Ego Vero Seek and you shall find... Ask and the door shall be opened - page 11

Welcome to Music Friday on a Saturday morning.  What can I say? I just ran out of Friday.  No matter – since there are no more Saturday morning cartoons you don’t have anything better to do, right?  Thought so.

OK, so jumping off my previous post (scroll down or click here), I want to throw something different at you.  These songs are among my favorites – what does that say about me?  If you ask me, it says nothing.  But what do you imagine it says about me?  Listen to these while you ponder that.

Presented with minimal commentary.  Click on the artist’s name to follow a link to their Wikipedia page.  First up is a song from the soundtrack of a popular movie by dueling pianists Ferrante & Teicher:

Come to think of it, these are all from soundtracks.  The next offering is the first of a pair from Henry Mancini:

And finally another Henry Mancini arrangement:

So.  Any opinions?  Did my choices reveal my secret personality?  Please feel free to leave a comment.

And conversely, what does your taste in music say about you?

According to this article at Pcsychology Today it says quite a bit.  Practically the first sentence of the article asserts that you can predict whether someone is politically conservative or liberal by noting “markers of openness” in a person’s music collection.  For me, this is where the article goes…well…barking up the wrong tree.  Because the “markers of openess” allegedly denoting a politically liberal person exist in my library/music collection.  I am not liberal, politically anyway.  And it just goes further off the rails from there.  My advice?  Just listen to what you like and don’t worry so much about what it says about you.  Because whatever it “says about you” is likely to be a (probably wrong) conclusion jumped to by someone who doesn’t know you.

But there are still some questions related to what we listen to and why we listen to it.  For example: At what age do you form your taste in music?  Many an article has been written on this subject and they all say something different.  Some say at a certain age your brain “bonds” to the music you listen to.  Some say that you settle on music that coincides with a certain emotional climate occurring in your life at a certain time.  And so on and so on.  I understand that we want to know why.  We’re always asking WHY?  But does it matter?  I don’t think so.

And finally, questions inspired by this post at Althouse: what is your “peak year” for favorite music and how old were you at that time?  Well, the answers to these questions may go some way to answering the previous questions because if you can determine your “peak year” you may have some empirical data to fill in the blanks to the previous questions and perhaps a pattern will emerge.  I did say perhaps.  I also said “if you can answer”.  I add the disclaimer because determining your “peak year” isn’t as easy as it sounds.  That may be a project for the coming week with the results posted next Music Friday.  We’ll see.

My guess is that my “peak year” falls into the mid 1960s somewhere, at least based on my recent Music Friday posts.  But I could do music posts all day every day and still get stuck in any given genre for a good long while.  So what does my taste in music say about me?  I don’t really know.  And I don’t really care.

…about Empiricism.

Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), sometimes referred to as the Father of Empiricism.

Hat Tip: Tragedy Series

If someone told you that simply wearing a certain…umm…undergarment for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week for 28 days would shrink your hips and thighs reduce cellulite, would you believe it?  Some people would or those undergarments would not be for sale.  And they are for sale.

The Revolutionary I-Pants, infused with micro-encapsulated “active ingredients”:  caffeine, retinol, ceramides. vitamin E, fatty acids and Aloe Vera are available at various outlets.  However, Norm Thompson Outfitters and Wacoal America have been enjoined from making weight loss claims by the FTC.  I haven’t read through the FTC complaint, but I’m sure their reasoning was something along the lines of the weight loss claims being “utter nonsense”.  Or perhaps they used another more colorful euphemism for male bovine digestive excretion.

The purpose of this post isn’t to bash stupid products sold with ridiculous and obviously false marketing claims.  It’s more about wondering why those ridiculous and obviously false marketing claims work.  I’m pretty sure everyone knows that wearing caffeinated underpants will not shrink your butt.  But some people are willing to believe it.  Why is that?  Is it simply a case of “desperate times call for desperate measures”?  I would wager that there are some I-Pant owners whose posterior girth would not warrant that degree of desperation.

What started my mind wandering down this road (besides coming across the article about I-Pants) were some thoughts I was having about Empiricism, which is a theory that knowledge can only come from sensory experience or evidence.  Something else altogether got me thinking about Empiricism.  But I digress.  Certain companies may (and do) use ridiculous and false marketing claims to sell bad products because they know it works.  They have evidence of it.  They have reason to believe it.  Consumers, on the other hand, have no reason to believe the marketing claims.  They’ve seen no evidence.  They have only a desire to believe the claims.  They have reason to suspend their disbelief – no – they have desire to suspend their disbelief.  Had they reason, their disbelief woud remain intact.

We’re willing to believe.  We want to believe.  So there it is (again) – desire.  Getting us into trouble.  Making us think that purchasing the Revolutionary I-Pant is a good idea.  Or taking us down some similar crooked path.  While cold reason quietly takes a back seat awaiting the empirical data and the opportunity to say (again) Told You So!

