Topsy-Turvy

Posted on 30 March, 2016 by odo

the cost of assumptions

It’s a question of value and values. It began with larger social structures that required greater organization. Imperceptibly the establishment of a hierarchy reassigned value. In small band level social units, groups of less than 50, everyone knows everyone else. Each individual’s value in the group is equal. As group size enlarges, specialization differentiates individuals from each other. These differentiations initiate a stratified value system that, when left unexamined, leads to exaggerated valuation and devaluation. Soon those given positions of authority begin to take, and feel entitled to, more resources based on the assumption that the things they do and know are worth more, and that they are of greater importance. It’s obvious.

There is no pyramid without a base. But when we get fixated on the point at the top, we fail to see what’s holding it up. Without a support system, no high level position can exist, nor does it matter. Take away the basic underpinnings of any presumed great object or system, and the entire house of cards collapses.

There is no skyscraper without a formidable foundation below its facade. The deep structure that supports the enormous weight of hundreds of feet of steel, concrete, glass, furnishings, and people, is unseen—out of sight, out of mind. The internal structure that resists winds and earthquakes is unseen—out of sight, out of mind. The same happens with people. Those who perform the basic functions of society, the service people, construction workers, custodians, are indispensable. High-tech is nowhere without the substructure that makes their work possible. Doctors are irrelevant without farmers. Lawyers are worthless without an entire network of ordinary people who allow them time to specialize in something beyond subsistence. Engineers are extraneous when the streets are overflowing with garbage. Are these specialized jobs really worth more? How much do they contribute to the well being of society? Who can we really do without? Take away the bottom and find out.

There are many sorts of justifications for why higher degrees and greater specialization are worth more. Smarter is worth more. Greater effort is worth more. More education is worth more. Yet, greater knowledge and superior skills are their own reward. Human advances are reliant on those who have the talent and time and drive to pursue knowledge. Not everyone has the interest. It’s a good thing too. How would the time and freedom necessary for these specialized pursuits be possible without ordinary people doing ordinary jobs to pave the way?

We have assumed for millennia that commoners who do basic, everyday work are disposables, like paper cups. We have assumed royalty is worthy of our praise and devotion, like gold. We’ve accepted these assumptions without asking crucial questions. Who is dependent on whom? How is one position worth more than another?

Those in positions of power are utterly dependent on those who are willing to abdicate their power. When the underlings realize their strength, when the privileged realize their weakness, when we shed our upside-down assumptions and reassess our values, we may make claim to a superior society.

Many ideologies come down, in the end, to ways of justifying our sense that we ought to get the greater share. — Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, Plato at the Googleplex, 2014

Read part 1 [Based on Science : the cost of ignorance]
Read part 2 [Falsehoods, Fabrications, Fictions : the cost of negligence]
Read part 3 [The Virtual Revolution : the cost of free]

Posted in Discover, Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Matters of Art

Posted on 16 March, 2016 by odo

The recordings from CIMP, the Creative Improvised Music Project, are outstanding for their lack of artifice—no compression, no processing—clean, straight, two microphone stereo recordings that capture the musicians’ performance as they played it. No fixes, no overdubbing, no splicing or reverb, just pure, real music played by pure, real musicians, just the way you’d hear it if you were sitting there. They prove simplicity is elegant. They prove listening to full dynamic range recordings give us the chance to experience being there as closely as is possible through the recording process. When played back at realistic levels the feeling, the impact, the grit of reality is all right here, right now. This approach has become extraordinarily rare. Recording professionals can make all the excuses they want for not holding to these high standards, but not one holds water. That’s why CIMP recordings get an A+ rating from me. You could argue, they aren’t that great, but pure recordings such as these are so rare, so few and far between, they deserve bonus points and special recognition. Capturing all the musicians have to give matters.

That’s not all that’s unusual. The musicians they record are not your run of the mill, gold record, radio played, everyone-knows-their-name, on the charts, in the news, on the tube artists. These are people you’ve probably never heard. These are the new and fresh, even if they’ve been around for decades. New because they’ve been overshadowed by the same ‘o, same ‘o that the media can’t leave alone. The media don’t have the cojones to feature who they think is good. They lack the confidence in themselves to make free choices. It’s the same with all the arts. Most people rely on the judgment of some other supposed authority to recognize the good, especially if it’s a little different. They need to be told what they should value. Why else would a Van Gogh sell for millions when there are equally talented people creating equally great art right here, right now? Great art is not what the intelligentsia say it is, rather, it’s what you understand and appreciate. It’s what gives you an endorphin rush. No one else’s opinion matters in matters of art.

That brings me to Rosi Hertlein’s funky album titled Two Letters I’ll Keep. It’s not funky in the R&B sense, but funky in a geez this is weird way. The funk starts with the instrumentation, two violins, reeds, french horn, trombone, and percussion. That weirdness perked my interest. It’s not your usual jazz ensemble. It’s not your usual jazz. Although there are jazz elements, other than improvisation, spattered about here and there. The music goes off on many tangents, wildly free of structure. It makes most free-jazz seem constrained and rigidly premeditated. I struggled through a couple of cuts hoping something would grab me. I forced myself to remain conscious. No matter, half way through I gave up. It’s too slippery for me.

On the other hand, Santuary, by the Bobby Few & Avram Fefer Quartet (or 4tet as it’s called on the back cover) has, for me, the right blend of structure and freedom. They frequently set up an ostinato as a framework for building their impromptu tangents. Instead of aimless meandering, they take flight from a trapeze, a reference point for their flips and turns to spring from and return to. The ebb and flow continues throughout the CD. It invites me back to hear more, and to discover little bits I missed the first time, and the second, and the third.

Santuary

Club Foot

FewTop notch musicians are everywhere. I learned long ago that talent is not rare. This CD is one example, and a good reason to resist the automatic knee-jerk response to buy the familiar. Put these guys in a more prestigious setting, on a more renowned label, with more lavish promotion, and they’d shine as bright as any of the jazz giants. Finding the talent sitting right next to you takes a little effort, and yes, it means taking some chances. It means sometimes you get a dud. It means sometimes you find a gem. Venturing out and going off trail have risks. The only way to find those hidden artists who blaze the trail for the big names to follow is to take the risk. The safe route won’t reveal what matters. 

(||) Rating — Music : B ║ Performance : A ║ Recording : A+ ║
 Bobby Few & Avram Fefer Quartet, Sanctuary, CIMP, 2005

Posted in Discover, Music reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment