"Going for broke, rock till you choke
It don't matter if you drink or smoke
Speak through the beat, get up on your feet
Sweating like a hound dog, white as a sheet
Don't you be scared, don't you be scared
Everybody terrified, I don't seem fair
What are you waiting for
What do you think you were created for
Out of your seat, blind in the heat
Do the nasty boogie mama, stomp your feet"
Hilarious video; the lyrics ("do the nasty boogie") and the video together so well. Of course, one must not make light of what was a terrible time for mankind. But, I mean, "born to raise hell, we know how to do it and we do it real well"?
I'm pretty sure Lemmy did not intend to parody the Nazis when he wrote this song, but it works, and what is better is that it works unintentionally. In fact, to make things merrier, Lemmy's well known for collecting Nazi memorabilia because "the bad guys have the best costumes". So the circumstantial-ness of the whole thing is quite...elegant.
...bringing up an important question: do people largely like to be lead? and do some tiny fraction of them like to lead? because if you put the two together, you get an equilibrium. Can't be a stable one though. Well unless you're the Congress Party and you happen to exist in India.
I amuse myself here; Your amusement is intended but boundedly so
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
a bout de souffle
the downfall of a supermodel:
acme tattoo kent washington kent smith obituary contributing factors and smoking italian vogue subscription prairie smoke chemicals found in cigarettes barbcue smoke generator how to smoke ground beef jerky
oh, spam!
acme tattoo kent washington kent smith obituary contributing factors and smoking italian vogue subscription prairie smoke chemicals found in cigarettes barbcue smoke generator how to smoke ground beef jerky
oh, spam!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
a scene i'd like to see
the camera spans to a placid ocean with families playing on the beach and people generally chilling out
the skies darken
the ominous sound of thunder drums upon the beach
the opening lines of AC/DC's "Hells Bells" start up
and
.
.
.
Rajni comes in riding on a massive wave
rescues a drowning swimmer
touches down on the beach, tosses a coin horizontally and flicks a cigarette into the corner of his mouth...
...until a kid cries out, because there's a shark in the water...
Rajni then stubs the cigarette out on the shark which disappears and says
"Smoking kills, but Rajni Saves"
(except for that he'd request AC/DC to say "heaven's bells" and "rajni's coming for you"...and you know what? They'd do it. Because he is hero of heroes, star of stars...)
the skies darken
the ominous sound of thunder drums upon the beach
the opening lines of AC/DC's "Hells Bells" start up
and
.
.
.
Rajni comes in riding on a massive wave
rescues a drowning swimmer
touches down on the beach, tosses a coin horizontally and flicks a cigarette into the corner of his mouth...
...until a kid cries out, because there's a shark in the water...
Rajni then stubs the cigarette out on the shark which disappears and says
"Smoking kills, but Rajni Saves"
(except for that he'd request AC/DC to say "heaven's bells" and "rajni's coming for you"...and you know what? They'd do it. Because he is hero of heroes, star of stars...)
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
This one's special
When the Wild Wind Blows
They've created something wonderful here. Based on the movie - "When the Wind Blows" - available on youtube. It is quite a bleak movie, about a remarkably foolish British couple that question nothing about what they're told regarding a possible nuclear attack, and pay a heavy price for it. Consider yourself warned. It is a very sad movie - something mirroring the spirit of an Empire now crushed.
The song is quite emotional (somewhat less dark), especially after seeing the movie. I have no hesitation in saying this is one of the best songs I've heard from the band, on par with perhaps "Hallowed be thy Name". I think it is relevant that most of the band grew up with the shadow of the London bombings over their heads, and it shows up in this song in a very very stark manner.
It is rare, these songs you know will go down in history.
"He sees the picture on the wall, it’s falling down (...Upside down)
He sees a teardrop from his wife roll down her face (...Saying Grace)
Remember times they had, they flash right through his mind (...Left behind)
Of a lifetime spent together long ago (...Will be gone)"
They've created something wonderful here. Based on the movie - "When the Wind Blows" - available on youtube. It is quite a bleak movie, about a remarkably foolish British couple that question nothing about what they're told regarding a possible nuclear attack, and pay a heavy price for it. Consider yourself warned. It is a very sad movie - something mirroring the spirit of an Empire now crushed.
The song is quite emotional (somewhat less dark), especially after seeing the movie. I have no hesitation in saying this is one of the best songs I've heard from the band, on par with perhaps "Hallowed be thy Name". I think it is relevant that most of the band grew up with the shadow of the London bombings over their heads, and it shows up in this song in a very very stark manner.
It is rare, these songs you know will go down in history.
"He sees the picture on the wall, it’s falling down (...Upside down)
He sees a teardrop from his wife roll down her face (...Saying Grace)
Remember times they had, they flash right through his mind (...Left behind)
Of a lifetime spent together long ago (...Will be gone)"
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Some people I admire
From time to time, I'm going to write a bit more about economics. This time I will focus on listing some of the people I've been influenced by over the last year and a half or so (which is when I really began to learn a little economics), and give a brief reason why. One funny consistency amongst all of the following is that they have all been controversial, but creative in a way that seems frustratingly other-wordly.
Ronald Coase: for having the courage to question the (later fully completed) general equilibrium model for failing to describe the forms that firms take in the real world, and making the observation that prices cannot be the only parameters that determine allocation of resources. Also for making the observation (in 1960) that lawyers think about externalities in a more sensible manner than how economists were doing so (back then), another observation that has been revolutionary. These two papers have a combined citation account of ~30,000 - the highest by very, very far.
Oliver Williamson: for pioneering almost (but not quite) in a single handed manner, the field of (what I will call) "Comparative Economic Governance forms in an Industrial sense". The first to give us an analytical framework within which to understand the organization of the firm (and if firms organize at all) - the field of inquiry begun by Coase. Most importantly, for telling us the "firm" (i.e. planning) and the "market" (the "free market") are both flawed ways of organizing, but each can be okay depending on what the parameters of the situation are.
Jim Heckman: for describing a technique to solve the selection problem - some people may earn zero wages because they value staying at home, the ignorance of this problem leads to wrong estimates, thus regression models need to account for this. This is one of the earliest - perhaps the first - examples of the bridge between structural and reduced-form models. The imagination required for this is difficult to communicate.
