The battered ship had taken yet another hit. With each terrible impact I waited anxiously to discover if it had been the fatal blow. One had to wonder how much more of a beating she could take before succumbing to her wounds and the waves. As the sea rose and fell, the ship would momentarily be hidden from view. After each crest I couldn't say if we'd find her still hanging on to the top of that thin line where air meets the water like a fabric blown in the wind, or if she'd be on the way down, sinking to her final resting place on the ocean's bed.

For those unfamiliar with The Choir, they are a rock band which has been together for approximately 30 years. Over the last several years they have been actively recording and performing their music. In between two album releases of new material, they put out a CD called De-plumed in 2011 (Yes, I'm a bit behind). It is a collection of nearly a dozen of their previously released songs "unplugged". Honestly, I wasn't expecting anything too exciting. Typically when bands put out these type of albums, they seem to be novelties that they know their die-hard fans will purchase regardless of the quality. However this is anything but the case with De-plumed. The album demonstrates the quality of both the songs and the musicianship of The Choir. The songs sound every bit as strong with these significantly different arrangements as do the original recordings. And the band doesn't just play the same parts with an acoustic guitar instead of an electric. They certainly put some thought into how they could make these arrangements stand out with different instrumentation. The notes of chords are often played successively rather than being strummed for one example. And in many places other instruments such as strings and percussion have been added which greatly enhance the arrangements.

While De-plumed may not contain new songs, it does contain new material and stands as a strong release in its own right. This CD is certainly not a novelty for fans. I believe it can be enjoyed quite on its own even for those not previously acquainted with the songs. Beautiful is the word I'd use to describe De-plumed. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that these accomplished musicians didn't disappoint, but they have exceed my initial expectations.

He had hoped and cautiously thought he had left this behind, but war finally came to the country in which Geoff had sought refuge. In the course of time, Geoff was a bystander in another attack and was injured yet again. While his injuries weren't as great as what he had received in his country's own civil war, his spirits were decimated. He despaired of ever finding peace...

Interesting interview excerpt:

Jim: What have been your biggest challenges?

Shaun: Two main things primarily. I haven't gotten established in a career and have struggled to find decent, steady work. Second, I've wanted to get married but it hasn't happened. That's been my biggest, continual source of frustration ever since I became attracted to girls in the first place.

Jim: So why are you still single?

Shaun: Heh... There are a lot of things which come to mind to say... The reality is, I've known a lot of quality women in my life. I've wanted to be in a relationship and get married all along—I haven't been trying to put it off for any reason. But apparently I just haven't been the right man for any of the women I've known. So while I could say a lot of things, the best way to sum it up is that it just hasn't happened.

Jim: Why do you think that is?

Shaun: Well for one, I'm picky. I'm not necessarily thrilled about that fact but I don't know any way of changing it. It is what it is. The thing is, with being a Christian and having the beliefs about marriage and sex that come from that, I feel like I've only got one shot to get what I want, you know? It's not like I feel like I can settle for someone now and then upgrade in the future. Or like I can mess around and "have fun" for a while and then settle down after that. In a way I feel like it would be easier if I weren't a Christian. I feel like a lot of people mess around when they're younger. They experiment with sex and/or dating the hot girl or guy whom they'd never actually want to marry. So then when they do decide to settle down, they're not looking for someone to be everything—they've already tried a lot of those things I decided they weren't that worthwhile. When they're ready to settle down they're also ready to settle for someone more practical, whom they get along with well and such.

The second thing is I've never had anyone really explain to me what to do with a girl I like. What I got growing up was to respect women and not to have sex or get too physical with your girlfriend before getting married. But for the most part, I feel like getting a girl to like you was just assumed. I'm sure someone probably talked about this along the way, but either it wasn't clear or I didn't get it or I don't know... It just seems to me like there are a lot of assumptions made that I didn't get. I basically had this idea that it would just happen. Like there would be a girl I'd get along with well, she'd like being with me and I'd like being with her, then I'd "ask her out" and we'd be boyfriend and girlfriend, and eventually live happily ever after. But that hasn't happened. I don't know though... I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if the "right" person just hasn't come along yet. I tend to think the former since I don't believe in the theory of "the one".

