http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:10:48 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/15/021048.php E.E.A. Eaton(This review is based on a longer version that appeared recently on my own blog.)M.I.T. economist Lester Thurow, in his book Fortune Favors the Bold presents some interesting theories regarding the increasing economic backwardness of the Arab world, and its potential to fuel future terrorism against the West. Thurow's book has some very thought-provoking ideas relevant to both the arts and global terrorism.I wrote a past post on my own blog on why the U.S. should spend resources on Arab-language "propaganda" like the Al Hurra satellite T.V. channel, which broadcasts out of Washington, D.C. at U.S. taxpayer expense.Some U.S. think tank analysts have argued that Al Hurra isn't doing very well, in part because it is perceived as propaganda in the Arab world, and in part because it is too similar to other Arab-language news channel offerings. They point out that coverage of Rumsfeld's testimony during the U.S. Senate hearings on Abu Gharib "transfixed many Arabs," because Arab political processes were notoriously opaque, and Arab political leaders were almost never accountable to anyone, let alone elected representatives. Instead of broadcasting news, Al Hurra should start carrying Arabic language translations of selections of C-SPAN programs likely to be of interest to Arabs. Eventually, Al Hurra might obtain permission and resources to broadcast the normally closed deliberations of Arab government bodies as well. This would distinguish it from other Arab news broadcasters, and provide programming of proven interest to Arab audiences (the workings of democratic government in action).However, in his book, Thurow cites some remarkable statistics about the Arab world.Google found the same remarkable U.N. statistics on Aljazeera: although there are approximately the same number of Spanish and Arabic language speakers in the world (270 million), more books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last millennia!Thurow argues in his book that, while in the past the vast fortunes and wealth have been created through the command of natural resources, today the great creator of national (and personal) wealth comes through command of ideas and technological know-how. He argues that, just as there were regions that were big losers and big winners in past economic revolutions (e.g., the Industrial Revolution), there will be regions that will be big losers in this new knowledge-based revolution. While most other regions of the globe are thoroughly plugged into the modern world, if you're an Arab who only speaks Arabic (the majority) then you don't have any idea what the modern world is like since nothing gets translated into Arabic! (Thurow is proud to point that two of his own books have been part of the tiny number (10K!) of books translated into Arabic over the last millennia, so at least Arabic speakers are reading his particular argument!)This would suggest how the U.S. might spend its resources on the most effective Arab media. (I argue in this past post on my blog why this is important, but there has been a wide-ranging discussion on what T.V. would be the best to translate into Arabic: news, Carl Sagan, "Leave It To Beaver," or the ever-popular "Dallas"?) Rather than subsidizing an Arab-language T.V. channel, which is expensive, the Pentagon might just air-drop machine translations of the international best-sellers over the Arabian peninsula. (What can I say? Our incredible folks in uniform believe in air power and dropping things from airplanes. Maybe a little too much.) Those of you who speak another language and have tried the Altavista Babelfish translations know there are problems with machine translation. But, my sources in the loop with the Pentagon inform me, after all, that the Pentagon has the best unclassified machine translation systems around -- definitely an improvement over Babelfish. And, the Pentagon has people that believe media penetration is good for promoting democracy and U.S. interests, so this is the sort of thing they would probably be inclined to do.Unfortunately, the Aljazeera page goes on to point out that, even those few novels written or translated into Arabic tend not to be read. Despite the huge number (270 million) of Arabic speakers, a best-selling novel in Arabic will have a run of only 5,000 copies, compared to hundreds of thousands of copies when printed in a language such as Spanish, with a comparable number of speakers!This latter statistic probably goes a long to explaining why virtual no books get translated into Arabic: Arabs, it seems, don't like to read books much, even the ones printed in Arabic. Even if the Pentagon air-dropped the latest international best-sellers over the Arabian peninsula, they might not actually pick up the books and read them. It seems they do, however, watch Arabic-language satellite television (and surf the Web), so we're back to determining the best content for Al-Hurra. (What we would really need is not an Arab-language C-SPAN but an Arab version of Oprah to start her book club over there. Those folks over there need to start reading