Lonely Gender is genderqueer and is talking about gender issues related to questioning and transition. And it’s really well written and everybody should go read it.
I kind of quit posting on my own blog because I felt like I was saying some problematic sort of internalized badness things. I wrote several months ago that coming out as trans was equivalent to talking about my genitals, which is just wrong. It’s like saying that being gay is all about genitals. It’s just not. And I thought that I didn’t need to be inflecting that crap on the world, so I shut up.
I kind of miss blogging and might start it up again in earnest.
Tag: celesteh
More Tuning
While continuing to ponder tuning, I realized that it would be possible to create a dissonance curve for just intonation. Instead of judging how close the frequencies are to each other to look for roughness, you would look at what tuning ratio they described. If one frequency was 1.5 times the other, then that’s a ratio of 3 / 2. Then add the numerator and denominator to get 5. Then scale by amplitude.
In Sethares’ dissonance curves, you get scale degrees by searching for minima in the curve, but that approach is not a meaningful way to sort just ratios. Instead, they can be sorted by their relative dissonance.
I’ve updated my class, DissonanceCurve.sc (and fixed the url. sorry) so it can do just curves also. I ran it with the following (rough draft-ish) code:
b = Buffer.alloc(s,1024); // use global buffers for plotting the data
c = BufferTool.open(s, "sounds/a11wlk01.wav");
// when that's loaded, evaluate the following
(
Task({
d = SynthDef(foo,
{ FFT(b, PlayBuf.ar(1, c.bufnum, BufRateScale.kr(c.bufnum))); 0.0 }).play;
0.2.rand(3.7).wait;
e = DissonanceCurve.newFromFFT(b, 1024, highInterval: 2, action: {arg dis;
var degr, top5;
d.free;
dis.scale.do({ |deg|
postf(" % / %,",
deg.numerator, deg.denominator);
});
"n---just---".postln;
dis.scale.size.max(25).do({ |index|
degr = dis.just_scale[index];
postf(" % / %,",
degr.numerator, degr.denominator);
});
});
}).play
)
And, after seriously heating up my computer, and waiting a bit, I got the following output:
1 / 1, 29 / 28, 6 / 5 , 5 / 4 , 33 / 26, 4 / 3, 15 / 11, 29 / 21, 7 / 5, 10 / 7, 3 / 2 , 8 / 5, 5 / 3, 27 / 16, 49 / 29, 12 / 7, 67 / 39, 7 / 4, 17 / 9, 2 / 1, ---just--- 1 / 1, 3 / 2, 2 / 1, 4 / 3, 5 / 4, 6 / 5, 7 / 6, 9 / 8, 8 / 7, 10 / 9, 5 / 3, 12 / 11, 15 / 14, 13 / 12, 11 / 10, 16 / 15, 9 / 7, 7 / 5, 14 / 13, 22 / 21, 7 / 4, 10 / 7, 21 / 20, 11 / 8, 11 / 9,
The top section is the Sethares algorithm dissonance curve. I made a minor adjustment so that it looks at fractions one cent on either side of them minima and grabs the simpler one if it exists. (This is optional, add “simplify: false” to the method invokation to turn it off.)
The bottom section is the 25 least dissonant just ratios. Looking first at those, note that 1/1 is the least dissonant,as one would expect. Usually, 2/1 would be next, but note that in this case, it’s 3/2 instead. The algorithm does favor low number ratios, which is logical. Notice, also, that it tends to favor smaller numbers. There are a lot of (d+1)/d fractions: 4/3, 5/4, 6/5, 7/6, 9/8. It hugely favors these numbers. The top half of the octave is under represented. I do not know why this is so.
But Sethares’ algorithm, because it uses the critical band, tends to favor higher pitches as more consonant. However, since we search for minima rather than order the intervals by dissonance, this tendency’s effect on the results is reduced.
