 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
English, 日 文, 韓 文 | 網站地圖 | FAQ | ©2000 傲 創 廿 一 有 限 公 司 版 權 所 有. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monday, January 31, 2011
Survey chart
新 用 戶
問 卷 詳 情 
下 載 數 據 (格 式 1)
Sunday, January 30, 2011
OMG/JK: Massive Google Fragments
This week’s episode of OMG/JK, the show I do on TechCrunch TV alongside Jason Kincaid, is all Google all the time. So just to even things out a bit, we kick things off by showing off my awesome new TikTok iPod nano wristwatch. For those who don’t remember, this is the result of the most successful Kickstarter project ever.
We then dive into the Google stuff including Eric Schmidt being replaced by Larry Page as CEO, Google’s index changes, Google Voice number porting, and the upcoming Android Honeycomb event. Watch it above.
Here are the links to some of the things we talk about:
Big Bang At Google: Larry Page To Replace Eric Schmidt As CEO On April 4
Live: Eric Schmidt And Larry Page Talk About Google’s Q4 And Their New Roles
TechCrunch Interview With Eric Schmidt, Larry Page And Sergey Brin
Schmidt: Decision Made Over The Holidays, It’s About Execution, And Larry Is Ready To Lead
Google: Spam Really Has Increased Lately. We’re Fixing That, And Content Farms Are Next
Algorithm change launched
Google Voice Number Porting Now Live (For Real This Time)
Payback: I Just Canceled AT&T By Way Of Google Voice
Google To Give A Better Taste Of Honeycomb Next Week At Press Event And On YouTube
War Maneuvers: Android Event Will Battle iPad Event For Press Love On February 2
Kevin Rose Invests In Facebook On SecondMarket
Random Episode 87 from Glenn McElhose on Vimeo.
Kevin Rose and Tim Ferriss have made a co-investment in Facebook on the secondary market. In this video clip posted this week, Rose announces that he and Ferris recently invested in Facebook “before the craziness.” We’ve embedded the video below; Rose talks about the investment just after the 34 minute mark.
We confirmed with Rose that he and Ferriss actually bought shares on secondary market SecondMarket at a $45 billion valuation. We’re told the deal was in the seven figures. The ‘craziness’ Rose is referring to is Facebook’s recent $1.5 billion funding round from Goldman Sachs and DST at a $50 billion valuation, and the possibility of an IPO for the network by April 2012.
In terms of why he invested in Facebook at this stage of the game, Rose said this of the investment: This is still early days for Facebook, the graph is starting to extend into interests and personal preferences. This is going to enable a slew of new ideas and startups — I believe Facebook is well positioning to be in the middle of it all.
Rose has been a prolific angel investor in a number of startups and high-profile companies, including Twitter, Zynga, Foursquare, Gowalla, DailyBooth, and Square. Ferriss is also an angel investor, and has made investments in Twitter, SimpleGeo, Posterous, Foodzie and a number of other startups.
While Rose and Ferriss’ investment isn’t monumental news it does show that experienced investors are betting that value of Facebook’s shares will definitely grow significantly, especially if the social network does IPO next year. And Facebook is dominating share auctions on SecondMarket. Ferriss actually spoke to PEHub early this year on investing in Facebook, saying, “I think it’ll be hard to lose on Facebook — assuming there’s not a repeat macroeconomic double dip. If things are fairly stable, I think Facebook is a very strong bet.”
Blair Sheppard on China Central Television Discussion of Chinese Economy - Duke on Demand -
Blair Sheppard on China Central Television Discussion of Chinese Economy - Duke on Demand -
Blair Sheppard on China Central Television Discussion of Chinese Economy
Blair Sheppard on China Central Television Discussion of Chinese Economy
The future of cheating with Duke professor @DanAriely
The future of cheating with Duke professor @DanAriely
Dan Ariely: Cheap Dates and Carbon Cheating
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Double Speak Game: 'Extreme Makeover Interview' - Fast and Loose Episode 2 - BBC Two
Hugh Dennis' guests are grouped into pairs whilst they improvise taking part in an extreme makeover programme. The twist being that each couple must speak as one!
Forward Rewind Game: 'Indiana Jones' - Fast and Loose Episode 2 - BBC Two
Wayne Brady, Jonathan Mangum, Jessica Ransom and Humphrey Ker re-create a scene from Indiana Jones, while Hugh Dennis commands them to either 'Forward' or 'Rewind'.
Funny Interpretative Dance: 'You Can't Hurry Love' - Fast and Loose Episode 3 Preview - BBC Two
David Armand mimes the words to Phil Collins' "You Can't Hurry Love" for Humphrey Ker and Jessica Ransom to guess the song.
Who's line is it anyway : 'Transformers' & 'King Kong' - Fast and Loose Episode 3 - BBC Two
Hugh Dennis' guests Justin Edwards, Marek Larwood and Pippa Evans act out various situations whilst lying on the floor and being filmed from above.
Macworld 2011 today
The background images are mostly actual photos of San Francisco, the Moscone Convention Center, and iPads, all digitally modified in Adobe Photoshop to look TRON-ish
The animation and sound design was produced on a MacBook Pro with Adobe Flash, Audacity, and Apple Logic Studio
The music is from the Associated Production Music royalty-free library, included in the Apple Loops for Soundtrack Pro
My Blackberry Is Not Working! - The One Ronnie, Preview - BBC One
Ronnie Corbett and Harry Enfield star in this fruity sketch from The One Ronnie, written by Dawson Bros.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Jake Shimabukuro plays "Bohemian Rhapsody"
About this talk
Jake Shimabukuro strums monster sounds out of the tiny Hawaiian ukulele, as he plays a cover of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." A sensational performance from TED2010 -- it'll send shivers down your spine.
Jake Shimabukuro strums monster sounds out of the tiny Hawaiian ukulele, as he plays a cover of Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." A sensational performance from TED2010 -- it'll send shivers down your spine.
Evelyn Glennie shows how to listen
About this talk
In this soaring demonstration, deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie illustrates how listening to music involves much more than simply letting sound waves hit your eardrums.