Jim: So what you're saying is that there haven't been many women who you've been attracted to, and the ones you have been attracted to you haven't known how to express that?

Shaun: More or less. In the past 15 or so years there have been only a handful of girls I had longer term interest in. What I mean is I've had numerous what I call weak/week crushes. I call them this because they typically last only a matter of weeks. There have only been a handful of girls I've been attracted to longer than that.

Jim: And what have you done in these cases? Anything?

Shaun: Oh yes. In the past, say back in high school and closer to that time, I was fairly passive and didn't know what to do other than try to talk to them some. Recently I think I'm getting a better idea of what to do, but I still really don't know. I may be completely missing something that other guys are doing. Sometimes I wonder by the response I get. Anyway, I've tried to get acquainted with them, to see if I actually find them interesting in addition to looking good. So I'll try setting up times to get together. I'll try asking them to go do some activity or another. Sometimes I've just been turned down. Sometimes I've not been in a situation to ever get acquainted in the first place. At other times, I haven't been able to get past the "friend zone" because she doesn't find me attractive.

Jim: Why do you think that is?

Shaun: I've tried to figure this out. It's probably a combination of things: I'm not tall or dark, I'm not particularly charming at least to most people, I'm not particularly buff, I'm not an average person so I don't share the same interests, thought patterns, or views of a lot of people, I'm too old, I don't have good skin, I'm not real outgoing which may be interpreted as not being strong and confident, I haven't had a stable, good paying job, I don't wear armor and ride a horse, etc. I admit, though I think I'm a quality guy, I've gotten the impression recently that I'm just not attractive to women. One of the ladies I liked the most was attracted to me initially, but as she got to know me, respected me more but became less attracted. Another girl I know also respected me but wasn't attracted. In the last approximately eight years, only two girls that I know of who have been attracted to me; one was a "crazy" teenager who was certainly too young, and the other was just crazy—though intelligent.

Jim: You sound frustrated.

Shaun: Definitely. And what makes it worse is I feel like I can't be open about it.

Jim: Why is that?

Shaun: It makes me look bad. Really bad. If you admit to not having a girl when you want one, it's like the same as saying you aren't good enough to get one. I don't know if this is something that comes more from others or from within myself. There are guys out there who suggest if you just ask the girl she'll say yes. They give this impression because they say if you don't have a woman it's because you haven't asked. But that's obviously not true, at least not in many cases.

Then beyond the perceived humiliation from other men, there's the perspective of women. I've heard that women tend to be attracted to a guy who is either already with another woman, or a guy whom another woman is attracted to. They also feel like a guy should be content to be single, and again, if he's not dating it's probably his own fault. "Why doesn't he just ask someone out?" Well, because I get turned down but also I don't ask just every girl out. Doing so looks terribly bad to women as well I believe. This, as well as to claim to want to be in a relationship but not be, are both seen by women as being desperate, which is about the worst possible thing a guy could be from what I understand. I mean, I think it's easier to be a violent, abusive man and have a girl than it is to be considered desperate!

Jim: So you're kind of in a tough spot.

Shaun: Yeah. I often want to be proactive—I'm just ready to go and do something to take a step forward. But so often there isn't anything I can do (at least so far as I am aware). Right now for example, there isn't any available woman I know whom I am attracted to. I've put myself in a lot of social situations so that I meet a lot of people, including eligible women, but I haven't met many who are available and whom I'm attracted to. I feel like I've done all I can, but I still haven't had success. Yeah, it's tough when you're in that spot; when you've done everything you can and still haven't had results, it kind of means it's out of your control. I can't really try harder, because I've already tried. There really isn't anything I can do. I mean, if I don't try, I believe I can prevent success, but I can't guarantee success just by trying. That's what I mean by not being in control.

Jim: So what are you looking for in a woman? Do you have a "list"?

