Sunday, 1 May 2011
Modcast #72: Toro y Moi
Apparently he made this in bed, just for you. Dude is smooth.
Hailing from South Carolina, Chazwick Bundick as he's known to his family, is a multi-instrumentalist and quite prolific musician. He's released a stack of EPs and two full-length albums. His debut long player, Causers of This came out early last year and he followed that up with the fantastic Underneath the Pine earlier this year.
We've been listening to his records on repeat and we're thrilled he's taken put together the Modcast this week. It's a mellow ride but one worth getting on.
He's about to head across Europe for a bunch of shows in May, all the details are over here.
Track-list:
A First Class Dub - King Tubby
Come Live With Me - Dorothy Ashby
Part Version 8 - Piero Piccioni
Pealed Tomato - Chorafas
It's Choade My Dear - Connan Mockasin
Mariangela e la Seduzione - Ennio Morricone
Show Me To The Window- Robert Lester Folsom
Chi Mi Cerchera - Enrico Simonetti with Goblin
Was It All In Vain - Bixio Frizzi Tempura
Rainbow Ride - Kathy McCord
O Sabia - Les Wanted
Clay Horses - Julian Lynch
Download
Handwriting Is a 21st-Century Skill
Is preserving and reviving cursive handwriting retro sentimentality or neo-Luddism? No, it's good teaching and good neuroscience. (I see this as one whose own notes would be the ultimate test of character recognition software.) The New York Times doesn't go far enough on this. The close connections between hand and brain, whether in music or in writing, have strong support in research, as summarized here:
The real challenge is developing 21st-century teaching methods for cursive. In her excellent Handwriting in America, Tamara Thornton showed how regimented 19th-century instruction could be. It could literally be a pain in the neck. Yet the growing paperwork empire desperately needed commonly recognizable documents. When I wrote the chapter on typewriter and computer keyboards in Our Own Devices, I found evidence that the real attraction of the earliest typewriters was not so much speed as uniformity in large organizations. Magazines, with dozens or hundreds of contributors, started to insist on typewritten copy by the 1890s to speed composition. That's why for decades there were so few typewriter fonts.
In the 19th century, handwriting was a fetish, excessively drilled in the schools. Now it's equally dismissed. We are truly "Immoderation Nation." Instead of dismissing cursive reflexively, administrators should take advantage of many innovative cursive programs (like this) that can bring the benefits of this skill to new (and older) generations.
Edward Tenner @'the Atlantic'
Neurologist Frank Wilson, author of The Hand: How its Use Shapes the Brain, Language and Human Culture, says, "Although the repetitive drills that accompany handwwriting lessons seem outdated, such physical instruction will help students to succeed. He says these activities stimulate brain activity, lead to increased language fluency, and aid in the development of important knowledge." He describes in detail the pivotal role of hand movements, in particular the development of thinking and language capacities, and in "developing deep feelings of confidence and interest in the world-all-together, the essential prerequistes for the emergence of the capable and caring individual."Handwriting has also been surprisingly relevant technologically. What has Steve Jobs always cited as a formative experience? A course in calligraphy at Reed College. Many of the most popular fonts for Mac and PC alike were created by designers with calligraphic training. Many people hate the soft keyboards of many smartphones and all tablets; using a stylus quickly and legibly can be the best alternative, especially when voice recording isn't possible.
The real challenge is developing 21st-century teaching methods for cursive. In her excellent Handwriting in America, Tamara Thornton showed how regimented 19th-century instruction could be. It could literally be a pain in the neck. Yet the growing paperwork empire desperately needed commonly recognizable documents. When I wrote the chapter on typewriter and computer keyboards in Our Own Devices, I found evidence that the real attraction of the earliest typewriters was not so much speed as uniformity in large organizations. Magazines, with dozens or hundreds of contributors, started to insist on typewritten copy by the 1890s to speed composition. That's why for decades there were so few typewriter fonts.