I'm not quite sure whether I really want to see a snare drum at nine o'clock or so in the morning. But anyway, it's just great to see such a full theater, and really I must thank Herbie Hancock and his colleagues for such a great presentation. One of the interesting things, of course, is the combination of that raw hand on the instrument and technology, and of course what he said about listening to our young people.
Of course, my job is all about listening, and my aim, really, is to teach the world to listen. That's my only real aim in life. And it sounds quite simple, but actually it's quite a big, big job. Because you know, when you look at a piece of music -- for example, if I just open my little motorbike bag -- we have here, hopefully, a piece of music that is full of little black dots on the page. And, you know, we open it up and I read the music. So technically, I can actually read this. I will follow the instructions, the tempo markings, the dynamics. I will do exactly as I'm told. And so therefore, because time is short, if I just play you literally the first maybe two lines or so. It's very straightforward. There's nothing too difficult about the piece. But here I'm being told that the piece of music is very quick. I'm being told where to play on the drum. I'm being told which part of the stick to use. And I'm being told the dynamic. And I'm also being told that the drum is without snares. Snares on, snares off. So therefore, if I translate this piece of music, we have this idea. And so on. My career would probably last about five years.
However, what I have to do as a musician is do everything that is not on the music. Everything that there isn't time to learn from a teacher, or to talk about, even, from a teacher. But it's the things that you notice when you're not actually with your instrument that in fact become so interesting, and that you want to explore through this tiny, tiny surface of a drum. So there -- we experience the translation. Now we'll experience the interpretation. Now my career may last a little longer!
But in a way, you know, it's the same if I look at you and I see a nice bright young lady with a pink top on. I see that you're clutching a teddy bear, et cetera et cetera. So I get a basic idea as to what you might be about, what you might like, what you might do as a profession, et cetera, et cetera. However, that's just,you know, the initial idea I may have that we all get when we actually look. And we try to interpret, but actually it's so unbelievably shallow. In the same way, I look at the music, I get a basic idea, I wonder what technically might be hard, or, you know, what I want to do. Just the basic feeling.
However, that is simply not enough. And I think what Herbie said -- please listen, listen. We have to listen to ourselves, first of all. If I play, for example, holding the stick -- where literally I do not let go of the stick -- you'll experience quite a lot of shock coming up through the arm. And you feel really quite -- believe it or not -- detached from the instrument and from the stick, even though I'm actually holding the stick quite tightly. By holding it tightly, I feel strangely more detached. If I just simply let go and allow my hand, my arm, to be more of a support system, suddenly I have more dynamic with less effort. Much more. And I just feel, at last, one with the stick and one with the drum. And I'm doing far, far less.
So in the same way that I need time with this instrument, I need time with people in order to interpret them. Not just translate them, but interpret them. If, for example, I play just a few bars of a piece of music for which I think of myself as a technician -- that is, someone who is basically a percussion player... and so on. If I think of myself as a musician ... and so on. There is a little bit of a difference there that is worth just -- (Applause) -- thinking about.
And I remember when I was 12 years old, and I started playing tympani and percussion, and my teacher said, "Well, how are we going to do this? You know, music is about listening." "Yes, I agree with that. So what's the problem?" And he said, "Well, how are you going to hear this? How are you going to hear that?" And I said, "Well, how do you hear it?" He said, "Well, I think I hear it through here." And I said, "Well, I think I do too -- but I also hear it through my hands, through my arms, cheekbones, my scalp, my tummy, my chest, my legs and so on."
And so we began our lessons every single time tuning drums -- in particular, the kettle drums, or tympani -- to such a narrow pitch interval, so something like ... that of a difference. Then gradually ... and gradually ... and it's amazing that when you do open your body up, and open your hand up to allow the vibration to come through, that in fact the tiny, tiny difference.. can be felt with just the tiniest part of your finger, there.
And so what we would do is that I would put my hands on the wall of the music room, and together we would listen to the sounds of the instruments, and really try to connect with those sounds far, far more broadly than simply depending on the ear. Because of course, the ear is -- I mean, subject to all sorts of things. The room we happen to be in, the amplification, the quality of the instrument, the type of sticks, et cetera, et cetera. They're all different. Same amount of weight, but different sound colors. And that's basically what we are. We're just human beings, but we all have our own little sound colors, as it were, that make up these extraordinary personalities and characters and interests and things.
And as I grew older, I then auditioned for the Royal Academy of Music in London, and they said, "Well, no, we won't accept you, because we haven't a clue, you know, of the future of a so-called 'deaf' musician." And I just couldn't quite accept that. And so therefore, I said to them, "Well, look, if you refuse -- if you refuse me through those reasons, as opposed to the ability to perform and to understand and love the art of creating sound -- then we have to think very, very hard about the people you do actually accept." And as a result -- once we got over a little hurdle, and having to audition twice -- they accepted me. And not only that -- what had happened was that it changed the whole role of the music institutions throughout the United Kingdom.
Under no circumstances were they to refuse any application whatsoever on the basis of whether someone had no arms, no legs -- they could still perhaps play a wind instrument if it was supported on a stand. No circumstances at all were used to refuse any entry. And every single entry had to be listened to, experienced and then based on the musical ability -- then that person could either enter or not. So therefore, this in turn meant that there was an extremely interesting bunch of students who arrived in these various music institutions. And I have to say, many of them now in the professional orchestras throughout the world. The interesting thing about this as well, though -- (Applause) -- is quite simply that not only were people connected with sound -- which is basically all of us, and we well know that music really is our daily medicine.
I say music, but actually I mean sound. Because you know, some of the extraordinary things I've experienced as a musician, when you may have a 15-year-old lad who has got the most incredible challenges, who may not be able to control his movements, who may be deaf, who may be blind, et cetera, et cetera. Suddenly, if that young lad sits close to this instrument, and perhaps even lies underneath the marimba, and you play something that's so incredibly organ-like, almost -- I don't really have the right sticks, perhaps -- but something like this. Let me change. Something that's so unbelievably simple -- but he would be experiencing something that I wouldn't be, because I'm on top of the sound. I have the sound coming this way. He would have the sound coming through the resonators. If there were no resonators on here, we would have -- so he would have a fullness of sound that those of you in the front few rows wouldn't experience; those of you in the back few rows wouldn't experience either. Every single one of us, depending on where we're sitting, will experience this sound quite, quite differently. And of course, being the participator of the sound, and that is starting from the idea of what type of sound I want to produce -- for example, this sound.