Both of these computations of dissonance seem to give meaningful data that does seem to have some kind of correlation to each other. On both lists we find, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, etc. However, the length of the list of just ratios is arbitrary. If we take only the Sethares intervals that are in the top 5% most consonant (least dissonant) just intervals, we are left with:
1/1, 29/28, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 15/11, 7/5, 10/7, 3/2, 8/5, 5/3, 12/7, 7/4, 2/1
Of those, 29/28 is the most dissonant, by both measures, so it may not be a the best scale degree. If that’s the case, then the top 5% is not the best cutoff. So what is? How do we choose it?
On the other hand, one way that just intonation is corralled is through factorization limits. For example, 7-limit tuning means that all the numbers in the ratios must be multiples of numbers that are less than 7. So 14 is ok (7 * 2), but 11 and 13 are not, as they’re prime and greater than 7. If we were to apply a 7-limit to the Sethares curve, the scale we would have is
1/1, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 7/5, 10/7, 3/2, 8/5, 5/3, 27/16, 12/7, 7/4, 2/1
Is that better? Does the 27/16 (aka: (3*3*3)/(4*4)) impact that?
Alas, we can’t use our ears because we don’t know what moment of the source was measured. But we can use our ears with a synthetic sound whose frequency content is known.
f = [50] ++ ( [50/27, 18/7, 54/25, 25/27, 9/7, 27/25, 25/54, 9/14, 27/50] * 300); a = [0.055, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.105, 0.105, 0.105, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11]; e = DissonanceCurve.new(f, a, 2);
With some print statements, abbreviated for the sake of not being too boring, we get a Sethares scale of 1, 7/6, 25/21, 25/18, 36/25, 42/25, 12/7, 2, which, note, falls within a 7-limit. For the top 8 just results, we get, 1, 3/2, 6/5, 5/4, 7/5, 5/3, 34/27, 10/9. A list which does not include 2! And if we do the top 5% thing described above, we get, 1, 7/6, 25/21, 25/18, 36/25, 2. And we can compare these aurally:
(
SynthDef("space", {|out = 0, freq = 440, amp 0.2, dur = 1, pan = 0|
var cluster, env, panner;
// detune
freq = freq + 2.0.rand2;
cluster =
SinOsc.ar(50, 1.0.rand, 0.055 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 50/27) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.1 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 18/7) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.1 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 54/25) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.1 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 25/27) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.105 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 9/7) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.105 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 27/25) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.105 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 25/54) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.11 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 9/14) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, 0.11 * amp) +
SinOsc.ar((freq * 27/50) + 1.0.rand2, 1.0.rand, amp * 0.11);
env = EnvGen.kr(Env.perc(0.05, dur + 1.0.rand, 1, -4), doneAction: 2);
panner = Pan2.ar(cluster, pan, env);
Out.ar(out, panner);
}).send(s);
)
(
Pbind(
//Sethares
freq, Prand([1, 7/6, 25/21, 25/18, 36/25, 42/25, 12/7, 2] *300, 27),
dur, 0.3,
instrument, space,
amp, 0.2,
pan, 0
).play
)
(
Pbind(
// Just
freq, Prand([1, 3/2, 6/5, 5/4, 7/5, 5/3, 34/27, 10/9] *300, 27),
dur, 0.3,
instrument, space,
amp, 0.2,
pan, 0
).play
)
(
Pbind(
// Top 5%
freq, Prand([1, 7/6, 25/21, 25/18, 36/25, 2] *300, 27),
dur, 0.3,
instrument, space,
amp, 0.2,
pan, 0
).play
)
Which of those pbinds do you think sounds best? Leave a comment.
Questions about Differing Approaches to Tuning
Let’s start by all admitting that Equal Temperament is a compromise and that computers can do better. They’re fast at math and nothing physical needs to move, so we can can do better and be more in tune. (The next admission is that I haven’t had the attention span to actually read all the way through the Just Intonation Primer, although it is a very informative book and everyone should buy a copy and actually read it. Nor have a I read Tuning Timbre Spectrum Scale, alas.)
When we say “in tune,” what does that actually mean? On the one hand, we are talking about beating. You know that when you’re trying to tune two sound-generating objects playing the same note, there’s weird phasing and stuff that happens until you get it right. The beating sound you get when tuning a guitar. There’s also just a sort of roughness you hear when you play two notes that are really close to each other, like a C and a C# together. Both of these things seem to have something to do with being in tune and both suggest possible approaches.