Shaun: Yeah. I've had several versions of a list. Most of my items are more general than the specifics people often have on their lists. In fact, I've been told that my list sums up the general things everyone is looking for. Basically, I'm looking for someone with character (integrity), compatible beliefs, who is intelligent, personally compatible, and whom I find physically attractive; someone whom I "hit it off" with and get along well with, with whom there's "chemistry". There's an intangible factor which is difficult to describe, but I believe people will understand what I'm talking about. Beyond that, the only more specific, unique items are that I want someone who keeps thing relatively neat and clean (because I can't stand messes left around), and someone who is a virgin. I know that last one may be a bit controversial, but that's where I'm at.

On the flip side, I figured it was fair to make a list of what I feel I have to offer. I am a loving, loyal leader. I am a follower of Christ. I'm reasonably pure. I'm creative, passionate, and sensitive. I seek to continually improve myself. I serve and take care of my living environment. I would do whatever I could to make my wife feel loved, special, appreciated, supported and encouraged. I would do whatever I could to make our marriage the strongest and healthiest it could be.

Jim: Wow, good thoughts. So why do you think you are picky? Your list doesn't sound as picky as many I've heard.

Shaun: Yeah, well first of all, since I'm an atypical man, I don't connect well with the average person. So that's one thing. I kind of hate the fact that I feel picky for wanting to marry a virgin. That used to be the normal expectation, but in our culture it's so uncommon that it seems picky. Also, by being a Christian and wanting to be with someone who is a Christian, that rules a lot of people out. Not only that, but a higher percentage of Christian women are married than those whom aren't Christian, so it makes it that much more difficult. Beyond that, I'm picky about what I find physically attractive. I wish this wasn't the case, because I know it shouldn't be that important and shouldn't or doesn't really make that much of a difference in the quality of a relationship. But I don't know any way of changing how I feel about it.

I think the "looks" piece is the biggest factor in attraction. I've been thinking about how there is a difference between desired qualities and attractive qualities. Physical attraction seems to be the biggest part of attraction for me and apparently most men. For me personally, if I find some woman physically attractive but she's not my type in any other way, I'm not interested. (I may be different than many guys in this respect.) On the other hand, if someone has all my desired qualities but I don't find her physically attractive, we'll probably be friends but I won't be interested in a "romantic" relationship. It's frustrating, but that's the truth of the matter.

When someone is in the middle (having some qualities and not others) it gets more interesting. The girl I was most in love with in the past didn't have all my desired qualities (though I didn't realize it when I fell in love with her). It's easy to let go of your desired qualities when you've met someone very attractive, even though those desired qualities may be more important. That's when you want to be able to follow what your brain is telling you rather than just your heart. But that's certainly not easy to do.

Jim: Man... deep thoughts... you've obviously done some thinking about all of this.

Shaun: Heh, yeah, I've had a lot of time to do that, to question why things were the way they were, or are the way the are. Anyway, it's difficult to find someone who matches what I want. It seems that nearly all physically attractive women are either (1) already married or in a serious relationship, (2) lack character, (3) lack intelligence, or (4) are too young.

Jim: So what do you find physically attractive?

Shaun: Man, you ask the hard questions! Are you trying to get me into trouble? Basically there are two main things: a certain body shape and an attractive face. I don't really know how to describe them in more detail than that. I've found women to be attractive with many different traits in other areas, though I tend to like big, brown eyes and long, wavy blond hair the most. It may be worth noting that if a woman looks too much like a model, it's actually a turn off for me. I want someone who looks real—not necessarily average but not looking over done either.

Jim: Any other thoughts on this subject?

Shaun: I've heard a number of people say they are content being single. But I wonder how many people are kidding themselves into thinking that they're okay with it? I don't assume everyone is, but I think it could be a way some people cope with the frustration. On the other hand, I don't want to give the impression that I sit around brooding about this 100% of the time... it's more like 80% (laughs). Really though, it's kind of like living with chronic pain: you're not thinking consciously about it all the time, but it's always there in the background. Unfortunately with this it's unseen and most often unspoken.

