The Minigolf Offensive

The main entry to the local showgrounds lies directly opposite a minigolf establishment.

I should really say *the* minigolf establishment as it’s the only one in town.  It may very well be the only one in the region.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the neighbouring towns have minigolf… places.

What do you call the location where one plays minigolf?  Is it a field?  A park?  A centre?  Greens?  “Minigolf greens” sounds silly, but so does “minigolf links”.  It’s certainly not a club – you don’t join it, you just turn up and play.

I’m going to go with “centre”.  It’s a nice generic word that could mean almost anything (except, perhaps, “circumference”, “fringe” or “periphery”).

Anyway, as I was saying, I believe our minigolf centre is the only minigolf centre in the region.  It has been there for at least a decade and a half – possibly two decades.  I remember going there at east once when I was in high school.  I went again about seven or eight years ago for a party.  And I visited for the third (fourth?) time in my life this year, when I went to the Show.

I have often thought of going there again over the years, but I’m one of those lazy people who never visit places in their own town.

On this occasion I walked out of the showgrounds and noticed the centre was open, and thought I may as well go in and play.  Now, I have actually been to a couple of other minigolf centres while on holidays, so this wasn’t the third (fourth?) time I’ve ever played the game, just the third (fourth?) time I’ve been to this particular establishment. 

The last two (three?) times I didn’t really pay any attention to the grounds or the design of the place.  This time I couldn’t help it.  

The current owners had taken one of the two courses out of action and replaced it with a rather sad combination of messy-construction site and unused jumping castle.  The remaining course was in a severe state of disrepair.

The fake turf on the greens was ripped and fraying.  Many of the original obstacles had been removed and either replaced with common garden ornaments (as in, terracotta pots and those little stone temple thingies), or simply hadn’t been replaced at all.  Everything was so worn and dilapidated that you couldn’t help but note how simply it had all been put together in the first place – and how simply it could have been repaired.

Sure, there was a few thousand dollars worth of hardware involved in fixing the place up – but this is a business, for goodness’ sake.  If you can’t invest a few thousand dollars in maintaining the grounds that your livelihood depends on, then what is the point of you?  Why are you doing this if you are going to do it so badly?

But I noticed something while I was going around the course.  I noticed how simply it had all been done in the first place.

This was a space no bigger than some of the back yards in the old suburbs.  Parts of the grounds were just lawn and gardens:  some nice spots to sit with a drink or a picnic and a pergola with a barbeque for parties.

The actual “links” (or whatever you call them) were just a bit of clever landscaping, really.  A strip of concrete with a hole at one end (a bit of plumbing pipe), covered in fake turf and made “interesting” with the inclusion of obstacles.  Some plants or mini-rock gardens separated the links from each other to create a sense that each was is own little space, and the use of a bit of raised dirt and steps gave it some different levels and made it a bit more varied.

And the original obstacles weren’t even that clever.  They were much more clever than their common-garden replacements, but they were basically blocks of painted wood with holes cut in strategic places, or sculptures with a bit of tubing running through them.  It was the paint (now quite worn and faded) that made them look interesting in the first place.

Looking at this sad, dilapidated excuse for an activity centre, I suddenly realised just how easy it would be to make your own.

Seriously.  I want to make one now.  

Almost a musical

I’m on a bit of a Disney kick at the moment, so you’ll either have to ride it out with me or come back later when I’ll be obsessing over something else.

I’ve been trying to work out exactly what it was about Frozen that left me feeling a little flat.  I mean, apart from the panic about an “eternal winter” that didn’t even last a whole afternoon before people were forming possies.

I think it was because it disappointed me as a musical.  It started of with so much promise:  An ensemble piece, the solos, the duet… It looked like it was shaping up to be a worthy companion to Beauty and the Beast.

