Coid's Crowing Conundrum of a Canticle of Crookedly Random Banter #185

[Mynxae]

I don't even know what that is.

Oh well...
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!

My music teacher was awesome.

Don't make me start playing it.. 'Cause then I'll fall asleep.

[AsteriskAmp]

Don't make me start playing it.. 'Cause then I'll fall asleep.

How could anyone possibly fall asleep during it? It's one of the most mobile, lively pieces ever written.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

Talk of pre-1950 music!? I'm scared and alone and don't know the way home. I need an adult!

[Elemental]

I have no idea of the context but:

YES!

The piece is so much epic.

Indeed. It needs no context.
But if you must know, my grade eleven music teacher, who was also my music teacher in grade nine and grade twelve gave me a CD with some music by Gershwin on it, Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, a piano only version of Rhapsody in Blue and some concerto or something.
Unfortunately, I lost the piece of paper that tells me which track is which.

Okay, number one is Rhapsody in Blue, number five is An American in Paris.
Number six is I Got Rhythm. I forgot that was on there...
Yeah, I would call that Allegro Agitato...

Sorry, I'm rambling.

[AsteriskAmp]

Indeed. It needs no context.
But if you must know, my grade eleven music teacher, who was also my music teacher in grade nine and grade twelve gave me a CD with some music by Gershwin on it, Rhapsody in Blue, An American in Paris, a piano only version of Rhapsody in Blue and some concerto or something.
Unfortunately, I lost the piece of paper that tells me which track is which.

Okay, number one is Rhapsody in Blue, number five is An American in Paris.
Number six is I Got Rhythm. I forgot that was on there...
Yeah, I would call that Allegro Agitato...

Sorry, I'm rambling.

Who plays it? Is it one of the Gershwin records played by the man himself?

I find him absolutely fantastic in all regards, I spent a good part of a year searching for the orchestral sheet music to try to convince the orchestra director at school to do the Rhapsody, sadly it never came to happen.

Got Rhythm is simply marvellous in its potential, so many different valid takes.

Do ramble on please.

Talk of pre-1950 music!? I'm scared and alone and don't know the way home. I need an adult!

*Appears from shadows*

Music is immortal, good music is timeless, as new today as it was on its moment. Do not ask for the year but listen and try to guess if it really is as old as it seems; jazz began with Bach and pop with Pachelbel. Music is not about history but about development, things made on the 2010s with the complexity of cavemen music and things made on the 1920s which are still as complex and as unique as they were back then exist.

[Feytalist]

How could anyone possibly fall asleep during it? It's one of the most mobile, lively pieces ever written.

Dunno, I find it very soporific.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

things made on the 2010s with the complexity of cavemen music

Okay. Your credibility isn't quite dead yet but it is bleeding out. For god's sakes put the gun down and call an ambulance.

[AsteriskAmp]

Okay. Your credibility isn't quite dead yet but it is bleeding out. For god's sakes put the gun down and call an ambulance.

I am not saying all modern music is bad, quite a lot of it IS good both in aesthetic terms as well as structurally; but there is fundamental crap, compositions whose only value is monetary and which bring nothing new but feed on popularity of performer rather than intrinsic value.

I won't say music before hasn't done it, but my point is that the year of production has nothing to do with the development or complexity of a piece. There have been rather old pieces with modern sounds and modern pieces which replicate past sounds. Pieces are not good by their age but by their sound. A baroque is not better than modern, or otherwise, each has a different context, meaning, intent and sound.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

I am not saying all modern music is bad, quite a lot of it IS good both in aesthetic terms as well as structurally; but there is fundamental crap, compositions whose only value is monetary and which bring nothing new but feed on popularity of performer rather than intrinsic value.

I find this all very irrelevant and boring. I care not how much input the artist has, the influence of the label suits or the less than stellar intentions. The final product is what matters to me.

I won't say music before hasn't done it, but my point is that the year of production has nothing to do with the development or complexity of a piece. There have been rather old pieces with modern sounds and modern pieces which replicate past sounds. Pieces are not good by their age but by their sound. A baroque is not better than modern, or otherwise, each has a different context, meaning, intent and sound.

