Since the advent of Guitar Hero (all those eons ago), there have been plenty of comparisons between playing this musical video game and playing real musical instruments.
Because I'm a guitarist, my friends who first bought the game were eager to see how my real-world axe-pertise translated into on-screen Guitar Heroism. And frankly, so was I. The results, at least for the first evening of play, though, were highly disappointing.
It's different. With real instruments you have to play every note you hear. But in Guitar Hero/Rock Band, you press a button for every 4 or 5 notes you hear. And the easier you set the difficulty level of the game, the fewer buttons you press. So it's tricky at first to get out of the 1:1 mindset of notes you play to notes you hear.
Suffice it to say that playing "guitar" in Guitar Hero/Rock Band bears little resemblance to playing a real guitar, especially in a band. Same goes for the bass guitar. Singing in Rock Band is pretty comparable to singing in a real band, there's just no screen showing you the words. Same thing with drums-- the fundamental movements in Rock Band are right, but real drumming is more involved, since most drum kits have more than five elements.
About a year ago my aunt and uncle asked me about Rock Band, since their grade school-aged daughters are into music. I explained that it’s a fun game, and that the kids would probably love it. But my recommendation came with a clear warning: "Don't expect playing Rock Band to teach your kids anything about real music." And I stand by that. It's an incredibly inventive game that's fun to play with others. Plus you get to listen to cool music while you play. But it's a vast departure from the reality of playing music, which I think explains the game's broad appeal.
I think a lot of parents shared my aunt and uncle's presumptions. They thought Guitar Hero/Rock Band would be the spark that ignited their child's musical curiosity and led to a life of musicianship. Or at the very least the game would expose their kids to some rock n roll classics they otherwise wouldn't know.
But I think South Park exposed the truth best in its episode about the game. When given the option to play a song on Guitar Hero or learn that same song on a real guitar, the kids picked Guitar Hero without a second thought. Hilarious because it's true.
So forgive the lengthy preamble-- the surprising truth is coming. Let's fast forward to today. A buddy of mine got Rock Band 2 for Christmas. He and I played it together when he first got it set up at home. And it was hella fun. A few days later he emailed me explaining his progress since our jam session:
I unlocked a few more songs, but I’m on these marathon challenges and after 6 songs in a row I can't play Hungry Like the Wolf anymore.
This comment struck me. Now there's an insight about what it's like to be a real musician. When you're in a band, you have to play the same songs night in and night out-- even if you don't feel like it, and even if you’ve heard those songs so many times that you hate them. (I'm speaking from experience, here, as well as common sense.)
If you're a popular band (which I was not), then you're in even deeper. Not only do you have to play your hit songs over and over, but you also have to keep your distaste for those songs under wraps. Nothing makes people hate a celebrity faster than when he or she complains about having to do whatever made them famous in the first place. And if you gripe about your popular song? Then you've insulted all of your fans, which fans tend not to appreciate.
So lo and behold, Rock Band has a lesson to teach about real musicianship after all. And ironically, it's one of those lessons that makes you want to give up rather than rise to the challenge. But it's a lesson nonetheless. And all you have to do is play Duran Duran's Hungry Like the Wolf six times to learn it. Small price to pay, in my opinion.
-- Nate Winter
Note: special thanks to Justin Geller, whose insightful complaining inspired this article.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Office Space Bobs and Oval Office Obama-- by Nate Winter
Remember the movie Office Space from 1999? I watched it on cable last week and was reminded not just how funny it is, but how on point it was in 1999 and how relevant it still is today. Rather poignant in the foremath of the Y2K scare and its comical depiction of corporate excess in a tech company, a poignant yet unintentional foreshadowing of the .com and tech bubble burst of the early aughts, and The Recession of today. We're all seeing the light after realizing how cushy things used to be at our corporate jobs.
The outward premise of the film is that our protagonist Peter Gibbons (played by Ron Livingston) hates his job as a software developer and contributes nothing to his employer, Initech. His work environment clearly sucks, but he’s not exactly trying to make the best of it. So we have a “chicken or the egg” scenario where it's difficult to determine if Peter’s uninspiring workplace caused his lackadaisical work ethic, or if his inherent laziness contributed to an intolerable office. Ultimately we side with Peter because we bear witness to the agonizing ennui of his day-to-day corporate drone existence.
