Here’s an album I’ve been listening to a lot lately even though it’s over a year old. Some would call Mike Ladd a rapper. And so, I feel a little bashful about my first music review being a rap CD. Truth is there is some rapping on this CD, but don’t let that scare you – this is smart music. Mr. Ladd, a New Yorker, is likely to doubt that his music extends beyond the 5 boroughs, but this one texan is a proud owner of Negrophilia – few collections dig as deep or attempt to make as much of a statement of this disc. So, if you’re a country music fan (which I am proudly not) this will probably be a stretch for you.
The genre of music here is hard to define, but one in which I’ve been seeking out lately. Music that crosses the boundaries of electronica and jazz while avoiding the black holes that are rock & pop. In other words, the music is artsy. And in listening to Ladd’s compositions you feel as if you’re absorbing a performace art troop at a hip Manhattan establishment.
One clear defining element of this work is the jazz musicians that are either 1) dictating the melodic phrases that Ladd filters through to define key emotions or is it 2) that Ladd is creating the music logic (ala sheet music?) which is filtered through these talented musicians. My feeling is the latter, and not to simply give Ladd the benefit of the doubt. But, one can hear the type of phrases that clearly come with some specified direction. On “Back At Ya”, the troop is actually quite limited. There is a clear harmony and melody followed throughout. Fortunately, the musicians push free jazz phrasing through the mix. The post-mash-up is a reconstruction of the recorded jam that defines the true talents of the artist. What I imagine to be a painstaking effort that too many who have never messed with electronic music will likely overlook but will hopefully appreciate the freshness.
Other reviews of this disc point out that the ambitious attempt results in a slightly flawed or jumbled statement of black american culture. But, again, Ladd is showing many facets in this work. Part of the cultural statements is to illustrate the numerous facets and the complex interplay of sub-cultures. The album begins to peter-out with instrumentals of what is to sound like comfortable older couples engaging in NY high life. And these gorgeous yet simple pieces (“Sam and Milli Dine Out” and “Nancy and Carl go Christmas Shopping”) are hard to justify next to caustic tales of blacks treated as second class citizens in our not-so-distant past, and more subtle (yet humorous) commentary of “Sleep Patterns of Black Expatriots Circa 1960″.
As music goes, it is important to have themes. As a listener, we can decide how much to invest in this. And so, when it comes down to it, the music – this new genre that attempts to side-step Rock/Pop and establish a truly American art form that combines jazz, spoken word, and digital capabilities – is quite exceptional to this white jazz nerd now living in the South.
Category: Uncategorized
So, I’m in this band, Concentric. I began it about 5 years ago as an outlet for my “songwriting.” Yes, the quotes around songwriting are intentional. When you write instrumental music, you sometimes feel that you’re not really writing music even though it may be more complex than vocal music. When are you done? Has the theme gotten to repetitive? Has the intended emotion of the song been communicated?
Anyway, once you get your head deep into songwriting, it becomes like any other creative outlet – you start to become over-sensitive.
In the latest incarnation of Concentric, we’re doing a lot of simultaneous cooperative songwriting – basically jamming -free of any borders. A free jazz jam isn’t always that free with me. I can’t help myself sometimes – I get too concerned about trying to write more structure on the fly. Here are two snippets from our last jam where about 2 or 3 minutes into it, I’ve found a phrase, I can’t let go – I’m jammed in too tight.
Here’s a first sample…another short spring Austin went from freezing to 100F in a matter of 3 weeks)
Here’s the second…where you’re from (a random title, a brooding tale of your troubled youth – you are haunted)
Anyway, being jammed in tight is not bad for the bass player (that’s me), that’s because humans like the bass simple and repetive. Almost always – from rap to punk to classical. Why, I don’t know – some biological reason? a repetition of a low pitch snore that comforts you as a child?
This week I’ve been working on a first year report on a grant I have, to represent mechanical systems with graphs – part of the report has to be fairly well-simplifed as it may be seen by a US senator. So, I’ve been thinking about how well understood the concept of a graph is. Do you know what a graph is? A graph is one of many things dictionaries and encyclopedias only whittle it down to about 10 definitions a piece. What I refer to is unfortunately referred to as a mathematical graph.
But are these ever use by normal people in everyday life? Yes. Even senators are likely to have seen a few. For example, that playoff schedule for March madness, your family tree, a map to your house, a diagram from a user’s manual, and a flowchart.
Mathematicians dig graphs and a whole bunch of theory can be applied to them. But when it really comes down to it, these graphs are a way to visualize complex things in life – be it a playoff schedule or the innards of an automotive part.
But, is that all a graph is good for – presenting information? Or can graphs be used in reverse? Can we first make a graph and then use it as a template for the design of something?
Turns out, this has become a real calling in life for me. So, more to come on this topic.
I want to take a simplified view of energy today. First off, why do we need energy?
A. lighting: the original use of energy – old folks still refer to energy companies as the light company. People want to see when it’s dark – to read, to work more, to see what went bump in the night. No changing this, shy of taking a more aggressive approach to daylight savings time. Bulbs are pretty darn inefficient, and new sources such as fluorescent, halogen, and LEDs are better but people tend to prefer the yellow-y glow. Oh well, we should be able to mimic that soon (if not already) with LEDs.
B. computers/audio/visual – your cell phone, your mp3 player, your laptop with the battery that always goes out. In general these things are pretty efficient, and manufacturers are driven to make them more so – despite the energy crisis – for portability and longer use
C. all things mechanical (transportation/dishwashers/lawnmowers ) – here’s where things get interesting! Basically we like our mechanical energy as something that spins, since spinning things are compact (compared to things moving out along a straight line) and easy to change into something else.
How can we make things spin?
1. an engine – powered by gasoline/petroleum
2. a motor – powered by electricity
3. animal power – yokes, bicycles
4. air pressure/wind – those cool air-powered tools at the mechanic’s
5. water pressure/waterwheels
The latter three are hardly taken seriously in many products. Why? Three reasons:
i. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in energy type (spinning to reciprocating, spinning to spinning at higher speeds, etc.)
ii. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in time (i.e. storage – you can make energy now, but want to use it later)
iii. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in space (transmission – you can make energy here, but you need it there).
Of course, there’s also the issue of amount. You can probably walk to the store, but the amount of energy required to walk to Toronto is not something you plan to expend on your next business trip. At any rate, these inefficiencies need to be better understood before we rule these seemingly lo-fi solutions out (3, 4, and 5). Hybrid energy is about combining these 5 to solve your problems as opposed to simply relying on one. Using multiple energy sources is a painful way to do the task at hand, so “hybridding” should be driven by manufacturers doing this for you seamlessly.
But it’s hard to resist the lure of that electric motor. The good thing about itis that it takes the same input as A and B above – electricity. So, that’s why we need energy – specifically electrical energy.
Problem is, electricity is also prone to the “inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in space.” There was a talk the other week on fallacies of the hydrogen economy. I couldn’t make it, but grilled some who went. It seems the speaker had no hidden agenda but was merely pointing out the absurbity in using energy to make hydrogren to translate back into energy as opposed to making energy in the first place. That’s a fine thing to hang your hat on, and I imagine one could do quite a bit of math to prove it – although fairly straightforward.
Here’s my concern: No one would agree that Duracells (or Energizers) would solve the energy crisis. But, still, we use batteries all the time. Why? Aren’t you listening?! Because of the discrepancy in space – they’re portable. What else is portable? hydrogen, gasoline, and well us – assuming we’re going along for the ride.
Putting the “epi-“ on the word “cycle” refers to the rotation of something upon something else. Remember that spirograph you had as a kid? Those fun little doodles are often the result of making a round piece rotate upon or within some other shape. So, this is a rather nice word, epicycle. It has some subtle mathematical implications that I like and can make some rather complex and beautiful shapes – math and art in one.
One rather popular use of the word is as it is used to describe epicyclic gear trains or planetary gears. This happens to be a wonderful invention that defies many in its ability to compactly and efficiently produce a large mechanical advantage. The design transcends patents and is now both a highly used concept and a wonderful demonstration of kinematic mechanisms. So, part of the naming is based on this as well.
Finally, I can see an analogy between epicyclic rotations and my daily grind. What I mean is that I have a vocation that takes a huge chunk of my time. But, the research and teaching of engineering design is surrounded by my other passions (or rotations) namely music and other creative endeavors.
A search on epicycle brings up a little history too. The view that the earth was the center of the universe has been debunked by showing how nearly impossible it would be for heavenly bodies to move in an epicyclic fashion. Therefore the use of the term could also be used as a badge of believing more in the power of scientific discovery than blind faith. I’m not sure I wanna make a stand on this (at least just yet). It’s fascinating though to know that some very bright people (even from 2200 years ago) are not immune to going great lengths to justify or cover up what they want to believe in.