I agree it has nothing to do with the composition. I mostly operate on genres post blues and jazz. Actually, that's a lie, I entirely operate on genres post blues and jazz. Also I listen to music almost exclusively through the album format. So, obviously, my focus (and by extension my knowledge) is going to be on 1950 through 2012.

[AsteriskAmp]

I agree it has nothing to do with the composition. I mostly operate on genres post blues and jazz. Actually, that's a lie, I entirely operate on genres post blues and jazz. Also I listen to music almost exclusively through the album format. So, obviously, my focus (and by extension my knowledge) is going to be on 1950 through 2012.

That's somewhat vague considering jazz is not done yet since there is still a generation of younger jazzists developing the genre further and many more "modern" genres are heavily pervaded by jazz influences or have exponents which dabble heavily into its theory to further their mother genre into a new direction.

The album format is something which is complex to analyse because sometimes it is used, sometimes it's just a temporal classification, sometimes it's merely packaging similar sounding pieces. And some artists drop it entirely.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

This has gone so poorly.

That's somewhat vague considering jazz is not done yet since there is still a generation of younger jazzists developing the genre further and many more "modern" genres are heavily pervaded by jazz influences or have exponents which dabble heavily into its theory to further their mother genre into a new direction.

I thought it was assumed I meant the start of jazz. I don't have a specific date, it's vague enough a starting point to work. I honestly have no idea how you reached this conclusion. From where I'm sitting it was quite a leap for you to think I didn't know any of this stuff. I didn't come close to inferring or implying it.

The album format is something which is complex to analyse because sometimes it is used, sometimes it's just a temporal classification, sometimes it's merely packaging similar sounding pieces. And some artists drop it entirely.

I got nothing. You listed almost every function of an album. I can't really disagree, can I? Though I will say that many of the artists who prefer singles (Chuck Berry, Hank Williams, The Supremes) still have compilations which work, albeit not as well. It's moot anyway, practically every artist operating in the past ten years has been very album centric and the bulk of my passion is in those ten years.

[LaZodiac]

I don't even know what that is.

Oh well...
RHAPSODY! IN BLUE!

My music teacher was awesome.

Alan Wake is a video game with a very meta plot.

I don't know what Rhapsody in Blue is.

[AsteriskAmp]

I thought it was assumed I meant the start of jazz. I don't have a specific date, it's vague enough a starting point to work. I honestly have no idea how you reached this conclusion. From where I'm sitting it was quite a leap for you to think I didn't know any of this stuff. I didn't come close to inferring or implying it.

The word "post-" involves after the "end of-". I meant vagueness in terms of what part of jazz you were alluding to, since apart from the start one could say the start of certain variants or the end of others. You could be referring to the decline in Big Band Jazz, or mean post Jazz in terms of the start of modern Jazz.

I got nothing. You listed almost every function of an album. I can't really disagree, can I? Though I will say that many of the artists who prefer singles (Chuck Berry, Hank Williams, The Supremes) still have compilations which work, albeit not as well. It's moot anyway, practically every artist operating in the past ten years has been very album centric and the bulk of my passion is in those ten years.

I dislike compilations when they are meant thematically. I prefer for them to just slap a time period or do the complete works, otherwise it feels like they were forcing an interpretation which normally was not there to begin with. And with the advent of single piece downloads it's an exercise which anyone could do easily without the need of a label in between.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

The word "post-" involves after the "end of-".

Even if that were true (which I really doubt) that's just semantics through and through. It's absurd that I'd have to put disclaimers in to clarify something that was so heavily implied to begin with!

Maybe it's just me and I'm crazy. Because, let me tell you, I feel like it. I'm in that mood where I want to pull my hoodie over my head, pull the drawstrings so that it closes in over my face and practice my exasperated grunting noises for the next hour.

[AsteriskAmp]

Even if that were true (which I really doubt) that's just semantics through and through. It's absurd that I'd have to put disclaimers in to clarify something that was so heavily implied to begin with!

There is no post-Jazz era like with older "periods", that's why there are multiple possibilities. I've seen people refer to Jazz Fusion as post-Jazz, some say post-Jazz is actually Post-Bop, so I did not know which frame you meant because they all have very different connotations and intents.