Just Intonation, seem to be all about beating and zero crossings. Note relationships described with ratios in which the numerator and denominator are small, whole numbers have less beating. This is because when the waveforms cross, it’s at the low energy position, so they don’t interfere. 3/2 is thus very in tune. You can compute the amount of dissonance by adding the numerator to the denominator. Lower numbers are more in tune.
Bill Sethares, though, likes ten tone equal temperament (and writing songs in Klingon) and came up with some timbres that sound good in such a strange tuning. He’s got some math about dissonance curves. The roughness mentioned above has to do with how our ears work and critical bandwidth. If we hear two tones that are close to each other in pitch, the ear hairs they stimulate overlap, so the interfere with each other and create roughness. We can take a timbre and see how much internal roughness it has and then transpose it a bit and measure the roughness of the original and the transposed version played at the same time. Do this a bunch of times and you get a curve. The minima on the curve are good scale degrees.
Both of these approaches are perceptual and both seem to be in conflict. They both seem to use different parts of our perception, one more around critical band and the other more around amplitude and phase. So I wonder how to get them to work together? I can compute a dissonance curve that goes from 1 -1200 cents, but if I do it from a FFT’s spectrogram, the data I’m putting in is inexact. It only knows 512 frequencies, each of them slightly blurred and I’m using it with 1200 transpositions. Also, the transpositions are appropriately logarithmic, but the bins of the FFT are not, they’re linear. Should I do a similarly linear comparison and save myself a lot of unnecessary computation or does it make sense to do it by cents? Since I know there are artifacts in the spectrogram, should I find the minima and then search for “good” tuning ratios near them? Should the internal dissonance in the sample change the approach that I use?
I ported Sethares’ code to SuperCollider. You can download a working draft of DissonanceCurve.sc, if you desire. It’s quite math intensive for FFTs, but I have a synthDef made up of SinOsc, which is easy to analyze, since all the frequencies and amplitudes are known and there aren’t many of them. The freqs are in f and the amps are in a:
f = [50] ++ ( [50/27, 18/7, 54/25, 25/27, 9/7, 27/25, 25/54, 9/14, 27/50] * 300);
a = [0.055, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.105, 0.105, 0.105, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11];
e = DissonanceCurve.new(f, a, 2);
e.scale.do({ |deg|
postf("Interval % - Dissonance %tRatio % / % n",
deg.interval, deg.dissonance, deg.numerator, deg.denominator);
});
Which prints
Interval 1 - Dissonance 0.93194694734913 Ratio 1 / 1 Interval 1.1667536657322 - Dissonance 1.1967977845161 Ratio 7 / 6 Interval 1.1905817347928 - Dissonance 1.1395899373121 Ratio 25 / 21 Interval 1.3883134504798 - Dissonance 0.92933737113208 Ratio 118 / 85 Interval 1.4405968618317 - Dissonance 0.95473900132736 Ratio 85 / 59 Interval 1.6798510690642 - Dissonance 0.79165734602377 Ratio 42 / 25 Interval 1.7141578884562 - Dissonance 0.80288033573481 Ratio 12 / 7 Interval 2 - Dissonance 0.49046268655094 Ratio 2 / 1
118 / 85 is not a ratio of small, whole numbers, but it’s apparently less dissonant than 7 / 6 or even 85/59 or even the internal dissonance of the source sound! But, if we look in the curve, we can find the ratios 1 cent distant on either side of 118 / 85:
Interval 1.3875117607442 - Dissonance 0.9386025721761 Ratio 111 / 80 Interval 1.3883134504798 - Dissonance 0.929337371132 Ratio 118 / 85 Interval 1.3891156034233 - Dissonance 0.92966297781753 Ratio 25 / 18
25 / 18 is a much smaller ratio and a distance of 1 cent is not perceivable, so it’s probably a better number. But I am still slightly confused / unconvinced. Note also, that sounds closer to 2/1 are all, in general, less dissonant that sounds closer to 1/1, because of the nature of the algorithm / critical bandwidth. But for just intonation, an inversion is barely more or less dissonant than it’s non-inverted form.