more.... Make book club shows, not war!)Given these statistics, I have to agree with Thurow, however, on his assessment for the Arab speaking world: if your people don't read, they can't possible take advantage of the knowledge-based economic revolution that is sweeping the globe. This means continued poverty for most of the Arab world, and that, in turn, means a continued problem with terrorism for the West. (Aljazeera continues with devasting quotes from the U.N.'s report: "educational curricula in Arab countries that 'bred submission, obedience, subordination and compliance rather than free critical thinking.'" Yuck. No wonder the Madrasses cause so many problems for the West.)The problem of terrorism resulting from an increasingly economically backward Arab world is perhaps the most pressing immediate problem for the United States. Thurow's book presents the problem in stark relief. Books17461@blogcritics.org Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:10:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/13/201924.php E.E.A. Eaton1. Down With Singing Rodents!Rumor has it that computer software exists that can shift a pop singer's voice if it's not perfectly in tune with the underlying music. This technology has been around for some time.A Google search quickly confirms this. Products advertise that they can be used to shift singer's recorded voices to create the "classic pitch shift effect," whatever that is, as well as correct "intonation problems" in recorded music where singer is off-key. One software program claims to use to complex mathematical models of sound transmission through the human skull to reduce the "singing rodent" effect supposedly more noticeable in competing products.Now don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of Sheryl Crow. She's not only a great artist, but a great (and controversial) cultural icon for the United States photo/article article here). And I'm a great fan of technology. But I intensely dislike singing rodents.Listening to "The Light in Your Eyes," I could swear that at some point someone's gone in and manipulated the pitch of Sheryl Crow and her backup singers during a fast trill at the end of some of verse lines. (A musical trill is where the music rapidly alters its frequency around a single note to create a pleasing effect.) Probably some sound engineer (perhaps at the behest of some evil recording industry executive, whom we're told don't really understand music artistry) didn't like the way the fast trill sounded naturally, so they figured they could just go in and fix it with the computer.Now, I have some advice for future recording and software engineers contemplating using computers to do manipulate singers' trills. First off, don't. We're supposed to think that some really talented high school band could have produced the album. That means the singers are professionals who sound superb when singing a fast trill and don't need computer enhancement. However, if you feel you must tamper with Sheryl's voice, I have suggested changes for your software. When a singer is following a trill on a musical instrument (or another singer), there will be a subconsciously noticeable delay. That's because the singer will need to first hear the new note played on the instrument, or sung by the lead singer, before she can match that note with her own voice. Secondly, and more importantly, you may not have realized this, but a singer's vocal chords are actually wind instruments, not a keyboard. So when a singer does a very fast trill, it's going to sound more like a fast trill on a wind instrument (say a flute) than it will on a keyboard or piano. Wind instruments, unlike keyboards, can produce continuous variations in frequency, and tend to sweep around notes during a fast trill. (Keyboard-like instruments and some computers, on the other hand, are stuck with discrete-sounding notes during a trill.) Change your software to add those tiny delays and that continuous sweep-that's where all the artistry is. Otherwise, if you hear Sheryl Crow and her backup singers doing completely synchronized, millisecond jumps between discrete notes during a fast trill, then you know it's a computer that's doing the singing and not Sheryl Crow.Remember when your music teacher kept saying "Together! Together" during lessons to scold you for not playing your chords together? Well, it turns out he or she was giving you bad advice. (Which is probably why he or she ended up a music teacher rather than a professional artist.) Scientists have studied professional musicians (there was even a Nova program about it on the U.S. PBS TV network). They asked one pianist to play music "artistically" and then "robotically," and recorded the timing of his keystrokes on a simple MIDI keyboard. The artist was only playing the chords completely "together" and in sync when he was playing the music "robotically," like a computer (or musical "stenographer") would. When he was asked to play "artistically," he would play the melody line or another voice slightly out-of-sync to help emphasize that voice.Music, it seems, conveys an emotional message to the brain. Studies have been done using simple, musical-like sounds, and people from different