I’ve been taking an extended weekend to spend time with my parents and
grandmother who are visiting from up north. Most conversations revolve
around what we will see or saw in our day. But some of the most
rewarding conversations are with my dad talking about mechanical things.
My dad has the world’s best mechanical intuition and can fix about
anything or understand why something works the way it does or why it is
likely to break. I inherited a smidgen of this and its helpful as a
teacher of engineering design. So I have some basis for making the
pending parenting advice.
It is true that young Americans are quite gadget-savvy yet many are not
pursuing an occupation in high tech areas. – that is to say, fewer US
students are majoring in engineering. If you read that paranoia too in
The World is Flat and would like to foster some DaVinci or Eintein in
your child here’s some blatant advice.
Lots of math and science activities are important in budding engineers,
but so are design and repair activities. Design is tough – it’s
expensive. When I was young I drew a lot – a great way to exercise
one’s design skills – crafts, cooking, playing music all feed into a
drive to want to make stuff – which is one glamourous aspect of
engineering. But something that’s easier and can be very satisfying is
repair. Helping a child repair a toy is an experience they are not
likely to forget.
Kids break toys all the time, many are in fact designed to fail. I don’t
care how much you chastise them about being careful and conscientious,
but one time see if the toy has the following properties.
a) it doesn’t plug in
b) it is primarily held together by screws (you do own a screwdriver,
right?)
c) has failed/broken in a non-obvious way. Meaning something inside is
broken – not on the surface.
This toy is a perfect opportunity to do repair. That sounds boring, but
the reward is that the child gets the toy again in (possibly) complete
working order, and they earned it!
Now guide them through taking the thing apart. Careful with the screws -
you collect them, don’t penalize the sloppiness – they have a delicate
momentum now that should be fostered. Ask leading questions, “What do
you think we’ll find inside?” “what do you think this thing component
does?” Mention that engineering designers created the toy – made all the
decisions about how long, how wide, what color? Present these mythical
beasts as happy elves that love their job and making children happy.-
well don’t make them too magical – but don’t make them about to be a
bunch of mean businessmen in 3-piece suits either.
The good thing about many electromechanical devices is that when they
break we can really see what went wrong. The material cracked, a spring
jumped off of a post, etc. Finding what’s broke may take some patience
and persistence. If something is complicated you can be boggled by the
complexity, but the more you look at it the simpler it gets. Asks what
should the toy do, why is it not doing it now… this may help both of
you find the problem.
In the end, I give you a 40% chance of fixing it. Oh well, you tried.
You can try again. The repairing exercise will build mechanical
intuition even if the toy doesn’t go together again. Also that
intimidation factor you both feel will diminish. There’s no magic in
technology just a lot of time and cooperation. Repair is maybe not as
glamorous as design but it’s still important in a lot of industries and
cheaper and easier as a learning exercise.
It’s that time of year again (at least in this southern region) to fire up the lawnmower and make for a presentable abode. The recent Wired article on transgenic lawns is as captivating as any Wired article. I find it to essentially be a rebuttal to some NYTimes cover story that they reference. In short, the Wired article claims that the transgenic grass is not taking over Oregon as some apparently believe, and that even though transgenic has a negative connotation – plant life is plant life – the more of it the better we all are. What’s wrong with boosting a grass’ DNA to be immune to one of our man-made pesticides anyway? Probably something, but nobody knows what. I would think the answer is so utterly impossible to predict that your most erudite global ecologists will have an opinion as defensible as Kurt Vonnegut would might have. So I’m sitting the fence on this one.
And short of ripping up our yard and installing a xeriscape (my friend says “xeriscape just means your yard will look like crap”). I’ll be plowing down the St. Augustine that I so cherish every week in my two-stroke polluter. The neighbor newsletter once extolled the benefits of a push mower – doesn’t pollute (chemically or aurally) and you get a ton of exercise. So, my idea for the day is to find something between a mower powered by human-yoking and a mower powered by an internal combustion engine. The answer to me seems obvious – a bicycle mower! Think of it, bike parts are so well-evolved.
You won’t go fast, so you’d need basically some low gearing to move both the wheels and the blades. Perhaps a flywheel is in order to keep the blades spinning fast and evenly. Of course, safety will demand a brake or two (one on the blades and one on the wheels). Plus there’s the issue of bike tires on your lawn. You’d need fatter tires to prevent damaging the lawn – perhaps like mountain-bike tires from a kids bike – only fatter.
Here are two ideas, the first is a recumbent with blades. Careful getting on and off!
This one is hybrid of the gym stair climber, the roomba, and the segway.
