The Fry Side

A cool article showing how the advancements in making pianos have changed the sounds of music from what their composers may have heard.

The prime example of what I’m talking about is perhaps the most famous piece ever written: Beethoven’s “Moonlight” Sonata. Hector Berlioz called its murmuring, mournful first movement, “one of those poems that human language does not know how to interpret.” At the beginning, Beethoven directs the performer to hold down the sustain pedal through the whole first movement, so the strings are never damped. With the pianos of Beethoven’s time, on which the sustain of the strings was shorter than today, the effect was subtle, one harmony melting into another. On a modern piano, with its longer sustain, the effect of holding the pedal down would be a tonal traffic jam. Today you have to fake the effect, and it never quite works as intended. Here’s Alfred Brendel playing the beginning of the “Moonlight” about as well as anyone on the ubiquitous modern Steinway.

Compare that to Gayle Martin Henry playing a piano from around 1805 by the Viennese maker Caspar Katholnig.

The sound is startlingly different from a modern piano and takes a while to get used to. These instruments were mostly played in small to medium-size rooms. The sound is intimate; you hear wood and felt and leather. The voicing is varied through the registers rather than the homogenous sound of modern pianos. On the Katholnig, the effect of holding the pedal down in the “Moonlight” has a ghostly effect, most obvious in the longer-sustaining bass notes that can sound like a distant gong. All these elements of the pianos Beethoven knew shaped the music in the first place, including the way he picked out high and low notes around the murmuring figure in the middle of the keyboard.

You’ll have to click over to the article to hear the music clips to hear what he’s talking about. It’s very cool, and something I’ve often wondered. It is a bit of a musical history musing as to what Mozart would have come up with if he had access to more modern pianos with far greater dynamic ranges.

(Found via Megan McArdle :: The Atlantic.)

An interesting concept from a great article about how reading helps children grieve.

Ultimately, reading takes them to a place that every child should know intimately. As Roger said, “The whole intention is to encourage children to see reading and books as parts of their own imagination.” Reading becomes a part of who they are, not merely something that they do.

Last week had some fun news out of CPAC, a Conservative conference in Washington DC. Only there could you find fun interactions like these. It really goes to show that the only Republican I can get behind anymore is Ron Paul.

My recollections are not perfect, of course, but Nate Gunderson should be able to help me fill in the details. The exchange is roughly as follows.

“So, you’re the infamous Ryan Sorba,” I said.

“Yep!”

“You’ve made quite a name for yourself.”

“Haha, yeah. Where are you from?”

“I go to college around here, American University.”

“What are you studying?”

“I was double-majoring in Political Science with a political theory focus and International Relations with an Islamic Studies focus, but I think I’m going to drop the latter. I can’t take the relativistic preaching, the whitewashing of the burqa, Sayyid Qutb, the entire religion.”

“Yeah, I know what you mean. So what did you think of my little tirade, then?”

“Oh, I thought it was quite evil, actually. I’m gay.”

“You mean you think you’re gay.”

“No, I’m gay. Do you think it’s a choice?”

“I think it’s the result of a complex process of social and environmental factors, but that it’s reversible.”

“So, like, why is it that over one hundred animals have been observed engaging in homosexual sex in nature?”

“Well, only 0.2% of animals are known to do that — ”

” — I mean, mammals, obviously, not ants, birds — ”

” — you know, animals masturbate, your dog humps your leg. Does your dog talk with a lisp?”

“Do I talk with a lisp?!” I yelled.

“A little bit.” (I later asked a couple of gay friends if I have a small lisp; both of them said I have no lisp whatsoever. Aron, who is straight, has said my voice is sometimes theatrical, but that I don’t have a lisp.)

“Rudy Giuliani has a lisp — is he gay?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Yup.

My wife and I were getting ready for bed and I had the TV remote next to me. She rolled over and caused the remote to crash onto the floor. Wondering what the noise was, she asked “What was that?” “What do you think it was?” I responded. Without missing a beat, she replied “Your fault.” IMMD.

Old-school gamers, prepare to wet your pants:

Hands-on: D&D on the Microsoft Surface

Even the geeky laughter in the background is spot on. How’d they do that!?

(Found via Lifehacker.)

For all of you fun-loving education cynics out there:

Best Book Awards for Teaching to the Test

The Roots and Stems Award: Throw away your dictionary and consider using the SAT vocabulary lists as your guide. The more obscure words you use in your book, the better. After all, words like “iconoclast” and “venerable” are hard to find in context at school.