cultures have the same emotional response when listening to the same simple, musical-like sounds. By playing different musical registers out-of-sync in way that's not explicitly prescribed by the sheet music, the artist is helping convey that emotional message to the listener.In other words, the real musical artistry is in those improvised and spontaneous delays and subtle dissonances that convey emotion. Computers aren't human. They don't understand emotion. If you use a computer to correct those and cause the singers to sing a "perfect" fast trill, you eliminate the artistry and emotional message hidden in the supposed "imperfections."Worse, if you use a computer to tamper with singers' voices, they might end up sounding like "singing rodents," according to at least one software manufacturer. Oh, and, you won't be to do this while your performers are singing in concert, either. (Unless you plan to lip-sync everywhere.)Finally, I don't think you need to tamper with the voice of a great singer like Sheryl Crow. Listen to "Soak up the Sun." There are plenty of natural trills that (OK, the trills are a little slower in that one), and Sheryl and her backup singers have no problems nailing them without the use of any computer software (that my ears can immediately detect). Of course, even with the computer tampering, "The Light in Your Eyes" is still a great song (although maybe it sounds better on the road). It, and many other great Sheryl Crow albums are available off Amazon.com (link below).2. Sheryl Crow as Cultural Ambassador, or, Send Sheryl Crow to the Middle East (if security weren't an issue)!I don't always agree with her, but I respect Sheryl for adding her voice to the political discourse in this country, often in risky and courageous ways (photo here). It's clear from what happened to Sheryl's friends, The Dixie Chicks (photo here) that Sheryl took a huge risk in advocating her controversial position. Other celebrities who have loudly expressed similar views reported haven't fared especially well, either. Filmmaker Michael Moore is reportedly receiving death threats article. Given all of this, I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised when conservatives vandalized my non-political employer's washroom (photo/article).Some in the U.S. are proposing a "Corporation for Public Diplomacy," like the Corporation for Public Broadcast that runs PBS stations in the U.S., except that instead of broadcasting in the U.S., it would send cultural ambassadors like Sheryl Crow to places like the Middle East to help improve misconceptions about the U.S. there that are currently going unanswered (article on CPD). This is a different type of diplomacy---cultural exchange and rock concerts instead of bombs and torture chambers---and it will undoubtedly remain a controversial idea, both here and overseas. Indeed, my humorous suggestion of a Sheryl Crow concert in the Middle East drew an immediate, angry response from someone in that very conservative part of the world (here, my response).3. Final ThoughtsUsing pitch-shifting software to sing recorded trills definitely gets a "thumbs down" from me. The difference between a naturally sung trill, with its subtle delays and dissonances, and a computer generated one is like the difference, as Sheryl might sing in one of her songs, between the sun and moon.There many reasons to overlook this minor fault in this one particular song. Sheryl's music, in addition to its musical quality, is also noted for its catchy and poetic lyrics. They relate to ordinary life in Southern California. For example, as I air my views by writing this review, I see from my window that the rest of the good people of the world are planning to wash and hose down their cars until the sun comes up over Santa Monica Boulevard today. Well, maybe not quite, but it was fun to sneak in a quick paraphrase of her lyrics here from an older song. Just can't get those great Sheryl Crow lyrics out of my mind.... "Light in Your Eyes" is no exception.Security issues aside, sending Sheryl Crow to the Middle East as a cultural ambassador would be very cool---and very controversial, as judged by the immediate angry response I received from a Jordan man in response to my suggestion: link)."The Light in Your Eyes" and many other great Sheryl Crow albums are available from Amazon.com. Music16494@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:19:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/11/024523.php E.E.A. EatonThe Stepford Wives, starring the beautiful Nicole Kidman, opens today, June 11th, in all U.S. theaters. Showtimes are available through Amazon.com, below.In response to my earlier review of the classic 1975 Stepford Wives video (here, related article on perceived censorship in America; photo of right-wing "Stepfordized" vandalism in America) and the long cinematic tradition of using robotic and brainwashed characters, Eric Olsen sparked some debate (here) when he suggested that "Stepfordization" could apply to the left as well as the right.Of course, the political spectrum is actually circle. The extreme far right like to vest all political power upon single individual; this is fascism. Similarly, the extreme far left would