MathOfInsects
-
Posts
6,603 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by MathOfInsects
-
-
This sent me to Wikipedia, since I knew nothing about her. She's impressive all around. Obviously no soloists will worry about losing their career over this, but amazing she could pull this off after apparently not having taken a single lesson in 20-odd years. And her perfect SAT and LSAT scores feel right for the mayor of a city that contains both Harvard and MIT. Cool lady.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'm not sure if it's a personality quirk or some kind of brain damage, but my favorite song has always been "The next great song I hear." I have no musical nostalgia. There are tons (and tons and tons) of great songs and artists from my past that I still enjoy checking back in with from time to time, just as there are tons (and tons and tons) I'm completely happy never to hear from again. But I never feel like all the great songs have been written and all the great records have been made. As Certified Old Guy Paul Simon said, "Every generation throws a hero on the pop charts.)
Flip side, the periods of time in my life where I haven't actively played music, have been the darkest for me. And now that I've been at it full-time for so long, if I go a week without playing, I'm lost. I don't know how to encounter the world not through music.
I will say, though, that the couple of times I've been forced into time off, either because of circumstance or personal issues, I've come back a stronger musician for it. So maybe OP is just going through one of those "shedding" periods that all creative people need to continue growing.
-
2
-
-
I don't know the board, but can you assign any morphing parameters to any buttons or controllers? Short of that, could you do @Delaware Dave's good idea but assign the step-up/step-down to something like a footswitch?
-
3 hours ago, El Lobo said:
The Box Tops
The AssociationThe Doors
The Turtles (studio guys, but put a band on the road)The Young Rascals
The Music Explosion
Tommy James and the Shondells (I think I was in a show with those guys)
The Buckinghams (I knew those guys, we played the same club)Soul Survivors
Jay & the Techniques
Strawberry Alarm Clock
The Rolling Stones
Buffalo Springfield
The Beatles
Jefferson Airplane
The Esquires
The Happenings (?)
Procul Harum
The Casinos
The Hollies
The Tremeloes (?)
The Cowsills (family band)
Herman's Hermits
The Seekers
The Hollies
Blues Magoos
The Easybeats
The Spencer Davis Group
The Grass Roots
Booker T. & the M.G.'sThe Electric Prunes
The Who
For sure, though you skipped over this caveat: "not compared to the..."X and the Y's" where the Y was put together for X by a producer, and "bands" that were manufactured wholecloth for recordings and tours." I crossed some of your entries out and some I wouldn't know well enough to cross out or not. BUT...we're left with 28 out of 100. That's really my point. Even in what we would think of as a golden age of bands, there were still two "solo" artists for every one band out there.
In separate news, I'll be swinging through the Bay Area for a few shows this weekend. You're from there, correct? Happy to share details if you think you might make it out to something. Blues artist.
-
I think the struggle to explain the premise ignores that no explanation is really needed. You might as well ask where all the doo-wop groups are now. It's true, there are fewer of them, if any. But they didn't "mysteriously disappear."
Here is the Hot 100 chart from 1967. I didn't pick that year for any reason other than I thought it would be in the sweet spot of "band" days. Guess what? Barely any bands. Yes, some. But not compared to the individual artists, the "X and the Y's" where the Y was put together for X by a producer, and "bands" that were manufactured wholecloth for recordings and tours.
The premise is flawed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1967-
1
-
-
They have a Liquid Stand in a studio I record in a lot. Nice enough stand but definitely not for the gigging musician. Not terribly stable over repeated use, either.
-
2
-
-
Regardless of what he played on earlier in the decade, this recording is a Rhodes.
-
1
-
-
That's Zawinul, right? It's almost certainly a Rhodes, which is what it sounds like to me anyway. Pianet is chimier. Not a Wurly.
-
They're eating the dogs!!
They're eating the cats!!!!!
They're eating the pets of the people who live there!!!!!!!!!!
-
On 9/13/2024 at 12:22 AM, Jim Alfredson said:
I take a certain amount of pride in doing the entire gig on two keyboardsComplete same. I love the puzzle.
-
1
-
-
There is a rubric in these cases that allows for less explicit similarity if there is greater demonstrable exposure to the original.
I think Miley C was probably at least subconsciously referring to the original with the "flowers" line and where she goes in the chorus, harmonically. Maybe even consciously. (Harmony is not a factor in these cases.)
BUT...yeah, not seeing much legs on this one. A Hail Mary by the greedy.
Copyright protection was initially a means of encouraging artistic creation by ensuring big corporations (or their equivalent at the time) couldn't take artists' work and profit off it at the artists' expense. It has shifted to become a tool of extortion by those very corporations--to become the exact situation it was created to avoid. Does anyone really think Bruno Mars was sitting home thinking "How dare Miley use the word 'flowers'?? That has harmed my career and cost me security and renown!"??