Also, an issue: the width of the critical band changes in different frequency ranges and I think it might help to use the Bark scale or something in the Dissonance Curve code, but the math is, as yet, a bit beyond me.
For the purposes of showing off, here’s a silly example with FFTs, which is not at all real time:(WARNING: THIS IS SLOW!)
b = Buffer.alloc(s,1024); // use global buffers for plotting the data
c = BufferTool.open(s, "sounds/a11wlk01.wav");
d = { FFT(b, PlayBuf.ar(1, c.bufnum, BufRateScale.kr(c.bufnum))); 0.0 }.play;
// when that's playing, evaluate the following
e = DissonanceCurve.newFromFFT(b, 1024, highInterval: 2, action: {arg dis;
dis.scale.do({ |deg|
postf("Interval % - Dissonance %tRatio % / % n",
deg.interval, deg.dissonance, deg.numerator, deg.denominator);
});
});
Go and get a snack while that’s going. Make a cup of tea. You won’t be able to do anything else with SuperCollider until it finishes, so leave some comments about tuning. How should I be trying to combine dissonances curves and Just Intonation?
(My result for the code above (timing matters) was:
Interval 1 - Dissonance 2.4284846123288 Ratio 1 / 1 Interval 1.0346671040459 - Dissonance 2.9055490440413 Ratio 30 / 29 Interval 1.0557976305092 - Dissonance 2.9396229209406 Ratio 19 / 18 Interval 1.0588513011885 - Dissonance 2.9394283497832 Ratio 18 / 17 Interval 1.0625273666152 - Dissonance 2.9404120579786 Ratio 17 / 16 Interval 1.0767375682475 - Dissonance 2.9248076874065 Ratio 14 / 13 Interval 1.1114938763335 - Dissonance 2.8528563216285 Ratio 10 / 9 Interval 1.1250584846888 - Dissonance 2.8384180012931 Ratio 9 / 8 Interval 1.1302693892732 - Dissonance 2.8422250578475 Ratio 26 / 23 Interval 1.1335384537169 - Dissonance 2.8404168678269 Ratio 17 / 15 Interval 1.1667536657322 - Dissonance 2.773742908553 Ratio 7 / 6 Interval 1.2002486666653 - Dissonance 2.6741210623142 Ratio 6 / 5 Interval 1.2497735102289 - Dissonance 2.5747254321313 Ratio 5 / 4 Interval 1.2628354511916 - Dissonance 2.5907859768328 Ratio 24 / 19 Interval 1.2664879348481 - Dissonance 2.5910058160679 Ratio 19 / 15 Interval 1.2856518332381 - Dissonance 2.5784271202225 Ratio 9 / 7 Interval 1.3332986770912 - Dissonance 2.4554262314412 Ratio 4 / 3 Interval 1.3503499461682 - Dissonance 2.4863589672953 Ratio 27 / 20 Interval 1.3573881591926 - Dissonance 2.4874055968135 Ratio 19 / 14 Interval 1.3755418181397 - Dissonance 2.469278592016 Ratio 11 / 8 Interval 1.3811148862791 - Dissonance 2.4674194148261 Ratio 29 / 21 Interval 1.3843096285337 - Dissonance 2.4676720796587 Ratio 18 / 13 Interval 1.3891156034233 - Dissonance 2.4680185402198 Ratio 25 / 18 Interval 1.4003945316219 - Dissonance 2.4587789993728 Ratio 7 / 5 Interval 1.4289941397411 - Dissonance 2.432946313225 Ratio 10 / 7 Interval 1.5000389892858 - Dissonance 2.2587031579717 Ratio 3 / 2 Interval 1.5262592089606 - Dissonance 2.3003029027958 Ratio 29 / 19 Interval 1.529789693524 - Dissonance 2.299895874529 Ratio 26 / 17 Interval 1.5333283446696 - Dissonance 2.2993307022943 Ratio 23 / 15 Interval 1.555631119012 - Dissonance 2.2871143779032 Ratio 14 / 9 Interval 1.5619338268699 - Dissonance 2.2878440907054 Ratio 25 / 16 Interval 1.6002899594453 - Dissonance 2.2385589006945 Ratio 8 / 5 Interval 1.6114208563635 - Dissonance 2.2381572659306 Ratio 29 / 18 Interval 1.6188844330948 - Dissonance 2.236239217168 Ratio 34 / 21 Interval 1.625443414535 - Dissonance 2.2331690259349 Ratio 13 / 8 Interval 1.6663213678518 - Dissonance 2.1624083601251 Ratio 5 / 3 Interval 1.68763159226 - Dissonance 2.1765673941027 Ratio 27 / 16 Interval 1.7141578884562 - Dissonance 2.1648475763908 Ratio 12 / 7 Interval 1.7501759894904 - Dissonance 2.1359651045669 Ratio 7 / 4 Interval 1.8004197968362 - Dissonance 2.0659411117752 Ratio 9 / 5 Interval 1.8340080864093 - Dissonance 2.0362153732133 Ratio 11 / 6 Interval 2 - Dissonance 1.6432830079835 Ratio 2 / 1