If we want something bad enough, we’re willing to believe almost anything.  Does believing it make it true?  I dunno.  I’m still waitin’ on the data…

I swiped the headline from within the story.  Couldn’t resist.  The story via Yahoo News is from Australia: School Bans Cartwheels.  Seems that the school principal initiated the rule because, you know, “someone could get hurt”.  Huh.  I had such high hope for the Ozzies.  In their defense, everyone except the principal at fault seems to think this is a bad idea, including her superiors at the Education Ministry or whatever they call it.

A few months ago I wrote about a study done in New Zealand where the elimination of such playground “rules” did not result in more injuries.  Not only that, but there was a decrease in bullying and the overall discipline at the school improved.   After that, I was hopeful that we might reverse the trend to childproof childhood.  Guess I was wrong.

At least that’s my opinion.  Every step forward is not neccessarily progress.

Let’s back up a little in case you aren’t familiar with the phrase “internet of things”.  More and more devices we use have microprocessors and internet connectivity built in for automation or for more efficient operation.  In practicality it means many things we use are becoming “smart”.  The “internet of things” refers to this grid of interconnected smart devices.

As I have stated in the past, I am skeptical of our implementation of new technologies, mostly in regard to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence.  Now you can add to that the smartification and internet connectivity of every damn thing we own.  Apparently I’m not alone.  At The Atlantic, Alexis Madrigal and Robinson Meyer have co-authored a piece entitled “When Everything Works Like Your Cell Phone” that outlines a few concerns starting with three things that happen to an object when it connects to the internet.  It becomes smart, it becomes hackable and it becomes something you no longer completeley own.  It goes downhill from there.

Companies are working on this technology in ways you probably would never imagine, in order to Make Your Life Easier.  Pull quote:

“Smartness” implies a smartphone-like upgrade cycle…This aspirational smartness is not just coming to watches. Any product that’s worth more than a few bucks will have some intelligence and communication abilities embedded in it. Companies that exist today are trying to create smart umbrellas and smart crockpots.

Do you want a crockpot that has to be replaced at every few years—or at least that will be forever upgrading itself? Would apps change your mind?

Let’s talk about a few examples that exist today.  The “smart” thermostat comes to mind.  The utility company will “give” you one – free of charge!  To help you save money on your bill.  How nice of them.  The little bastard will also rat you out to the utility company if you set it too low or too high, and the utility company can take control over it in certain situations.  Not really yours, is it?  What about your Smartphone?  Well, you can’t do everything you want with it.  Your only allowed to use it consistent with the carrier’s terms of service.  And you can’t unlock it and use it on another carrier.  Plus it spies on you.  Is it really yours?

So do you really want to be driving around in a Smart Car that won’t go as fast as you want it to?  You want to get to work today don’t you?  Click here to agree to our terms of service.  Don’t agree?  Get out and walk.  Do you want to have a Smart Toaster  or other Smart Appliances collecting data about your kitchen habits and sending them up to the cloud?  All just so you can control them with your smartphone without having to get up off the couch ten feet away?  I don’t.

The more automation simplfies our lives, the more it complicates our lives.  And the only reason to have autonomous machines is so that human decision making and judgement are not required for their operation.  You see where that’s going?  As our machines get smarter and smarter, we get dumber and dumber.  And dumberer.  Don’t believe me?  Look around.

I will make an exception for the Manhattan Project BarBot.  Lemme just look over these terms of service.  Hmmm……two drink maximum per person?

Dammit!

The Stonehenge ruin in England continues to pique our interest.  Built before the advent of written language, the motives of it creators have ever been a subject of curiosity and scholarly study.  According to this article at LiveScience.com, modern technology such as ground penetrating radar and computer modeling are being used to study the site and the surrounding area; the results are showing a vastly larger and more complex design to what is now believed to be a regional ritual site.  Notice that I said believed to be.  Speculation and educated guesswork is the order of the day since as I stated earlier, no written records exist.  So as researchers learn more about the people who built the monuments, they may have a better idea as to why they were built.

The earliest activity at the site, evidence of timber structures, dates from approximately 8000 years B.C., with the large  familiar stone structure having been built around 2600 years B.C.  The last known construction appears to have happened around 1600 years B.C.  which means that the organized activities surrounding the site have spanned a period of some 6,400 years!  The main activities performed here seem to be burials and cremations, and these apparently were ritual internment rather that human sacrifice.