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Stokely said:
What's weird (though not surprising) is that the same survey or poll was in various news articles and some of them said the exact opposite.
Surveys in particular are weird. 10% of people if asked if they'd eat their children raw will answer "Yes" either because they don't understand the question or just want to be trolls.
Just saw one poll where more than half of Republicans asked believe Haitians are eating pets, case in point. I prefer to believe polls are just whackadoodle for my own sanity, people really couldn't be that dumb, right? (don't answer that)
Her endorsement hurting Harris makes no sense to me--who is going to change their vote, or get out to vote when they weren't planning to, based on that? But I could also it it meaning nothing in the end.
Going to be a wild ride, buckle up Mr. Toad.I couldn't click that link, but the URL made me think it was perhaps not as reliable a source as might be hoped. There are a few polls out about this now. The one(s) I read yesterday said that only 8% might vote a certain way as a result of it. But in this election, 8% is the Golden Ticket, Willie Wonka Grand Prize of electorate subsections, so I think that number would be terrifying the GOP right now. Any future "I HATE ___ ___ " posts will surely be met with amputation.
-
11 hours ago, nursers said:
Hiya - no. no online voting here
One of the arguable strengths of the system here is that the ballot papers are all still paper-based. Results are certainly aggregated on computer etc at end of the day but any recount involves a physical re-count of the ballot papers. Less than 30 million people though so more doable although our neighbour to the north (Indonesia) has a somewhat similar approach and they are closer to the size of the US 
We don't have online voting here either (at least in federal elections); no idea if some local elections in various places allow it. However I think we're only one biometric generation away from turning online voting into the most accurate means of ballot access. We don't make Election Day a holiday here (for mysterious and also, sadly, not-so-mysterious reasons), so there is a real need to ensure access for those who can't get the day off or can't get to the polls.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, ProfD said:
In Rock music, there have been plenty bands across the various styles of it (Punk, Metal, New Wave, Grunge, Alternative, etc.).
There's no shortage of 4-5 piece Rock ensembles gigging up to present.
I haven't watched RB's video either but I'd imagine the bands that spoke to his generation may be fading fast.😁😎
Right, I put that confusingly. There was a brief period of time where bands were what people thought of when they thought of pop music--where if you named an act, it was understood to be a band. But that time came and went. 60's and 90's mostly. And even then, a lot of groups we thought of as bands, were put together to tour and we thought of those people as the "band." I don't think the proportion is really any different right now. (Meaning, I agree with you.)
-
49 minutes ago, ProfD said:
Whenever the artists have to perform or tour, their MD will pull a band together.
This was the case for most pop stars too. There was a brief period of time where "bands" as a self-contained concept were a thing, but those were the exception. In most cases, an artist was signed, a hit was produced, and a band was assembled to $upport that hit. This was even true with "girl groups" and "boy groups," where all the singing members were hand-picked by a producer to fit the pre-made concept, and the rest was put together by the producer in the studio, until the time came to tour.
RB just happens to be from the brief period of time--and focused on a specific genre--where bands were a more common phenomenon. Without watching the video (which I'm going to opt of), I'd have to argue that he was just more familiar with the bands back then, so thought there were more of them, and now it's just a wash of pop and rap to him, so it all seems different. -
5 minutes ago, Anderton said:
The only problem is if one of the candidates is an uncumbent and should be doing their job, and the other person is simply running for office and doesn't owe the voters anything yet. A short campaign doesn't solve that problem, but it would be a major improvement that would have other benefits. Like not driving me crazy with never-ending political ads that say the other side is the spawn of Satan.
The other issue is that the membrane between "doing your job" and "campaigning" is v-e-r-r-r-r-r-y thin when you are an incumbent. Name recognition alone gives a nearly insurmountable advantage that only the worst, most criminal, and oldest-seeming of our incumbents have failed to overcome. So it would take some nuance to craft an appropriate run-up arrangement that gives a challenger a shot, given the privilege of position the incumbent always enjoys.
That "immunity" decision of last month greatly complicates this issue as well. (NYT has some sobering reporting about this this week. Safe to say the time for SCOTUS reform is more than overdue.)I think the primary system might be where the greatest possibility of reform might exist. But I also think there is no incentive for Those Already In Charge ever to make a decision that would threaten their position.
-
3 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:
Would it be even possible - and I can hear the outcry from the industry now - to label programs as we do cigarettes, gmo, or what have you. When the talking heads are telling us how we should think and feel about the events of the day OPINION appears on the corner of the screen. It obviously disappears on journalistic segments. Print magazines and papers don’t seem to have any trouble labeling opinion. (Of course the opinion shows would remain the most popular because clearly that’s what many prefer. But at least the owners/management are forced to admit the programs are BS).
I have actually mused that what we need is the opposite--or rather, the absurd extreme: I feel the GOP and the DNC should have their own channels. I know the obvious joke about this, that they already do (cough-cough FOX and MSNBC). But I think it would help both parts of the equation--the parties and the putative news networks--to just give the parties complete access to the airwaves and let them do their thing however they want. That takes some pressure off the don't-call-them-surrogate stations to please any "base," and maybe they would nudge back over toward reporting again. At the very least, it would clearly identify the partisan stations as the source of any information that was shared. That would be a massive step forward in its own right.
-
1
-
-
We're not really 50/50 as a country, we are 50/50 as a partisan voting population. Or rather, we are, but it's actually "50" non-affiliated and "50" a member of either party.
The 50-50 partisan votes are because each party has to cobble together these weird ragtag coalitions of strange bedfellows in order to be "the one of the two" that people pull the handle for when it comes time to do so. So what they need to do is compete AGAINST each other, as opposed to advocating FOR any one thing in particular.
The country used to have more Democrats than Republicans, so the right had to do a bit more heavy lifting when it came to scrabbling together a coalition. That's why they ended up with these multiple competing concepts of "conservative," which, across the party, can mean anything from a Libertarian "Gubmint Off My Guns" to an authoritarian "Government in your wedding vows" or "Government in your deathbed" or "Government in your uterus."
But even then, the left also only had about a third of the population, which is why it needs to pretend the things it wants to do won't raise your taxes or change your personal choices.
Now, with each party only drawing about a quarter of the population, both have to frame the concepts in the "middle" in ways that best slice up the rest of the 50% in their favor. This is VERY hard to do with two parties, since each one only needs to "beat" the other. As a result, there is this constant tug-of-war of dangling better and better tasting candy for the kids to gravitate to. It will always fight to a draw.
When there is a third party, both existing parties tend to trend toward populism (third-party candidates are always populists)--that is, advocating FOR (people) instead of AGAINST (each other). Even then, though, the third party inevitably drops out, and his or her slice of the pie is divided up between the two vultures who race, equally, to the bottom of the plate together.
It seems completely clear that ranked choice is a superior system for the places it's been tried. The question is whether it could ever make its way through the gauntlet of "Those With The Most To Lose From It," for our federal system ever to convert to it.
What we discovered recently is that our Democracy is only as strong as our agreements around it. We have a lot of ceremony built in to our cultural agreements. We've learned lately that all is takes is someone literally simply deciding not to agree, for the system to teeter.
I'll be curious to see what comes, retrospectively, from this era in our development as a nation.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ElmerJFudd said:
Yes, actual humans in action. No false identities, no machines or software replicating human behavior x 100,000. All acts have friends and family who support them whether they love the music or not.
Pushback for the sake of conversation:
No machines?? No software??
What are you listening on? What was it recorded on? What were the instruments?? How was it sent to the service? What is it being delivered by?
The old quote is "technology is anything invented after we were born." In this case, the gripe is not machines, software, automation, or anything of the sort. It's the NEWNESS of the particular machine/software/automation in question.
Rebuttals?
-
Wurly all day.
-
3
-
-
Sometimes "sorry" is just not enough.
-
1
-
5
-
-
Spotify makes 30% of whatever revenue they bring in. That revenue is based on ad sales, which are higher if they can prove higher impressions. So an alternate argument is that all those clicks made everyone money, including Spotify.
-
Thank you (both). OK, so @ElmerJFudd is onto it with the potential tax evasion aspect. It's less about the streaming than about what happened to (and with the money) after he got it. He got Al Caponed.
-
1 hour ago, ElmerJFudd said:
How Spotify views their role and the role of distributors and artists in combating fraud (aka artificial streaming).
Interesting. And yet...the penalties they describe are removal from Spotify and/or making sure those streams don't count against your total. It does say something about a vague "penalty fee," but at this point I'm sure Our Hero would have been glad for that to be the outcome. It doesn't mention any legal recourse.
Spotify calls it "streaming fraud," but I wonder if @cedar can clarify if that's an actual thing....?
Is music dying, changing… Or is it just me?
in The Keyboard Corner
Posted
I believe Einstein said each of the quotes above.
Music is alive and ever-living. We are dying. That's the way of the world.
(By the way, "That's the way of the world, plant your flower and you grow a pearl," is, of course, also Einstein.)