December 2008 Archives

My philosophy professor sent this to us today...



Happy New Year!

A little surprise I found on howstuffworks.com :



Like most geeks, I've been skeptical, however intrigued, by the "Many Worlds" theory.  And I still don't have the knowledge to push either way :-(.  If I had more time in college (thank goodness I don't, but still) I'd definitely look into studying theoretical physics.

The reason I posted this is my realization that the man who developed the Many Worlds theory, Hugh Everett III, gave birth to a son, Mark Oliver Everett, who is the headliner of the band Eels, who have provided music for various movies including Shrek and Yes Man (which is swarming with Eels music).  It's simply amusing that the little sketch above shares the same humor used in E's music.  Amusingly, E was also invited on Nova for their "Many Worlds, Many Lives" episode.  His father had a profound effect on his music (and an intriguing life), and E's sister even wrote in her suicide note that she was going to live with her father in an alternate universe.

It's funny how many of theoretical physics applications, especially based on the Many Worlds hypothesis (Schrodinger's Cat, Quantum Suicide) seem to dwell on death.  As nice as it is to see a demonstration of 'brighter' origin, it's funny how death remains the only fate we really know of.  The end is always sort of in sight, and everything else just passes by.  Well, that's an exaggeration, although I find myself struggling with 'the now' in the wake of 'the end.'  Even during my years in Christianity, the constant goal of my beliefs was 'heaven,' that clouded state of immortal existence found at 'the end.' 

I don't believe in heaven, or quantum immortality for that matter.  But it is an intriguing matter.  What if the multiverse does exist?  Artists from Terry Riley to Richard Mathesan have cited views of 'inspiration from beyond.'  Hell, even the Greeks thought their ideas fell from the gods.  And perhaps that's our way of communicating with these other worlds: inspiration.  But that's still highly doubtful, and science has a long way to go before I can take this all to heart.

If you have a few bucks to burn, buy yourself a copy of Eels' "Electro-Shock Blues."  It documents a lot of E's family life, and it's also one of the best pieces of music I've ever heard.  Perhaps a little difficult at first (I find most indie music abhorred, but Eels, my exception, is always an engaging listen), but it's amazingly rewarding, and pretty powerful.

A special 'ho ho ho' from the pope.  This reminds me of why I don't identify with Catholicism anymore.

I'm not going to say I'm surprised.  But I'm disappointed this hatred is still there.

I'm glad this viewpoint isn't omnipresent throughout all religions.

Elegant Design: a phrase that I've dropping in much of my conversation recently.

 

I bring this up because I've noticed a significant problem with a lot of things, particularly music, that's been quite common as of late: it's the question of approachability (or functionality) vs. elegant design.  Especially in art, (true) artists tend to lean toward the 'elegant design' perspective, the technicality behind the façade.  However, this often ends up with very little façade, with the emphasis being on the structure.  This isn't bad, but it's proven to not be quite so enjoyable.

 

Meanwhile, on the other side, is the other problem: a lot of façade covering up barely anything.  Pop music seems to be nothing be light curtains being sold on cubic frames.  Big whoop.

 

It's this Apollonian-Dionysian duality that my philosophy paper was written on, but I've noticed these problems occurring throughout our art today.  I was listening to Randy Newman's new CD when I realized that, hey, this is what I want to do.  I've claimed this is where I want to be, but Randy helped me realize it fully (Thanks Randy!).

 

So what's so great about Randy Newman?

 

In this, the very opening sequence to Monsters Inc., we see Newman's handling of jazz harmony.  And look at the animation that accompanies it.  Simple idea.  But the design behind it?  Pretty complex.  This is stuff that sounds good.  Approachable.  And yet behind the scenes is a kind of technicality, an elegant design.

 

Check out the harmony here!  This is where his design peeks its head out.  But the way he approaches it, whether through predictable rhythms or well-crafted lyrics, Newman makes these technicalities enjoyable and approachable.

 

I'm not saying that Babbitt or Ferneyhough or Coldplay or Natasha Beddingfield is necessarily "bad," but they're missing the boat.  After thousands of years of musical development, some form of balance would be worked out.  I mean, niche market aside, there's always been the well-balanced genius who comes out on top: Pixar, pre-2000's Disney, post-2000's Apple, Bill Gates' Microsoft, Google, Wikipedia, John Adams, Third Eye Blind, Outkast, Michael Daugherty.  Why are we so overrun with either 'how much can we sell' or 'how technical can we be?'  If we combine both, we'll naturally appeal to more people, and those people will always get something out another viewing..  It's the Elegant Design: approachable, yet technical enough to have unique value.

