Australian Open serves it up hot!

The Australian Open has been very interesting and eventful this year. The men's final is about to start. The men's tournament has been characterised by stun defeats, with a large margin. Look at the way Federer defeated his friend, Djokovich defeated Federer, Ferrer defeated Nadal, and Murray defeated Nadal, all in a very convincing manner. That makes the margin of defeat cumulatively very large. The winner would actually, theoritically, be way ahead of the others.

There is an emergence of a new breed of good players, so we're able to move away from the Federer-Nadal fixation. Federer and Nadal have both had their best chance this time in the Australian Open. Nadal could've won the fantastic four and Federer could've added to his tally. I don't think both of them would have a chance later. I think their time is about over.

Meanwhile in the women's segment, the final was the highlight. Kim Clijsters prevailed over Li Na, but only after a real contest. The match was more about who would hold on to their serve, rather than who would break the other's serve. It made me think whether, for women especially, the serve is actually a disadvantage. Their return of serve was much better than the serve itself.

There are two reasons for this, as I see it. The serve cannot be done with two hands, whereas the backhand return, why even the forehand return, Nadal would confirm, can be done with two hands. Thats more power and precision at your disposal. The second reason is that the serve is done from high above, and with lesser power of the women, actually goes slower than other shots.

A thought. If the rules permit, why can't the women serve like they play shots. Have to read up the rules of tennis to find out if that is feasible.

The Genius in the gene

As I return back home from office, I listen to Tamil songs on my Sony mp3 player. Its been a while I've listened to my selected list of songs, accumulated over a period of time. There are many songs of AR Rahman and Harris Jeyaraj, and this thought crosses my mind. Harris Jeyaraj, at times, is better than Rahman, especially in the clarity of the lyrics in his songs. Listen to Nenjukkul Peidhidum, Kumari, Andangkaakka and you'll know what I'm saying. And he is good with the instruments and the arrangement. What else can you ask for?

Compared to that, Rahman doesn't focus too much on how clear the lyrics are in the song. He's too busy with experimenting with the music that he ignores the lyrics. After all the music is what is important. And I was reminded of the movie 'Music and Lyrics' in which Drew Barrymore says that the music is important at the start, but for the song to be truly good, the lyrics are also important. I agree with that. And with the lean patch that Rahman is going through, I almost conclude that Rahman is no longer what he used to be.

But then I listen to his songs on the playlist and find that Rahman is not just a good music director. He is a genius who believes in experimenting. Listen to Newyork Nagaram and you'll know the amount of gamakkam he has brought into the song. And not the traditional sort.

I paused to find the meaning of the word genius. And where else to find it except Wikipedia. Genius is ability, creativity and originality that is associated with achievement of unprecented insight. And I realise that only Rahman fits the bill completely.

And I remember the biography presentation I had prepared a few months back about Rahman. I had said then that whatever the state of my mind were, my mood was, I could find a song here and there in Rahman's discography that could put me further into it or pull me right out of it. In some ways, without really defining in words, Rahman's music was like therapy for me. Genius, for me, is being able to touch someone ordinary in a profound manner.

I'm not saying Harris Jeyaraj is bad. I remember how I answered a question during my presentation when someone made a comment that Ilayaraja was better. I said 'A lion is a lion and a tiger is a tiger'. There is no comparison. Having said that let me reiterate 'Rahman is a genius'

Pricing for stags and couples

I was wondering how party entry tickets are priced for stags and couples, and what should drive them. For the new year party we went to, couples were charged Rs. 6500 and stags were charged Rs. 5500. I was thinking why. The most apparent reason is not driven by any logic or formula, but from the fact that more stags are out to get into a party than couples. So why not price it high for them, and thus earn more. But is that the only reason. I'm thinking.

Is it associated with the requirement of bouncers to oversee the party if more stags are around? Thats based on the presumption that stags come to a party to be noticed and looked at by the girls in the couple. So they would require supervision and thus the increased charge to cover costs. But do parties really increase the security and bouncers when there are more stags. No they don't. Their setup remains just the same.

Is it to encourage couples to come, even the stags to find someone to come along with, thus maintaining the sex ratio. That way the club looks good, and we're promoting balance. But can that not be achieved by only saying that stags are not allowed. That will force the stags to find someone to tag along. I don't think club owners have so much to think about.

I didn't need to think too much on this though. I thought why I had asked the owner whether there would be too many stags in the party. It was because I would feel more comfortable with other couples around. Because the males in the couples will be more comfortable without the competition. Thats the reason. The club will not attract too many couples if stags are in the majority.

Many a time, the answers are right in front of you. You just have to see.

Get on with life

I ended 2010 by doing what I hate the most, something I’d give my life not to do! And I began 2011 by doing exactly the same thing. We were at a disco and I was dancing away amid the lights and the sound. And I lost myself in the crowd, not really bothered what the world thinks of me, not conscious of whether they’d think I was being crazy. It all changed less than a couple of months ago, when I got drunk at a friend’s birthday party, and danced away, realising that I did it better than most others who don’t hesitate doing it. And I did it again today, and it was to become a habit.

My leadership guide always tells me to do something that you wouldn’t normally do; that helps in stoking your creativity, she says. I once said I’m not good at picking up languages and that I didn’t have a flair for languages, and she insisted I learn French. I still haven’t tried it, nor have I succeeded in anything like this, but that’s not the point, she says. It only matters how your attempt changes you. And the last thing you should be bothered about is how the world views you. It doesn’t matter, not to anybody of consequence. So here I go... to live the moment... and get on with life.