A major turning point in the film is in Peter's first meeting with consultants Bob Slydell and Bob Porter, known collectively as "the Bobs," who have been hired to help Initech identify its dead-weight employees and lay them off. This meeting takes place shortly after Peter's hypnosis-induced enlightenment sets in. In the meeting, Peter is painfully candid with the Bobs about his distaste for Initech and work in general. Much to our comedic delight, the Bobs are sympathetic toward Peter's lack of motivation at work and they support his requests to change the way Initech runs. So not only do the Bobs not fire Peter on the spot, but they kiss his ass and promote him. And it’s hilarious.
After seeing Office Space again, and after receiving a handful of emails from the Obama For America during the holidays, I noticed an interesting parallel between the two.
The American people were a bunch of Peter Gibbonses in a political system that resembled Initech. We were alienated by the steep learning curve of political awareness, and intimidated by the difficulty in getting an unbiased synthesis of the issues. The Bill Lumberghs of the political system insisted that it was the public's responsibility to keep up with the issues, telling us to "Get with the program!" The rationale was that it's easier to ask the people to work harder than to change a giant political system for easier comprehension.
As Peter Gibbonses, we were slogging through our political lives, doing the bare minimum we could get away with as citizens-- voting in occasional elections and watching the nightly news, but not really understanding the details of what was going on. We understood and did just enough to not embarrass ourselves at the office water cooler. And in the face of our underachievement, Obama took our side instead of telling us to shape up and get with the program.
Obama treated us in his campaign like the Bobs treated Peter in Office Space. Obama's overarching message was that it wasn't our fault we didn’t understand or care about our own political system. But if we wanted to make things better, he'd walk us through it every step of the way. And when he finally got what he’d been leading us toward like sheep the whole time (his election), we got all the credit. No wonder people loved Obama.
-- Nate Winter
The outward premise of the film is that our protagonist Peter Gibbons (played by Ron Livingston) hates his job as a software developer and contributes nothing to his employer, Initech. His work environment clearly sucks, but he’s not exactly trying to make the best of it. So we have a “chicken or the egg” scenario where it's difficult to determine if Peter’s uninspiring workplace caused his lackadaisical work ethic, or if his inherent laziness contributed to an intolerable office. Ultimately we side with Peter because we bear witness to the agonizing ennui of his day-to-day corporate drone existence.
A major turning point in the film is in Peter's first meeting with consultants Bob Slydell and Bob Porter, known collectively as "the Bobs," who have been hired to help Initech identify its dead-weight employees and lay them off. This meeting takes place shortly after Peter's hypnosis-induced enlightenment sets in. In the meeting, Peter is painfully candid with the Bobs about his distaste for Initech and work in general. Much to our comedic delight, the Bobs are sympathetic toward Peter's lack of motivation at work and they support his requests to change the way Initech runs. So not only do the Bobs not fire Peter on the spot, but they kiss his ass and promote him. And it’s hilarious.
After seeing Office Space again, and after receiving a handful of emails from the Obama For America during the holidays, I noticed an interesting parallel between the two.
The American people were a bunch of Peter Gibbonses in a political system that resembled Initech. We were alienated by the steep learning curve of political awareness, and intimidated by the difficulty in getting an unbiased synthesis of the issues. The Bill Lumberghs of the political system insisted that it was the public's responsibility to keep up with the issues, telling us to "Get with the program!" The rationale was that it's easier to ask the people to work harder than to change a giant political system for easier comprehension.
As Peter Gibbonses, we were slogging through our political lives, doing the bare minimum we could get away with as citizens-- voting in occasional elections and watching the nightly news, but not really understanding the details of what was going on. We understood and did just enough to not embarrass ourselves at the office water cooler. And in the face of our underachievement, Obama took our side instead of telling us to shape up and get with the program.
Obama treated us in his campaign like the Bobs treated Peter in Office Space. Obama's overarching message was that it wasn't our fault we didn’t understand or care about our own political system. But if we wanted to make things better, he'd walk us through it every step of the way. And when he finally got what he’d been leading us toward like sheep the whole time (his election), we got all the credit. No wonder people loved Obama.
-- Nate Winter
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)