 

 

Music's first function is to be aesthetically engaging.  That engagement could lead to intellectual engagement, but without that doorway into the room, how would anyone think to look inside?

My semesters always seem to taper off in a haze, with foot still mashing the pedal to the ground.

I'm currently working on my last final, a Philosophy paper examining the last century of concert music development in terms of Nietzsche's Apollinian and Dionysiac elements of artistic creation and human experience.  Art music has been weird with this sort of thing.  It seems like after Mahler 9, the door holding the Dionysiac in was blown of its hinges, despite the fact that the approach to music as sound event construction that occurred with Modernism seems to have its roots in Strauss' tone poems and even earlier, in Berlioz's "Symphonie Fantastique."  That's Berlioz for you, the first avant-garde composer.  And he used 'opium' as the excuse for this approach (and possibly its inspiration...)

This semester has been hard and grueling, and I haven't even had any shows yet.  Next semester will be my hardest yet: 3 shows, 19 credits, travelling with Essence, reprogramming The Classical Hour on The Lion, still working, quite a few pieces (including an opera libretto), and hopefully keeping my weight down.

I'm highly anticipating graduation, although, and I really hate to say it, I've kind of taken to the party scene a bit.  Not a whole lot (I'm not going to tear brick enforced maps out of the ground or take my pants off in public (yes, I've seen both happen here)), but enough to dull me out a bit.  In a way, it's a good thing to put that backpack down for a few hours; at times, it's even helped me refocus.  But at the same time, it hasn't really done anything else positive or negative for me.  Well, yes, I slept through my radio show on Sunday.  But I was also up until 4:30 for three or four nights in a row working on an English paper.  So, yeah...  That, and my sore throat, were already a long time coming.

Do I regret any of that?  My paper came out great, and I'm (mostly) enjoying myself, so no.  The only thing I regret is not being able to compose because of papers.  But then, that's because of papers.  Hopefully, my ideas will gestate and burst out of me as soon as I finish this last paper.

I guess that's what my haze looks like: droplets of papers, and projects, and classes, etc. etc.  And what's being left out of my vision?  I don't know where I'm going to be in a year, and that frightens me a bit.  Quite a bit.  So I'm overworking myself to ignore that (and the dull world around me).  I just hope the haze doesn't clear up too late...




Here's what I leave you with.  Enjoy.

Just because I feel like it:



Happy Pre-Finals Week...

Just for the record. I spent 20 minutes on a really detailed analysis of this song.  Then Firefox crashed and I lost everything.  This only happens on my PC.  Thank you, Microsoft.

Here is "Indians" by King Missile.  Ignore the pictures.  Draw your own conclusions.  It's the week before finals (which is apparently the new finals week), and I don't have time for this crap.  Enjoy.

In reflection of the past 3.5 years of my college education, I've come to that common road block of 'why?'  I love the idea of being in a facility of higher learning.  The sheer mass of 'at-hand' knowledge and activity excites me.  I would really, really like to teach in a university one day.  A community of people dedicated to advancing human civilization culturally, socially, and technologically is a beautiful thing, and I wish it could apply to the whole of society (or even the whole of the university, if I want to step out of the purely hypothetical).  At the same time, though, the majority of people don't care what goes in this valley of ours (save for football and the occasional ice cream cone), and we effect little direct change into the culture outside.  I once heard a description of Penn State as a big bubble, where no real outside influence seems to enter easily.  Meanwhile, I feel like (at least personally) nothing goes out.

Academia, to me, is a quixotic think-tank.  We can do all these wonderful, amazing things, but do they actually matter?  I was sitting in theory class, and we were discussing Schoenberg's first chamber symphony.  There's all kinds of interesting things you can pull out, but it was written nearly 100 years ago.  Or philosophy.  Do most people even think about the possibility of a categorical imperative? 

Or English.  For English class, I'm writing a paper stressing the importance of ethics education in the American public schooling system.  My responses are all across the map (more on this later), but I've noticed that many students could benefit from ethics education to help formulate their thoughts more clearly.  However, to most people, why would that matter?