In the 19th century, handwriting was a fetish, excessively drilled in the schools. Now it's equally dismissed. We are truly "Immoderation Nation." Instead of dismissing cursive reflexively, administrators should take advantage of many innovative cursive programs (like this) that can bring the benefits of this skill to new (and older) generations.
Edward Tenner @'the Atlantic'
Scanner - Les Fenêtres
Commissioned installation work for the launch of the Chambre Sonore at La Gaîté Lyrique, Paris, France, March 2011. Based upon writings by the poet Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), Les Fenêtres uses readings of the text sliced and choreographed into a spiraling pattern of words, breathes and the spaces in between words. A generative light system created by United Visual Artists (UVA) responds in real time to the sound, building to a synesthetic peak.
Originally a 10 speaker immersive installation this is a special stereo mix. Listen on good speakers to enjoy the full bass experience.
Via
Originally a 10 speaker immersive installation this is a special stereo mix. Listen on good speakers to enjoy the full bass experience.
Via
diasporg David Morley
No Invite needed to join Diaspora* https://diasp.org or http://podupti.me - Social Network with Privacy!
Diaspora: An Antidote For Your Facebook Privacy Problems
G'night
The lambs have laid down with the sheep.
You're cozy and warm in your bed, my dear
Please go the fuck to sleep.
37 versions of The Internationale (for May Day!)
The Internationale [variant words in square brackets]Arise ye workers [starvelings] from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth [forthwith] the old tradition [conditions]
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty [give up their booty]
And give to all a happier lot.
Each [those] at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.
Includes versions by:
Alistair HulettAni DiFranco & Utah Phillips
Black
Frank Rennicke
Hanns Eisler
Pete Seeger
Robert Wyatt
Russian Red Army Choir
The New Singers
Tuli Kupferberg...
BillyBragg:
DOWNLOAD
(BIG thanx HerrB!)
via
UPDATE: Even more versions to download
HERE
Saturday, 30 April 2011
PoliceStateUK Police State UK
RT @sophiacr: Police commander Bob Broadhurst: “the threat to the #royalwedding is a threat to democracy" #irony #ithinkyoumeanaristocracy
(GB2011)
Synesthesia
Synesthesia
"A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color."
Directed by Terri Timely
www.territimely.com
"A condition in which one type of stimulation evokes the sensation of another, as when the hearing of a sound produces the visualization of a color."
Directed by Terri Timely
www.territimely.com
This royal wedding is Britain's Marie Antoinette moment
How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience.
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
Polly Toynbee @'The Guardian'
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
Polly Toynbee @'The Guardian'
wikileaks WikiLeaks
Robots call people to tell them its illegal to read WikiLeaks during Canadian election. It's not. http://is.gd/BqB8p3
The #ZUCKUP Dilemma
On the one hand, it is true that Facebook's social networking platform has served revolutionary organizers well in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere. The speed by which a call to protest can snowball into bodies on the streets intent on toppling a regime is awe inspiring and for the foreseeable future, Facebook will continue to play an important role in organizing protests and insurrections. And yet, Facebook is, in its essence, a capitalist business venture whose raison d'être is the commercialization of human relations. It is terrifying, and ultimately self-defeating that a commercially driven enterprise has insinuated itself into the soul of global activism.
On a deeper level, however, beyond all self-recriminations and angry tweets against Facebook's latest #zuckup the question remains: How will we, culture jammers, escape this dilemma? What are activists and revolutionaries to do in a world where a for-profit company has a near monopoly on social networking? Would thousands of us committing Facebook suicide wake Zuckerberg up? Could we jam Facebook into submission? Or must we develop our own non-commercial platform better suited to insurrection? What is the solution to this dilemma? How do we break the Gordian knot?
@'Adbusters'
lou_reuters lou charbonneau
REUTERS - Makeshift morgues in #Syria city Deraa hold 83 corpses, including women and children, killed in army attack -- rights campaigner
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