But then it dropped the ball, musically speaking.  I couldn’t help but feel it was missing a few key numbers.  Where was Elsa’s song about wishing she could love and be loved?  Where was Kristoff’s song about “man this girl is annoying, but she kind of grows on you”?  Where was a nice big number (either a solo, duet on ensemble) about how real love can make a real difference (if not earlier in the piece, it totally should have been in that part where Anna works out what an act of love is all about and Elsa realises how to thaw the kingdom).

Yeah, the “fixer-upper” song was kind of that… only it really, really wasn’t.

What was with that waste of an ensemble?  We had the ice song at the beginning (good start), then the trolls’ number just past the half-way mark, but what about a nice, juicy “hey, it’s beginning to snow!” from the townsfolk at the start of the *cough* eternal winter and a nice big riff on the “do you want to build a snowman” theme at the end?

Can you imagine what the film would have been like if it had ended with the entire cast and ensemble singing “come out and play?”

Have you ever seen the stage version of Beauty and the Beast?  Unlike other adaptations of movies to stage musicals, nothing much needed to be altered to take that film from the screen to the stage.  The original animated film was just a well crafted musical and, because of that, it translated really well from one medium to another.

You wouldn’t be able to do that with Frozen – or with Tangled for that matter.  As much as I loved Tangled, it was also pretty undernourished as a musical.

Quite frankly, I think Pocahontas was a better musical than any of the more recent Disney films.  That’s not meant to imply that I think poorly about Pocahontas and am comparing the more recent stuff with something unfavourable.  I loved Pocahontas so much I actually bought the sound track, and still occasionally burst out with “I look once more – just around the river bend – beyond the shore…”

But that movie is almost 20 years old.  Name one Disney animation from the past two decades that could hold a candle, musically speaking to Pocahontas, let along be in the same league as Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King?

I think Frozen could have done it.  It showed promise.  And then it didn’t live up to that promise, which is such a bummer.

I know it sounds like I hated that film, but I was really just disappointed by it.  It had moments of being almost great, but it was never actually as great as it could have been.

Tennis + Soccer = Tenner?

One of my biggest problems is the fact that I keep coming up with stupid ideas for games that would probably be totally awesome... but I don't know anyone who would be dumb enough to play with me.

I was watching hurling the other day (a truly wonderful game - I tell you, those Irish kids really know how to play) when I had another one of my "how would you play that if you didn't have any of the right stuff?" moments.

This is the same urge that makes me want to create a cut-down version of Gaelic Football to run on a normal soccer pitch.  And it is fraught with the same problems.  Sure, I could easily come up with rules and things, but then I'd need to convince people to play it - and, quite frankly, I just don't know any people.

Well, I know a couple of people, but they're really boring and don't go in for crazy sport crap.

Anyway, one thought lead to another and eventually this came to me:

"Do you know what would be awesome?  Soccer, but played with a tennis ball and tennis racquets."

Hurling is, you see, essentially Gaelic football played with what looks like a softball and some deformed hockey sticks.  Apart from the ball itself and what you physically do with it, the games are basically the same.  You play on the same space, following the same rules regarding things like free shots and all that, and you score the same way for the same number of points.

So, if you carried this principle over to soccer, essentially everything would be the same, except you'd have a tennis ball and people would be whacking it across the pitch instead of kicking it.

Following hurling's lead, you would be able to catch the ball in your hand, and but you have to hit it to another player (either with your racquet or with an open palm or a closed fist).  You wouldn't be able to take more than three steps with the ball in your hand, but you could run as far as you like while balancing or bouncing it on your racquet.

Other players wouldn't be able to hit your body with their racquets, but trying to knock the ball off your racquet would be fair game.

Quite frankly, I think this game would be a bucket of fun to watch and play.

You'd need a soccer pitch (every town has one), tennis racquets (easy enough to get), tennis balls (preferably some colour other than green - but still perfectly obtainable) and possibly helmets of some description (unlike hockey, the racquets will be flailing about at head height, so the odds of getting hit in the head would be high).

All of these things are doable.  This game could be played tomorrow.