I foresee a nationwide social community where people actually talk to each other on the street, where exists the free exchange of ideas and emotions, where importance on art and writings is stressed.  But I have to work to find that here at Penn State, and the 'real world' is far more utilitarian.  Where are the viable applications for what I want to do, and how can I turn this into a job?

My plan is treat art music concerts like rock shows, but who would come?  We, as a culture, seem so biased against higher thinking (unless it's for our financial or social benefit).  The only way to develop intelligent conversation is practice, and we aren't well-practiced.  Our culture doesn't deem clear communication necessary, and in fact encourages a lack of communication over the risk of embarrassment.  I think that's a shame, and it's really hard to try to live that lifestyle while society so often avoids it.

Additionally, we're seeing a move toward a highly user-oriented economy.  I.e., people 'download' their music now, get news online, etc.   There are cheap, free ways to do anything you would ever want to do.  This is practical for a middle class that doesn't have the money to spend on art, or science, or opera concerts.  But for the artists and writers and scientists and thinkers themselves?  There's really only one place to live off the majority of disciplines of higher education: academia.


Am I really doing something meaningful in academia, or is this prolonged quixotic meandering?

Just a quick little post.  A friend of mine asked for a piece with a ton of quotations.  Here ya go:



This is John Zorn's "Roadrunner."  The awesome thing about Zorn is that he does tons of crazy, wild, formidable stuff, but in a way that any open-minded individual can grasp to some degree. I personally like Guy Kluscevek's performance better, but this is pretty good. Not an easy piece.

And for those interested, the score actually has specific pieces or composers or <insert-repertoire-here-for-20-seconds> written in many places instead of music.  Zorn doesn't work so much with 'notation' as he does with sound.  As a result, he tends to get some biting criticism, like when Colbert did that skit about Zorn's genius grant (for Tzadik records).

"Roadrunner is one of Zorn's index card pieces.  Or it at least acts like one.  Compare it to this:



Some similarities, except Zorn really condenses things (although Kluscevek pulls it off even denser).  Zorn has said in interviews and liner notes that he tries to emulate cartoons, and with the majority of cartoons pre-1970's, you can see where he's coming from.  Even some of the cartoons of the Animation Rennaissance (Animaniacs, Ren and Stimpy, even Angry Beavers) did a lot of this quotation.

Granted, older cartoons used classical themes that well-cultured adults would immediately grasp.  But that even stands today.  How many times have the Animaniacs quoted Tom Lehrer?  Why do children recognize the Nutcracker Suite without ever seeing the ballet? (Which, by the way, Courage the Cowardly Dog has possibly one of the best sync-ups with Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker I've seen yet).

Cartoons embody more than just humour: They embody our culture.  And it's great to see art music emulating this.

Here's a tad of John Adams' "Roadrunner."

I'm writing a paper for my English class on the need for ethical education in American public schools to improve moral literacy, individual responsibility, the overall social climate, and ultimately, value of life in America for all citizens.  (That's deep, man.  Deep...)  So I was thinking of the weird stuff my English and Philosophy teachers have had me dig up over the past few years.  And that's when it hit me that Philosophy is one weird science.

I call it a science because it's ultimately unearthing underlying ideals of existence and it's related phenomena.  I mean, it's not entirely a science, but kind of...  But it's odd to see where philosophy and even ethical questions emerge from.  Yes, there are tons of philosophers and prophets that have passed their knowledge to us.  But beyond the Heideggers (well, I don't think there could ever be another Heidegger...) and Nietzsche's, a lot of philosophy seems to emerge from some of the oddest places.

Like Eminem's music, which seems to feature constant bantering between multiple characters, each with their respective codes of ethics and morality.  Or Wagner's operas, which Nietzsche claims are the closest any artistic creation has come to matching the power of Greek tragedy.  Or even film.  From something as obvious as The Matrix to something as oddly intriguing as WALL-E, technology has been constantly questioned throughout the past many years (thanks to Star Trek).  Or even questioning the value of human life, as seen from the various medical shows that have emerged recently (*cough*Grey'sAnatomy*cough*).  Or even the cartoons I mentioned before (which, thank you for the correction about Moral Orel!).

It's odd that with all this ethical and philosophical thought going on around us, we're still often hesitant to bring it up.  I personally feel much more comfortable discussing ethics than many, many other things.

In my English class, we read an article (I can't read the title right now...  My light's off, as my roommate's asleep) where the author postulated that philosophy and ethics aren't discussed much for fear of offending someone.  I find that offensive!  People are boung to be offended at one time or another.  Why not be offended by something worth being offended by?  If people were to discuss their way through offense, we'd have much more intriguing socialization, and people would probably be much more respectful to each other.