Yikes)
Some Source Code
Yesterday, I posted some links to a supercollider class, BufferTool and it’s helpfile. I thought maybe I should also post an example of using the class.
I wrote one piece, “Rush to Excuse,” in 2004 that uses most of the features of the class. Program notes are posted at my podcast. And, The code is below. It requires two audio files, geneva-rush.wav and limbaugh-dog.aiff You will need to modify the source code to point at your local copy of those files.
The piece chops up the dog file into evenly sized pieces and finds the average pitch for each of them. It also finds phrases in Rush Limbaugh’s speech and intersperses his phrases with the shorter grains. This piece is several years old, but I think it’s a good example to post because the code is all cleaned up to be in my MA thesis. Also, listening to this for the first time in a few years makes me feel really happy. Americans finally seem to agree that torture is bad! Yay! (Oh alas, that it was ever a conversation.)
(
// first run this section
var sdef, buf;
// a callback function for loading pitches
c = {
var callback, array, count;
array = g.grains;
count = g.grains.size - 1;
callback = {
var next, failed;
failed = true;
{failed == true}. while ({
(count > 0 ). if ({
count = count -1;
next = array.at(count);
(next.notNil).if ({
next.findPitch(action: callback);
failed = false;
}, {
// this is bad.
"failed".postln;
failed = true;
});
}, {
// we've run out of grains, so we must have succeeded
failed = false;
"pitch finding finished".postln;
});
});
};
};
// buffers can take a callback function for when they finish loading
// so when the buffer loads, we create the BufferTools and then
// analyze them
buf = Buffer.read(s, "sounds/pundits/limbaugh-dog.aiff", action: {
g = BufferTool.grain(s, buf);
h = BufferTool.grain(s, buf);
"buffers read!".postln;
g.calc_grains_num(600, g.dur);
g.grains.last.findPitch(action: c.value);
h.prepareWords(0.35, 8000, true, 4000);
});
i = BufferTool.open(s, "sounds/pundits/geneva-rush.wav");
sdef = SynthDef(marimba, {arg out=0, freq, dur, amp = 1, pan = 0;
var ring, noiseEnv, noise, panner, totalEnv;
noise = WhiteNoise.ar(1);
noiseEnv = EnvGen.kr(Env.triangle(0.001, 1));
ring = Ringz.ar(noise * noiseEnv, freq, dur*5, amp);
totalEnv = EnvGen.kr(Env.linen(0.01, dur*5, 2, 1), doneAction:2);
panner = Pan2.ar(ring * totalEnv * amp, pan, 1);
Out.ar(out, panner);
}).writeDefFile;
sdef.load(s);
sdef.send(s);
SynthDescLib.global.read; // pbinds and buffers act strangely if this line is omitted
)
// wait for: pitch finding finished
(
// this section runs the piece
var end_grains, doOwnCopy;
end_grains = g.grains.copyRange(g.grains.size - 20, g.grains.size);
// for some reason, Array.copyRange blows up
// this is better anyway because it creates copies of
// the array elements
// also: why not stress test the garbage collector?