Can you hear anything? Exactly. Because I'm not even touching it. But yet, we get the sensation of something happening. In the same way that when I see tree moves, then I imagine that tree making a rustling sound. Do you see what I mean? Whatever the eye sees, then there's always sound happening. So there's always, always that huge -- I mean, just this kaleidoscope of things to draw from.
So all of my performances are based on entirely what I experience, and not by learning a piece of music, putting on someone else's interpretation of it, buying all the CDs possible of that particular piece of music, and so on and so forth. Because that isn't giving me enough of something that is so raw and so basic, and something that I can fully experience the journey of. So it may be that, in certain halls, this dynamic may well work. It may be that in other halls, they're simply not going to experience that at all and so therefore, my level of soft, gentle playing may have to be -- do you see what I mean? So, because of this explosion in access to sound, especially through the deaf community, this has not only affected how music institutions, how schools for the deaf treat sound. And not just as a means of therapy -- although of course, being a participator of music, that definitely is the case as well. But it's meant that acousticians have had to really think about the types of halls they put together. There are so few halls in this world that actually have very good acoustics, dare I say. But by that I mean where you can absolutely do anything you imagine. The tiniest, softest, softest sound to something that is so broad, so huge, so incredible! There's always something -- it may sound good up there, may not be so good there. May be great there, but terrible up there. Maybe terrible over there, but not too bad there, et cetera, et cetera.
So to find an actual hall is incredible -- for which you can play exactly what you imagine, without it being cosmetically enhanced. And so therefore, acousticians are actually in conversation with people who are hearing impaired, and who are participators of sound. And this is quite interesting. I cannot, you know, give you any detail as far as what is actually happening with those halls, but it's just the fact that they are going to a group of people for whom so many years we've been saying, "Well, how on Earth can they experience music? You know, they're deaf." We just -- go like that, and we imagine that that's what deafness is about. Or we go like that, and we imagine that's what blindness is about. If we see someone in a wheelchair, we assume they cannot walk. It may be that they can walk three, four, five steps. That, to them, means they can walk. In a year's time, it could be two extra steps. In another year's time, three extra steps.
Those are hugely important aspects to think about. So when we do listen to each other, it's unbelievably important for us to really test our listening skills. To really use our bodies as a resonating chamber. To stop the judgment. For me, as a musician who deals with 99 percent of new music, it's very easy for me to say, "Oh yes, I like that piece. Oh no, I don't like that piece." And so on. And you know, I just find that I have to give those pieces of music real time. It may be that the chemistry isn't quite right between myself and that particular piece of music. But that doesn't mean I have the right to say it's a bad piece of music. And you know, it's just one of the great things about being a musician, is that it's so unbelievably fluid. So there are no rules, no right, no wrong, this way, that way.
If I asked you to clap -- maybe I can do this. If I can just say, "please clap." And create the sound of thunder. I'm assuming we've all experienced thunder. Now, I don't mean just the sound, I mean really listen to that thunder within yourselves. And please try to create that through your clapping. Try. Just -- please try. (Applause)
Very good! Snow. Snow. Have you ever heard snow?
Audience: No.
Evelyn Glennie: Well then, stop clapping. (Laughter) Try again. Try again. Snow.
See, you're awake.
Rain. Not bad. Not bad.
You know, the interesting thing here, though, is that I asked a group of kids not so long ago exactly the same question. Now -- great imagination, thank you very much. However, not one of you got out of your seats to think, "Right! How can I clap? OK, maybe... -- maybe I can use my jewelry to create extra sounds. Maybe I can use the other parts of my body to create extra sounds." Not a single one of you thought about clapping in a slightly different way other than sitting in your seats there and using two hands. In the same way that when we listen to music, we assume that it's all being fed through here. This is how we experience music. Of course it's not.
We experience thunder -- thunder, thunder. Think think think. Listen listen listen. Now -- what can we do with thunder? I remember my teacher. When I first started, my very first lesson, I was all prepared with sticks, ready to go. And instead of him saying, "OK, Evelyn, please. Feet slightly apart, arms at a more-or-less 90 degree angle, sticks in a more-or-less V shape, keep this amount of space here, et cetera. Please keep your back straight, et cetera et cetera et cetera." Where I was probably just going to end up absolutely rigid, frozen, and I would not be able to strike the drum, because I was thinking of so many other things. He said, "Evelyn, take this drum away for seven days, and I'll see you next week."
So, heavens! What was I to do? I no longer required the sticks, I wasn't allowed to have these sticks. I had to basically look at this particular drum, see how it was made, what these little lugs did, what the snares did. Turned it upside down, experimented with the shell, experimented with the head. Experimented with my body, experimented with jewelry, experimented with all sorts of things. And of course, I returned with all sorts of bruises and things like that -- but nevertheless, it was such an unbelievable experience, because then, where on Earth are you going to experience that in a piece of music? Where on Earth are you going to experience that in a study book? So we never, ever dealt with actual study books. So for example, one of the things that we learn when we are dealing with being a percussion player, as opposed to a musician, is basically straightforward single stroke rolls.
Like that. And then we get a little faster and a little faster and a little faster. And so on and so forth. What does this piece require? Single stroke rolls. So why can't I then do that whilst learning a piece of music? And that's exactly what he did. And interestingly, the older I became, when I became a full-time student at a so called "music institution," all of that went out of the window. We had to study from study books. And constantly, the question, well, why? Why? What is this relating to? I need to play a piece of music. "Oh, well, this will help your control!" Well, how? Why do I need to learn that? I need to relate it to a piece of music. You know. I need to say something.
Why am I practicing paradiddles? Is it just literally for control, for hand-stick control? Why am I doing that? I need to have the reason, and the reason has to be by saying something through the music. And by saying something through music, which basically is sound, we then can reach all sorts of things to all sorts of people. But I don't want to take responsibility of your emotional baggage. That's up to you, when you walk through a hall. Because that then determines what and how we listen to certain things. I may feel sorrowful, or happy, or exhilarated, or angry when I play certain pieces of music, but I'm not necessarily wanting you to feel exactly the same thing. So please, the next time you go to a concert, just allow your body to open up, allow your body to be this resonating chamber. Be aware that you're not going to experience the same thing as the performer is.