Peyton Young: for incorporating social norms with (traditional) economic modeling to figure out a equilibrium concept (with Dean Foster) and using it to produce a beautiful, compelling analysis (along with Mary Burke) of the role of custom and competition in the organization of agricultural crop-sharing contracts. One of the most exciting economists around at this time and very active. Unlike your freakonomists, his understanding of sociology mirrors that of Becker's, and the incorporation of the thoughts of other disciplines is done in a systematic manner.
There's lots more, but these are the first four I can think of.
Ronald Coase: for having the courage to question the (later fully completed) general equilibrium model for failing to describe the forms that firms take in the real world, and making the observation that prices cannot be the only parameters that determine allocation of resources. Also for making the observation (in 1960) that lawyers think about externalities in a more sensible manner than how economists were doing so (back then), another observation that has been revolutionary. These two papers have a combined citation account of ~30,000 - the highest by very, very far.
Oliver Williamson: for pioneering almost (but not quite) in a single handed manner, the field of (what I will call) "Comparative Economic Governance forms in an Industrial sense". The first to give us an analytical framework within which to understand the organization of the firm (and if firms organize at all) - the field of inquiry begun by Coase. Most importantly, for telling us the "firm" (i.e. planning) and the "market" (the "free market") are both flawed ways of organizing, but each can be okay depending on what the parameters of the situation are.
Jim Heckman: for describing a technique to solve the selection problem - some people may earn zero wages because they value staying at home, the ignorance of this problem leads to wrong estimates, thus regression models need to account for this. This is one of the earliest - perhaps the first - examples of the bridge between structural and reduced-form models. The imagination required for this is difficult to communicate.
Peyton Young: for incorporating social norms with (traditional) economic modeling to figure out a equilibrium concept (with Dean Foster) and using it to produce a beautiful, compelling analysis (along with Mary Burke) of the role of custom and competition in the organization of agricultural crop-sharing contracts. One of the most exciting economists around at this time and very active. Unlike your freakonomists, his understanding of sociology mirrors that of Becker's, and the incorporation of the thoughts of other disciplines is done in a systematic manner.
There's lots more, but these are the first four I can think of.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
speck of dust in cosmic sand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
the first "habitable" planet has been discovered, suggesting their existence is more likely than previously believed.
but what is the distribution we are sampling from?
it seems odd, this fascination for finding other planets. I've said this before, but there is something extremely sad, extremely lonely and somewhat beautiful in the idea of humans being alone. Something tells me we are the only real "pieces" of life existing...what a terrible plan!
It's raining outside thus the slight melancholy. Time to push off to college the writing up of the prospectus has begun...and the day has just begun, in the temple of the king.
"Try again... must get through
Hear me now...
For I've very little time
Not much time... hear my call
Please get through... I am here..."
the first "habitable" planet has been discovered, suggesting their existence is more likely than previously believed.
but what is the distribution we are sampling from?
it seems odd, this fascination for finding other planets. I've said this before, but there is something extremely sad, extremely lonely and somewhat beautiful in the idea of humans being alone. Something tells me we are the only real "pieces" of life existing...what a terrible plan!
It's raining outside thus the slight melancholy. Time to push off to college the writing up of the prospectus has begun...and the day has just begun, in the temple of the king.
"Try again... must get through
Hear me now...
For I've very little time
Not much time... hear my call
Please get through... I am here..."
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Final Frontier; New Beginnings
Iron Maiden's new album "The Final Frontier". As a major and long-time fan of this band that hasn't ever rested on past efforts, it is perhaps a foregone conclusion that I will say this is an excellent album...
More interestingly, it is the sort of review that this band has started attracting that is interesting.
One point of view is that: "What's with the length of the songs? Why is Iron Maiden doing prog rock? It is a sign of aging, the band is sounding tired etc "
Another point of view: "*snigger* Iron Maiden still around? I suppose 14 yr olds will always be around."
Another: "The long songs are okay but the shorter stuff is better. They should edit a bit more."
Last: "BEST ALBUM EVER. UP THE IRONS. BEST BAND EVER."
My take is that all of these are correct in some ways, and incorrect in others. Iron Maiden is doing prog rock, because being active musicians for 3 decades, they have bothered to learn their instruments. There is a presumption that since some of the thrill on their early albums - Killers, for example - is gone, the band has lost its vitality. I submit that most of those thrills were mostly of a cheap (although enjoyable) nature. Like a standard 12 bar blues thing, it is certainly fun, but as a guitar player you want to do other stuff.
It was always a band that played with long songs and shifting time signatures etc. It is a sign of a coming of age of the band that they now feel confident to pull some of the more interesting stuff off - and they don't do it by sacrificing listening pleasure. This was where the previous album lacked. Although there were patches of close to exceptional (I won't say brilliant) musicianship, as a whole many of the songs felt put together without a flow to them.
Contrast with Dance of Death or Brave New World, where there were 4 to 5 minute songs based off of one good idea (No More Lies is basically a stadium chant disguised as a song - not that there's anything wrong with that!) and 7 to 8 minute songs based off 3 good ideas (Dream of Mirrors, Blood Brothers and Paschendale are exceptions; The Thin Line Between Love and Hate is a very extreme example of a very good idea and a very bad idea in one song).
The major criticism is that this album is "No Powerslave". For the uninitiated, Powerslave is acknowledged as Maiden's best album thus far (by most).
My controversial opinion: many, if not all, are judging the band by their past accomplishments. Although that stuff is certainly very good, I believe the songs were set so rigidly to a pattern, that you could always see the next thing coming. Most songs off Powerslave confirm to this but the underlying melodies were simply exceptional. The succeeding albums worsened these tendencies, leading to a steady decline until the singer quit, one guitarist followed. A couple more forgettable albums followed.
Then the singer and guitarist came back suitably refreshed and with a different mindset. Now, what you have on this album is a much more dynamic band, the music is much more smooth than it has ever been, and save for a couple of songs and a couple of places in other songs, there isn't any place where I can point and say "yes, I knew that".
Now, it is an indication of how much I've grown used to the earlier Maiden, that I believe that this alone is worthy of credit. The ability to surprise is enough I would argue. However, there are a couple more things: the songs do have an urgency to them that was certainly not seen on previous releases. "Mother of Mercy" and "Starblind" are the best examples I can take. Most important, the guitar sound on this is much more alive, and there's certainly a different idea to most of the structuring of the songs.