The Venn Award: Can students compare and contrast the characters in your book using a graphic organizer? Will your plot fit nicely on a pyramid? If my students can record everything they need to remember about your book onto one worksheet, you are a frontrunner for this award.

The Field Trip Award: Can I use your book to show my students what a zoo, museum, or concert hall really looks like? How about recess? With budget cuts and a focus on standards-based curriculum, the only way my students might have these experiences is if you write about them.

The Marginalia Award: If my students can write reams of annotation while reading your book, this is the award for you. Talk to your publisher and ask them to widen the margins. Two inches–the width of a small Post-It note– would be best.

The Diorama Award: Open House is just around the corner, and I need something to hang on the walls. Besides, knowing that a project is due is the only thing that motivates my students to read. Does your book lend itself to a wanted poster, cereal box, or paper bag report? If I can integrate technology by assigning a power point project, I will use your book every year. Since all we do in class is drill on test-taking skills, students will have to complete this project at home. Consider including instructions for parents.

(Found via Stop Homework.)

I thought this was an interesting take on a different kind of use for an iPad.

Person: My mother. 62. Queen of the Luddites.
Computer proficiency: Absolutely none.
Will she be getting the iPad? Yep. The 16GB 3G model.
Why? My mom has never owned a computer. She doesn’t have an internet connection. She couldn’t explain to you what Facebook is. And she refers to my iPhone as “that information device.”

Given all this, I was quite surprised when she said she’ll be getting one right away. But then it made perfect sense. My mom hates computers because the icons are so small and the various program UI’s are relatively confusing (remember, she’s a 62 year old woman who still clings to her VHS tapes). My mom never saw the value in getting a computer and subscribing to a $30 monthly internet service when computers were always hard for her to use (she never really understood the mouse moves the cursor on the screen thing) and the only thing she would really use the computer for would be email.

For her the iPad is perfect. It’s not small like the iPhone, so she can see everything on the screen without squinting. Because my mom is a light internet user (think email and Skype), the $15 pay-as-you-go 250MB 3G price plan is perfect for her – especially since she can cancel at any time. She doesn’t have to sign a $30 a month contract and has no modem to worry about dying on her. But, the real appeal about the iPad is there is no mouse for her to fuddle with or cursor to follow. With the iPad, when she wants to check on her email, she simply touches the screen. My mom has poor sight but the iPad is both large enough and features a simple enough UI that she can touch to email with ease.

Best of all, when she isn’t checking her email, the iPad will double as a digital picture frame. My mom loves her photos and has recently gotten a digital camera. But with no computer, she’s had to take the camera card to Walgreen’s to get the pictures printed. Now with the iPad and the camera connection kit she can bypass a computer entirely and view her photos as never before.

I hadn’t thought of the iPad as a device for the non-computer user before, namely since it requires a computer to sync up to. However, it seems more self-contained than even an iPhone, so it could work. And besides, when there’s an update or other things to put on it, usually it’s the computer-savvy relative helping out anyway, why not just plug into their computer and fix everything there? I can see this.

Yet still a big issue is the backlit screen versus e-ink (as pointed out later in the article). E-ink is easier on the eyes, so hopefully there are some good screen settings in there for those of us who would use it as a newspaper most of the time.

Here is a grand idea from Professor Bainbridge about how to get nuclear power going again in the US.

The Navy already operates dozens of small nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines, with an outstanding record of safety and reliability. They have an established training program that churns out nuclear-capable officers.

By analogy to the Army Corps of Engineering, we could create a Navy Corps of Nuclear Engineering. It would build and operate dozens of small nuclear power plants around the country.

To address security concerns, the first plants would be built on military bases, where the garrison can provide security. Licensing costs would be cut because the government would own and operate the plants.

The proposal should not offend small government sensibilities. Nuclear power is rife with market failures (and government failures). Huge research and development costs associated with traditional large scale nuclear power plants may be beyond the ability of private firms to finance. In addition, we know that private firms tend to underproduce the sort of basic R&D necessary to develop new generations of power plants. But the Navy already spends money to develop new naval reactors, which presumably could be scaled up at reasonable costs. Since the Navy need not worry about earning market competitive rates of return on its investment in R&D, moreover, there’s no economic disincentive to conducting that sort of R&D in the Navy.

(Found via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.)

I thought this was great. Small power plants at military sites means the technology gets used, they don’t use fossil fuels, our defense not only stays off the grid but can now offset some costs by selling leftover power to the grid.

Now all we have to do is upgrade the damn grid.