I try to get on with my life as best as possible, like I believe most people do. I'm involved in a lot of things, work, church, serving, writing, music, etc... so I'm not just sitting around feeling sorry for myself. I guess it's unfortunate that I feel like I have to say this, but usually when you share about being frustrated about something there are people out there who'll blame you for it and/or say you just need to change your attitude, which is basically the same thing. I just want to try and be honest about it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels these sorts of things.

I'm recognizing that I want to be a songwriter. I've wanted to do this for many years. Yet it seems like I do not have this talent. Over a period of something like 15 years, I've only written a few mediocre songs. I think I have some decent lyric ideas, but I'm not very good with writing the music itself. In the past I've blamed this on not having the right gear to write the kind of music I want. There may be some truth in this, but for the most part, I just don't seem to have the talent that some other people do. I believe I have as good if not better tools than other amateur musicians, yet they are able to create quality work while most everything I do sounds like junk.

I want to be a songwriter in part because I have things I want to say. I'm also picky about music styles, so I want to have input into that. Writing would allow me to lead. But if I can't write, I can't really start my own project as I've always wanted to do. I've had a vision and numerous ideas about what I want to do. But I haven't had the talent, skill, tools and resources to make anything happen. I really want to play music, but it's difficult to know how. It seems that if I can't write, my musical opportunities are limited to jumping on board what someone else is doing.

The most common styles of music bore me. I'm picky about what I like, so it's hard to find someone else who is doing something I'm interested in. It can also be difficult to find a band who needs a musician and doesn't already have all their bases covered. It's also difficult to find a group with the same goals and vision. I want to play music pretty seriously. A lot of bands get started and hope to go somewhere with it, but few actually make it. Most of the time, in order to be in a pro-band, you have to get in well before they have gone far. Yet it is very difficult to know which groups are going to make it and which aren't. Beyond this, you have to find a band who wants you to join with them. For example, I found a band I really liked about a year ago. They were looking for a bassist, but wanted someone ten years younger at oldest. I tried applying but I never heard back from them.

I've been particularly bothered by the tragedy at the Indiana State Fair Saturday night. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, it's local. It's somewhere I've driven by countless times. I've been to the fair itself numerous times, and was there last Thursday. Second, a good friend of mine was at the concert. She was in the front row for the same concert last year, and had thought about trying to get closer this year. Third, I'm a musician and work in concert production. Between attending and working, I've been around hundreds of stages and concerts. In other words, I and or people I know could had easily been involved and hurt. So for all these reasons, this hits close to home.

When I heard about what happened, I wish I could say I was more surprised. This is what angers me. I don't believe this was an unpreventable, freak accident. I believe this tragedy should not have happened.

Years ago on tour, I witnessed a lighting rig collapse. This happened indoors, with no wind or any other factors to set it off. Fortunately, no one was on stage at the time (or at least not in harm's way). I remember that it punched a hole in the stage and damaged a keyboard though. We were lucky it didn't happen in the middle of sound check or the concert. However it could have been different. I or members of a popular band or others could potentially not be here anymore.

A big part of what bothers me is that there seems to be little to nothing in place (in most cases) to prevent this kind of accident. I believe anybody or any company can go purchase sound, lighting, and staging equipment and set it up without anyone ever checking on it being safe (with exceptions I'll mention in a moment). As another example, a couple of years ago, the band I worked with was scheduled to play a show at a festival. Apparently the stage had been set up poorly enough that the headlining band refused to go on for sound check until it had been fixed. I'm guessing no one in the band was an engineer, so if it looked bad enough to an untrained eye, it doesn't seem likely that it passed any sort of formal inspection.

In the case of bigger productions such as the size of the one at the State Fair, I believe there is a certain amount of internal and industry standards, such as weight limits, which companies attempt to adhere to. In other words, they have some general rules to follow, and have to assume that things will be safe if they keep to them. However, I'm not sure that these things are actually ever checked by structural engineers—the kind of people who would actually know if there could be problems or not.

For the State Fair tragedy specifically, there seems to have been two failures which allowed this tragedy to happen. First, the stage should not have collapsed under these conditions. Second, the stage and concert area should have been evacuated.