There is still a little too much dependence on the intro - although even that is being understood better as displayed by the song "Where the Wild Wind Blows" (based off a stop-motion animated British movie in the 80s about a couple that commits suicide believing an earthquake to be a nuclear attack). The intro there is taken into the main verses of the song, which is then followed by a rather rocking rhythm bit, some tasteful soloing and the song ends with the intro. If they hadn't ended with the intro, I would have been happier; but well, this is good enough.
The best example of how people are unable to adjust their perceptions of the songs on this album is the first song: "Satellite 15". This is a tremendous thundering bass and drum driven piece with guitars sounding like parts of HAL, one of the freshest and most exciting things the band has ever produced - and almost everybody seems to hate it! Why? The guitar rhythms and the distorted vocals not only perfectly produce the atmosphere conjured by the lyrics, but the whole damn thing just rocks!
My own guess is that the next album - if there will be one - will display Iron Maiden with even better mastering of themselves. This marks in my opinion, a steady progression you can see in Brave New World, away from the Maiden of old and toward a much fresher, free sound. They've gone back and forth with it over the last decade, but they might just be about to really understand what they want to do. Put "Revelations" against "Mother of Mercy" to see what I mean.
More interestingly, it is the sort of review that this band has started attracting that is interesting.
One point of view is that: "What's with the length of the songs? Why is Iron Maiden doing prog rock? It is a sign of aging, the band is sounding tired etc "
Another point of view: "*snigger* Iron Maiden still around? I suppose 14 yr olds will always be around."
Another: "The long songs are okay but the shorter stuff is better. They should edit a bit more."
Last: "BEST ALBUM EVER. UP THE IRONS. BEST BAND EVER."
My take is that all of these are correct in some ways, and incorrect in others. Iron Maiden is doing prog rock, because being active musicians for 3 decades, they have bothered to learn their instruments. There is a presumption that since some of the thrill on their early albums - Killers, for example - is gone, the band has lost its vitality. I submit that most of those thrills were mostly of a cheap (although enjoyable) nature. Like a standard 12 bar blues thing, it is certainly fun, but as a guitar player you want to do other stuff.
It was always a band that played with long songs and shifting time signatures etc. It is a sign of a coming of age of the band that they now feel confident to pull some of the more interesting stuff off - and they don't do it by sacrificing listening pleasure. This was where the previous album lacked. Although there were patches of close to exceptional (I won't say brilliant) musicianship, as a whole many of the songs felt put together without a flow to them.
Contrast with Dance of Death or Brave New World, where there were 4 to 5 minute songs based off of one good idea (No More Lies is basically a stadium chant disguised as a song - not that there's anything wrong with that!) and 7 to 8 minute songs based off 3 good ideas (Dream of Mirrors, Blood Brothers and Paschendale are exceptions; The Thin Line Between Love and Hate is a very extreme example of a very good idea and a very bad idea in one song).
The major criticism is that this album is "No Powerslave". For the uninitiated, Powerslave is acknowledged as Maiden's best album thus far (by most).
My controversial opinion: many, if not all, are judging the band by their past accomplishments. Although that stuff is certainly very good, I believe the songs were set so rigidly to a pattern, that you could always see the next thing coming. Most songs off Powerslave confirm to this but the underlying melodies were simply exceptional. The succeeding albums worsened these tendencies, leading to a steady decline until the singer quit, one guitarist followed. A couple more forgettable albums followed.
Then the singer and guitarist came back suitably refreshed and with a different mindset. Now, what you have on this album is a much more dynamic band, the music is much more smooth than it has ever been, and save for a couple of songs and a couple of places in other songs, there isn't any place where I can point and say "yes, I knew that".
Now, it is an indication of how much I've grown used to the earlier Maiden, that I believe that this alone is worthy of credit. The ability to surprise is enough I would argue. However, there are a couple more things: the songs do have an urgency to them that was certainly not seen on previous releases. "Mother of Mercy" and "Starblind" are the best examples I can take. Most important, the guitar sound on this is much more alive, and there's certainly a different idea to most of the structuring of the songs.
There is still a little too much dependence on the intro - although even that is being understood better as displayed by the song "Where the Wild Wind Blows" (based off a stop-motion animated British movie in the 80s about a couple that commits suicide believing an earthquake to be a nuclear attack). The intro there is taken into the main verses of the song, which is then followed by a rather rocking rhythm bit, some tasteful soloing and the song ends with the intro. If they hadn't ended with the intro, I would have been happier; but well, this is good enough.
The best example of how people are unable to adjust their perceptions of the songs on this album is the first song: "Satellite 15". This is a tremendous thundering bass and drum driven piece with guitars sounding like parts of HAL, one of the freshest and most exciting things the band has ever produced - and almost everybody seems to hate it! Why? The guitar rhythms and the distorted vocals not only perfectly produce the atmosphere conjured by the lyrics, but the whole damn thing just rocks!
My own guess is that the next album - if there will be one - will display Iron Maiden with even better mastering of themselves. This marks in my opinion, a steady progression you can see in Brave New World, away from the Maiden of old and toward a much fresher, free sound. They've gone back and forth with it over the last decade, but they might just be about to really understand what they want to do. Put "Revelations" against "Mother of Mercy" to see what I mean.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
"Trippy"
Old big cloud about to dissolve, the men who stare at goats, well okay, but do the goats stare back?
Where's PETA when you need them? Maybe they will, you know, rise up to protect the right of the goats...the bar yesterday was selling Absinthe, this guy next to me claiming it would send you to Mars or something...nothing much came of it frankly. Miller Lite has had a more profound effect on me. Some girl talking about how she can tell the Starbucks in College Park from the Starbucks on campus, ha yeah right, gosh these people and their fine palates.
No time for a summer friend, no time for the love you sent, seasons change and so did I, you need not wonder why. That's the Guess Who. Jim Morrison could only aspire to the poetry in those lines. Indians bleeding on highways indeed. All the acid was wasted on that guy. Proof that stimulus alone is not enough, that guy, uff, Lizard King. He was looking revolution, talking stupid.
The truly remarkable thing is that the only "stimulus" I'm working on right now is a huge bowl of Haldiram's Bhel Puri. The cool thing about being grown up is that you can crap for dinner. Although I did cook a nice chicken curry for lunch. I wonder if Lemmy ever ate chicken curry. Matter of fact, I wonder if Lemmy eats.
Okay then, computer.
Where's PETA when you need them? Maybe they will, you know, rise up to protect the right of the goats...the bar yesterday was selling Absinthe, this guy next to me claiming it would send you to Mars or something...nothing much came of it frankly. Miller Lite has had a more profound effect on me. Some girl talking about how she can tell the Starbucks in College Park from the Starbucks on campus, ha yeah right, gosh these people and their fine palates.