The performer is in the worst possible position for the actual sound, they're hearing the contact of the stick on the drum, or the mallet on the bit of wood, or the bow on the string, et cetera. Or the breath that's creating the sound from wind and brass. They're experiencing that rawness there. But yet they're experiencing something so unbelievably pure, which is before the sound is actually happening. Please take note of the life of the sound after the actual initial strike, or breath, is being pulled. Just experience the whole journey of that sound in the same way that I wished I'd experienced the whole journey of this particular conference, rather than just arriving last night. I hope maybe we can share one or two things as the day progresses. But thank you very much for having me! (Applause)
In this soaring demonstration, deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie illustrates how listening to music involves much more than simply letting sound waves hit your eardrums.
I'm not quite sure whether I really want to see a snare drum at nine o'clock or so in the morning. But anyway, it's just great to see such a full theater, and really I must thank Herbie Hancock and his colleagues for such a great presentation. One of the interesting things, of course, is the combination of that raw hand on the instrument and technology, and of course what he said about listening to our young people.
Of course, my job is all about listening, and my aim, really, is to teach the world to listen. That's my only real aim in life. And it sounds quite simple, but actually it's quite a big, big job. Because you know, when you look at a piece of music -- for example, if I just open my little motorbike bag -- we have here, hopefully, a piece of music that is full of little black dots on the page. And, you know, we open it up and I read the music. So technically, I can actually read this. I will follow the instructions, the tempo markings, the dynamics. I will do exactly as I'm told. And so therefore, because time is short, if I just play you literally the first maybe two lines or so. It's very straightforward. There's nothing too difficult about the piece. But here I'm being told that the piece of music is very quick. I'm being told where to play on the drum. I'm being told which part of the stick to use. And I'm being told the dynamic. And I'm also being told that the drum is without snares. Snares on, snares off. So therefore, if I translate this piece of music, we have this idea. And so on. My career would probably last about five years.
However, what I have to do as a musician is do everything that is not on the music. Everything that there isn't time to learn from a teacher, or to talk about, even, from a teacher. But it's the things that you notice when you're not actually with your instrument that in fact become so interesting, and that you want to explore through this tiny, tiny surface of a drum. So there -- we experience the translation. Now we'll experience the interpretation. Now my career may last a little longer!
But in a way, you know, it's the same if I look at you and I see a nice bright young lady with a pink top on. I see that you're clutching a teddy bear, et cetera et cetera. So I get a basic idea as to what you might be about, what you might like, what you might do as a profession, et cetera, et cetera. However, that's just,you know, the initial idea I may have that we all get when we actually look. And we try to interpret, but actually it's so unbelievably shallow. In the same way, I look at the music, I get a basic idea, I wonder what technically might be hard, or, you know, what I want to do. Just the basic feeling.
However, that is simply not enough. And I think what Herbie said -- please listen, listen. We have to listen to ourselves, first of all. If I play, for example, holding the stick -- where literally I do not let go of the stick -- you'll experience quite a lot of shock coming up through the arm. And you feel really quite -- believe it or not -- detached from the instrument and from the stick, even though I'm actually holding the stick quite tightly. By holding it tightly, I feel strangely more detached. If I just simply let go and allow my hand, my arm, to be more of a support system, suddenly I have more dynamic with less effort. Much more. And I just feel, at last, one with the stick and one with the drum. And I'm doing far, far less.
So in the same way that I need time with this instrument, I need time with people in order to interpret them. Not just translate them, but interpret them. If, for example, I play just a few bars of a piece of music for which I think of myself as a technician -- that is, someone who is basically a percussion player... and so on. If I think of myself as a musician ... and so on. There is a little bit of a difference there that is worth just -- (Applause) -- thinking about.
And I remember when I was 12 years old, and I started playing tympani and percussion, and my teacher said, "Well, how are we going to do this? You know, music is about listening." "Yes, I agree with that. So what's the problem?" And he said, "Well, how are you going to hear this? How are you going to hear that?" And I said, "Well, how do you hear it?" He said, "Well, I think I hear it through here." And I said, "Well, I think I do too -- but I also hear it through my hands, through my arms, cheekbones, my scalp, my tummy, my chest, my legs and so on."
And so we began our lessons every single time tuning drums -- in particular, the kettle drums, or tympani -- to such a narrow pitch interval, so something like ... that of a difference. Then gradually ... and gradually ... and it's amazing that when you do open your body up, and open your hand up to allow the vibration to come through, that in fact the tiny, tiny difference.. can be felt with just the tiniest part of your finger, there.
And so what we would do is that I would put my hands on the wall of the music room, and together we would listen to the sounds of the instruments, and really try to connect with those sounds far, far more broadly than simply depending on the ear. Because of course, the ear is -- I mean, subject to all sorts of things. The room we happen to be in, the amplification, the quality of the instrument, the type of sticks, et cetera, et cetera. They're all different. Same amount of weight, but different sound colors. And that's basically what we are. We're just human beings, but we all have our own little sound colors, as it were, that make up these extraordinary personalities and characters and interests and things.
And as I grew older, I then auditioned for the Royal Academy of Music in London, and they said, "Well, no, we won't accept you, because we haven't a clue, you know, of the future of a so-called 'deaf' musician." And I just couldn't quite accept that. And so therefore, I said to them, "Well, look, if you refuse -- if you refuse me through those reasons, as opposed to the ability to perform and to understand and love the art of creating sound -- then we have to think very, very hard about the people you do actually accept." And as a result -- once we got over a little hurdle, and having to audition twice -- they accepted me. And not only that -- what had happened was that it changed the whole role of the music institutions throughout the United Kingdom.
