I am a guitar player, but I like the cello best here. The cello has a deeper, broader tonality appropriate to the show. The backing tracks feel noisy rather than supportive of the conversation. If the cello's melody is thought of as one voice in the conversation, the backing tracks don't sound like they are in conversation. I have played in many venues, and it feels like the cello is more of the performer playing in a lounge while others are talking and drinking, rather than the cello as an integral voice in an arrangement with other musical voices, or as an instrument taking a turn in a suite or a recital. I don't think the music is strong or focused enough. It does not feel like thoughtful reflection. As for the name, I think it is a step sideways but not a helpful step forward. The idea of "Being" is so ambiguous in the public arena today. It might have been catchier to call it "Speaking of Ontology" if you want to suggest a not-so-specifically-religious direction. At least "Ontology" (like Faith) might get people to ask questions. "Being" is not provocative enough in a world where people do not think in terms of categories like ontology and metaphysics. "Being" feels bland. I LOVE Krista's work and "On Being" doesn't seem worthy of her distinctive and excellent work.
More information about text formats