No time for a summer friend, no time for the love you sent, seasons change and so did I, you need not wonder why. That's the Guess Who. Jim Morrison could only aspire to the poetry in those lines. Indians bleeding on highways indeed. All the acid was wasted on that guy. Proof that stimulus alone is not enough, that guy, uff, Lizard King. He was looking revolution, talking stupid.
The truly remarkable thing is that the only "stimulus" I'm working on right now is a huge bowl of Haldiram's Bhel Puri. The cool thing about being grown up is that you can crap for dinner. Although I did cook a nice chicken curry for lunch. I wonder if Lemmy ever ate chicken curry. Matter of fact, I wonder if Lemmy eats.
Okay then, computer.
Friday, July 16, 2010
new perspective
So my old headphones gave out and I'm using the cell-phone headphones instead.
This has created a strange, and interesting, difference in the perception of music.
A lot of the trippier stuff (your Strawberry Fields, your Pink Floyds) sounds vastly distorted - the vocals are pushed into the background, like they're singing across a huge auditorium and you can only hear the echoes. (Ha, a pun on a Pink Floyd epic). The instruments on the other hand are pushed into the foreground - this is all culminating in a very different experience.
For the heavier stuff, the bass is pushed almost out of the picture - again creating an interesting dynamic, because it is with the heavier stuff that a bass sounds good. The vocals are completely gone (for some bands e.g. Lamb of God, this is a good thing for me), instead all I can hear are the drums, keyboards and the guitars - but the guitars! The sound is so alive I can almost feel the guitar, I'm almost afraid to play a Hendrix song..! It's like putting your head right next to the amplifier to the virtual exclusion of everything else.
I'm also getting a completely different reading of the songs themselves. Did Jimmy Page really just do that? Keyboards are actually sounding like they belong in "Trampled under Foot"! People, you have no idea how good Iron Maiden are sounding. Three guitars and I can hear them clear as crystal. I can even make out without effort, the scraping of the pick on the strings.
Funny, when you think of it. The actual song itself does not change, neither the person listening, simply the medium has shifted, and an alternate understanding emerges. Mystical.
The earphones are for Nokia's XpressMusic line of phones. The laptop I'm using is an IBM, sorry, lenovo, T61.
This has created a strange, and interesting, difference in the perception of music.
A lot of the trippier stuff (your Strawberry Fields, your Pink Floyds) sounds vastly distorted - the vocals are pushed into the background, like they're singing across a huge auditorium and you can only hear the echoes. (Ha, a pun on a Pink Floyd epic). The instruments on the other hand are pushed into the foreground - this is all culminating in a very different experience.
For the heavier stuff, the bass is pushed almost out of the picture - again creating an interesting dynamic, because it is with the heavier stuff that a bass sounds good. The vocals are completely gone (for some bands e.g. Lamb of God, this is a good thing for me), instead all I can hear are the drums, keyboards and the guitars - but the guitars! The sound is so alive I can almost feel the guitar, I'm almost afraid to play a Hendrix song..! It's like putting your head right next to the amplifier to the virtual exclusion of everything else.
I'm also getting a completely different reading of the songs themselves. Did Jimmy Page really just do that? Keyboards are actually sounding like they belong in "Trampled under Foot"! People, you have no idea how good Iron Maiden are sounding. Three guitars and I can hear them clear as crystal. I can even make out without effort, the scraping of the pick on the strings.
Funny, when you think of it. The actual song itself does not change, neither the person listening, simply the medium has shifted, and an alternate understanding emerges. Mystical.
The earphones are for Nokia's XpressMusic line of phones. The laptop I'm using is an IBM, sorry, lenovo, T61.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Thoughts on America (#1)
Of all people, I wouldn't expect David Lee Roth to tell me something insightful. But that's life. Marked by uncertainty, ruled by surprise.
Talking about the differences in architecture and history between the US and Europe, he says something as follows:
"There's a lot more castles here (England/Europe), a lot more history. A lot more history, period. The United States on the other hand was based on Dodge City. The cowboys in the streets, and the guy who stepped out of line. The people who started the United States were people who were stepping out of line. That approach, very pragmatic, very practical, very day to day."
Say what you will, he actually makes sense to me. There's a fundamental idea here - of being practical - that may be very important in understanding how this country came to be.
Watch, 4:50 minutes onward (the documentary incidentally is a rather bizarre mash up of interview, random scenery and loud British heavy metal bands):
Talking about the differences in architecture and history between the US and Europe, he says something as follows:
"There's a lot more castles here (England/Europe), a lot more history. A lot more history, period. The United States on the other hand was based on Dodge City. The cowboys in the streets, and the guy who stepped out of line. The people who started the United States were people who were stepping out of line. That approach, very pragmatic, very practical, very day to day."
Say what you will, he actually makes sense to me. There's a fundamental idea here - of being practical - that may be very important in understanding how this country came to be.
Watch, 4:50 minutes onward (the documentary incidentally is a rather bizarre mash up of interview, random scenery and loud British heavy metal bands):
Monday, July 5, 2010
"Bharat Bandh"
I suppose you can call it democratic.
The left and the BJP is happy that the "people" have come out in "protest" though no "formal" strike was called. This shows the people's anger against the price rise, apparently. Forget about the commerce being hit, forget about lives that go out in disarray.
If fuel becomes more expensive, well, what can the government do about it? What the hell's wrong with our political system? How long will you avoid fuel becoming more expensive?
Ugh, and we know this is all being done to get votes by looking "concerned" about the poor.
Although if everyone's income is raised by an equal amount of the price rise, Marshallian demand stays at the same point. So no welfare loss.
The left and the BJP is happy that the "people" have come out in "protest" though no "formal" strike was called. This shows the people's anger against the price rise, apparently. Forget about the commerce being hit, forget about lives that go out in disarray.
If fuel becomes more expensive, well, what can the government do about it? What the hell's wrong with our political system? How long will you avoid fuel becoming more expensive?
Ugh, and we know this is all being done to get votes by looking "concerned" about the poor.
Although if everyone's income is raised by an equal amount of the price rise, Marshallian demand stays at the same point. So no welfare loss.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The guitar sound has been expanded
Listen, especially 2:50 onwards for the next 3 minutes. That is some rhythm guitar duel.