Under no circumstances were they to refuse any application whatsoever on the basis of whether someone had no arms, no legs -- they could still perhaps play a wind instrument if it was supported on a stand. No circumstances at all were used to refuse any entry. And every single entry had to be listened to, experienced and then based on the musical ability -- then that person could either enter or not. So therefore, this in turn meant that there was an extremely interesting bunch of students who arrived in these various music institutions. And I have to say, many of them now in the professional orchestras throughout the world. The interesting thing about this as well, though -- (Applause) -- is quite simply that not only were people connected with sound -- which is basically all of us, and we well know that music really is our daily medicine.
I say music, but actually I mean sound. Because you know, some of the extraordinary things I've experienced as a musician, when you may have a 15-year-old lad who has got the most incredible challenges, who may not be able to control his movements, who may be deaf, who may be blind, et cetera, et cetera. Suddenly, if that young lad sits close to this instrument, and perhaps even lies underneath the marimba, and you play something that's so incredibly organ-like, almost -- I don't really have the right sticks, perhaps -- but something like this. Let me change. Something that's so unbelievably simple -- but he would be experiencing something that I wouldn't be, because I'm on top of the sound. I have the sound coming this way. He would have the sound coming through the resonators. If there were no resonators on here, we would have -- so he would have a fullness of sound that those of you in the front few rows wouldn't experience; those of you in the back few rows wouldn't experience either. Every single one of us, depending on where we're sitting, will experience this sound quite, quite differently. And of course, being the participator of the sound, and that is starting from the idea of what type of sound I want to produce -- for example, this sound.
Can you hear anything? Exactly. Because I'm not even touching it. But yet, we get the sensation of something happening. In the same way that when I see tree moves, then I imagine that tree making a rustling sound. Do you see what I mean? Whatever the eye sees, then there's always sound happening. So there's always, always that huge -- I mean, just this kaleidoscope of things to draw from.
So all of my performances are based on entirely what I experience, and not by learning a piece of music, putting on someone else's interpretation of it, buying all the CDs possible of that particular piece of music, and so on and so forth. Because that isn't giving me enough of something that is so raw and so basic, and something that I can fully experience the journey of. So it may be that, in certain halls, this dynamic may well work. It may be that in other halls, they're simply not going to experience that at all and so therefore, my level of soft, gentle playing may have to be -- do you see what I mean? So, because of this explosion in access to sound, especially through the deaf community, this has not only affected how music institutions, how schools for the deaf treat sound. And not just as a means of therapy -- although of course, being a participator of music, that definitely is the case as well. But it's meant that acousticians have had to really think about the types of halls they put together. There are so few halls in this world that actually have very good acoustics, dare I say. But by that I mean where you can absolutely do anything you imagine. The tiniest, softest, softest sound to something that is so broad, so huge, so incredible! There's always something -- it may sound good up there, may not be so good there. May be great there, but terrible up there. Maybe terrible over there, but not too bad there, et cetera, et cetera.
So to find an actual hall is incredible -- for which you can play exactly what you imagine, without it being cosmetically enhanced. And so therefore, acousticians are actually in conversation with people who are hearing impaired, and who are participators of sound. And this is quite interesting. I cannot, you know, give you any detail as far as what is actually happening with those halls, but it's just the fact that they are going to a group of people for whom so many years we've been saying, "Well, how on Earth can they experience music? You know, they're deaf." We just -- go like that, and we imagine that that's what deafness is about. Or we go like that, and we imagine that's what blindness is about. If we see someone in a wheelchair, we assume they cannot walk. It may be that they can walk three, four, five steps. That, to them, means they can walk. In a year's time, it could be two extra steps. In another year's time, three extra steps.
Those are hugely important aspects to think about. So when we do listen to each other, it's unbelievably important for us to really test our listening skills. To really use our bodies as a resonating chamber. To stop the judgment. For me, as a musician who deals with 99 percent of new music, it's very easy for me to say, "Oh yes, I like that piece. Oh no, I don't like that piece." And so on. And you know, I just find that I have to give those pieces of music real time. It may be that the chemistry isn't quite right between myself and that particular piece of music. But that doesn't mean I have the right to say it's a bad piece of music. And you know, it's just one of the great things about being a musician, is that it's so unbelievably fluid. So there are no rules, no right, no wrong, this way, that way.
If I asked you to clap -- maybe I can do this. If I can just say, "please clap." And create the sound of thunder. I'm assuming we've all experienced thunder. Now, I don't mean just the sound, I mean really listen to that thunder within yourselves. And please try to create that through your clapping. Try. Just -- please try. (Applause)
Very good! Snow. Snow. Have you ever heard snow?
Audience: No.
Evelyn Glennie: Well then, stop clapping. (Laughter) Try again. Try again. Snow.
See, you're awake.
Rain. Not bad. Not bad.
You know, the interesting thing here, though, is that I asked a group of kids not so long ago exactly the same question. Now -- great imagination, thank you very much. However, not one of you got out of your seats to think, "Right! How can I clap? OK, maybe... -- maybe I can use my jewelry to create extra sounds. Maybe I can use the other parts of my body to create extra sounds." Not a single one of you thought about clapping in a slightly different way other than sitting in your seats there and using two hands. In the same way that when we listen to music, we assume that it's all being fed through here. This is how we experience music. Of course it's not.
We experience thunder -- thunder, thunder. Think think think. Listen listen listen. Now -- what can we do with thunder? I remember my teacher. When I first started, my very first lesson, I was all prepared with sticks, ready to go. And instead of him saying, "OK, Evelyn, please. Feet slightly apart, arms at a more-or-less 90 degree angle, sticks in a more-or-less V shape, keep this amount of space here, et cetera. Please keep your back straight, et cetera et cetera et cetera." Where I was probably just going to end up absolutely rigid, frozen, and I would not be able to strike the drum, because I was thinking of so many other things. He said, "Evelyn, take this drum away for seven days, and I'll see you next week."
So, heavens! What was I to do? I no longer required the sticks, I wasn't allowed to have these sticks. I had to basically look at this particular drum, see how it was made, what these little lugs did, what the snares did. Turned it upside down, experimented with the shell, experimented with the head. Experimented with my body, experimented with jewelry, experimented with all sorts of things. And of course, I returned with all sorts of bruises and things like that -- but nevertheless, it was such an unbelievable experience, because then, where on Earth are you going to experience that in a piece of music? Where on Earth are you going to experience that in a study book? So we never, ever dealt with actual study books. So for example, one of the things that we learn when we are dealing with being a percussion player, as opposed to a musician, is basically straightforward single stroke rolls.
