Overthinking It - Reflections on Deathly Hallows, as it applies to the Philosopher's Stone and beyond

K, the seventh Harry Potter book revolves around the Deathly Hallows, three magical objects that were supposedly crafted by Death, and given to the Peverell brothers, sometime in the middle of the thirteenth century (I'm using harrypotter.wikia.org for most of these dates).  The Invisibility Cloak, owned by Ignotus Peverell, was passed down the male family line, eventually getting to James Potter.  The cloak was loaned to Albus Dumbledore, and when James was killed by Tom Riddle (suck it, Voldy) in 1980, he kept it until Harry's first Christmas at Hogwarts, December 1991.

So, this cloak is supposed to be forged by Death? And yet, Dumbledore can see though it.  Oh, and Alastor Moody can see through it, though the magic eye helps.  Moody's magic eye is more powerful than Death itself?  Not to mention, anyone with the ability to cast Homenum Revelio can locate the person under the Cloak, and the person also shows up on the Marauder's Map, which had f*cking Peter Pettigrew on the production team.  Like, seriously, that Cloak might have retained its invisibility for over seven centuries, but it kinda sucks.  Come on, Death, you've gotta up your game.

K, so now we have the Resurrection Stone, which was passed down the family line to one Marvolo Gaunt.  Yeah, recognize the name Marvolo?  Somewhere, a Peverell got it on with a Slytherin, as we know that Voldy's the heir of Salazar Slytherin, and apparently also of Cadmus Peverell.  So, this Stone, embedded in a ring, makes its way to our old friend Tom.  Tom, we assume, didn't just take up a random interest in the Elder Wand in the seventh book, so wouldn't you think he'd recognize that little logo on his ring? I guess not.  Either way, Tom ends up turning it into a Horcrux.

WAIT.  Full stop.  The Resurrection Stone.  Is a Horcrux.  Oooookay... we'll let that slide for now.  Anyways, Albus Dumbledore finds this ring sometime during Order of the Phoenix, iirc, and instead of destroying it, decides he'd rather wear it and try to resurrect his sister Ariana.  Moron needs to read some more fairy tales.  Of course, he gets cursed by the ring, and eventually dies.  But before he does, he breaks the Ring and the Stone with the Sword of Gryffindor.  Well, at least Hallows are more powerful than Horcruxes, as this one survives.

Then, we have the Elder Wand, which was won by Dumbledore when he defeated his best friend, Gellert Grindelwald, in a duel in 1945 (NOOO significance in THAT year at all... >.>).  So, at some point or another, Dumbledore has been in possession of each Deathly Hallow.

K, so throughout the first four books, two of the Hallows are accounted for, and from Order on, we can track all three Hallows.  Draco owns the Elder Wand for a while, Tom has at different points owned the Elder Wand and Resurrection Stone, Albus has owned all three, but not simultaneously... and Harry actually owned all three simultaneously, as soon as he disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor (as he had the Stone by then).  Throughout the entire second half of the book, and second movie, Harry is the Master of Death. O.o

Now, the first Horcrux to be destroyed was Tom's Diary, waaaaay back in Chamber.  This diary had the ability to store a projection of Voldy as a 17-year-old, and through Ginny Weasley, caused all sorts of Muggle-born-petrifying shenanigans.  Though the books never say if it was charmed to do that regardless of being a Horcrux, we assume that the projection WAS, in fact, the piece of Tom's soul that was stored within.  This begs the question... WHY AREN'T ANY OF THE OTHER HORCRUXES AS BADASS AS THE DIARY?  I mean, we've got the Locket, that's got itself a cool little guilt-trip thing built into it, and the Ring has that whole curse that nearly killed Albus if Severus Snape hadn't first.  But seriously!  That diary had more power in it than all of the others combined.  And Tom made the mistake of giving it to Lucius. Frickin' Lucius Malfoy, of all people.