Not since Hendrix have I heard such innovation over the sound of the guitar. Unbelievable! Why aren't these guys more popular? Only 45,000 views?? Come on!!
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
I don't usually do politics but
...the attack on the Palestinian Aid ship is shameful. The fact that the institution behind this has "full backing" from Israel's President...*shudder*
as is the train incident in Bengal. Will Arundhati Roy please stand up?
as is the train incident in Bengal. Will Arundhati Roy please stand up?
Monday, May 31, 2010
the Church through Rock n Roll:2 acts
Act 1:
"I don't believe in an interventionist God, but I know that you do;
If I were to see Him I would ask not to intervene when it came to you.
Not to touch a hair upon your head,
and if He was to direct you,
then direct you into my arms..."
Act II:
"A man of sorrows
wrecked
by thoughts that dare not speak their name,
trapped inside a body
made to feel
only guilt and shame..."
"I don't believe in an interventionist God, but I know that you do;
If I were to see Him I would ask not to intervene when it came to you.
Not to touch a hair upon your head,
and if He was to direct you,
then direct you into my arms..."
Act II:
"A man of sorrows
wrecked
by thoughts that dare not speak their name,
trapped inside a body
made to feel
only guilt and shame..."
Saturday, May 29, 2010
3 most common questions asked of an Indian
(a) how does the caste system work?
(b) you guys are all intelligent, then why are you so poor?
(c) why don't you play soccer/football?
question (c) unlikely to come from an American. Substitute the following for (c): How can you play a game that lasts for five days?
(a) is an irritating question; (b) is harder to answer but an answer can be attempted.
I have no clue why football isn't big in India.
(b) you guys are all intelligent, then why are you so poor?
(c) why don't you play soccer/football?
question (c) unlikely to come from an American. Substitute the following for (c): How can you play a game that lasts for five days?
(a) is an irritating question; (b) is harder to answer but an answer can be attempted.
I have no clue why football isn't big in India.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
why david coverdale was hired by deep purple
you may recognize him from "Still of the Night"; contrast that with the performance on display here
this is one of the most emotionally intense jams I've ever laid my ears on. What a way to start a saturday!
this is one of the most emotionally intense jams I've ever laid my ears on. What a way to start a saturday!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Cultural Importance of Def Leppard
Who would have thought Def Leppard would inspire
(a) The Offspring (see video 4 seconds in)
(b) Kurt Cobain's suicide letter (see video 19 seconds in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNOZegkVXo&feature=related
I don't care how silly it looks. It sounds great. The fact that this is all fun and games only adds to the experience. At least there's no "oh my what a source of cultural importance" idolizing that one encounters with say The Beatles or The Stones.
They're just playing rock n'roll and they like it, like it, yes they do.
(a) The Offspring (see video 4 seconds in)
(b) Kurt Cobain's suicide letter (see video 19 seconds in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNOZegkVXo&feature=related
I don't care how silly it looks. It sounds great. The fact that this is all fun and games only adds to the experience. At least there's no "oh my what a source of cultural importance" idolizing that one encounters with say The Beatles or The Stones.
They're just playing rock n'roll and they like it, like it, yes they do.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Analysis of Conflict
To all those who bleat consistently about the implausibility of the Nash equilibrium, here's some words from Roger Myerson (heavily edited):
"A solution concept can be viewed as a mapping that determines for every game a set of mathematical descriptions of how players should behave...The goal of game theoretic analysis is to generate a solution concept that has the following two properties:
(a) For each prediction in the solution set, there exist environments where this prediction would accurately prescribe how rational, intelligent players would behave.
(b) For any prediction not in the solution set, there is no environment where this prediction would be an accurate description of how rational, intelligent players would behave.
[Note: an environment consists of all those things not modeled in the game.]
Call any solution that satisfies (a) a lower solution, and that satisfies (b) an upper solution. Ideally we want a solution concept to be both an upper and lower solution, i.e. an exact solution.
This is hard to figure out in practice...a lower solution excludes all unreasonable predictions but may include some reasonable predictions, while an upper solution includes all reasonable predictions but may include some unreasonable predictions...it may be best to think of a Nash solution as an upper solution than an exact solution."
This is from Myerson's 1995 book "Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict". Better than any other text I've read by miles.
Incidentally, there's a curious symmetry between the idea of an exact solution as stated above (a) + (b) and the two "fundamental" welfare theorems. It would appear to suggest some deep connection between the "goal of game theoretic analysis" and the goal of resource allocation...I dunno....
"A solution concept can be viewed as a mapping that determines for every game a set of mathematical descriptions of how players should behave...The goal of game theoretic analysis is to generate a solution concept that has the following two properties:
(a) For each prediction in the solution set, there exist environments where this prediction would accurately prescribe how rational, intelligent players would behave.
(b) For any prediction not in the solution set, there is no environment where this prediction would be an accurate description of how rational, intelligent players would behave.
[Note: an environment consists of all those things not modeled in the game.]
Call any solution that satisfies (a) a lower solution, and that satisfies (b) an upper solution. Ideally we want a solution concept to be both an upper and lower solution, i.e. an exact solution.
This is hard to figure out in practice...a lower solution excludes all unreasonable predictions but may include some reasonable predictions, while an upper solution includes all reasonable predictions but may include some unreasonable predictions...it may be best to think of a Nash solution as an upper solution than an exact solution."
This is from Myerson's 1995 book "Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict". Better than any other text I've read by miles.
Incidentally, there's a curious symmetry between the idea of an exact solution as stated above (a) + (b) and the two "fundamental" welfare theorems. It would appear to suggest some deep connection between the "goal of game theoretic analysis" and the goal of resource allocation...I dunno....
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Ant Gods
My friend JC, over at uglybutbearable.blogspot.com has a very interesting post on what God could represent. He takes the example of ants in ant farm will attempt to make their "God" in their image - thus the idea of a God these ants will carry may have nothing to do with their "real" "God" - the owner of the ant farm.
I'm going to try taking this in another direction; to help point out the issues I see with the belief in a God - or at least, the notion of a God as it is popularly believed.
Imagine a 2-d ant, in fact imagine a colony of 2-d ants. Consider the world they live in to be a perfect sphere. Now being 2-d, it is inconceivable for these ants to understand a sphere, since their understanding of the world is going to be limited by the physical characteristics of the world as they see it. Although they live on a sphere, for the 2-d ant a sphere will be nothing but a bunch of circles. They might discover that the circles get smaller as you move up or down - but there is no up or down in their world.