like vest all power upon the state to the point that independent attempts to challenge the powers that be (by elections or other means) become impossible, so that whoever controls the state effectively becomes a permanent dictator. This is called communism, and ultimately becomes just a minor variant on fascism, with which it shares its totalitarian goals if not its precise ideology. Thus, I would agree with Eric Olsen and say that "Stepfordization," at least in principal, can apply equally to the left as well as the right.In practice, however, it is a different matter. However, when used in political debate, the term "Stepfordization" from the classic 1975 film has traditionally been used as a metaphor for the American Right. This makes sense, given the social satire evident in both the 1975 classic film and the novel, which are clearly social commentaries on anti-feminism, authoritarianism, and other aspects of 1970s American conservatism.Moreover, the metaphor of constructing robots to replace individuals is inherently associated with corporate wealth and conservatism. (Just think of the R&D costs of building these robots!)The idea of replacing beautiful women with replica robots to be controlled by men (or the powers that be) is not new to the The Stepford Wives. It is an old idea that goes back at least to the 1927 silent classic Metropolis, if not to ancient stories such as the Hebrew Golem and Russian "Snow Maiden" fairy tales. (A modern remake of Metropolis is available on DVD from Amazon.com. The original 1927 film was also retinted in color in 1984 with a rock sound track by Moroder of Donna Summer fame; the audio CD is available from Amazon.com.) The 1927 silent Metropolis is a film replete with early twentieth century Luddite and Christian Socialist propaganda. The futuristic city's main capitalist (who owns everything and also represents God) is persuaded by the city's inventor (also representing the devil) to replace a beautiful girl (not coincidentally named "Maria," after the mother of Christ) with a robot replica. The robot is ordered to persuade the workers to destroy the city (as they are no longer needed once the capitalist's army of robot replicas is in place), and the plan succeeds until the son of the Capitalist (also symbolizing Christ, or Christian Socialism) intervenes. The robots are clearly associated with the early 20th capitalist masters, who, in Socialist or Marxist thought, forced workers to become subservient slaves to the new machines of the burgeoning industrial revolution.If replacement of workers by robots is associated with conservatism, one can imagine other metaphors for "Stepfordization" on the left, such as brainwashing. Two old classic films, both available from Amazon, use this metaphor in social satire. In Invasion of the Body Snatchers, space pods from outer space quietly take control of the minds of the inhabitants of small town Americana, in a clear reference to the perceived fear of the Communist Red Menace gripping America at the time of the film's original release. Another timeless classic, The Manucharian Candidate, staring Frank Sinatra, deals more directly (and more realistically) with the troubling scientific possibility of Communist brainwashing of Americans, of the sort which is actually thought by some to have taken place during the Korean War.Perhaps the producers of the current film could have gone much further with the social satire potential of the remade Stepford Wives, which, unlike the 1975 classic, is now more of a comedy than a horror flick. Writes A.O. Scott of the New York Times, "Every time you think [the remade Stepford Wives] might be venturing toward social criticism, it pulls back into homily and reassurance, refusing to tell anyone in the audience anything she - or he - might not want to hear." Perhaps this is the ultimate social criticism - the Stepfordization of The Stepford Wives itself as a film that robotically avoids its own tantalizing possibilities for social satire, almost as if it were written by a committee of robotic spin doctors of different political persuasions, over-eager not to do anything that might offend.There is, however, a rich cinematic history of using robots and brainwashed characters to deliver social commentary, especially in an era of perceived de-facto censorship as some say we are currently experiencing. I already described many of these issues and available books and topics on this topic in my earlier post (here). I've listed some further videos and products below. Video16444@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:45:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/09/034705.php E.E.A. EatonMaybe it's just election year politics, but there is a growing chorus of celebrities bemoaning the"Stepfordization" of America in the form of press censorship and growing authoritarianism in America. (See article on my blog). It's not clear whether or not these accusations are founded, but when troubled Americans robotically vandalize my not-at-all-political employer's washroom with conservative talk show phrases like "You &!