In regards to the stage collapse, I'm sure that people will be investigating the technical details in order to figure out why it happened. However it seems to me that some better form of regulation and oversight are needed. Apparently, Indianapolis (as well as certain other cities) do have applicable regulations. However, though the fair grounds are in Indianapolis, they are property of the state and therefore not under Indianapolis jurisdiction. And there is apparently no state or national regulations.

In any case, these were apparently winds consistent with a common Midwest thunderstorm, not a direct tornado hit or anything. In other words, while one wouldn't necessarily expect this to survive a tornado or hurricane, it should have been able to withstand the type of weather which was experienced. To support this, no other significant damage was reported from this storm as far as I'm aware.

This is at least the fourth staging collapse in only six weeks!¹ The other incidents luckily weren't as harmful, though obviously if things like this are happening this often, it's only a matter of time until someone is "unlucky". I strongly feel that these facts reinforces the point that the tragedy at the State Fair wasn't an isolated, freak accident. Rather, the industry as a whole needs to be safer.

Not only should the stage have not collapsed, it sounds like people should have been evacuated from the area before hand. The storm itself was no surprise, and neither were the winds. They were both predicted and witnessed ahead of the storm². The weather situation was such that concert itself had apparently been stopped for a half-hour or so before the collapse of stage. Yet in all this time, the fans and others were never instructed to seek better shelter. In fact, shortly before the tragedy, the MC had made an announcement that the show would go on. While he made mention of the buildings people could seek shelter in if it became necessary, the audience were told that there was still time (15 minutes I believe) before the storm arrived. However by the time this announcement was made, the weather was already getting bad. In fact, one reason I believe there are so many photos and videos of the stage collapse is because people were taking pictures of the approaching storm. Apparently, the pictures of the storm don't do it justice. There was a cloud of dust blowing toward the stage, and it was bad enough that some thought they were witnessing a tornado.³

So the question remains, why hadn't an evacuation been given before this, especially since the concert had been on hold for a while already? I grant that a stage collapse had probably crossed few people's mind. As mentioned, that shouldn't have happened. I also understand that here in the Midwest, we live through a couple of dozen severe thunderstorms a year without incident. Of course in almost all these cases we are inside a building or at least inside a vehicle and therefore better protected from the elements. But it is a different matter when outside and when in charge of a large crowd's safety. It has been noted that some of the rides at the fair were shut down before the storm, and people attending an outdoor concert at nearby Conner Prairie were instructed to return to their vehicles. So it seems that those in charge of the concert at the State Fair made the mistake of hesitating and waiting too long to get people to a safer location.

I grieve for all those affected by this tragedy. Not only have five people died so far, my understanding is that about half of the other 45 or so injured have serious, potentially life threatening injuries. Those who do survive my have long term pains or other health problems as a result. I believe I remember hearing that one boy may be paralyzed for instance. In addition to this, there is the psychological trauma experienced by the witnesses. In one of the videos, you can hear all the audience scream in horror as they helpless watch tons of equipment fall and crush the crowd of fans. A witness said that they are amazed that only five people have died, because it looked much worse. Many who viewed this incident are struggling to cope with what they saw. Beyond this is of course the many families and friends of those who were injured. It is also no doubt weighing heavily on the musicians who were both nearly victims and also feel terrible for the pain experienced by the fans who had come to see them perform. This tragedy has affected and is affecting hundreds of people.

I am cautious about criticizing, because I understand it is both easy to do in retrospect, and easy to do without being in the situation and knowing all of the factors involved. However, the information I've gathered definitely seems to point to the conclusion that this should not have happened, because the stage should not have collapsed and there should not have been people in harm's way even if it did. So it seems greater scrutiny is needed regarding staging and rigging, and that severe weather plans need to be followed more closely. While things should have been safer long ago, it would be an outrage against those affected by this tragedy to not make things safer from now on.

Footnotes:
1 http://www.indystar.com/article/20110816/NEWS15/108160318/Inspections-not-required-outdoor-stages
2 http://www.indystar.com/article/20110817/NEWS15/108170327/Despite-weather-warnings-fair-concert-went-on
3 Additional source: witness of tragedy.