Maybe it's just me and I'm crazy. Because, let me tell you, I feel like it. I'm in that mood where I want to pull my hoodie over my head, pull the drawstrings so that it closes in over my face and practice my exasperated grunting noises for the next hour.

There is a genre for that.

[Mynxae]

How could anyone possibly fall asleep during it? It's one of the most mobile, lively pieces ever written.

I dunno. It's just.. so relaxing to me. I remember that even when I was first listening to it in Music at school, it put me to sleep.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

There is no post-Jazz era like with older "periods", that's why there are multiple possibilities. I've seen people refer to Jazz Fusion as post-Jazz, some say post-Jazz is actually Post-Bop, so I did not know which frame you meant because they all have very different connotations and intents.

I'm done. I can't take it anymore. You win. I was wrong, I should have been more specific. If you'll excuse me there's a pillow with my name on it just aching to be screamed into.

[Elemental]

Who plays it? Is it one of the Gershwin records played by the man himself?

I find him absolutely fantastic in all regards, I spent a good part of a year searching for the orchestral sheet music to try to convince the orchestra director at school to do the Rhapsody, sadly it never came to happen.

Got Rhythm is simply marvellous in its potential, so many different valid takes.

Do ramble on please.

I am not sure. I do not believe it is Gershwin, though I would very much not mind being wrong in that regard.
I for one find it rather difficult to decide between An American in Paris and Rhapsody in Blue. They are both excellent in so many ways.

Unfortunately, I must cut my rambling short because I have things I want to do that require the thought processes otherwise taken up by ramblings.

Alan Wake is a video game with a very meta plot.

I don't know what Rhapsody in Blue is.

Okay then. I'd heard of it, but I had no idea what it was. I had assumed it was a movie of some sort.

Be forever enlightened my Canadian friend.
Unfortunately, I cannot codename you "The Canadian" because I know too many Canadians and it would get confusing.

[Mynxae]

Okay then. I'd heard of it, but I had no idea what it was. I had assumed it was a movie of some sort.

Be forever enlightened my Canadian friend.
Unfortunately, I cannot codename you "The Canadian" because I know too many Canadians and it would get confusing.

Isn't Nibbles also Canadian?

[Elemental]

Isn't Nibbles also Canadian?

I know. Plus, there are other Canadians.

[LaZodiac]

That's a nice song.

So, I've just finished reading the manga "Crimsons: Akai Koukaishatachi"

It's legitimately one of the best series I've ever read, ever, period. Not to overhype it or anything. I submit the following page without any comment, other then to encourage you to read it.

Manly fish

[Thufir]

>.>
<.<
I'm a bad influence.

You're the best influence.

Anyone else ever see that they have two shadows (from two different light sources) and spend the rest of the night freaking out about the Vashta Nerada, or is that just me?

*resumes panicking*

I never have, but I'm sure, somewhere in the vastness of the internet, there will be others who have had that experience.

I did Romeo and Juliet in grade ten because I really didn't want to do Merchant of Venice

Whaaaat?
Why would you choose R&J over Merchant of Venice? I cannot begin to understand the possible reasoning.

[Elemental]

Whaaaat?
Why would you choose R&J over Merchant of Venice? I cannot begin to understand the possible reasoning.

Huh... Now that I think of it... Perhaps I did choose Merchant of Venice but they ran out spots for it so I was put into Romeo and Juliet anyway... I really can't remember.
Not that I really cared. I had an awesome English teacher for it. And I didn't mind the play at all. One has to remember through all of it that Shakespeare was writing popular entertainment as well as more serious works.

[Socratov]

*imagines archaïc english with an australian accent*

*blank*

oh... so there are things my imagination can't handle...

[Elemental]

*imagines archaïc english with an australian accent*

*blank*

oh... so there are things my imagination can't handle...

You wound me good sir.

[Socratov]

You wound me good sir.

What? You mean I have the same weapon proficiency as Havelock Vetinari, Patrician and Tyrant of Ankh-Morpork?

[Elemental]

What? You mean I have the same weapon proficiency as Havelock Vetinari, Patrician and Tyrant of Ankh-Morpork?

No. I am upset that you think we all talk funny and stereotypically.
Our readings of Shakespeare went well I'll have you know.