Since the stones line up with various celestial events like the solstices, it is speculated that the site may be an astonomical observatory.  As it seems to coincide with the transition of the then current civilization (such as it was) from a hunting/gathering society to an agricultural one, perhaps the site served as a calendar so that crops could be planted at the correct time, and an accurate prediction of harvest time could be made.  I don’t know a lot about what type of belief system was practiced by the inhabitants of the area, but I assume they believed in deities that controlled natural forces (the heavens, the seasons, etc) and this calendar was part shrine to their deities as well.  The fact that they buried their dead here leads me to believe that it was also considered a pathway to the afterlife.  Strictly my opinions, as I said, I have no expertise in the area.

I don’t subscribe to the various theories of extraterrestrial involvement at Stonehenge.  I think that primitive people were very observant and adaptive and capable of great ingenuity when their very survival may have been at stake.  The history of our species and the collective experiences of our forebears are all part of what makes us who we are.  The things we have learned along the way are the reasons why we do what we do and so to better understand our past is to better understand ourselves.

If, like me you are naturally curious about our origins and history, it is well worth the few minutes of your time it will take to click this link and read the article at LiveScience.com.  There are several more informative links and a video within that article.  Enjoy!

How about some Irish humor?  Via Instapundit I came across the Irish humor blog Tyrone Tribulations.  It features “news” stories from County Tyrone.  Hilarious.

Here’s a sample: Witch-Ducking  “Isn’t Alway The Answer” Says Controversial Ardboe Man

Well, I liked it anyway.  I think you will too.

*Not everyone in America is from Ireland, though most of them say they are from Ireland.  Also, this:

…and so here you go – Beatles Pancakes (!)

It’s not fair that some people (like myself) have almost zero artistic talent, yet this dude creates art in the kitchen and then eats it.

OK, back to wandering….                 ……………………………………..

Oh…almost forgot.  hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ

Welcome to another Music Friday.  Today I am jumping off a post I did a couple weeks ago featuring The Seekers, who had a hit song written by Tom Springfield, the brother of today’s featured artist  Dusty Springfield.  Who on earth is Dusty Springfield? you ask, unless you are old like me.  Well, since you’ve asked, Dusty Springfield was an English pop singer and Blue Eyed Soul artist from the late 1950’s until the 1990’s, though most of her success came in the mid to late 1960’s.  Dusty Springfield was her stage name.  Her real name was Mary Isobel Catherine Bernadette O’Brien and she was born in London in 1939 to an English father and an Irish mother.  I seem to have a thing for Irish girls.  The family enjoyed music, so the children were encouraged to partake.  Mary began singing professionally in 1958 (age 19).  The “Springfield” alias originated when she and her brother formed a folk group in 1964.  Apparently they rehearsed outdoors – in a field – and so they thought an appropriate name for the group would be The Springfields.  Each member adopted a nickname and since Mary was reportedly somewhat of a tomboy known for playing football with the boys, “Dusty” seemed like a fitting moniker.  In retropsect it is also a neatly fitting description of her vocal style.

As a fan of American pop music, she was responsible for introducing some lesser know American MoTown artists to an English audience as the host of an English TV program called “Ready, Steady, Go!” in the early 1960’s.  The Springfields enjoyed some success, but nevertheless disbanded in late 1963.  Shortly thereafter, Dusty Springfield released her first solo single, “I Only Wanna Be With You”.  The song, released in 1963, charted at #4 in Great Britain and made the Billboard Hot 100 in the U.S., peaking at #12 in 1964.  This is the song that introduced her to America.

Here are three performances from British television in no particular order.  Note that these are sung live, not lip-synced as later became common for televised pop music performances in the 60’s.

From 1968, “Son of a Preacher Man”

Next:  “All I See Is You”

OK, I saved the best for last.  This next song charted in the U.S. in 1966.  Springfield called it “good old schmalz”, but one of the composers of the song, Simon Napier-Bell, felt that Dusty’s rendition took it to another level:

“There, standing on the staircase at Philips studio, singing into the stairwell, Dusty gave her greatest ever performance – perfection from first breath to last, as great as anything by Aretha Franklin or Sinatra or Pavarotti. Great singers can take mundane lyrics and fill them with their own meaning. This can help a listener’s own ill-defined feelings come clearly into focus. Vicki [Wickham] and I had thought our lyric was about avoiding emotional commitment. Dusty stood it on its head and made it a passionate lament of loneliness and love.” – Simon Napier-Bell

A song that was voted among the All Time Top 100 Songs by BBC Radio 2 listeners in 1999: “You Don’t Have To Say You Love Me”

She lived an interesting life – too many things to write about and not enough time or space here.  Follow this Wikipedia link if you’d like the rest of the story.  Just two final notes:  She was prone to odd behavior such as food fights and breaking crockery which was described by others as “having a wicked sense of humor”.  She never had a heterosexual relationship.  Though she said her prime ambition was to love a man, she also said  “they frighten me”.  She died of breast cancer in England in 1999.