Like that. And then we get a little faster and a little faster and a little faster. And so on and so forth. What does this piece require? Single stroke rolls. So why can't I then do that whilst learning a piece of music? And that's exactly what he did. And interestingly, the older I became, when I became a full-time student at a so called "music institution," all of that went out of the window. We had to study from study books. And constantly, the question, well, why? Why? What is this relating to? I need to play a piece of music. "Oh, well, this will help your control!" Well, how? Why do I need to learn that? I need to relate it to a piece of music. You know. I need to say something.
Why am I practicing paradiddles? Is it just literally for control, for hand-stick control? Why am I doing that? I need to have the reason, and the reason has to be by saying something through the music. And by saying something through music, which basically is sound, we then can reach all sorts of things to all sorts of people. But I don't want to take responsibility of your emotional baggage. That's up to you, when you walk through a hall. Because that then determines what and how we listen to certain things. I may feel sorrowful, or happy, or exhilarated, or angry when I play certain pieces of music, but I'm not necessarily wanting you to feel exactly the same thing. So please, the next time you go to a concert, just allow your body to open up, allow your body to be this resonating chamber. Be aware that you're not going to experience the same thing as the performer is.
The performer is in the worst possible position for the actual sound, they're hearing the contact of the stick on the drum, or the mallet on the bit of wood, or the bow on the string, et cetera. Or the breath that's creating the sound from wind and brass. They're experiencing that rawness there. But yet they're experiencing something so unbelievably pure, which is before the sound is actually happening. Please take note of the life of the sound after the actual initial strike, or breath, is being pulled. Just experience the whole journey of that sound in the same way that I wished I'd experienced the whole journey of this particular conference, rather than just arriving last night. I hope maybe we can share one or two things as the day progresses. But thank you very much for having me! (Applause)
Inquiry Doesn't Call Crisis Systemic Fraud
Michael Hudson: Financial Crisis Inquiry Report fails to call for criminal prosecutions against Wall Street
Bio
Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971). ISLET engages in research regarding domestic and international finance, national income and balance-sheet accounting with regard to real estate, and the economic history of the ancient Near East. Michael acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide including Iceland, Latvia and China on finance and tax law.
Transcript
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. And on Thursday in Washington, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported. Now joining us from Forest Hills, New York, to discuss this is Michael Hudson. Michael is a former Wall Street economist. He's now a distinguished research professor at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. And he also runs a website called Michael-Hudson.com. Thanks for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON, RESEARCH PROF., UMKC: Thank you very much.
JAY: So, Michael, what do you make of this, the report?
HUDSON: It's not surprising one bit and seems to put the blame on the past. It blames Alan Greenspan. He's out of the picture. It blames Ben Bernanke. He's still head of the Fed. It doesn't blame Obama's major campaign contributors for fraud. It doesn't say, throw his campaign contributors in jail because they've organized a systemic financial fraud, as explained by my UMKC colleague William Black and is explained in the leaks that have come out in the last few days about how Bear Stearns people were packaging what they in their emails said was--this is shit, how do we sell them to others? They didn't focus on what really caused the collapse, and that is companies like Bear Stearns packaging junk mortgages that they knew would go bad, selling them to their clients, insuring them through capital insurance companies like AIG, selling the insurance companies short, knowing that the frauds would get them. And then, after the defaults came on 80 percent of the fraudulent loans, they then asked for a reimbursement from the original originators, for the money back, pocketing the money, not passing it on to their clients, so their clients had to go to AIG and other companies, driving them bankrupt. They didn't say that the whole process was one of crooks and that the crooks are the major contributors to the Obama campaign, and that these guys all should be thrown in jail.
JAY: Now, just a reference--you made a reference to Bill Black, and we've interviewed him many times. So if people want to see some of the more detailed drill-in to how this all took place, you can do a search for Bill Black's name on our website and you'll find our interviews. Now, the other side of the argument will be that they were operating within the law, that if the law allowed all these shenanigans, why shouldn't they play it? So then the blame is on the lawmakers, not the shenanigan-doers.
HUDSON: This is what is wrong with the Angelides Commission. It wasn't within the law. They were breaking the law. There are laws against fraud. There are laws against deceptive reporting. There are laws against cheating people. The laws were not supported. Then, if you don't say that, then you pretend that it was all just an accident and you don't learn a thing. If you don't say that the financial sector has been criminalized, or as Black says, criminogenic, then you're not going to get to the root of things. Nobody is expecting Attorney General Holder to actually prosecute any of these people for fraud. There are civil suits where none of the investment banks, whether it's Citibank or Bank of America or the others, they all pay the penalties to the SEC or to other government agencies without admitting criminal fraud, so that the real victims, the clients, can't sue them for triple damages. The fact is that all of these things were done as a racket. The definition of the racketeering laws, the RICO laws, for triple damages say that there has to be a predicate injury. The predicate injury is in organizing the fraud systemically. And what the banks did on Wall Street, the investment bankers worked with the crooked brokers, the crooked appraisers, the crooked ratings agencies, all to put together a fraud. They should pay triple damages. What did the administration do? It bailed out the banks for the fact that it lost some money on some of the people it tried to cheat. Some of the losers couldn't pay their debts. This is like going after Las Vegas losers, bailing out Las Vegas when some of the whales come in, lose a bet, and can't pay. The government says, well, we need Las Vegas to be the root of our financial system, so of course we have to bail out the casinos over there.
JAY: So what's an example of something that qualifies as fraud, versus working within such loose regulations that you can get away with this without it being called criminal?
HUDSON: Well, let's look at the regulations. New York state has a wonderful law on the book since colonial times, the law of fraudulent conveyance (fraudulent contains the word fraud). It defines a fraudulent loan as one in which a lender makes a loan to a debtor without any understanding of how the debtor can repay the loan in the normal course of business. That makes most of the subprime mortgage loans fraudulent. There's no prosecution of this. Nobody's even brought it up.
