one, it keeps me on my toes. I am more likely to learn from a single embarrassing moment than from repeated dictionary runs.
(I just spell-checked this post, after checking myself first, and there were three errors I did not catch. Granted it's 1:50 a.m. and I am tired as hell, but there is no excuse for "cannnot" or "writting".)
It's not that I don't need spell-check. In fact, I'm turning it off, b/c I've become so dependent on it that I've become a sort of spelling idiot and that thought is freaking me out more than the embarrassing possibility of making a really idiotic spelling mistake when I email one of my friends.
I'm sick of outsourcing my brain like that.
Spell-check is the root of all things evil and stupid.
Perhaps I'm exaggerating slightly, but only slightly. It probably isn't the cause of the current war we are in, but I do believe it has led to a dumbing down of American culture, as well as a deterioration of my own spelling skills.
I mean, have we become so illiterate that we now have to have the auto spell-check activated on even our evite responses and Facebook board posts?
Way back when, I used to be a proficient speller. And that was without the help of auto spell-check.
I once caught my college Expos 101 teacher making a really dumb spelling mistake, which wouldn't have been so egregious if she weren't making fun of someone else's spelling. In fact, I remember this so vividly, even though it was (gasp!) almost 15 years ago. She said something like, "well, everyone knows that there aren't two s's in 'necessary'." My entire class (it was an honors class, so we all knew how to spell pretty well.)--we all looked at each other and shook our heads.
Ever since the advent of ubiquitous automatic spell-check, I've felt my spelling powers slowly declining. "Necessary" is a great example of my dumbed-down spelling. I am 90 percent sure that I'm spelling it correctly 94.5 percent of the time. But one time, I couldn't remember if the s or c was doubled. Granted, that was once out of 80 times that I've used that word, but back in high school and college, I was 100 percent certain, 100 percent of the time of how to spell this word, without the aid of a dotted red line to tell me that the correct spelling is with 2 s's rather than with 2 c's.
Back in the days before the ubiquitous dotted red line (i.e. all throughout high school, college, and grad school) I used to consult a thing called a dictionary--the book form with actual pages that need flipping, rather than the online versions--if I was the slightest bit uncertain of the spelling of a word. I am so lazy that after looking up a word once or twice, the incentive to not have to spend an extra two minutes to look up the word again was enough of an impetus to learn the spelling of whatever the troublesome word was.
However, now that the ubiquitous auto spell-check feature helpfully underlines misspellings, I can change the letter combinations around until the red line disappeareth, without troubling myself to get off my comfortable perch and pull the dictionary off my shelf to look anything up.
(In fact, I am now wondering if I have opened my 9th edition Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary once in the past three months, and I am embarrassed to say that I don't think I have. Oh great tome-- how I have neglected thee!)
This convenience isn't necessarily a bad thing. I agree that looking up words on an online dictionary is so much easier than getting up, going to my bookshelf, grabbing my dictionary and looking up a word the old-fashioned way. On the one hand, this motivates me to look up words more frequently.
The problem is that the convenience that auto spell-check offers also gives me no incentive to learn my top-10 trouble words.
On the rarer and rarer occasions that I have to hand write a memo and I don't have the auto-red-line feature to obsessively track my spelling, there are several words that I get quite insecure over.
Necessary was never one of these words, but last winter, while writing Christmas cards, I did actually have to think twice about whether it was necessary or neccesary. The second one looked obviously wrong, but the fact that I had even a slight doubt over a word that I was once so confident about made me uneasy. (I'm a control freak like that.)
Here are some of my top-10 trouble words. They trip me up half of the time:
• occasionally--another word in which I cannot remember for the life in me whether it's the c or s that is doubled. I think I have since resolved this by remembering that it is the inverse of necessary. (And this is another reason I need to be ROCK SOLID on the spelling of "necessary": I use it as a mnemonic to base other spellings on!)
• embarrass--I forget to double the "r" 50 percent of the time. I want to spell it like harass.
• mnemonic--another one that kills me. I always want to insert a "u" in there, because it looks so much like pneumonia.
• rhythm--usually a word I get right, but I want to insert a phantom "u" b/c it looks like it has too little vowels.
• no one--I've always wanted to turn this onto one word. Somebody, everybody, nobody. Someone, everyone, so why not noone?
There are a couple of other words that always give me trouble, but I can't think of them right now.
Also, relying on spell-check has made me a lousy editor of my own work because I focus more on the spelling errors. (Yes, there is also grammar check, but it is so useless that I have mentally shut it off. In fact, it doesn't even register in my brain anymore.)
The following potentially embarrassing errors would go by completely unnoticed if one were to rely solely on spell-check for their error-checking:
1. I gave a pubic performance of Beethoven.
A few years ago, sage broccoli and I went to a talk and I think we saw "pubic spending" or somesuch thing on a slide and we couldn't suppress our giggles. For the rest of the talk. We were really embarrassed for the speaker. I don't know what was the problem with the rest of the audience--whether they simply didn't notice or whether they had better self control than the two of us did, but we were the only ones with this uncontrollable giggling problem.
It's one thing to mistake "rent" for "rend" but gosh, if I ever give a public presentation and present a slide on "pubic spending", I will absolutely die, unless I'm giving this presentation to the Bush administration. Then it would be kind of funny.
2. We got a standing ovulation.
Ok, this is not necessarily a spelling error. Someone--a cute seventh-grader--did actually once say this. The mother of erstwhile-seventh-grader, now-25-year-old, never lets her live it down. It is actually quite funny, but again, I don't want to write a review and inadvertently write about standing ovulations.
3. The bored of education deliberated on xyz.
I admit that when I was the president of the student congress back in high school and was charged with the task of rewriting the student constitution, I did deliberately misspell every instance of "board of education" and spelled it "bored of education"--well, because that was a more befitting description of them--but my advisor made me change every instance of it before we sent a draft to the board of ed for approval.
For my irreverent advisor, it was fine to misspell "board" thus and forget to change it, but not everyone in the real world has his sense of humor. I don't think it would fly at my current job, for example. I have on several occasions almost forgotten to change a similarly worded entity (nowadays "bored of trustees") when switching from my "unofficial facetious draft" to the "official draft for VIPs".
When I say "boycott" though, I'm not entirely turning off spell-check. If only my spelling were so reliable! I still plan to spell-check at the end, but at least this way, it forces me to proofread first.
Thus, dear reader (all 4 of you? Though yesterday, according to my handy dandy site checker, there were 12 of you. . ..), I apologize in advance for all dumb spelling (and other) errors I make and have made whether in email or on this page or in any other context.
Trust me. I who kvetch about people who can't distinguish between its and it's or properly use comprise--find it infinitely embarrassing to make such mistakes.
But there are times that embarrassment is a good thing; for one, it keeps me on my toes. I am more likely to learn from a single embarrassing moment than from repeated dictionary runs.
(I just spell-checked this post, after checking myself first, and there were three errors I did not catch. Granted it's 1:50 a.m. and I am tired as hell, but there is no excuse for "cannnot" or "writting".)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