doOwnCopy = { arg arr, start = 0, end = 10, inc = 1;
var new_arr, index;
new_arr = [];
index = start.ceil;
end = end.floor;
{(index < end) && (index < arr.size)}. while ({
new_arr = new_arr.add(arr.at(index).copy);
index = index + inc;
});
new_arr;
};
Pseq( [
// The introduction just plays the pitches of the last 20 grains
Pbind(
instrument, marimba,
amp, 0.4,
pan, 0,
grain, Pseq(end_grains, 1),
[freq, dur],
Pfunc({ arg event;
var grain;
grain = event.at(grain);
[ grain.pitch, grain.dur];
})
),
Pbind(
grain, Prout({
var length, loop, num_words, loop_size, max, grains, filler, size,
grain;
length = 600;
loop = 5;
num_words = h.grains.size;
loop_size = num_words / loop;
filler = 0.6;
size = (g.grains.size * filler).floor;
grains = g.grains.reverse.copy;
// then play it straight through with buffer and pitches
{grains.size > 0} . while ({
//"pop".postln;
grain = grains.pop;
(grain.notNil).if({
grain.yield;
});
});
loop.do ({ arg index;
"looping".postln;
// mix up some pitched even sizes grains with phrases
max = ((index +2) * loop_size).floor;
(max > num_words). if ({ max = num_words});
grains =
//g.grains.scramble.copyRange(0, size) ++
doOwnCopy.value(g.grains.scramble, 0, size) ++
//h.grains.copyRange((index * loop_size).ceil, max);
doOwnCopy.value(h.grains, (index * loop_size).ceil, max);
// start calculating for the next pass through the loop
length = (length / 1.5).floor;
g.calc_grains_num(length, g.dur);
g.grains.last.findPitch(action: c.value);
grains = grains.scramble;
// ok, play them
{grains.size > 0} . while ({
//"pop".postln;
grain = grains.pop;
(grain.notNil).if({
grain.yield;
});
});
});
i.yield;
"end".postln;
}),
[bufnum, dur, grainDur, startFrame, freq, instrument],
Pfunc({arg event;
// oddly, i find it easier to figure out the grain in one step
// and extract data from it in another step
// this gets all the data you might need
var grain, dur, pitch;
grain = event.at(grain);
dur = grain.dur - 0.002;
pitch = grain.pitch;
(pitch == nil).if ({
pitch = 0;
});
[
grain.bufnum,
dur,
grain.dur,
grain.startFrame,
pitch,
grain.synthDefName
];
}),
amp, 0.6,
pan, 0,
xPan, 0,
yPan, 0,
rate, 1,
twoinsts, Pfunc({ arg event;
// so how DO you play two different synths in a Pbind
// step 1: figure out all the data you need for both
// step 2: give that a synthDef that will get invoked no matter what
// step 3: duplicate the event generated by the Pbind and tell it to play
var evt, pitch;
pitch = event.at(freq);
(pitch.notNil). if ({
// the pitches below 20 Hz do cool things to the
// speakers, but they're not really pitches,
// so screw 'em
(pitch > 20). if ({
evt = event.copy;
evt.put(instrument, marimba);
evt.put(amp, 0.4);
evt.play;
true;
}, {
false;
})
}, {
// don't let a nil pitch cause the Pbind to halt
event.put(freq, rest);
false;
});
})
)
], 1).play
)
This code is under a Creative Commons Share Music License
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
BufferTool
A while back, I wrote some code and put it in a class called BufferTool. It’s useful for granulation. Any number of BufferTools may point at a single Buffer. Each of them knows it’s own startFrame, endFrame and duration. Each one also can hold an array of other BufferTools which are divisions of itself. Each one may also know it’s own SynthDef for playback and it’s own amplitude. You can mix and match arrays of them.