JAY: The--that's actually fairly straightforward, that that would be criminal. Now, that's common law? Or that's a piece of legislation [inaudible]
HUDSON: That's legislation [inaudible] when the states, the colonies, joined the Union, they kept the state laws on the books. And this law, fraudulent conveyance, was cited as recently as the 1980s during the junk bond takeover movement, when companies that were targets of corporate raiders bring up this and say, wait a minute, they're loading us down with debt so that they can carve up the company, declare bankruptcy, cheat the laborers, the workers, employees out of their pensions. This is fraud. So of course it's still on the books. When you have ratings agencies giving AAA as if who would have known that the material we were given was wrong? the fact is anybody in America can go onto the website, look at any address they want in the book for property values, and they can get an estimation of the property value for any address in the country. You have people's income all--you can get your credit rating score publicly available. The credit rating agencies carefully avoided getting anybody's credit rating score, carefully avoided checking on any property. They were complicit in this crime of wilful misrepresentation. Loans were made to whole buildings on empty blocks to fictitious individuals, all--. When you make a fictitious individual name, that's fraud. I mean, that's just obvious cheating, as anyone over the last few centuries would recognize, and there have been no prosecutions at all. That is multiplied by millions of millions of times. That's why we have the financial breakdown we have today. The Angelides Commission did not go into this, nor did Mr. Obama mention this in his speech, that he's going to direct Attorney General Holder to prosecute fraud, to throw enough fraudsters in jail to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Instead, he said we have to cut payments to the real economy in order to bail out the fraudsters and give them even more, so they can make what they expected to make on the fraud.
JAY: Clearly, 'cause so much of the current deficit came from bailouts to Wall Street. Thanks very much for joining us, Michael.
HUDSON: Paul, thank you.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End of Transcript
DISCLAIMER: Plea
Bio
Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971). ISLET engages in research regarding domestic and international finance, national income and balance-sheet accounting with regard to real estate, and the economic history of the ancient Near East. Michael acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide including Iceland, Latvia and China on finance and tax law.
Transcript
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. And on Thursday in Washington, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported. Now joining us from Forest Hills, New York, to discuss this is Michael Hudson. Michael is a former Wall Street economist. He's now a distinguished research professor at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. And he also runs a website called Michael-Hudson.com. Thanks for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON, RESEARCH PROF., UMKC: Thank you very much.
JAY: So, Michael, what do you make of this, the report?
HUDSON: It's not surprising one bit and seems to put the blame on the past. It blames Alan Greenspan. He's out of the picture. It blames Ben Bernanke. He's still head of the Fed. It doesn't blame Obama's major campaign contributors for fraud. It doesn't say, throw his campaign contributors in jail because they've organized a systemic financial fraud, as explained by my UMKC colleague William Black and is explained in the leaks that have come out in the last few days about how Bear Stearns people were packaging what they in their emails said was--this is shit, how do we sell them to others? They didn't focus on what really caused the collapse, and that is companies like Bear Stearns packaging junk mortgages that they knew would go bad, selling them to their clients, insuring them through capital insurance companies like AIG, selling the insurance companies short, knowing that the frauds would get them. And then, after the defaults came on 80 percent of the fraudulent loans, they then asked for a reimbursement from the original originators, for the money back, pocketing the money, not passing it on to their clients, so their clients had to go to AIG and other companies, driving them bankrupt. They didn't say that the whole process was one of crooks and that the crooks are the major contributors to the Obama campaign, and that these guys all should be thrown in jail.
JAY: Now, just a reference--you made a reference to Bill Black, and we've interviewed him many times. So if people want to see some of the more detailed drill-in to how this all took place, you can do a search for Bill Black's name on our website and you'll find our interviews. Now, the other side of the argument will be that they were operating within the law, that if the law allowed all these shenanigans, why shouldn't they play it? So then the blame is on the lawmakers, not the shenanigan-doers.
HUDSON: This is what is wrong with the Angelides Commission. It wasn't within the law. They were breaking the law. There are laws against fraud. There are laws against deceptive reporting. There are laws against cheating people. The laws were not supported. Then, if you don't say that, then you pretend that it was all just an accident and you don't learn a thing. If you don't say that the financial sector has been criminalized, or as Black says, criminogenic, then you're not going to get to the root of things. Nobody is expecting Attorney General Holder to actually prosecute any of these people for fraud. There are civil suits where none of the investment banks, whether it's Citibank or Bank of America or the others, they all pay the penalties to the SEC or to other government agencies without admitting criminal fraud, so that the real victims, the clients, can't sue them for triple damages. The fact is that all of these things were done as a racket. The definition of the racketeering laws, the RICO laws, for triple damages say that there has to be a predicate injury. The predicate injury is in organizing the fraud systemically. And what the banks did on Wall Street, the investment bankers worked with the crooked brokers, the crooked appraisers, the crooked ratings agencies, all to put together a fraud. They should pay triple damages. What did the administration do? It bailed out the banks for the fact that it lost some money on some of the people it tried to cheat. Some of the losers couldn't pay their debts. This is like going after Las Vegas losers, bailing out Las Vegas when some of the whales come in, lose a bet, and can't pay. The government says, well, we need Las Vegas to be the root of our financial system, so of course we have to bail out the casinos over there.
JAY: So what's an example of something that qualifies as fraud, versus working within such loose regulations that you can get away with this without it being called criminal?
HUDSON: Well, let's look at the regulations. New York state has a wonderful law on the book since colonial times, the law of fraudulent conveyance (fraudulent contains the word fraud). It defines a fraudulent loan as one in which a lender makes a loan to a debtor without any understanding of how the debtor can repay the loan in the normal course of business. That makes most of the subprime mortgage loans fraudulent. There's no prosecution of this. Nobody's even brought it up.
