I first heard Debussy's "The Little Shepherd" on the piano. Later, I heard the orchestrated version, which I liked much better. Then I had this thought that maybe all of Debussy's work would sound better in orchestrated version.
Recently, I heard "Arabesque Number 1", in both piano version and orchestrated version. I felt that the piano version sounded slightly better.
Why? I thought of several reasons.
1) "The Little Shepherd" is lyrical. There are long notes. Piano is a percussion instrument. A hammer strikes a string, it generates a sound. But it does not sustain very long. Violin and flute both generate sustained sound. So, the orchestrated version sounds better on those long notes.
2) When I listen to "The Little Shepherd", I visualize a shepherd boy wearing a fur hat, sitting on the rocky slope of the Caucasus Mountains, playing a short flute. The orchestrated version with wind instrument playing part of the melody just match better with my imagination.
3) "Arabesque Number 1" is a rather fluid piece. When I first heard it on the piano, I felt as if someone poured a plate of marble balls on the stone floor, and the marble balls fall, or even bounce, on the floor. When I listen to the orchestrated version, I did not feel this sensation.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Tennis - Semifinals Decide Final Results
In tennis, sometimes, the result of the final is pretty much decided after the semifinals.
In the 2012 London Olympics, in one of the semifinals, Federer won an epic battle with del Potro, 3-6, 7-6, 19-17, in 4 hours and 20 minutes. It was as long as many five set matches. "The best tennis match ever played", the 2008 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal, lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes.
A depleted Federer did not offer much resistance in the final, and lost badly.
In the 2013 US Open, in one of the semifinals, Djokovic won an epic battle with Wawrinka, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 12-10, in 5 hours and 2 minutes.
In the final, his physical exhaustion manifested itself as a degraded mental sharpness. He made tons of unforced errors. He was able to offer periods of resistance. But he could not sustain it. And his opponent was the Nadal, who is known as the most relentless player in history. You go down a notch in a few moments, you lose. So did Djokovic.
In the 2012 London Olympics, in one of the semifinals, Federer won an epic battle with del Potro, 3-6, 7-6, 19-17, in 4 hours and 20 minutes. It was as long as many five set matches. "The best tennis match ever played", the 2008 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal, lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes.
A depleted Federer did not offer much resistance in the final, and lost badly.
In the 2013 US Open, in one of the semifinals, Djokovic won an epic battle with Wawrinka, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 12-10, in 5 hours and 2 minutes.
In the final, his physical exhaustion manifested itself as a degraded mental sharpness. He made tons of unforced errors. He was able to offer periods of resistance. But he could not sustain it. And his opponent was the Nadal, who is known as the most relentless player in history. You go down a notch in a few moments, you lose. So did Djokovic.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Why More Choices Is Not Always Better?
Sociologists and psychologists have found for some time that more choices doesn't always mean more happiness. But I have not heard convincing explanations.
Here I attempt to give my explanation.
Suppose there are many choices. Each choice will give a different result based on what happens in the future. For example, choice #1 will give a good result if the next day is sunny, a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Choice #2 will give a good result if the next day is cloudy, a bad result if the next day is sunny.
Suppose I pick choice #1, and the next day is cloudy, I get a bad result. I will blame myself that I did not pick choice #2. This is a negative emotion. Also, if another person picked choice #2 and got a good result, I am envious, which adds additional negative emotions.
Now, let's suppose there is only one choice, which will give a good result if the next day is sunny, and a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Let's also suppose that the next day is cloudy, and I get a bad result. But I do not blame myself, and I am not envious of other people, thus there are no negative emotions.
In summary, if the results depend on something that is out of our control, then in both situations, the chance to get a good result is 50%. But when you have more choices, you have 50% chance to have two additional negative emotions. When you don't have any choice, you don't get those two negative emotions.
Here I attempt to give my explanation.
Suppose there are many choices. Each choice will give a different result based on what happens in the future. For example, choice #1 will give a good result if the next day is sunny, a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Choice #2 will give a good result if the next day is cloudy, a bad result if the next day is sunny.
Suppose I pick choice #1, and the next day is cloudy, I get a bad result. I will blame myself that I did not pick choice #2. This is a negative emotion. Also, if another person picked choice #2 and got a good result, I am envious, which adds additional negative emotions.