A number of things have recently combined to become a catalyst for me to improve. One is, I've been exposed to some really strong, pro-level musicians in a close setting and repeatedly over a span of a couple of years. Second, I tried to audition for a couple of bands this spring. I think I did ok on bass, but guitar... I've played guitar for years, and while I know I'm not a lead player nor the most skilled guitarist out there, I thought that I was decent. I thought I had played some relatively difficult parts before. I know I haven't been playing guitar much over the last several years, but I didn't think I was that rusty. For whatever reason, I felt like I couldn't play the guitar at all during these auditions. I mean I thought I sounded horrible, and so I certainly don't expect anyone to have been impressed. I don't know if the bar has just been raised or what, but I really recognized I wasn't up to par.

In addition to that, one of my band mates posted this quote: "Amateurs practice until they get it right; Professionals practice until they can't get it wrong." This in combination with being exposed to good musicians in combination with my friend Jerimae talking about playing everyday, all combined to make things sort of click in me head. I know I've heard the phrase "practice makes perfect" and such for forever. I knew learning to play something required practice. But I guess I couldn't see the end goal. Now I can see the goal is not just being able to play something, but being able to play it well. It probably would have helped to know all of this 17 years ago when I first started.

Another thing recently came up which is interrelated. I read someone talking about 5 and 10 year goals. Now, I've heard things like this before too, but I've never really thought about them. You see, I recognized that I've been trying to do everything now, or at least as soon as possible. There's good reason for this: I've felt like I've been coming from behind all this time. It seems most musicians get there start as kids. I picked up guitar when I graduated high school. Most musicians have already been in a band or two by this point. My first real playing in a band experiences came about seven years later. Add to this the fact that I've had struggled to find steady work all this time. So through most all of my adult life, I haven't been in a place where I felt content and established enough to think about longer term plans. It's mainly always been "What can I do now?" or at most, "What can I do in the next few months/this year?" I haven't had a way of doing any more.

Anyway, I read where someone (Neil Cole I think) said that we over estimate what we can do in a year, and under estimate what we can do in five or ten years. I've been thinking about this in terms of my music playing. I may not be where I want right now, and I may know that I can't get there even in a year. But if I keep practicing, then eventually I'll improve and I'll be at least much closer to where I want to be. So I try not to get discouraged feeling like I can't play well at all at the moment, and trust that if I keep at it, I'll be there eventually.

Now if I could only figure out the rest of my life...

FYI: I just made a handful of updates to the website, including adding a links page. Hopefully things are a bit better looking and arranged now.

I was working on a song today; I had already figured out how to play it, but I was trying to get the timing down. As I was working on it, I realized something wasn't working right. I had the song worked out as being in 4/4, but I had the intro written out as 6/8. I tried messing around with it, but nothing was working. 4 beats per measure seemed to fit right, but I realized that, if counted that way, each beat was divided into 3 throughout the song! I thought to myself, "This entire song is not in triplets!" So I ended up reworking everything as a fast 3/8 (with the possible exception of the bridge), and it fit perfectly! Finally! You wouldn't think that it would take two hours to just do something like this, but that's part of the reason it's taking me so long to make progress. Now that I've figured out the time signature and tempo, I have to go back and redo all of the programming—more work and more time.

As mentioned, I've been working on songwriting. I now have 15 songs partially written. It's been tough though. I don't exactly know what I'm doing; I haven't done a lot of songwriting before, and there isn't a formula or clear steps. It's a creative process, so different people work in different ways. It's been a lot of experimenting and trial and error for me. I often get stuck to a point where I'm not sure what to do next. Hopefully I'll eventually come up with some music worth listening to.

I am doing all of this solo for a number of reasons. I'm realizing though, that I'm trying to do the work of a dozen people, and perhaps not excelling at any one area. I'm attempting to be a songwriter, musician (singer, guitarist, bassist, drum programmer, synth programmer, etc.), arranger, producer, recording engineer, guitar tech., drum tech, and later on agent, manager, promoter, webmaster, etc. Eventually I hope to get other people to fill many of these roles, but I have to get something started on my own first.