Here is Andrew Sullivan’s immediate take on Tuesday’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hearings:A Question Of Integrity

Gates’ statement had all the usual Gates touches: a commitment to objective, calm, and professional review. And it has a plea to outsiders not to overly politicize this by using soldiers and their families as pawns in the debate. The bottom line is a 45 day review to make sure that the current policy is being applied fairly and a year-long review to examine every aspect of this proposed change.

But Mullen’s statement was a stunner. He did more than endorse this long process of inquiry and debate and to ensure that the current policy is implemented more fairly – so that anyone with a grievance against a gay servicemember can out him or her and end his or her career.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated before Congress that he personally believed the policy violated a core principle of the US military: integrity. He said that requiring servicemembers to lie as part of their duty to their country violated their integrity as soldiers and the military’s integrity itself. He said, in other words, that the current policy is dishonorable. I agree with him.

He remains open to competing arguments and data as this process goes forward, as he should.

But as of now, he believes the Clinton policy violates the integrity of the US military. I don’t think you could be much fairer than this approach and although I remain impatient for an end to this ban, I also believe it is only responsible to develop a careful plan to implement it and to ensure that the core task of the military, gay and straight, remains the defense of this country and its interests around the world.

Now let’s do what we can to keep the debate calm and reasoned and civil. Mullen and Gates set a tone the rest of us, on both sides, need to follow. Because lasting reform will become impossible without it. And servicemembers, gay and straight, deserve to be able to do their job with this matter finally behind them.

[emphasis mine]

Can’t help but hope, no?

My take on the State of the Union speech last night was that it sounded more like a lecture to Congress, rather than a speech for the people. I am all for that, because more than ever, it seems that the Senate and House have far more problems getting work done than Obama. And Obama is a constitutional scholar; he respects that Congress is the primary body politic of the US and that it needs the most power compared to the President and to the Supreme Court.

I am naturally a libertarian (except when it comes to children), and would lean Republican, but have yet to vote for one. I can’t see myself supporting a party overrun by Jesus with an M-16. I’ve never been able to fully support Democrats because I think they want government to do too much for us, plus I don’t much care for Unions or hippies.

So to me, the speech went well. I like to hear the ideas of rolling back the government a bit in order to, you know, pay for things we promise. And I really liked that Obama vocally disagreed with the Supreme Court (Roberts as CJ = we’ll be paying for Bush for a long, long time), and that he admonished both parties in Congress for failing to do work.

Democrats, you have a majority, do something with it. Republicans, just saying ‘no’ to everything isn’t leadership. Seriously, this is why I can’t support any of you right now. (Note: I do support Democrat Tarryl Clark for Congress in my district for so many good reasons I named above.)

It’s been interesting reading the immediate responses to the speech out in the blogosphere. The truly liberal are ragingly pissed about Obama’s concessions to cut spending and still wanting to work with Republicans. The political commentators seem wary that the speech did anything. And, well, I don’t have many conservative writers in my RSS feed because they sound as though they’re foaming at the mouth more than anything else.

Frankly, I thought Obama passing the responsibility on to Congress to get things done, particularly telling Republicans that if they have a better idea, he’d like to hear it. I think that’s a great way to call them out on their empty critiques.

I spent the speech just sitting there watching and reading a couple of other live-blogging events. There were only a couple of points that made me react. Here’s from my Twitter feed:

Did he really just end the Iraq war, or has that date always been set?

YES! Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! [I actually clapped and shouted 'Yes!' when I heard that.]

These are big deal things to me, and he had better follow through. Now, I know Obama said that combat troops would be out of Iraq, so that means we’d still have support personnel on the ground. Frankly, I see a permanent base there, similar to the leftovers of World War Two.

As for DADT, I’m excited, but the history I’ve read from other blogs is to be wary. Many things have been promised in the past to the gay community and so many went unfulfilled. But I can see DADT ending with Iraq engagement and taking care of two big shifts in the military at once.

To wrap up, I want to note the Republican response to the State of the Union. Interesting to note, Governor McDonnell gave the response before an actual assembly rather than in front of a camera in a room. It’s just different than what has been done before.

However, Governor McDonnell said nothing. The entire time, he sounded like an empty shell. I kept waiting and waiting for a single idea that could be presented as an alternative to any of Obama’s plans. I heard mention of off-shore drilling, but that was all, and Obama even hit on that himself.

So it was a non-speech. Even my wife kept repeating to me, he’s not saying anything. But according to pundits, the bar was so low, all he had to do was not cut an audible fart in front of the camera. Good job, McDonnell. At least your speech was only ten minutes so you didn’t have to worry about saying anything relevant.