You can give them rules for how to subdivide, like a set duration of each grain, a range of allowable durations or even an array of allowed duration lengths. Or, it can detect pauses in itself and subdivide according to them. It can calculate the fundamental pitch of itself.
I want to release this as a quark, but first I’d like it if some other people used it a bit. The class file is BufferTool.sc, and there’s a helpfile and a quark file.
Leave comments with feedback, if you’d like.
Manners
British people keep telling me I’m very polite. In fact, my girlfriend complained that I’m too polite. I keep thinking this would be a shocking revelation to people at home, who seem to have rather the opposite idea about me. I’ve come up with a few possible reasons for this change:
Dry humor. The British sense of humor involves a lot of sarcasm. Maybe they’re all saying this because it’s not true. Alas.
I’ve changed. Maybe with age I’ve gained a bit of tact and whatnot?
Cultural differences. Maybe Americans just have much higher standards than Brits. Also, I’m not exactly hanging out with the royal family. And, to be fair, it seems they would have even lower standards.
Gendered expectations. It’s possible that people expect a lot less from men than women. Or perhaps what they expect is just different and I did not conform to the standard female model and my laxish manners are good enough for blokes? I find this explanation both likely and annoying. Casual sexism is bad, people!
Anyway, none of this pondering matters to those of you who remember the good old days when I used to run around in my underwear while belching as loudly as possible. Ah, good times. I miss them.
The Swine Flu / The Economy
What’s your take on the media? Pick one.
The swine flu:
- is a distraction from the failures of capitalism – which are solvable with collective action.
- we’re all jonesing for the apocalypse.
- the inevitable consequences of farming and/or slaughtering animals – which also accounts for diseases like the bird flu and HIV.
- I caught the sniffles at the last tea-bagging rally I went to. Should I be worried?
Speaking of tea-bagging rallies, a commenter on my previous post suggested that it would be a waste of effort to try to connect with the people at these things because of massive disagreement on issues. I think that the masses on the left and the right actually have quite a bit of populist rage in common: why are my taxes going to bankers?! What differs is largely our answers to that question and out ideas how to fix it. There are those who will be swayed by a fascist argument. Many of those people, though, are not stupid, just misinformed. The fascist argument is the only one that they’ve heard.
Some of the people at the tea rallies have a hard time giving coherent answers to journalists’ questions. Similarly, many people at the G20 rallies also had trouble formulating a coherent answer. Part of the reason for this is because the frames and assumptions for the questions are trying to obscure rather than enlighten. They’re asking the wrong questions. Here’s the answer to the right question: We on the left and the right are all similarly angry that people with too much power and no accountability decided to use all of our resources and wealth as play money in a giant game and now we’re facing artificial shortages and the folks that caused all this get to keep all the money they stole.
When the economy gets fucked, we’re in a precarious situation not just economically, but also due to the danger of fascism. If we want to feel superior to people being recruited to fascism, we’re doomed. That’s not a reasonable strategy. People will be radicalized by the economy. There will be a surge of power on the very far right. Lefty smugness is enabling to fascists. If we want to limit this, we need to be talking to people about why our solutions are going to be better for them.
Anti-capitalists are actually correct, which ought to be a serious advantage. But our smugness is dressed up classism and we need to get over it or we’ve got no answers, just more status-quo.
Teabagging
The image that pops into your head on my post title up there says a lot about where you fall on the political spectrum in the US. For those of you thinking about unsanitary practices, there was recently some discontent about taxes in the US, as there often is. And long ago, there was the Boston Tea Party, where angry revolutionaries threw cases of tea off of a boat rather than have anybody pay taxes on them. Somebody more recently was inspired by this story and organized a protest where people would throw tea into a body of water. And since loose leaf tea is uncommon, or, at the very least, more expensive than Lipton, tea bags were littered into a water way. This seemed like an idea worth copying on other places and somebody gave it the name “teabagging.” Somebody wholesome gave it that name.
These unfortunately-named parties were not originally organized by the Republican party, but they seized on it. Now if you want to see somebody holding up a sign calling Obama a Nazi, a Muslim, s Socialist or the Anti-Christ, well, here’s the venue for you. It’s too easy for us urban elites to mock these parties. They share a name with a sex act. They attract spectacularly misinformed people, some of whom are clearly racist. But I think it’s an error to dismiss them out of hand.
