"Audrey the King (Beats)" [mp3 removed]
Back to my "modular" rhythm synth. Decided just to record the Vermona drum machine with almost no effects at the recording stage (just some filtering on the bass). Then light use of a compressor plugin on the recorded file to make those kick/toms more punchy. Got this bare bones piece before filling it up with piano and such for "Audrey the King."
Our world may be a giant hologram. An experiment by a certain Dr. Danzmann offers proof of an unrelated conjecture by a certain Dr. Hogan that the universe is a giant holographic projection, encoded on a vast 2D surface (such as a black hole event horizon), much like a shimmering rainbow globe on a debit card, and that it is possible to identify and measure the grain of this projection (the stuff of spacetime, as it were).
Or maybe not.
However Danzmann is cautious about Hogan's proposal and believes more theoretical work needs to be done. "It's intriguing," he says. "But it's not really a theory yet, more just an idea." Like many others, Danzmann agrees it is too early to make any definitive claims. "Let's wait and see," he says. "We think it's at least a year too early to get excited."
A year before we know--can we wait?
Related posts on precognitive news and criticism--a new genre of writing and reportage, somewhat akin to Carlos Castaneda's approach to anthropology (only concerning future realities rather than present ones), or "applied Derrida" (writing meant to be read against itself): man-eating snakes, Fame in the age of social media, and a Kandinsky tie-in multimedia show (sorry BD--eventually yours will drop off the list).
Lauren Cornell on the topic of critics perennially finding this gosh darn Internet thing: "Internet art is also troubled by a problem of perpetual discovery: while its history evolves, it is often not elaborated, but instead rediscovered, again and again, by the critical establishment."
Cornell is responding to a BBC critic's impassioned admission of ignorance: "as far as I am aware, no contemporary artist has yet harnessed this extraordinary technology to make a significant artwork. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and am missing something great [etc]"
Perhaps we should start a list of "shocked by technology" articles or quotes. Consider this essay by Lawrence Weschler in the New York of Review of Books on David Hockney's cell phone sketches. The succulent drawings completely pop (see above) but Weschler can't get over the fact that Hockney drew them with one of them there computer gadgets. He even tells us the brand--it is mentioned 11 times in the article.
It might rattle Weschler to know also that the string quartet score he was enjoying in a movie last night was made by people clicking little squares in a sampler! And that whole books can now be read on a "digital reader"! And that the supermarkets have this scanner thingy that "reads" your groceries and tallies up your total!
[hat tips cpb and afc]
[reposted after correction of egregious typos]
left a comment defending Rip Torn--the American Klaus Kinski?--on this blog. We love to build up our idols and then tear them to shreds when they slip. 40 years of great work and now tabloid fodder. Not that 80 year olds should be running around with guns, breaking into banks (if that's what happened). Watch the Maidstone clip. (hat tip Schwarz)
Have stopped trying to make sense of Lost--had a handle for a few seasons but after the narrative arc and/or underlying conspiracy changed from survivors vs Others, to Others vs Dharma, to Ben vs Widmore, to Jacob vs Esau (or whoever) I threw up my hands and mainly just enjoy the cliffhangers and ironic interconnections (this season's "flashes-sideways" to an alternative timestream where the characters we all know meet under different circumstances is ingenious so far--and I really liked the use of two different clips of "unreconstructed con man Sawyer" pursuing lottery-winner Hurley off the plane--the one they showed in the recap had him more pointedly in pursuit). Thoreau attempts to account for what's left of a story thread:
If nothing else, we finally know that the smoke monster is a malevolent and manipulative entity with an agenda. However, the more we try to work this into the story that’s been established thus far, the less sense it makes. For instance, the Others apparently followed Ben and revered Jacob, yet they also had a way to summon the smoke monster (recall what Ben did when the mercenaries came to his town and killed his daughter). In the religious worldview of the Others, the smoke monster seemed to be some sort of figure who renders judgment on sinners (recall that Ben went back to the Island to be judged for his sins by the smoke monster in the Temple). Yet we now know that the smoke monster is a malevolent creature who has plotted against Jacob, their revered spiritual figure. This confuses me. Perhaps the full nature of the smoke monster is something that Jacob has never revealed to his people, for whatever reason. If so, it’s a pretty closely-held secret.
And:
Moreover, when Hurley tells the boss at the Temple that Jacob is dead, everyone in the Temple seems to realize that this means that their enemy is coming. Do they know it’s the smoke monster? Do they know that the smoke monster is also the Man in Black? On top of that, the boss dude at the Temple seems to have a pretty close relationship with Jacob, or at least he knows what to expect in messages from Jacob. Ben, OTOH, was dangled on a string, getting Jacob’s messages through the intermediary of Richard Alpert. Previous to this, the hierarchy seemed to be Jacob at the top, Richard as the intermediary, and Ben the leader in day-to-day life. Now we have this leader at the Temple, somebody who seems closer to Jacob than Ben, but he also leads a group of Others that includes some Others that we’ve seen before (e.g. the abducted Cindy). So, what gives? Was Ben only the leader outside of the Temple?
I don't really care anymore but this is all interesting.