Now, let's suppose there is only one choice, which will give a good result if the next day is sunny, and a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Let's also suppose that the next day is cloudy, and I get a bad result. But I do not blame myself, and I am not envious of other people, thus there are no negative emotions.
In summary, if the results depend on something that is out of our control, then in both situations, the chance to get a good result is 50%. But when you have more choices, you have 50% chance to have two additional negative emotions. When you don't have any choice, you don't get those two negative emotions.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
US Open Tennis
Sometimes, rankings mirror strengths. Sometimes, they don't.
This year, rankings mirror strengths perfectly.
In men's singles, number 1 Djokovic plays number 2 Nadal in the final.
In women's singles, number 1 Serena plays number 2 Azarenka in the final.
This year, rankings mirror strengths perfectly.
In men's singles, number 1 Djokovic plays number 2 Nadal in the final.
In women's singles, number 1 Serena plays number 2 Azarenka in the final.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Grunting in Tennis
Grunting in tennis is generating more and more complaints from the fans. Most critics complained about the volume and duration of the grunts. But I have not seen people discussing the pleasantness/unpleasantness of the grunts, which for me is much more important than the volume and duration.
Scratching your fingernails on the blackboard can be as loud and long as Pavarotti, but the former is torturous and the latter is soothing.
On the women's side, the most unpleasant grunting belongs to Francesca Schiavone. It is bordering on disgusting and torturous. The least unpleasant grunting belongs Victoria Azarenka. Her grunting has a musical quality in it.
On the men's side, the most unpleasant grunting belongs to David Ferrer. I have not heard a men grunt like Pavarotti.
For me, when I watch a tennis match, the grunts from Schiavone and Ferrer make me want to turn off the sound, while Azarenka's grunts don't bother me.
Scratching your fingernails on the blackboard can be as loud and long as Pavarotti, but the former is torturous and the latter is soothing.
On the women's side, the most unpleasant grunting belongs to Francesca Schiavone. It is bordering on disgusting and torturous. The least unpleasant grunting belongs Victoria Azarenka. Her grunting has a musical quality in it.
On the men's side, the most unpleasant grunting belongs to David Ferrer. I have not heard a men grunt like Pavarotti.
For me, when I watch a tennis match, the grunts from Schiavone and Ferrer make me want to turn off the sound, while Azarenka's grunts don't bother me.
Monday, September 2, 2013
The Opposite Principles of Art and Photography regarding White Balance
1. Art
In art, especially in Impressionist art, the principle is: Don't paint what you think you see, but paint what you see.
For example, you know that your house is white, because you went to a home improvement store and bought white paint and painted the house yourself. But, at sunset, you see that the western side of the house is orange, and the eastern side of the house is magenta. Do you paint the house white according what you think? Or do you paint the house orange and magenta according to what you really see?
The Impressionist artists say, you should paint what you see, not what you think you see.
2. Photography
In photography, it is the exact opposite. Under a tungsten light, a white shirt may look orange. If you are an Impressionist artist, you would paint the shirt orange, because you should paint what you see, not what you know. But in photography, they want to make the white shirt look white, even under tungsten light.
To make this happen, digital cameras have different White Balance settings. If you are taking a photo under tungsten light, you set your camera's white balance setting to tungsten, and then in the resulting photo, your shirt looks white.
In art, especially in Impressionist art, the principle is: Don't paint what you think you see, but paint what you see.
For example, you know that your house is white, because you went to a home improvement store and bought white paint and painted the house yourself. But, at sunset, you see that the western side of the house is orange, and the eastern side of the house is magenta. Do you paint the house white according what you think? Or do you paint the house orange and magenta according to what you really see?
The Impressionist artists say, you should paint what you see, not what you think you see.
2. Photography
In photography, it is the exact opposite. Under a tungsten light, a white shirt may look orange. If you are an Impressionist artist, you would paint the shirt orange, because you should paint what you see, not what you know. But in photography, they want to make the white shirt look white, even under tungsten light.
To make this happen, digital cameras have different White Balance settings. If you are taking a photo under tungsten light, you set your camera's white balance setting to tungsten, and then in the resulting photo, your shirt looks white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)