How many of you, when writing you check for the last tax day, thought of some of it going to a $5 million AIG bonus? Or some kind of bank or financial institution. Admit it, you felt even less good about mailing in your check than usual. What’s the point, they’re just going to give it to a hedge fund, right? This annoyance you feel could be rage. Maybe it should be rage. Houses sit empty while homelessness grows and we give our tax money to bankers!
If you ask any of the folks at these tea-tossing rallies what they think the word “socialism” means, they will start talking to you about giving away money to banks. If you say, “what if we spent it on healthcare for everybody instead?” most of them would think that was a good idea. These folks actually want a mixed-socialist economy, they just don’t know it’s called that. Thanks to Fox News Newspeak, they use all the wrong words for things. There is no word in their heads for what they want, so they express their extreme discontent and social and economic insecurity by symbolic protest (and misuse of another, less innocent term).
People are becoming radicalized by the economy and they could go either way. Obviously, I would prefer it if the left won, and so would most of the people throwing Lipton around. There used to be a quite popular flyer that listed all the stuff you could buy for the cost of a single stealth bomber. Hundreds of schools, hospitals, etc. Well, what could you buy for trillions of dollars? How many YEARS of universal healthcare? How many bridges could be rebuilt, giving people jobs and making roads safer? You see where I’m going, but instead of just listing the object that would be there at the end, also mention the means. Workers build those projects. Workers like the folks at the rallies.
The financial sector is fucked to be sure, but we didn’t get out of the Great Depression by giving money to banks, we got out of it through a massive government spending program. Rather than a devastating war, we could rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Giving these folks the security and employment they need is also the key to fixing the economy. But this plan does not widen the gap between rich and poor, so it’s not on the agenda and it won’t be until protests force it to be. This could be the germ of change. Stop snickering and start a conversation!
more performance stuff
vincent rioux is now talking about his work with sc
he improvised with an avant sort of theatre company. The video documentation was cool. I didn’t know about events like this in paris. Want to know more.
in another project, he made very simple controllers with arduino inside. He had 6 controllers. One arduino for all 6.
Tiny speakers. This is also nifty. Used it at Pixelache festival.
the next project uses a light system. Uses a hypercube thing. Which is a huge thing that the dancer stands inside. Sc controls it.
the next thing is a street performance asking folks to help clean the street. Part of festival mal au pixel. This is mental! Also, near where i used to live. Man, i miss paris sometimes.
the next ne is a crazy steam punk dinner jacket. With a wiimote thing.
dan’s installation
dan st. Clair is talking about his awesome instillation which involves speakers hangong from trees doing bird like rendition of ‘like a virgin’, which is utterly tweaking out the local mocking birds.
when he was an undergrad he did a nifty project with songs stuck in people’s heads. It was conxeptual and not musical.
when he lived in chicago he did a map of muzak in stores on state street, including genre and de;ivery .ethod. He made a tourist brochure with muzak maps and put them in visitor centers.
he’s interested in popular music in environemtnal settings
max neuhaus did an unmarked, invisible sounds installation in time square. Dan dug the sort of invisible, discovery aspect.
his bird e.ulator is solar powered. Needs no cables. Has an 8bit microcontroller. They’re cheap as hell.
he’s loaded frequncy envelopes in memory. Fixed control rate. Uses a single wavetable oscillator httP://www.myplace.nu/avr/minidds/index.htm
he made recordings of birds and extracted the partials.
he throws this up into trees. However, neighbors got annoyed and called the cops or destroyed the speakers.
he’s working on a new version which is in close proximity to houses. He’s adding a calddendar to shut it down sometimes and amplitude controls.
he has an IFF class to deal with sdif and midi files. SDIFFrames class works with these files.
there’s some cool classes for fft, like FFTPeaks
he’s written some cool guis for finding partials.
his method of morphing between bird calls and pop songs is pretty brilliant.
dan is awesome