And finally, as a minor though... Harry Potter was the only Horcrux not destroyed by Salazar Slytherin's Basilisk, as they mention that the Sword of Gryffindor can only destroy Horcruxes because it absorbed Basilisk venom when Harry slew it.  Just saying.  And since it was Tom himself that destroyed his soul in Harry, Tom literally caused the death of each of his Horcruxes, due to the creature that helped him create the very first one, the diary, by killing Myrtle.  Perhaps this implies the owner of the Horcrux is the only thing that can destroy it?  Who knows... besides JKR, of course.

Oh, right, this exists!

Hallo fair people of teh interwebs! My summer's been... well, kinda boring, to be honest.  Most of my musicky things are done until the end of August.  I'm really missing my orchestra playing, but I guess there's only 28 days or something until rehearsal starts again.

I bussed by a baseball diamond today, and was reminded of a story that my professor told me from when he was principal in the orchestra here in the city (not our current orchestra, but the precursor, which was disbanded in the early 1980s).  Said orchestra went on a tour that included a stop at the South shore, and when they got to the place, they passed by a baseball diamond.  Having shown up really early, presumably for some R&R on the vacation, the orchestra decided they'd go down to the diamond and play a game of softball (I guess real orchestras bring this kind of equipment when they go on tour? XD).  Little did they know that the field was out of commission, and maintenance wasn't done on it, so it was incredibly muddy, wet, and slippery.

But that didn't stop them, largely due to being oblivious of the fact.  By top of the second, both teams were covered in mud and making absolute fools of themselves.  However, they were having a blast, and a little shoddiness couldn't stop them.  I imagine the look on the valet's face at whatever hotel they were staying at, as a (presumably) 40-50-piece orchestra walks in totally trashed.

It's stories like these that make me yearn for that kind of life.  Like, maybe if I get the job I want, we won't tour, or maybe we'll be more serious than that, but... it's just that sense of all the people there WANTING to be there.  Well, we assume wanting.  The trumpets in our current orchestra are infamous amongst us students for a maneuver where, when repeating a section without trumpet, they'll both (in unison!) slump down with their heads in their hands, but we can't tell if that's just because they want to move on already, or what.

I just REALLY want this to get here already... it's little things like these that re-kindle that motivation.  We'll see what the future has in store.

You're not a real brass student if you don't complain about how much you sound like crap every day

I was talking to a friend of mine who plays piano recently, she's probably one of the best piano students in the province.  We had the opportunity to premier a trumpet "sonatine" written by a graduating composition student at our university recently, and I'm hoping we can continue to do chamber music this upcoming year (I think the Hindemith would actually reflect both of our playing styles very well). She was at a national competition recently, and learned some incredibly valuable advice that helped her (already fabulous) playing: tension is bad. Now, all music students should know this, BUT all music students forget this from time to time, too.  I find there's a lot of simple things like this (exaggerate everything, relax, etc) that I have the ability to do, but will forget about for a while until someone reminds me.

There's a noticeable difference between improving on an instrument like piano and one like trumpet.  I've played a little bit of piano (up to grade 8 RCM), and I find it more... detached, I guess, than trumpet is.  When you know conceptually what you need to fix, you will need to work to get it habitual and not forced, of course, but at the same time, it's not the same degree of overhaul, I feel.

There's a trend I've had, and I'm sure other brass players have noticed this, that each time I meet a new professor or professional player, they point out one fatal flaw that MUST be fixed before I can be a professional myself.  Whether it's taking deeper breaths, relaxing, tonguing lighter, tonguing crisper, fixing my embouchure, or my most recent, moving the air faster, both out AND in.  It seems that no one can point out everything you're doing wrong, but everyone can point out something.

One of these days, I feel like I'll figure it out.  One of these days, I want to play like him.  Maybe he's not happy with his small-town gig (as the jokes us students make might imply), but that man is godly at the trumpet, and I just hope he realizes it every now and then.

So, this post was kind of random filler, I admit, but the summer's been slow.  Got a gig on Monday, maybe that'll spark something.  We'll see.  For now, a piece that I'm completely addicted to, and could listen to for hours on end (which is good, cuz it kinda takes that long XD).

Good Friends, Bad Friends

What up internet.  It feels like a while since I've written here, though I DID say at the beginning that I expected this to be a once a week thing, I've been kind of generous to get this kicked off.  Well, I'll probably be cutting back to about once a week by this point, since the summer's slow and there's not much going on, but we'll see.