*conceals the fact that he hasn't read any Discworld books*

[Feytalist]

Bloody mosquitoes.

I read an article in Time once about a new invention; a tiny laser that could track and shoot mosquitoes in flight. Forget jetpacks and flying cars, I want my anti-mosquito laser.

[Teddy]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that when they *have* actually dropped a car from a great height it doesn't tend to fall nose-first--it tends to oscillate, first nose-down, then rear-down, and so on. No idea why that is, I'm not a physicist!

Difficulty to reach a lowest state of energy while being bombarded with the latter. I was generalising and I was aware of it.

You eliminate the person behind them. By making cars rigid you are actually letting the problem solve itself.

Then you will support my new world peace strategy: mass genocide.

At the inverse, if the car is front heavy: gravity will have a greater torque on the back because it's farther away from the centre of mass; making it fall trunk first but it is somewhat more complex. See below.

If it falls parallel to the floor torque will make it rotate because the centre of mass is not in the exact centre; assuming the car faces the left it, will rotate clockwise.

Because gravity keeps constant direction and torque is defined in terms of distance from the centre of mass rotating decreases the distance between the trunk and the centre of mass. Because the front DOES have more mass, the force on the front will be slightly bigger and there comes a point where the distance of the back is overpowered by the increased mass on the front making torque go the other way and making the car accelerate counter-clokwise, this in turn increases the distance which will eventually overpower the mass and make it rotate clockwise.

Repeat for a while until it either crashes or some interesting thing which would pop up if I did the calculations happens, said interesting thing might probably be a fixed angle where both effects cancel and the torques remain from that point in constant cancellation, angular velocity and acceleration equal to 0, that or air resistance or terminal velocity make things happen.

Right, forgot to take that into account. However, that still requires some generalisation, because most of the mass behind the center of gravity isn't concentrated to the back of the car, and air resistance (while rather neglible for a car falling at slower speeds) will affect the back end the most. Still, you're probably right in the general case.

An oversimplification I think. Many cars are front heavy because they have the engine in the front, but this won't hold true in the case of cars that have the engine located somewhere else within the car (for example in the case of a mid-engined race car).

I'm allowed to do generalisations if doing so will yield a result rather than getting us stuck on the uncommon cases. Mid-engined race cars aren't especially common on the roads.

Then your definitions are spelt wrong. Also inaccurate because when something is bare it is bare. Not adorned with foliage even if said foliage is limited. If you had said it was half-bare or sparsely foliaged then I would agree.
In short: It's rather dry out in the middle of nowhere.

What's the point of arguing the semantics? I was expressing myself in figurative terms, cut me some slack.

Also, I can't see a single leaf on that tree. There's a sort of snarled mass to the left which perhaps could contain some, but it could also be but a snarled mass of twigs, so I fail to see what makes it disqualified from being called bare...

Finally, what does the semantics of "bare" have to do with it being dry in Australia?

Well... Not all of them... Though I would be impressed if you brought life to Mercury.

With an endless swarm of budgies, everything is possible.

[Elemental]

What's the point of arguing the semantics? I was expressing myself in figurative terms, cut me some slack.

Also, I can't see a single leaf on that tree. There's a sort of snarled mass to the left which perhaps could contain some, but it could also be but a snarled mass of twigs, so I fail to see what makes it disqualified from being called bare...

Finally, what does the semantics of "bare" have to do with it being dry in Australia?

No. A tangled mass of twigs makes a different silhouette against the sky, that's foliage. It's also more greeny-gray than brown, the colour one would expect from the leaves of a tree in such a dry region.

Only that your criteria are clearly biased against trees that strive through periods of drought and arid conditions the likes of which have probably not been seen in Sweden for who knows how long.
Really, its a hard life for these stoic sentinels of the Outback under the harsh glare of the Sun that saps all moisture. Your trees wouldn't know what to do.
Admittedly... Most of the trees native to Australia have minimal frost tolerance...

With an endless swarm of budgies, everything is possible.

Okay... But an endless swarm of budgies would collapse under its own gravity and destroy the Universe as we know it...
Alternatively, the budgies all starve to death and those that survive are forced into cannibalism.