This will become a mystery then, probably a mystery they will be unable to solve. Why do their circles get smaller at some places and larger at others? The change in circle size will probably also affect physical characteristics of their world. Ants that are believers will put this down to a "God" - a mysterious supernatural force that affects their world in innumerable ways.
Now, through a series of scientific advances they may chance upon a mathematical proof that claims a reconciliation of all the phenomena they observe lies upon the existence of a 3rd dimension, in which the sphere exists.
Impossible, most ants will say. "That's ridiculous! A 3rd dimension!" Of course this doesn't mean that it isn't true!
It does not also make it any less revelatory or supernatural than a belief in a God.
There are 2 ways of interpreting the above statement - (a) God is an easy concept that people rely on to escape their non-understanding of the world therefore religion halts science; (b) it does not matter what you call it as long as you seek to understand it.
Being no expert in theology, I have no idea what the consensus among religions is regarding understanding the world but I'd be surprised if the teachings in all the Holy books tell you not to seek understanding. In this way I see religion and science co-existing. It is a narrow view on what religion and science represent that I guess underlies most of the debate between religion and science.
But then again, it's hard to reconcile this with the apparent statement in the Bible that the world is 5000 years old, for example. Or that there were flying saucers during the time Ram was king.
As far as I'm concerned however, as long as you maintain a curiosity about the world and a basic humility regarding the extent of our knowledge, there does not seem to exist any room for a debate. In this light, the problem that I see is not with religion/God per se, it is the interpretation of it - this is our Holy Book, and it is completely correct, so don't challenge it - that is the problem. Of course this is not to say that scientific beliefs are easily challenged either, but rather that they are allowed to be and that too in a systematic fashion, more or less.
The beauty of a logical proof demonstrating an aspect - physical or psychological or both - of the world and that helps generate insight - that beauty you can call God. A God, that works in a less mysterious way.
Of course there is the question - why do we find beauty in a mathematical proof? (Well some of us anyway). Is there is a "understanding the world" gene within us, a la Richard Dawkins' Selfish gene?
I'm going to try taking this in another direction; to help point out the issues I see with the belief in a God - or at least, the notion of a God as it is popularly believed.
Imagine a 2-d ant, in fact imagine a colony of 2-d ants. Consider the world they live in to be a perfect sphere. Now being 2-d, it is inconceivable for these ants to understand a sphere, since their understanding of the world is going to be limited by the physical characteristics of the world as they see it. Although they live on a sphere, for the 2-d ant a sphere will be nothing but a bunch of circles. They might discover that the circles get smaller as you move up or down - but there is no up or down in their world.
This will become a mystery then, probably a mystery they will be unable to solve. Why do their circles get smaller at some places and larger at others? The change in circle size will probably also affect physical characteristics of their world. Ants that are believers will put this down to a "God" - a mysterious supernatural force that affects their world in innumerable ways.
Now, through a series of scientific advances they may chance upon a mathematical proof that claims a reconciliation of all the phenomena they observe lies upon the existence of a 3rd dimension, in which the sphere exists.
Impossible, most ants will say. "That's ridiculous! A 3rd dimension!" Of course this doesn't mean that it isn't true!
It does not also make it any less revelatory or supernatural than a belief in a God.
There are 2 ways of interpreting the above statement - (a) God is an easy concept that people rely on to escape their non-understanding of the world therefore religion halts science; (b) it does not matter what you call it as long as you seek to understand it.
Being no expert in theology, I have no idea what the consensus among religions is regarding understanding the world but I'd be surprised if the teachings in all the Holy books tell you not to seek understanding. In this way I see religion and science co-existing. It is a narrow view on what religion and science represent that I guess underlies most of the debate between religion and science.
But then again, it's hard to reconcile this with the apparent statement in the Bible that the world is 5000 years old, for example. Or that there were flying saucers during the time Ram was king.
As far as I'm concerned however, as long as you maintain a curiosity about the world and a basic humility regarding the extent of our knowledge, there does not seem to exist any room for a debate. In this light, the problem that I see is not with religion/God per se, it is the interpretation of it - this is our Holy Book, and it is completely correct, so don't challenge it - that is the problem. Of course this is not to say that scientific beliefs are easily challenged either, but rather that they are allowed to be and that too in a systematic fashion, more or less.
The beauty of a logical proof demonstrating an aspect - physical or psychological or both - of the world and that helps generate insight - that beauty you can call God. A God, that works in a less mysterious way.
Of course there is the question - why do we find beauty in a mathematical proof? (Well some of us anyway). Is there is a "understanding the world" gene within us, a la Richard Dawkins' Selfish gene?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Old World
Sometimes you forget how good the good ol' stuff was:
The only place where you can dream, living here is not what it seems.
Ship of white light in the sky, nobody there to reason why.
Here I am, I'm not really there, smiling faces ever so rare.
A let's walk in deepest space, living here just isn't the place.
Stalks of light come from the ground, when I cry there isn't a sound.
All my feelings cannot be held, I'm happy in my new strange world.
Shades of green grasses twine, girls drinking plasma wine.
A look at love, a dream unfolds, living here, you'll never grow old.
Listen here
then listen to this
There's something very much in the spirit of the futuristic worlds conjured up by the best Science Fiction writers - philosophical debates of what it means to be human in a distant unfamiliar world is one way of summing it up...? There is pervading sense of loneliness through all of this work, and in the first song as well.
Which reminds me, I need to see Moon.
The only place where you can dream, living here is not what it seems.
Ship of white light in the sky, nobody there to reason why.
Here I am, I'm not really there, smiling faces ever so rare.
A let's walk in deepest space, living here just isn't the place.
Stalks of light come from the ground, when I cry there isn't a sound.
All my feelings cannot be held, I'm happy in my new strange world.
Shades of green grasses twine, girls drinking plasma wine.
A look at love, a dream unfolds, living here, you'll never grow old.
Listen here
then listen to this
There's something very much in the spirit of the futuristic worlds conjured up by the best Science Fiction writers - philosophical debates of what it means to be human in a distant unfamiliar world is one way of summing it up...? There is pervading sense of loneliness through all of this work, and in the first song as well.
Which reminds me, I need to see Moon.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Theory to Disregard
Every creative pursuit - academic research, music, writing, painting, film, photography, self-respecting journalism - is essentially a method to understand the world.