JAY: The--that's actually fairly straightforward, that that would be criminal. Now, that's common law? Or that's a piece of legislation [inaudible]
HUDSON: That's legislation [inaudible] when the states, the colonies, joined the Union, they kept the state laws on the books. And this law, fraudulent conveyance, was cited as recently as the 1980s during the junk bond takeover movement, when companies that were targets of corporate raiders bring up this and say, wait a minute, they're loading us down with debt so that they can carve up the company, declare bankruptcy, cheat the laborers, the workers, employees out of their pensions. This is fraud. So of course it's still on the books. When you have ratings agencies giving AAA as if who would have known that the material we were given was wrong? the fact is anybody in America can go onto the website, look at any address they want in the book for property values, and they can get an estimation of the property value for any address in the country. You have people's income all--you can get your credit rating score publicly available. The credit rating agencies carefully avoided getting anybody's credit rating score, carefully avoided checking on any property. They were complicit in this crime of wilful misrepresentation. Loans were made to whole buildings on empty blocks to fictitious individuals, all--. When you make a fictitious individual name, that's fraud. I mean, that's just obvious cheating, as anyone over the last few centuries would recognize, and there have been no prosecutions at all. That is multiplied by millions of millions of times. That's why we have the financial breakdown we have today. The Angelides Commission did not go into this, nor did Mr. Obama mention this in his speech, that he's going to direct Attorney General Holder to prosecute fraud, to throw enough fraudsters in jail to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Instead, he said we have to cut payments to the real economy in order to bail out the fraudsters and give them even more, so they can make what they expected to make on the fraud.
JAY: Clearly, 'cause so much of the current deficit came from bailouts to Wall Street. Thanks very much for joining us, Michael.
HUDSON: Paul, thank you.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End of Transcript
DISCLAIMER: Plea
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Edventure More
Animation:
Use professional modeling clay, wire techniques and story creation processes to film a clay animation short with your friends! Begin the week by learning how to use stop-motion software on iMac computers as well as popular special effect techniques used in clay animations such as Gumby or Wallace & Grommit. Then work in groups to develop a storyline, screen shots, scripts, sets and characters. Then it’s time to film your animated short! Employ different filming and editing techniques, as well as adding independent sound. Our animation program offers an impressive introduction to the complete process of creating an animated movie, from idea inception to the rolling credits at the end.
Animation:
Start the week by exploring how 2-D animators use optical illusions to make static images appear alive. Then draw your own characters or cut-out your favorite cartoons and use stop-motion techniques to make them do and say what you want. Your comic hero will also join others campers’ characters and embark on a fantastical journey. This week will challenge your artistic and technical skills, but like your comic heroes, you will succeed!
Animation:
Have you ever dreamed your toys came to life? This week’s theme will make those dreams a reality. This is the one and only time we recommend bringing your favorite action figures and dolls to camp (the more moveable parts the better!). First overcome the challenges of animating figurines using specialized set mounting techniques. Then create stories, sets, props and voice-overs that bring out your toy’s personality and reveal how it will act when someone else’s character enters the scene!
This session will explore a new method of visual storytelling.
“Mobile Movie Making - A New Frontier for Creating and Distributing Media” with Michael Koerbel and Anna Elizabeth James, Writer/Director/Producer at Majek Pictures, on Thursday, January 27 at 1:00 p.m. PT
This session will explore a new method of visual storytelling.
After the success of Apple of My Eye––shot and edited entirely on iPhone 4––Michael Koerbel and Anna Elizabeth James set out to make Goldilocks, a mobile film series in the same vein as Bourne Ultimatum. The series was originally intended to go through the Hollywood studio system, but the duo soon realized the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch would give them the opportunity to shoot and distribute it themselves, which they did. In addition to providing attendees with tips and tricks for shooting and editing with the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch, as well as insight into the top film accessories, gadgets and mobile movie making apps, Michael and Anna will discuss their distribution model of releasing Goldilocks through an app.
AES 2010: Sound Isolation Tools and Surround Sound Microphones
AES 2010: Sound Isolation Tools and Surround Sound Microphones
Alex Lindsay takes a look at sound isolation tools and surround sound microphones at the 129th Audio Engineering Society Convention in San Francisco.
10 Things You Need To Know About Social Media for Your Job Search
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Interesting use of social media at World Economic Forum to get people to push along climate change awareness:
Interesting use of social media at World Economic Forum to get people to push along climate change awareness: http://oneclimate.net
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
By Roger Ebert
I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.
The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.
This letter is from Walter Murch, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect.
Wikipedia writes: "Murch is widely acknowledged as the person who coined the term Sound Designer, and along with colleagues developed the current standard film sound format, the 5.1 channel array, helping to elevate the art and impact of film sound to a new level. "Apocalypse Now" was the first multi-channel film to be mixed using a computerized mixing board." He won two more Oscars for the editing and sound mixing of "The English Patient."
"He is perhaps the only film editor in history," the Wikipedia entry observes, "to have received Academy nominations for films edited on four different systems:
• "Julia" (1977) using upright Moviola
• "Apocalypse Now" (1979), "Ghost" (1990), and "The Godfather, Part III" (1990) using KEM flatbed
• "The English Patient" (1996) using Avid.
• "Cold Mountain" (2003) using Final Cut Pro on an off-the shelf PowerMac G4.
Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
Salt shaker and landscape Photoshops by Marie Haws.
By Roger Ebert
I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.
The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.
This letter is from Walter Murch, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect.
Wikipedia writes: "Murch is widely acknowledged as the person who coined the term Sound Designer, and along with colleagues developed the current standard film sound format, the 5.1 channel array, helping to elevate the art and impact of film sound to a new level. "Apocalypse Now" was the first multi-channel film to be mixed using a computerized mixing board." He won two more Oscars for the editing and sound mixing of "The English Patient."
"He is perhaps the only film editor in history," the Wikipedia entry observes, "to have received Academy nominations for films edited on four different systems:
• "Julia" (1977) using upright Moviola
• "Apocalypse Now" (1979), "Ghost" (1990), and "The Godfather, Part III" (1990) using KEM flatbed
• "The English Patient" (1996) using Avid.
• "Cold Mountain" (2003) using Final Cut Pro on an off-the shelf PowerMac G4.
Now read what Walter Murch says about 3D:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
Salt shaker and landscape Photoshops by Marie Haws.
Social media community and addiction discussion with Clay Shirky @cshirky
Social media community and addiction discussion with Clay Shirky @cshirky
Where people find the time.........
Conversation with Michael Dell. Yes, @Dell We talk about tablets and datacenters.
Conversation with Michael Dell. Yes, @Dell We talk about tablets and datacenters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