I offer it to whoever is willing to make it work.  Especially if you send me a link to the Youtube footage.  Go forth and play - and try to come up with a better name than "tenner".

Plastic wood and brass

This is something I think about occasionally:

I have recorders, right?  They used to be made out of wood (okay, the "good" ones still are), but now they're made out of plastic.

I also have a fife made out of plastic.  Those things used to be metal (okay, the "good" ones still are).

I've seen tin whistles made out of plastic.  Those things used to be made of tin, I think (okay, the "good" ones still are).

And I also own a number of plastic mouthpieces for sundry brass instruments.  And when I say sundry, I mean sundry - I have mouthpieces for French horns, euphoniums and mellophones - I've never played any of these instruments.  Heck, I've never even been in the same room as a mellophone.  Let's just say I'm a sucker for a sale item.

Anyway, the point is I have bits of brass instruments that are made out of plastic which were once made out of brass, or something very much like brass (okay, the "good" ones still are).  The same company that made my plastic mouthpieces are now also selling plastic clarinet barrels - once made of wood, I believe...

And I've just discovered that student level clarinets are almost entirely made out of plastic.  Except for one company which is proudly declaring they make theirs out of rubber.  Ooookay.

So, if cheap but functional wind instruments and brass bits can be made out of plastic, why aren't there more plastic "brass" and "woodwind" instruments in the world?

Well, there kind of are.  You can buy a flute made out of the same ABS plastic as the clarinets, which is cheaper than a flute made out silver-plated metal (ooh, there's an interesting concept - using plastic for a "woodwind" instrument that's normally made out of metal).  You can also get trumpets made of ABS plastic.  And someone is manufacturing plastic trombones.  They come in different colours, so you can get a flute in electric blue or a purple trumpet.  Who wouldn't want one of those?

Good luck finding them in a shop.  The student market for instruments seems to be all stitched up with cheap metal instruments that are still more expensive than the plastic stuff.  And, as someone who owns a cheap metal instrument, I really wish it was made out of plastic - I think it would be better quality.  If my pocket trumpet was made out of the same plastic as my alto recorder, it would be a much better instrument.

So why aren't these being mass-produced by dozens of Chinese companies and sold to children?

And, since we can do it with flutes, trumpets and trombones, why not produce the rest of the woodwind/brass family in moulded plastic?

If I were a parent of school children, I'd much prefer to buy them some plastic thingy to learn with until they've proven they're going to stick with it.  If my idiot kid decides s/he wants a trombone for Christmas, but I know s/he's going to keep it up for about a year and then leave the dang thing in a cupboard for the rest of his/her life, I'm totally going to buy him/her the cheapest trombone I can get.

Heck, I practically am raising one of those idiot kids:  me.  I want the toys, but I know what my attention span is like, so I want to buy myself the cheapest toys.  I have a feeling I'm not alone.

So, Chinese manufactures and British/American designers - get onto this.  I want a plastic French horn to go with my mouthpiece, and I want it reasonably soon...

Windy, brassy things

By Fluteflute CC BY 2.5

At some point in my life I wanted to learn how to play the French Horn - or, as serious musicians call it "the horn".

Then I bought a second hand cornet and thought I'd give that a crack.  It eventually lead to a few months' worth of being in a brass band just so I could get lessons, but the timing of both the band nights and the lessons were both of the "I'm not sure I can keep this up" variety and, as it turned out, I couldn't.

Besides, it turns out that I'm not really suited to such high-pitched instruments as cornets/trumpets.  The baritone horn (not actually related to the French Horn) was more comfortable, but possibly a bit low, really.  I think I should have tried something in the middle of that spectrum - but the club had stacks of baritones to lend, so a baritone is what I borrowed (and what I was learning until the sucky timing of everything just got too bad).

But now I'm thinking about French Horns again.  Even as the brass teacher dude was steering me towards the baritone, I was wondering why I couldn't/shouldn't give French Horns a try.