The methods vary greatly, but - once you strip away all the inessential stuff (tenure, fame, "selling out", etc) - the ultimate goal is the same. In all likelihood, these methods influence the final product, which then selects the kind of person who works in any one field.
Or is this "obvious"?
The methods vary greatly, but - once you strip away all the inessential stuff (tenure, fame, "selling out", etc) - the ultimate goal is the same. In all likelihood, these methods influence the final product, which then selects the kind of person who works in any one field.
Or is this "obvious"?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
WTF lyric
From that path-breaking movie, Pyaar Impossible, a song called "Alisha":
Hey boy get me dripping with ice
Get down on you knees and say whats nice
??!!?
Is this supposed to be some sort of female empowerment thing? The boy gets on his knees to *ahem* say what's nice? And why is the girl "dripping with ice"? Is she cold which is why the boy needs to say what's nice? If *cough* warmth is what the girl needs, what good is talking?
More importantly, how is the girl "dripping with ice"? Ice is solid, how can one drip with it?
Hey boy get me dripping with ice
Get down on you knees and say whats nice
??!!?
Is this supposed to be some sort of female empowerment thing? The boy gets on his knees to *ahem* say what's nice? And why is the girl "dripping with ice"? Is she cold which is why the boy needs to say what's nice? If *cough* warmth is what the girl needs, what good is talking?
More importantly, how is the girl "dripping with ice"? Ice is solid, how can one drip with it?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
If Data had Feelings and could Speak
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'till I'm sane
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
"I can't think of anything to say except...
I think it's marvellous! HaHaHa!"
Prescient? You decide....
You re-arrange me 'till I'm sane
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.
And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
"I can't think of anything to say except...
I think it's marvellous! HaHaHa!"
Prescient? You decide....
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Song Lyrics aka Lazy Post
The Darkside of Aquarius has robbed us of our souls and minds
Here come the riders as the wheel of Dharma's running out of time
Here come the riders as the wheel of Dharma's running out of time
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Slumdogs
Generally it is hard to argue against really smart people.
But:
"The deeper problem, widely recognised but seldom addressed, is how to free people from bad rules. I floated a provocative idea. Instead of focusing on poor nations and how to change their rules, we should focus on poor people and how they can move somewhere with better rules. One way to do this is with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of new “charter cities,” where developed countries frame the rules and hundreds of millions of poor families could become residents."
-- Paul Romer
Ah! Poor developing country people, they cannot be trusted with developed-country business such as Rules...!
But:
"The deeper problem, widely recognised but seldom addressed, is how to free people from bad rules. I floated a provocative idea. Instead of focusing on poor nations and how to change their rules, we should focus on poor people and how they can move somewhere with better rules. One way to do this is with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of new “charter cities,” where developed countries frame the rules and hundreds of millions of poor families could become residents."
-- Paul Romer
Ah! Poor developing country people, they cannot be trusted with developed-country business such as Rules...!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Attitudes regarding Mothers a la Google: A Simple Experiment
In the spirit of the google-search-bar fill-out, here's another.
I'm changing it slightly however, not by comparing across people within a single google page, but across people in different countries. The following is an international comparison between the US and India about what people feel about their mothers
Thus proving that, indeed, Indians do love their mothers quite a bit? (Dunno about that stuff about a fish and a fob though).
I'm changing it slightly however, not by comparing across people within a single google page, but across people in different countries. The following is an international comparison between the US and India about what people feel about their mothers
Thus proving that, indeed, Indians do love their mothers quite a bit? (Dunno about that stuff about a fish and a fob though).
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Coming on weak
Why is it
that silence signifies dignity
and loudness boorishness?
are these just words?
Oh, and Oye Lucky is the most misunderstood movie ever made.
"Meethe Meethe, Tere Meethe Meethe Bol
Oye Oye Oye Oye
Saanu Kaat Gayi
Saanu Baat Gayi
Saanu Chhaat Gayi
Tu Jugni Jugni"
translation:
"pretty girl
your sweet talk
it's cut me
bled me
ruined me"
there's more to these lines than just unrequited love. I remember reading an article by Amartya Sen about how society needs a little inequality to promote growth - the argument being that those at the bottom will aspire to be on the top.
The question Oye Lucky poses is - what if that route to the top is frustrated by societal norms that will not allow (for instance) the maid in my parent's house in Delhi to eat at the dining table? Where does the aspiration go when it is not allowed to manifest itself in public, but must always play the role of lubricant?
These are very real questions, and they hit people like me right in the gut because it questions so much about our upbringing. We are privilged in ways that are completely unimaginable to us - it isn't only money or parental care, it is a more basic attribute of freedom to be wherever we want to be without fear of spite or envy.
Not sure what I'm thinking of, but perhaps one goal for any society that seeks to be progressive and fair is to allow for upward mobility.
I cannot think of any other movie that made me come up with such questions. The thing is this "message" is so subtle and understated in the movie that it has been missed completely at least by most of the mainstream critics who bother with Bollywood. I've seen this movie 4 times now, and begin to get it only now.
"Lucky in middle class walon se bach ke rahna. Yeh dikhte angrez hai, karte desi hain."
Update: just realized that Amartya Sen's concept of development as freedom ties in closely with this - Lucky's freedom is limited by a societal norm borne apparently out of artificial considerations.
that silence signifies dignity
and loudness boorishness?
are these just words?
Oh, and Oye Lucky is the most misunderstood movie ever made.
"Meethe Meethe, Tere Meethe Meethe Bol
Oye Oye Oye Oye
Saanu Kaat Gayi
Saanu Baat Gayi
Saanu Chhaat Gayi
Tu Jugni Jugni"
translation:
"pretty girl
your sweet talk
it's cut me
bled me
ruined me"
there's more to these lines than just unrequited love. I remember reading an article by Amartya Sen about how society needs a little inequality to promote growth - the argument being that those at the bottom will aspire to be on the top.
The question Oye Lucky poses is - what if that route to the top is frustrated by societal norms that will not allow (for instance) the maid in my parent's house in Delhi to eat at the dining table? Where does the aspiration go when it is not allowed to manifest itself in public, but must always play the role of lubricant?
These are very real questions, and they hit people like me right in the gut because it questions so much about our upbringing. We are privilged in ways that are completely unimaginable to us - it isn't only money or parental care, it is a more basic attribute of freedom to be wherever we want to be without fear of spite or envy.
Not sure what I'm thinking of, but perhaps one goal for any society that seeks to be progressive and fair is to allow for upward mobility.