But that's probably just me.  I've never mastered the 'art' of small talk.  To me, if someone exists, I want to know who they are, and small talk has never really satisfied that craving for me.  (I'm currently trying to analyzation this behaviorally.  I'm not outgoing, and yet my conversations are always sort of deep... Maybe I'll write an in-depth psycho-sexual analysis of my behavior soon).

So there you have it.  Give me the chance, and I'll talk your face off about, like, deep things, like atomic destabilization.  And stuff.  Deep stuff.

(Just a side note: I feel that the current problem with our current society is an unwillingness to examine the total effect of our actions.  There seems to be a lack of understanding causation socially.  I've been watching myself really closely recently because of this.  This is one of the things I think ethics education would help eliminate by teaching rational responsibility toward self and others.)

It's no news that pop artists tend to quote music from the past.  And despite my growing enmity for modern pop music, I was floored when I saw Beyonce's last video:



With the exception of the VJ'ing (oh how I love VJ'ing!) at the end of the video, I counted maybe 9 camera changes.  This means these girls have their choreography down.  But let's look deeper.  Three women in black and white performing advanced choreography.  This is an obvious throwback to groups like The Supremes or The Shirelles.  But it's here musically to!  The "oh-oh-oh" lines imitate melodic nuances common to 'Oldies' music, as well as the simplistic lyrics and the intuitive song structure (kudos for both!).  However, the underlying electronic accompaniment and harmonic nuances are very new, just as many of Beyonce's dance moves and the slight touch of modern feminism in the lyrics.

Beyonce has always been vocal about her love for classic R&B performers, and there's no doubt her experience in "Dreamgirls" rubbed off on her, but to see everything culminated in this way is pretty cool.  Subtle, yet very effective.


Another example:



Oingo Boingo's "Stay," from the album "Dead Man's Party."  Elfman first started The Mystic Knights of Oingo Boingo to record a film soundtrack.  It then turned into a cabaret performance ensemble, and then a ska band called Oingo Boingo.  And it never stopped changing.  Midway through the 80's, Elfman's compositions became... different.  Here's a great example.  The microphone he's using and the way he holds himself (usually) seems to be a throwback to Oldies singers.  I.e. The Beatles.  The Beatles had a profound influence on Elfman, and it's all over Boingo's last studio album, so to see these subtle nods to the band, as well as to many other bands, is not very striking.

And musically.  The song tries to imitate Indian vocal nuances and an Eastern flavored drone.  But then, the chorus is totally different.  In fact, the chorus, and even the structure of the lyrics throughout the song, sounds like it was written in the late '50's.  Even though ostinatos and synthesizer tracks typical of the 1980's dominate the color of the music, it's construction is very obviously pulling from different places.  I'm sure there are other elements I'm missing in the video portion (please let me know if you can think of any).  For example, Why the Western theme?  Given Boingo's cabaret roots, it's not too surprising, but it's still kind of odd.  And Elfman always has to have a ghost...

Check out their anything from "Dead Man's Party" or "Insanity" or "Useless" from "Boingo."  Between gamelan, pentachords, Oldies, Beatles, post-minimalism, and alternative rock, Elfman proved himself to be a very creative composer almost 30 years ago.  And we still haven't caught up.


One more.  Warning: this one's slightly disturbing.
 


Mr. Bungle - Travolta (retitled "Quote Unquote" due to licensing issues.)  I can't begin to nail down every element of the video (although the Saturday Night Fever scenes are pretty obvious).  Bungle always draws from the most obscure sources they can. Kind of.  But check out 1:51ish again if you missed something.  That's right, it's the opening track from "Grease."  And Bungle's first album had a very circus-y sound, but it's done very, very intricately.  The song structure was influenced by John Zorn's file-card method (he was their producer), and it features elements of various genres.  If you can help me nail down more of these references, well, I'd be extremely happy...

Note: Anything by Mike Patton is probably post-modern.  If you want to check out some really difficult-yet-intriguing music, Mr. Bungle is the place to start.  (Their last album, "California," is much, much, much more accessible, but all three of their albums are incredibly well-composed and performed.  We're talking virtuosic here.)


But there ya go.  A bit of post-modernism in pop music.  Just my way of procrastinating <justifiably>.