The appropriate answer at the time: brass bands don't do French Horns.  Apparently they're part of the wind section in a concert band.  Who decides these things, anyway?

However, I don't want to spend over $1000 on an instrument that might end up languishing in the instrument graveyard that is my spare room (currently residing in the graveyard:  a cornet, a pocket trumpet, a melodeon, three recorders of various sizes, a fife, a mouthorgan, a kazoo and a concertina that occasionally sees the light of day.  Technically there's an electric keyboard in there, too, but I've managed to con someone else into keeping that in their own spare room).

So I really want to borrow one or buy a second hand model that is functional but very, very cheap.

I could probably borrow one if I joined a concert band, but I'm reluctant to join anything else, quite frankly - even if the local concert band happens to be located in my old school.

Anyone know of a spare French Horn I could have?  I'd be willing to swap it for something from the graveyard, if that sweetens the deal (as long as it's not the recorders or the concertina - they're keepies, even if they are mostly unused).

Pah! Humbug!

It's official, I hate music.

I had a strange desire to listen to wind quintet music today.  I couldn't remember if I'd heard any before.  Brass quintet, yes, but not necessarily wind.

So, I live in a library, right?  When you live in a library and you think "I wouldn't mind exploring X", you are in a particularly ideal place to do that.

To the catalogue!  To the AV collection!

Up the stairs I sprang (walking up stairs is for wusses) to fetch a cluster of CDs.

Put in the first CD - hated it.

Put in the second CD - hated it.

Put in the third CD - hated it.

Put in the fourth CD - hated it.

Tuneless tonal meanderings don't float my boat.  I want something with melody.  Something I can whistle along with, once I've picked up the general theme.

And, as a friend of mine often points out, if I can't appreciate the non-"conservative" stuff in art, I clearly can't appreciate the art.  Or my appreciation is limited.  Or something like that.

Free-style Sabre -- Or... Rapier?

If I were the boss of fencing (which, alas, I am not), one of things I would do is bring in a new discipline to join the ranks of epee, foil and sabre.

Every time I interact with sabre, I'm left feeling:  "This is so very nearly wonderful, but unfortunately it's really just such a pain in the gluteus maximus".

(Not literally, of course.  You very rarely get any serious butt pain as a result of sabre.  Arm pain, yes.  It's almost exactly like someone whips you across the arm with a thin metal rod.  Possibly because someone whips you across the arm with a thin metal rod...)

But it's just so hard wrapping my head around the idea that the first clear hit is not necessarily the winning hit.  I don't frelling care what my opponent is doing with his/her gorram feet.  I don't even care what I'm doing with my feet.  I also don't care if s/he moved his/her arm first.  We have swords!  Swords, I tell you!

If I hit that person with my sword before that person hit me, I should get the point.  When dealing with swords, the only thing that should trump "first cut" should be "most lethal cut".  If I tap them on the elbow and they stab me in the neck, that's different.

If sabre is, as I have read, as silly and convoluted as it is because of the problem with simultaneous hits, then we should just invent a free-style version of sabre in which simultaneous hits don't count, and we ditch the whole right-of-way thing in favour of first-in-best-dressed.

But, then...

I read recently that epee basically evolved out of people finding the foil of the day too restrictive.  I can see that - epee is kind of like foil, only with more freedom of movement and simpler rules of engagement.

You see, what I really want is for there to be a discipline of fencing like epee but with the cutting edge of the blade brought back into play.

So maybe the better option is to bring another sword into the fold and make another discipline entirely - one that can be to sabre what epee is to foil?

The rapier hasn't been doing much lately, and it has two edges!  What would fencing look like if we brought in a double sided sword?

And maybe it wouldn't be impossible to wire up a sword to register a hit on anything except another sword or the piste?  That would enable the entire body to become a target without the use of a full-body lame...

It could be a brilliant addition to the sport.  And all we need to do is convince enough people to agree to make it a thing, and it will be a thing.

If only I were the boss of fencing...