Random photos, comics, etc.

[Marcel Birgelen]

There are three versions of "Gymnopédie." They were published in the order #1, #3, then #2. Satie could be a bastard like that, making people wonder what happened to #2. All three versions are really just variations of each other, changing chord progressions, etc., to sound dissonant or harmonious in different ways.

I'm still waiting for Sierra to release Larry 4.

George Lucas needed more than 20 years to deliver his missing parts to some space opera and some still claim to this day it never happened.

Regarding "Gymnopédie", especially #1, it's one of those compositions that has been used in movies, commercials and whatnot so many times, most people will recognize it after just a few notes, but ask anybody what it's called and who wrote it, almost nobody would be able to give you an answer.

[Leo Enticknap]

I could not imagine listening to somebody practicing Satie, over and over, for years, especially when played badly, at the wrong time signature.

That's the maddening thing: there is no wrong time signature in the Gymnopédies and Gnossiennes, because there is no time signature. For example, on a first, superficial listen, Gymnopédie #1 sounds like a waltz, but by changing the measures on which you put the emphasis, it's possible to play it in common time or even 2/4. Dave Brubeck's Take Five (as its name flags up, in 5/4 time), or The Unsquare Dance (7/4, so physically impossible to square dance to) have J.S. Bach level of simplicity counterpoint by comparison! Even large scale classical pieces that have unusual time signatures (e.g. the scherzos in Tchaikovsky's sixth and Bruckner's ninth symphonies) are easier to get your head round, IMHO.

[Randy Stankey]

There are three versions of "Gymnopédie." They were published in the order #1, #3, then #2. Satie could be a bastard like that, making people wonder what happened to #2. All three versions are really just variations of each other, changing chord progressions, etc., to sound dissonant or harmonious in different ways.

Satie called himself a "phonometrician" (one who writes or records sounds) rather than a musician. Most of his work could be considered experiments in combining notes, chords and rhythms.

I like Satie, too. In high school, I liked to listen to a lot of obscure music like King Crimson and Brian Eno. One of my faves was Brian Eno's "Music for Airports" which was conceived as "environmental music" or "background music" for various settings such as the bustle of people moving around an airport terminal. When I discovered Satie, I thought his work bore an interesting similarity to Eno's. When I eventually read up on Satie, I learned that he often conceived his music in the same way, as environmental, background music.

I'd suggest that, to listen to Satie, you shouldn't actually "listen" to it. Just play it at a moderately low level then go about your business. As you do, you'll notice that it blends in nicely and often punctuates events as they happen.

If you try to intentionally listen to a lot of Satie's work, you might find it difficult or even unsettling. If you listen to the three "Gymnopédie" compositions in order you might find them interesting on an academic level but boring or even maddening on a musical level.

I could not imagine listening to somebody practicing Satie, over and over, for years, especially when played badly, at the wrong time signature.

I would probably go postal on the guy!

When I worked at the Tom Ridge Center, I made a mix CD to play in the theater during intermission. Because it was a state-owned facility, I tried to keep it to more classical music than modern. Of the songs in the mix was "Gymnopiédie" #1, #2 and #3. At the time, I didn't know that they were published in the order, #1, #3 then #2. That was the only music on the disc that anybody commented on. People either loved it or hated it. I even got one request for a copy of the CD.

Eventually, I ended up taking #2 and #3 out of the lineup and replacing them with Mozart's "12 Variations on Ah vous dirai-je, Maman."

It was fun listening to people try to figure out what the song was.

Hint: "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman", "Twinkle, Twinkle," "Baa-Baa, Black Sheep" and the "Alphabet Song" are all the same tune.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I first heard Satie on an album by Chicago when I worked in radio. Really like it.

[Leo Enticknap]

Satie was a rather strange bird. He was an Absurdist, a Dadaist and he supposedly had some rather strange habits.

One of the more notable ones being the consumption of Absinthe, over decades, in quantities that existing knowledge about the effect of alcohol on the human body suggests should have killed him within a couple of hours.

His music, if you listen to it carefully, is rather strange, too.

And if you try to play it, it'll have you reaching for the bottle, too. He took Dave Brubeck's penchant for weird time signatures one step further, by doing away with them altogether in some of his compositions. I had to learn Jack In the Box for grade 6 piano, which is pretty conventional by his standards, but still includes some pretty nasty contrapuntal banana skins to slip on, especially in the left hand.

[Frank Cox]

IMG_8150.JPG

[Frank Cox]

6fa86940f23401397694005056a9545d.gif

[Randy Stankey]

Neighbour finally loses patience with pianist next door after ‘six long years’ with excruciating note

Satie was a rather strange bird. He was an Absurdist, a Dadaist and he supposedly had some rather strange habits. His music, if you listen to it carefully, is rather strange, too.

Although I like "Gymnopédie #1" it's something I can only listen to when I'm in the right mood. Further, it's got a rather odd rhythm. The left hand, bass line, has a little hitch in it. I can see why somebody would need to practice a lot to get it right but being forced to listen to it played at the wrong time signature would be excruciatingly maddening for me!

I don't know whether I could listen to Satie, played over and over, for six years. I would probably go postal on the guy after the first day!

[Marcel Birgelen]

My understanding is that double redundant angle of attack sensors are now mandatory (i.e. a second one has been installed on planes that were originally delivered with only one), pilots have now been fully trained on what MCAS does and how to shut it off if they need to, and the MCAS software has also been tweaked. If so, then like the MD-11, I guess the Max will keep flying with a fundamental flaw that can be managed and mitigated to the point at which it isn't a major safety concern. I hope so, anyways: I was struck by how much quieter it is, and how much fresher the cabin air in it is, as a passenger.

