Woofers, tweeters, hooters

This just landed in my e-mail inbox, courtesy of my dad:

Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant that can store and play music. The iTit will cost from $499 to $699, depending on cup and speaker size.

This is a major breakthrough, as women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.

Yeah, you laugh, but this could be a real thing someday.

BT Laboratories analyst Ian Pearson believes breast implants may as well serve a purpose rather than.....well, lets just say "eye candy". Pearson states, "if a woman has something implanted permanently, it might as well do something useful ..."

Pearson's idea involves inserting an MP3 player in one breast and a storage chip in the other. The implants would transmit sound and be controlled with Bluetooth technology.

According to the mini-article, this technology could be available within the next 15 years. The article was written in 2005, so just 11 years to go!

I'll keep you abreast of any updates.

The Mozart effect

Why is it always Mozart?

Seems like any time scientists discover a link between music and some measurable form of well-being, the music is his. Mozart makes you smarter. Mozart improves your memory. Mozart promotes good health.

According to the latest such report, Mozart's music may help slow the metabolism of babies born prematurely. This could mean they'd gain needed weight more quickly.

Cool. But why Mozart and not, say, Brahms? Why not Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, or Debussy?

The researchers themselves say it's not yet clear whether the benefits come from Mozart specifically, or music in general. But ...

They do, however, point to a previous study of adults with seizures that found that compositions by Mozart, more so than other classical composers, appeared to lower seizure frequency. It's possible, according to Lubetzky's team, that the proposed Mozart effect on the brain is related to the structure of his compositions.

Compared with other famous composers, they explain, Mozart's music tends to repeat the melodic line more frequently. Other researchers have speculated that this more-organized musical structure may have greater resonance for the brain.

If the speculation proves correct, it has interesting implications. Find out what about Mozart's music produces the Mozart effect, and composers can incorporate it into some of their own works, on purpose.

It'd be fun to hear what today's aspiring Mozarts think up.

Tempo inflation

Listening to the recording of our last gig, I noticed that we played some of our slow songs a little fast. This is a common performance issue. When you're in front of an audience, the extra adrenaline makes you want to speed up, and also makes it harder to realize you're doing it.

We decided at yesterday's rehearsal to work on those slow songs and get them up to speed. Or down, as the case may be.

As we practiced, I realized I couldn't blame my fast count-offs on the thrill of playing live. Here we were, in Ron's living room, no one to hear us (except Ron's wife, who's allowed to witness our mistakes), and the songs at the correct tempo sounded like freaking dirges.

Why is it that music seems slower when we play it than when we listen to recordings of ourselves playing it?

Is there a neuroscientist in the house?

Invisible illnesses and media bias: Comment advocacy

A little while ago, I ran into fibroPR101 on Twitter. As her handle suggests, she does public relations for organizations that support people with fibromyalgia and other chronic diseases. I asked her (in 140 characters or less) for advice on how to get the media to dig deeper when psychiatrists make claims about ME/CFS or fibro being psychosomatic.

Here's her response, in more than 140 characters.

Rudolph and Jack

Hunting for green things in the produce aisle at Whole Foods, I hear the opening strains of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." Ugh. I liked this when I was nine. Like most secular Christmas songs aimed primarily at kids, it hasn't aged well.

I grumble to myself for a bit, then realize it isn't quite as annoying as I'd anticipated. The arrangement is one I haven't heard before.

And yet, there's something familiar ...

My god. It's Jack Johnson.

Jack Johnson is making "Rudolph" ... not entirely suck.

See, there's a reason I buy every album this man puts out.

#60

I'm in a good mood. You know that song-in-progress I've been talking about? I finished it tonight. Actually, Tuesday night—it's well past midnight as I type this.

It's taken months to complete. Despite the advice of many experts who tell you to write at least one song a week, I tend to go slow.

And yet ... this is my 60th song. I have now written 60 songs.

Is that a lot? Or are there actually people out there who write 52 songs a year?

In praise of my inner critic

Last week I wrote a line for a song I'm working on. Honed it a bit. My inner editor said, It's OK. Could lead to something good if we add supporting lyrics elsewhere. Otherwise it doesn't quite connect.

Tonight I swapped out one word in that line for another one. Something that tied in more strongly with the surrounding words.

Yes, said my critic. Yes. That's it.

Some people say you shouldn't censor yourself when you create a first draft. Just go with the flow, edit later. The implication, I think, is that editing inhibits creativity. That you do yourself harm by badmouthing your creation while it's in progress.

Maybe they're right. Still, I'm loathe to silence my editor at any stage of the process. Yes, it slows me down. Yes, it tells me what I've done isn't good enough. But mostly it tells me I can do better.

And when I listen to it, I do better.

Works for me.