Columbia Gagaku Ensemble

Video clip by jeronimo jh of the Columbia Gagaku Ensemble performing at St. Paul's chapel last week [Vine]

This crop hides actual audience size (much larger than what's shown) to squeeze in as many of the ensemble members as possible. The acoustics in St Paul's astound, creating an ideal setting for this medieval proto-ambient form of Japanese classical music. The performers file in, in stocking feet, and take their positions, seated in half-lotus, and the shō players lead off (as I recall). The music consists of antiphonal call-and-response among various woodwind groups, with drums, koto, and other percussive strings adding punctuation. The effect is a drifting or floating wall of sound, meant in earlier times as a component of Shinto ritual (to inspire a rice crop, say). In modern times we hear this music echoed in Harry Partch or Steve Reich.
The Columbia Gagaku Ensemble is a diverse mix of ages, sexes and backgrounds -- the percussionists tended to be older, for whatever reason, and wonderfully poker-faced. Everyone had their characteristic look and stance with an instrument but the dress was uniform black and the mien was serious, as befits religious ritual (in a Western church, no less). The dedication to the details of an obscure niche of music and performance impressed. Very ethereal evening.

(Thanks to Ensemble member and shō player Alessandra Urso for the invite.)

net art vs real art

1367714210586-dumpfm-wigs-Screen-Shot-2013-05-04-at-8.40.11-PM

hat tip anonymous (wigs)

Since we don't know what net art is (anything made by an artist profiled on Rhizome.org? anything made by a media arts professor?) and are still debating what real art even is (any expression that can be described in a wall label?) it's not immediately clear why a "net artist" would freak out in a given scenario. (Obviously we haven't investigated the background of this high-five.)
Someone accustomed to validation of online expressions by means of likes or the approval of "art and technology" websites is confronted with a new set of problems when attempting to exhibit in a white box-style validation-of-expression. Posting a web page and getting 59 likes from your fellow artist-curators is a low threshold of commitment compared to sending out invites and making 100+ people travel by car or subway to a room where their expectations of being entertained/mindblown are proportionate to the hassles of getting there. And where you have to see them in the flesh and know what their reactions are from body language. Is this cause for "freaking the fuck out"? Maybe. Practice helps.

argument against twitter in tweet form

...also a reply to the outrageous flackery of financial blogger Barry Ritholtz, writing in the Washington Post. Originally posted on twitter.com/tommoody (bringing you barely consequential soundbites since 2008!):

twitter: for people who value fast-breaking over articulate http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/twitter-your-first-source-of-investment-news/

do you need the news of a bombing 15 minutes ahead of CNN? maybe -- if you live on that block -- but then you probably heard it go off

trying to use twitter for conversation and comment leads to instant misunderstanding because no one has space to explain themselves

as for apple buying twitter - yes, please do that - let's just ruin it and get it over with

if you follow "experts" for news and comment you also have to listen to their crap, and their convos with people you don't care about

blogger/WaPo writer barry ritholtz invests in twit-crunching start-up so of course he says twitter is a revolutionary medium

twitter excels for semi-conscious urban poetry but maybe not for stock tips, news of the revolution, or whether the subway is running

jaron lanier on the internet U curve

I recommend listening to this Jaron Lanier interview (hat tip Travis), with the video part turned off -- you don't really need to see him waving his arms and talking to the camera to get the gist.
He makes a good point that "the internet" in the Apple-Google-Facebook era is creating U shaped wealth (an inverse of the Bell Curve), with people getting rich by controlling hardware and/or data at one end of the U, bottom feeders preying on the poor with insurance and pharma scams at the other end of the U, and the vast majority of the public in the unpaid middle.
He posits Walmart as an example of where this is headed. That company got rich being the first to accumulate the data for a global distribution system, but then their chokehold on the economy became so strong that customers couldn't afford to shop there because they didn't have jobs.
(He doesn't mention Amazon but that's even more Walmart-y than Apple.)

Update: Whoops, just noticed I wrote Jared, not Jaron. Post title corrected.