AFAIK there have always been two AOA sensors on the MAX as on practically every other plane qualified for commercial passenger transport. Those indicators are SO important for instrument flight, they HAVE to be redundant and I think even the MEL consists of two WORKING AOA sensors.

The problem was that MCAS was just taking the input from a single AOA sensor and when that one was stuck, it would base its decisions based on that single, false input. This happened, because they outsourced the development of core software components to some dipshits not even knowing the fair basics about aviation and redundant system design.

The simple fact that they allowed such a design to be even inside a plane is sufficient reason for me to avoid any Boeing 737 MAX altogether. If this shit made it in there, what other completely braindead shit also made it in there?

They've should've scrapped the ill-fated 737 program all together, that airframe simply isn't suited for such big engines and trying to solve this deficiency in software should never even have allowed to happen in the first place...

[Frank Cox]

Neighbour finally loses patience with pianist next door after ‘six long years’ with excruciating note


https://www.classicfm.com/discover-m...atie-practice/

A pianist had been diligently practising a Satie miniature for a very long time – and a long-suffering neighbour finally cracked, with everything needed contained in this epic note.

Have you heard the C major Prelude to Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier one too many times? Not such a fan of the same French piano music day after day? This might be the tale for you.

In many flats and apartments, sound isolation can leave a lot to be desired. Thin walls can transport a lot of sound and musical detail, especially when it comes to pianos.

And it seems that one neighbour, after many years of hearing two particular pieces of keyboard music ad infinitum, simply needed to request a pause.

There’s precious little context to the images posted on Facebook by Há Marci, but everything points to an intriguing piece of musical drama.

In the viscerally scrawled note, it feels as if an emotional dam has finally burst, releasing a torrent of frustration towards the our pianist.

And as a kicker, there’s an added note containing a critique of the player’s harmony and metre.

Musicians, take a deep breath, and have a read:

Dear neighbour,” reads the note.

“Understanding that Bach’s C major Preludium and Satie’s Gymnopédie No. 1 represent a refined taste and diverse repertoire, excellent choices to impress a new girlfriend...”

“BUT please consider practicing the pieces in their entirety. For us, neighbours listening [to] you endlessly repeat the first four bars for hours became displeasing after these six long years.”

The writer adds in a postscript: “Plus, let me point out, that the third note of the second bar in [the] Bach is not a G as you play it, and the Gymnopédie is in 3/4.”

Ouch.

260119.jpg

[Ed Gordon]

Ever have "one of those days...."?
focus.JPG

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Over there Officer! The guy standing next to the digital projector...

[Frank Cox]

Capture-d’écran-2021-07-20-à-13.27.52.jpg
In today's Le Mauricien.

[Leo Enticknap]

Thanks. As someone who knows a little about aviation, but not professionally (but have aviation professionals in my family, hence knowing a little), this is a bit worrisome. I was not at all worried on Tuesday, figuring that as with the Comet, the Electra, and the DC-10, that once the regulators give their word that the bugs have been fixed, they really have. Agreed that the design embodies a fundamental bug fix/patch: they didn't redesign the fuselage that much, the engines are a lot heavier, and not doing that big redesign put those engines way forward of the fuselage's natural center of gravity (just as in the MD-11, the center of gravity ended up being a long way aft). MCAS was meant to work silently in the background, adjusting the elevator trim such that as far as the pilot is concerned, the plane handles like the 737 NG (hence no separate type rating course needed to fly the Max). The single point of failure was the angle of attack pitot sensor, double redundancy for which was an option that most customers chose not to buy. If that didn't work correctly during critical phases of the flight, MCAS would make unwanted control inputs, at which point the pilot's ability to override it and correct the plane's attitude, and within a very tight time window, was the final line of defense. In the two accidents that led to the Max's grounding, he was unable to do that. Especially worrying was that the pilot flying in the second accident had attended a training day intended to alert him to the lessons learned from the first, but in the event it didn't save him or anyone else.

My understanding is that double redundant angle of attack sensors are now mandatory (i.e. a second one has been installed on planes that were originally delivered with only one), pilots have now been fully trained on what MCAS does and how to shut it off if they need to, and the MCAS software has also been tweaked. If so, then like the MD-11, I guess the Max will keep flying with a fundamental flaw that can be managed and mitigated to the point at which it isn't a major safety concern. I hope so, anyways: I was struck by how much quieter it is, and how much fresher the cabin air in it is, as a passenger.

[Randy Stankey]

Assuming that the MCAS glitches and redundant pitot sensor fix really has worked in terms of bringing it up to acceptable safety performance, it's good to have the Max back.

No, the 737 Max is fundamentally unstable because, when they added the LEAP engine, they caused the center of thrust to move out of line with the plane's center of mass/gravity. When the engine accelerates the plane it has a natural tendency to climb more than it did with the original engine. The MCAS was supposed to compensate for this problem by automatically applying trim to the elevator, causing the plane to nose down. However, many pilots didn't know how MCAS worked and didn't know how to override it if there is a malfunction. Neither did Boeing go out of their way to inform pilots about it, either. Some pilots apparently knew about MCAS but others didn't seem to have adequate knowledge.

We'll probably never know the whole truth unless everybody involved stops lying and blame shifting...which will probably never happen unless some investigator, somewhere, comes up with some smoking-gun evidence.

What we're left with is a problem that was patched but that solution also needed to be patched. Then, we have some pilots who were trained to understand the airplane's systems and some who have marginal knowledge but we don't really know who is who.

The company I work for makes some of the parts that go into that model of plane and others, too. Although I'm not really supposed to know, a former supervisor told me that my company makes parts that are used in MCAS.

Every time I see a news story about a problem on board a commercial flight, I cross myself and pray to God that none of the parts I made have anything to do with it.