I used to fall asleep to this audiobook, since the narrator seems to simply read the text from sheets, repeating the same intonation over and over again (may be, but not necessarily, due to the nature of pop songs that repeat themselves over and over again?). While on some pages she seemed to be alone at home, calling out her words to the mike, in other times she seemed to have to keep quiet to not wake up the kids.
Well, I found out the Audible player could speed up playback. 1.25 speed made listening not so dry.
As for content: There's nothing new in here, everyone who ever read or heard about creative writing or anything the like knows all there is in this book (and considerably more, I bet). Also, the perspective is rather limited to mainstream music, mainstream business, mainstream genres, mainstream production and mainstream "how to". Legal advice is applicable to US listeners only, although, with a bit of brain, you can "translate" what little help on rights & cie is there (although it wouldn't help you much if you were, like me, German and had to suffer from the absurd German creative rights system. Ask YouTube about that).
Ok, too many words from me already: The book is ok for the money spent (much less than for a cheap lunch), but I won't listen to it again.
That's it? Erm, ok.
The book could benefit (a bit) from a professional narrator, who could bring live, color and dramatic to the content.
If you didn't know that in order to write songs now you have to write songs now, you really should read this book (listen to it), because it basically tells you that in order to write songs now you should write songs now. And not listen to books that tell you to write songs now.
Sorry for being lame, I guess there are people out there who need the "kick in the butt" the author tries to give the reader/listener (but somewhat fails). I just expected a little more insight into how professionals run their job - I happen to know a few professional song writers who see their job as a 9-5 daytime business with routine, know how and creativity. 30 minutes of chatting with them gives me more than a couple of hours of "Write Songs Right Now".
That's great music?
(does that count as three?)
When I was a very young being (yes, before the war ...) I was convinced that, one day, within the span of my lifetime, I would be able to understand why "that guy in the orchestra is threatening the girl with a stick - and if he is not, why the heck she doesn't stop screaming".
This course has fulfilled one of my great wishes: To understand what some people consider "great" with that "old" music. For this I am grateful. Really, deeply, honestly grateful. I found an approach to Mozart (and more important composers) that I would not have considered possible (since I don't find Mozart's music that impressive - although I LOVE orchestral music).
What I still do not get is: Why this music types should be considered "greater" than any (and I mean: ANY) other type of professionally composed, orchestrated, conducted and played music. While I do "understand" now, what some people find interesting in Mozart, Wagner(?!) or Schönberg, the examples provided in the course weren't able to demonstrate the "greatness" of the music (or their composers) to me. Sorry. I like some stuff of it, I dislike others - but I frankly don't care if it is "great" music or just "good" music, if it tells me something and moves me.
Ok: Just take "great" out of the title and this course is a "no-brainer" (how strange that expression seems ...). Get it. Listen to it. I did - I did not skip a singe minute.
I would, can and already have done several times: Recommend this course to ANYONE who feels even the slightest interest in "understanding that kind of music". The course is approachable, understandable, moving, pulls you with it, gives ideas and inspirations for "further listening" and, not the least point, each lecture ends before it gets too hard to keep up with the enthusiasm of Prof. Greenberg!
I really loved the ideas about how Mozart might have reacted to later music compositions, although I somewhat doubt he would have done it the way presented here. Still, the idea of how he might have felt is very believable.
The sheer length of the course doesn't make listening to it in one "tour de force" unlikely. Besides, you need time to think through, iterate over and "try out" what you heard. You have to listen to different (in many cases: better) recordings of the music excerpts presented.
This book is for people interested in the matter - not for people wanting to get "smart" by listening to a course and "be done".
A complex course and shortened overview over such a huge matter as it is presented in this course cries for discussion. There are many, many things that I can not agree on with Prof. Greenberg (having some historical education myself). Examples would be the role the (Christian) Church has played according to Mr. Greenberg in regards to preserving art (his point of view) instead of actively destroying it or concentrating it on a minimalistic "mainstream" (mine).