This is a social experiment.  Do not adjust your TV monitors.  I've always been curious about cliques, and how people end up grouping off the way they do.  In high school, there is of course a notable music clique, but there's really two subsets of this: the "popular" music kids, who can hold their own outside the band room, and who seem to be favoured by the teachers and act all smug and superior; and the "nerd" music kids, who are just like nerds outside the band room, but treated as outcasts even amongst their own kind (three guesses which group I was in, and if you can't get it in two... I have bad news).

So, of course, when you have an entire school of the same subject (obviously music in this case), then you start to get more and more visible subgroups of friends.  I've kind of wanted to research various departments in Canada and the States, to see what subconscious factors might affect how people divide into groups in the end of their four years there.  These are the cliques, and friend-prerequisites, that I've noticed so far:

(Disclaimer: I go out of my way to insult some groups of people, and over-dramatize things for the sake of humour.  Please don't take offense if I've blown some qualities you might have out of proportion, that's how sarcasm works)

The Popular Ones - Yeah, those annoying folks.  The ones who reprise this role of the centre stage, the people that everyone want to be friends with, the ones at all the best parties.  Though I don't want to stereotype *cough*singers*cough*, instrument might play a factor, but it also comprises of people who have that over-the-top, unnecessarily outgoing, barf-inducing attitude.  Expect a large amount of the attractive folks to be here, a lot of the unattractive ones who still act as if they are, 90% of the airheads, and at least one entire studio.  People outside of the group either love them or hate them, and most of the smart people outside of the group aren't particularly fond of them.

The Jazz Outcasts - I went to a classical school, but we did have a saxophone studio, and we did have a jazz band.  This leads to the Jazz group, which comprises of ALL the sax players, plus some random brass, percussion, and guitarists.  They tend to keep to themselves, as instrumentation dictates they're not involved in much outside of jazz events (in our school, EVERYONE tries to avoid wind band, so don't even mention that).  Usually cool people, and often found in the student lounge for too many hours per day.

The Nonexistent Studio - Be it composers, violins, musicologists, guitarists, or piano, it's different in every school, but there's always one studio that you don't see until graduation day.  Someone who, in a department of less than 100, you aren't even aware of their existence.  Unless you go to the practice rooms at 3:00, then the ENTIRE STUDIO is spread out amongst each room, and you're screwed if you want a spot of your own.  Often spend entire weekends in said rooms.

The Phalanx - Army.  Music departments attract army folks like horse shit attracts flies.  They're that one group of people who always hang out, and are usually chill, but every Monday after ensemble rehearsal, you can see them don camo as they head off to whatever it is they do each week (probably reserve band, can't remember for sure).  Like the Popular group, they may think they're better than everyone else, but unlike them, they don't admit it.

Assorted Losers - A group of people of various brass and woodwinds who always seem to hang out together, and are avoided by most other groups, especially the Popular and Phalanx.  Yeah, you know the one.  Three guesses which group I was in during my undergrad.

As for how people divide themselves, there are also these three criteria:

By Social Group - People who come into the department with a predestined group (again, esp. Popular and Phalanx) will quickly settle into these roles, which could cause frustration to those who do not share the same background, or even those who do, but only have bare-bones credentials and slip through the cracks.

By Instrument or Studio - Of course, it just makes sense to become friends with the people in your studio.  Though this doesn't mean the entire studio will be friends with each other, you can usually group an entire 15-person studio into three groups of 5ish.

By Skill Level - As much as I hate to say it, musicians can be shallow.  It's not a stretch that people want to keep either within their skill level, or may feel intimidated by those above them, or that those below them aren't worth their time.  This is my least favourite division, and doesn't always hold (ESPECIALLY not within the Popular group), but some people make it blatantly obvious without even trying or noticing themselves.

Just something to think about next time you're with a group of your own classmates, whether in a class, ensemble, student lounge, or practice space.  I can already guarantee you've thought of at least one example in your own life (assuming, dear reader, you are a music student or ex-music student), and if you take the time to step back and take it in, you can probably get these groups in most any situation (with, you know, instruments taken out, I guess).