I cannot think of any other movie that made me come up with such questions. The thing is this "message" is so subtle and understated in the movie that it has been missed completely at least by most of the mainstream critics who bother with Bollywood. I've seen this movie 4 times now, and begin to get it only now.
"Lucky in middle class walon se bach ke rahna. Yeh dikhte angrez hai, karte desi hain."
Update: just realized that Amartya Sen's concept of development as freedom ties in closely with this - Lucky's freedom is limited by a societal norm borne apparently out of artificial considerations.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Q and A
Q: Would you agree with the definition of an institution as a set of rules designed to reduce transaction costs?
A:I believe that some institutions have arisen specifically to reduce transaction costs, usually to solve asymmetric information problems though this is not necessary.
North (1991) defines institutions as those man-made rules that determine transaction and productions costs together with the standard constraints of economics. He also argues that institutions determine the cost of transaction – by raising the benefits of solutions or by increasing the cost of cheating – thus making economic activity possible.
Akerlof’s (1976) paper on the function of the lemons market points to the importance of having an institution exist to solve the lemons problem. Grief (1993) in his study of the Maghribi trading coalition explains the functioning of an institution that arose to solve an information problem. The solving of this information problem in turn guaranteed the existence of economic activity (trading) by reducing the transaction cost that would have otherwise been too high to support the economic activity.
Institutions can, however, also be seen as the end result of an evolutionary process which does not necessarily benefit everyone, or increase overall welfare (Sugden 1989). In such an argument, the reason for the existence of certain rules is not they solve information problems or reduce transaction costs necessarily but simply that enough people follow them. Every individual who obeys these rules stands to gain given the expectation that every other individual will also obey these rules.
Sugden (1989) proposes the idea of institutions as spontaneously arising rules that may or may not be efficient solutions. He argues that certain rules arise in society simply because other people follow it. Also, anyone following this rule expects to do as well, if not better, than anyone else following other competing rules. Viewed this way, institutions as a collection of rules don’t necessarily have to reduce transaction costs. In fact, Sugden argues that in many instances, institutions arise that are not pareto –efficient. They “need not be well adapted to the problems of coordination they resolve”.
So, while the definition of institutions as a means of reducing transaction costs is reasonable, it is not complete. Some institutions certainly do not solve transaction costs (the layout of the keyboard I am typing on for example) – for these rules, one must extend the definition to include the concept laid out in Sugden’s 1989 paper.
A:I believe that some institutions have arisen specifically to reduce transaction costs, usually to solve asymmetric information problems though this is not necessary.
North (1991) defines institutions as those man-made rules that determine transaction and productions costs together with the standard constraints of economics. He also argues that institutions determine the cost of transaction – by raising the benefits of solutions or by increasing the cost of cheating – thus making economic activity possible.
Akerlof’s (1976) paper on the function of the lemons market points to the importance of having an institution exist to solve the lemons problem. Grief (1993) in his study of the Maghribi trading coalition explains the functioning of an institution that arose to solve an information problem. The solving of this information problem in turn guaranteed the existence of economic activity (trading) by reducing the transaction cost that would have otherwise been too high to support the economic activity.
Institutions can, however, also be seen as the end result of an evolutionary process which does not necessarily benefit everyone, or increase overall welfare (Sugden 1989). In such an argument, the reason for the existence of certain rules is not they solve information problems or reduce transaction costs necessarily but simply that enough people follow them. Every individual who obeys these rules stands to gain given the expectation that every other individual will also obey these rules.
Sugden (1989) proposes the idea of institutions as spontaneously arising rules that may or may not be efficient solutions. He argues that certain rules arise in society simply because other people follow it. Also, anyone following this rule expects to do as well, if not better, than anyone else following other competing rules. Viewed this way, institutions as a collection of rules don’t necessarily have to reduce transaction costs. In fact, Sugden argues that in many instances, institutions arise that are not pareto –efficient. They “need not be well adapted to the problems of coordination they resolve”.
So, while the definition of institutions as a means of reducing transaction costs is reasonable, it is not complete. Some institutions certainly do not solve transaction costs (the layout of the keyboard I am typing on for example) – for these rules, one must extend the definition to include the concept laid out in Sugden’s 1989 paper.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Mallu's rock, and so do a bunch of other people
It seems like Indian rock is coming of age; I've been sampling some of Avial's work as well as Them Clones (who've released a full length album with pictures of their parents on the inside sleeves, thus proving Yash Johar right) along with hithero unknown bands (Vikram) and known but not-heard (Zero).
There's enough amongst the above mentioned bands alone to put together a decent mix tape. While some bands are fairly derivative (the much heralded Superfuzz) - but still good - some are sort of coming into their own. No better example of this than Avial's 'Karukara'. This is, I would argue, a legitimately "Indian" rock song.
Why is this a big deal? Simple. The world has seen enough AC/DC, Metallica, Beatles, Stones, Iron Maiden, Nirvana etc rip offs to be bothered about more of the same coming from India. This is NOT to say that a derivative sound is without merit - done well (a la "My Life" by Them Clones)- these are still excellent songs; but if Indian bands are to make it big they must do it on their own terms.
By big, I mean at least as popular as Shah Rukh Khan is across the world. (Okay maybe Shah Rukh Khan is too much of a comparison. Still, I mention that particular landmark because it shows how someone who was pretty much a nobody can have a dance class instituted inn his name in the outskirts of Lima in the span of a couple of decades - and all this while doing something COMPLETELY alien to the average Peruvian).
There's enough amongst the above mentioned bands alone to put together a decent mix tape. While some bands are fairly derivative (the much heralded Superfuzz) - but still good - some are sort of coming into their own. No better example of this than Avial's 'Karukara'. This is, I would argue, a legitimately "Indian" rock song.
Why is this a big deal? Simple. The world has seen enough AC/DC, Metallica, Beatles, Stones, Iron Maiden, Nirvana etc rip offs to be bothered about more of the same coming from India. This is NOT to say that a derivative sound is without merit - done well (a la "My Life" by Them Clones)- these are still excellent songs; but if Indian bands are to make it big they must do it on their own terms.
By big, I mean at least as popular as Shah Rukh Khan is across the world. (Okay maybe Shah Rukh Khan is too much of a comparison. Still, I mention that particular landmark because it shows how someone who was pretty much a nobody can have a dance class instituted inn his name in the outskirts of Lima in the span of a couple of decades - and all this while doing something COMPLETELY alien to the average Peruvian).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)