A point that Prof. Greenberg seems to love is "musical typology is driven by spoken language", which does make sense to some extend. The examples of (German) spoken language he presents don't resemble typical "German" to me, though. One could be mean and counter with "Well, if what Prof. Greenberg says is true, then typical contemporary American music must be ugly, arhythmic, stuttering - because that is the way that I speak American". German does have variations (dialects) and even sub-types. German has not been the "language of art" through all centuries, so basing musical typology on "German" as an American speaks it today is irritating at best.
Sure - nitpicking I am. These are just examples of topics I would like to discuss, which, unfortunately, does not work in a one-way-communication like this course. There are many hickups begging to be pointed out, yet, none of these render the course any less worthy.
Get it. Listen to it. Open up a world you did not think interesting or worth examining ever before!
(Well, if you DID understand classic, romantic and whatsnotic music before, you probably bought the course for the fun of being doped with ecstasy for the topic by the tutor, didn't you?)
This is one of the very few books that take an honest, self-critic point of view on what the Darwin (or Wallace!) theory of evolution puts on the table to explain human (and animal) behavior. By doing so it offers some revealing and quite intriguing ideas about why we love, why we hate and why, the heck, that guy over there is getting away with my coffee.
Other than religiously colored books - which includes the "New Atheists" pamphlets with their own religion-like uberpowered self-confidence - the author takes a step back and tries to keep perspective: He knows that he is presenting theories and theories can be wrong. He takes the SCIENCE approach by trying to falsify claims, looking for gaps in arguments - and in this brings the matter to the reader/listener in a much more comprehensible way than any "I know what I am talking about, just listen, you dumb-ass"-book.
Aside from that the books has humor. You have to have some background knowledge to get every joke the author makes, but it _is_ funny.
For me there wasn't a climax, a most memorable moment (mmm), but the whole idea of being able to EXPLAIN emotional behavior and still accepting and even appreciating it (like "love") is something not that easily achievable by a completely scientific view on the emotional world.
Yes, this book does offer an idea of a religion-free common base for moral. Yet, that approach may not be acceptable to all humans, as it does not place humans at the top of the "moral landscape". In fact, it does not place humans on any top anywhere. It puts us back into a place where we belong. THAT may be an unwanted feeling for some.
Unfortunately the reading performance was quite distracting. At times it seemed like the narrator was completely uninterested in what he was reading, as if he just read it from paper and be done with it (which probably was the case). I had to speed playback up to 1.25 or even 1.5 to get SOME dramatic tone into it and not fall asleep (I am listening to audio books when taking my daily walk).
There are some narrative "gags" in the book which Mr Thornton (the voice actor) didn't seem to get.
I was tempted to give the performance a 1 star rating, but that would have been unfair. He still did a good job by speaking very clearly, perfectly understandably, easy to follow.
The content COULD have been stripped down to a 2-hour session without loosing too much of its information. But since the author follows Darwin's life and takes this as an example to illustrate evolution theory, he would have had to delete most of the "aha moments", which make this book so worthwhile.
So, no, I prefer listening to books like this in turns, even with other books in alternation.
I hope that what I was able to say what I wanted to in the comments above. This book really is worth some time of your life, either in printed form or as an audio book. One of the very few books I would actually recommend to people. And that's for the upright, honest and fair point of view taken in it, the acceptance of even the most weird (religious or not) perspective as "human" and "understandable" and even explaining why that is.
Let me put it this way: If someone is able to explain to the point what LOVE is and how it works and leaves you still being able and even wanting to love afterwards, he did a good job.
I haven't read the print edition (otherwise I obviously wouldn't have bought the audio edition), so I cannot compare them. Yet, I believe that I would not have had the issues with the print version that I had with the audio version, so ... maybe I'd preferred the printed book. Again.