You’d get a good view of where the blades were – maneuverability could be a plus if you could design the geartrain.
I had a dream last night that my wife and I were flying to Paris. Sounds
great, but in the dream we never leave the airport. It
was one of those anxious dreams where you never accomplish the menial
tasks of, in this case, boarding an airplane. In the dream I have
trouble with the TSA people, which isn’t exactly fantasy. Ever since the
ramp-up in security, I’ve been on their watch-list. Not me specifically
but rather my name is apparently a cause for alarm. If this happens to
you, you should know that there is a form on the TSA site that can
remove you from said list. I never knew it existed until it was
mentioned to me rather casually by a check-in agent. You can get that
form here if you’re in the same boat and afraid you’ll miss your plane.
Anyway, this uninteresting dream lead me to a new brainteaser which I’m
not sure is solvable. Here goes…
You’re lucky enough to get a first class window seat on a transatlantic
flight, but your (wife, husband, friend, etc.) is stuck in a middle seat
in coach. You’d like to sit with them but you can’t get over the fact
that you’d have to give up such a great seat. You happen to know that
there are a few empty middle seats in coach, so you’d ideally move back
to coach to join your friend so long as the two of you can have that
extra seat in your row to stretch out in. What’s the minimum number of
moves of people you can make to arrange this (if it’s even possible)?
Understand that you can move people, or rather convince people to move
only if they get a better seat.
1. first class is preferred to coach
2. window seats are preferred to aisle seats
3. aisle seats are preferred to middle seats
4. and sitting next to an empty seat is preferred to sitting next to
people.
Make sense? Is there a solution?
I’ve been interested in starting a blog for months now. When I happened upon Yahoo!’s new 360 approach earlier this week. I decided to jump in. After messing around with 360, I soon became dissatisified with it – no custom url’s, and the typical cartoon-y Yahoo! look and feel. My dissatification was compounded by the fact that I really like to interact with as few internet and computer companies as possible. You see, I currently use Yahoo! a lot. I use them as my default home page. I find phone #’s, and directions with them. I do all my internet searches with them. I choose movies and restaurants by on Yahoo! pages. The thruth is, I honestly believe I am most efficient when I work closely with one site/company/product.
I would say that this is not the norm compared to many. I, for instance, like Microsoft products for the same reason. Many people though, would rather be a little edgy – buck the establishment if you will – going to many different sources for their various needs. Is this better or worse?
It’s all really a second-order-effect, the primary effect should be performance and/or cost. But our decisions are often muddled by some commitment to companies we’ve used in the past. Why should we care commit our affections to such companies?
Perhaps to confirm our past decisions. Or for those of you who have antiestablishment leanings, it more about being unique in supporting the little guy, and avoiding being a contributer to big corporations which have all been evil in America for the last 50 years or more (the facetiousness is intentional here).
So in summary. I’ve defected from Yahoo! on this one, and went with blogger.com. Such instances can be sources of important self-reflection. Now hopefully I can apply this to other things. But I must say that I’m still anxiously waiting at the “gates of microsoft” for whatever slightly-clunky-but-extremely-useful product they let out next.
Here it is, futureman or futurewoman!
You’ve scrolled all the back to my first blog back in March of ’06. God, remember the Naughts?! What a crazy time.
So, the motivation for starting a blog should probably go here. And, what can I say about the need or desire for such a thing? Yes, it is egotistical. Yes, it is self-serving. But, I can sincerely say of the latter that I hope it helps me in organizing my thoughts – and once an entry is written I have satisfied my goal (thoughts instantly organized into electronic bits). I post it online just in case that I am one day famous, and you – futurewoman or futureman – are here to see what made this famous person tick. Or perhaps, you are from a future not far removed from this present tense, and are indeed reading this as a way to assuage your guilt for not doing that arduous thing that you are supposed to be doing.
Well, that makes two of us!
Right now, I am supposed to be making up a test for my grad students to take in the not-so-distant-future – a.k.a. tomorrow morning. The test is to see how well the students have learned a dozen or so optimization algorithms, which as far as I can tell is a difficult thing to ask on paper. It’s like asking a dance major to draw their moves on paper instead of performing them.
As for the title of this seminal entry- my wife has a pet name for me which is dude-a-lator. She is not fond of me using the term “dude”, and so her approach is to internalize it as a name for me. This is a two-prong term as it feeds into my tendencies as a professional procrastinator. What’s that, futureman (or futurewoman)? You’re a procrastinator too?! Well, then you too can be as famous as me someday!