&@%@# Liberals You Hate America", (see photo here), one has to wonder whether there is a "Stepfordization" of America.The Stepford Wives, which recently premiered in Los Angeles to mixed reviews, is a remake of the brilliant 1975 cult classic of the same name. Starring the beautiful Nicole Kidman, the 2004 movie takes place in a small Connecticut town in which a secret society conspires to squash the independence of the town's young women by replacing them with obedient robot replicas.Even if you don't get a chance to see the remake, the 1975 cult classic with Katharine Ross is a must-see for every American. It's available on DVD and VHS from Amazon.com. Critics at the time said the movie was a metaphor for anti-feminism in 1975 America, but I wonder whether the robotization of America depicted in the film wasn't also a metaphor to the slavish roboticism of the Watergate Burglars and the perceived totalitarianism of Nixon's America that still resonated in 1975 America.Great cinema seeks to resonate with its contemporary audiences, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that film often contains veiled references to current political events, especially in a time of perceived censorship. For example, the German silent surrealistic cult classic, the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1921) (aka Das Kabinett des Dr. Kaligari) is about a somnambulist who kills at the command of his hypnotic master, Dr. Caligari. Film critics have ever since argued that the film was a veiled reference to growing fascism in Germany. (See Kracauer's excellent historical treatise on this point, From Hitler to Caligari, which argues that German films of the 1920s were premonitions of Hitler's rise in the 1930s. The book is available from Amazon.com.) The movie studio recognized the film for the political satire that it was, and forced the director, Robert Wiene, to appease the German censors by adding an ending in which the entire movie is revealed as merely the dream of a madman under the care of a once again benevolent authority: Dr. Caligari, his psychiatrist. This cult classic is available in all regions on DVD and (US NTSC) VHS format from Amazon.com.The relationship between the robotic Stepford wives and this political expression in early German cinema becomes in the early 1930s as Hitler was coming to power. German filmmakers often chose to make increasingly abstract films about machines and mechanisms as metaphors for the growing machinations of the state. These metaphors sometimes allowed them to escape the dangerous notice of the increasingly repressive censors.The idea that the original The Stepford Wives can be used as a metaphor for media censorship and growing authoritarianism in the 2000s (or Nixon's 1974) America is certainly not new with me. The Stepford Wives have been frequently used in recent political dialogue as a metaphor for supremely obedient political party loyalists. For example, some Democratic commentators described the 2000 Republican Convention, which heavily included minority delegates for the first time, as "The Stepford Convention." In this metaphor, the minority delegates were supposedly acting robot-like in their promotion of conservative policies supposedly bad for minorities.It's been used more recently, again in connection with the Bush Administration. Using Google, I found one blog that said simply, "The Stepford Wives are real: they vote for Dubya." There have been other recent references in the media, all connected, not surprisingly the metaphor's anti-conservative bias, with the Republican rather than the Democratic Party. Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report political blog, for example, described the "Stepfordization" of the GOP in one of his columns. Under political advisor Karl Rove, the Bush Administration supposedly responds to political crises not primarily by trying to solve the underlying problems, but through political spin and public relations carried out by an army of "Stepford-like" robot spin doctors that spin the national media. (They supposedly robotically attempt to justify the unjustifiable, such as describing the crimes in the recent Iraqi prison torture scandal, as "just like a fraternity hazing." Their stock phrases are then repeated, "Stepford-like," not only on vandalized washroom walls but also in movie titles, such as Michael Moore Hates America, the title of the forthcoming anti-Moore documentary.).Machines and machine-like people have traditionally been used in film cinema as subtle metaphors for growing authoritarianism in society, especially in times of perceived censorship. It's not clear whether the charges of growing media censorship and authoritarianism in America represent something beyond the usual election-year politics. But I am concerned when robotic, "Stepford-like" Americans place these conservative talk show slogans on vandalized walls (photo here) might just be the "Stepfordization" of America. The must-see 1975 cult classic original, The Stepford Wives, with Katharine Ross, is available on DVD and VHS from Amazon.com, as are films and titles on roboticism as a political metaphor in early cinema. The 2004 remake with its timely, subtle political metaphors, is coming to theaters near you. It stars Nicole Kidman. Video16382@blogcritics.org Wed, 9 Jun 2004 03:47:05 EDT