What I did not expect from a collection of anecdotes (a "biography" in my understanding would be a bit more "to the point", not just jumping from story to story) is this: I hear a lot of people getting all emotional about whether they hate or adore Mr. Shatner. I never understood this, as for me he was always "just an actor", I never bothered to know anything personal about him. I found it quite nice to see, that to Mr. Shatner Mr. Shatner actually is "just an actor" and that he, Mr. Shatner, never bothered to have the audience know anything personal about him.
After listening to his - subjective, biased and in many occasions obviously not "well thought through" - stories I kind of sympathize with the man. Both the actor and the human being. It seems that some people expect "role model qualities" from someone, who, at the end of the day, always wanted to be "just an actor".
Actually I found the narration the most irritating part of the book. Sure, Shatner has a nice voice to listen to, is easy to follow - but the production allowed him to drop into mumbling and get away with far too many "volume issues" that my listening experience wasn't very positive. More often than not I found it hard to understand his "into the beard"-passages, which, for an audio book you listen to while walking the woods, isn't that cool.
There's too much jumping from story to story, too much sidekicks, too many "thought-to-be-funny" self-advertisements (I believe those are meant as a running gag, performed in the "Shatner wit" of humor) to listen to the narration for more than 1-2 hours in a sitting. That's for me, naturally. I guess, if you are a ShatFanBoy, you probably would consider this point of view invalid.
I sometimes think that audio book productions should consider "famous" narrators less god-like (which turns out into letting them "perform" the reading no matter of that performance fits the purpose of the production). Sometimes those "celebrities" are JUST ACTORS and need someone to guide them through a performance, asking them to "speak clearly" and "could you do that part again".
Sure. Fans want to have all the "funny bits". But funny bits can be handled in ways that make them fun for (nearly) everyone, if production treats actors as actors, not as "he knows what he's doin'"-wonders.
I haven't read the print version, so I am not able to compare.
Wolke does not hide that he falls for sales pitches himself and has to remind himself of simple things from time to time - like salt being generally SALT, not some magic powder that can solve problems or sugar being everywhere, often in disguise ...
I am a skeptic food buyer, trying to prepare as much as possible on his own, not relying on "convenience food" from the super market. Yet, this book has reminded me to be even more open eyed ...
The book consists of several, not necessarily connected, articles or columns that deal with separate topics. This makes it a good mix of various topics, but lacks a bit of a "red line".
Shermer's approach obviously is personal. While during the first half of the book he sums up current brain science/mind theory's point of view quite fascinatingly, in the second half he more or less concentrates on a "kind of vendetta" against personal critics towards his person or position.
So five stars for about 50-60 percent of the book, 2 stars for the rest. I would rate it four stars, but Shemer only repeats the same old experiments and studies that have been ridden to death by so many other books, articles and discussions before, without bringing anything new to the table, that - even though his performance, his to-the-point style are great to listen to and "do make you think" (if you didn't do so before) - in the end you ask yourself: What's new about it? That's all kind of all day knowledge for an educated grown up.
I guess this book has been wrongly categorized by Audible, since there is no "character" (except, maybe, for some "Gods" that ever now and then pop up and whom I find to be quite silly).
Shermer's performance is good, professional and convincing. If he had left out all those pokes towards his personal issues with readers or colleagues in the "scientific" community, it might have been great.
I am not going to believe in that any scientist who calls himself a scientist knows ANYTHING for sure. Shermer wants me to believe he does, but this book is a good base for being a skeptic :-)
There are quite a lot of passages that make you go "huh?". It really isn't of much interest to an European reader/listener, what the American politics system looks like, but if the author insists in this (the US system) being the ONLY ONE in the world, it's quite funny to listen to. You even laugh out loud when the author explains that you just cannot take anything for granted that other people just tell you, and in the next sentence states "this and that, of course, is a fact that everyone knows".
In general you get the most out of this book by listen closely and finding all the moments in which the author directly contradicts himself.
Most of the facts and ideas presented in this course are well known to everyone who has read a bit about or heard from modern "mind science" or "how our brain works" talks. Yet, Novella's roundup is great to listen to, well paced, always interesting and well worth both time and energy spent.
I really enjoyed, for once, a scientist to remind the listener that he, the scientist, does not know it all and will probably not be right all the time. For one time a tutor explains, in detail, that using your own brain and mind means to check the facts and not just play along. A fair approach.
M. Shermer's "The Believing Brain" is quite similar in general approach, but concentrates too much on personal vendetta of the author and/or believe system. There are more comparable titles, but most, in my eyes (ears), suffer from the same basic problem: Scientists that want to make you BELIEVE that they do not need to believe, because they know all the facts for fact, are ... wretched(?).
Most comparable books start of with or repeat sentences like "well, we know for a fact that ..." - and that, exactly, is not scientific thinking. It's religion.
Novella does not fall for this.
Most books that cover the same topic come up with the ever repeating "experiments" that "scientists" have done, some of which date back to the 1930s or whatever. These experiments as well as the conclusions drawn from them are not that convincing, in setup, target and evidence. Yet, "science" seems unable to come up with new studies, new experiments and new approaches, so most books chew through the same data over and over again, almost in religious circles.
Novella gets around this quite well by just shortly pointing towards those experiments, but explaining thought processes and prejudices in more "today's" contexts, seemingly being still in contact with the real world and not lost in "scientist's drinking clubs". His narration, wit, pointyness (does that word exist?) and personal involvement make you believe he actually means what he says, yet has the distance to always remember you: He might be wrong.
There are a few "funny" side notes that are funny enough to make you giggle or even laugh for a moment, but overall the pace (30 minute lectures) and dedication is just about right to not NEED jokes or horror stories.
Can you expect "new insights"? No, if you have ever read anything about modern brain science or mind theory. Are you looking for a sumup of the current "believe" in why we believe and how we err in making up our minds: This is a great approach that won't even harm a religious listener (and those are often the targets of pity for so many other authors/teachers).
Not that I am of that kind anyway :-)
Having stopped listening several times because my own historical understandings differed from what Mr Dolnick tells and at other times because I just felt dizzy from the narration, I am sure that I won't buy another book from the author, but maybe a fantasy tale narrated by Mr Sklar.
There had to be a circle back to the beginning. Somehow it felt really forced.
I adore Mr Sklar's educated voice, his timbre and warmth. It just is the wrong-most choice for a historical essay (like this), being much more suited for a tale of elves and orcs and sleepy hollows.
If you are completely unfamiliar with the world of the 16hundreds, you may get a glimpse of how science "worked" back then. If you are interested in the philosophical debates of the days or want to learn more about Newton and his time-companions - or if you want to learn anything about physics, mathematics or the likes ... get a good book.
It isn't BAD. It is just far too long without any "news", any well crafted narration (talking about the author, NOT the narrator), it seemed to have many small flaws in recherche and/or detail (even in the scientific departments).
The book does make you want to look for better biographies of its subjects, though. And that is NOT the worst one can say about any book.
If I had bought this novel as a book, it would have been only half the fun, because I would have skipped over at least 100 pages. In his comments Anthony even admits that he had to fill in text to meet the expected length. Anyway, it's a "typical Anthony": The craftsmanship of his story telling is great, the pace is even (which can be seen as a minus), you won't get a heartache from surprise (there's no surprising turn in the story).But George Guidall, the narrator of this audiobook, makes listening to it a really nice experience. He even gives the more ... sorry: boring ... parts live and vividness.
If you are looking for an audio book to listen to while doing something else: This is one of them. It won't distract you, but it may make a routine job much more fun.
Guidall does not over exaggerate (like so many Audible narrators do, misunderstanding their "actor routine"), but manages to still give the characters live and individual nuances. His pace is just right for the story, his dramatic does support the style of the book.
Even Death needs a Love to not die from boredom ...
Don't get me wrong. I really like Anthony's books, because he is a talented writer with a great routine. A little less "constructed, 100% predictable" story, a bit more (real) humor, some suspense would be more than salt to most of his novels. This one is a good example.
Report Inappropriate Content