Doctor, I want to Learn to Select Classical CDs

. I am not a doctor, though I play one at work. But I have known and enjoyed Classical Music since the age of, oh, 0.5, so I will try to get you started in Classical Music Appreciation. Bear in mind that, if you choose to follow my path, you must renounce all others, and keep yourself solely to the programme set out here, under my guidance, otherwise you will have 7 years of bad luck, and may find yourself surrounded with co-workers who smoke heavily in the elevators. The sounds and delights of classical music vary widely. The first problem is to get you headed towards music that suits your ears. After that, you need to be given a few hints as to what the deal is, in classical music. I'm going to leave out the words Classical Music in what follows, simply out of laziness, but I hope it is understood that I'm not talking about music in general. Also, I'm going to recommend pieces, not particular CDs. To most ears, the same classical piece played by two performers will sound similar enough on first hearing. As you get more picky, you can acquire additional performances of the same piece (which will make the recording industry very happy), but start with the least expensive recordings. [Note: if you're serious about this, you can safely stay away from sampler CDs, which give you bits from a variety of CDs. Once you own the CDs from which the samples were taken, the sampler becomes a sort of white elephant.] Quieter music, or at least music featuring just a few instruments, is called Chamber Music. It's possible to get quite a variety of "colors" from just a few instruments, but obviously nothing like you can with a big orchestra. But some people just like the delicacy of chamber music. If you would like to try your luck here, try to find The Clarinet Quintet by Mozart, K 581. Any record store should have it. Heavier music, featuring chorus strings (e.g. many violins, for instance) is orchestral music. It's hard to tell beforehand what you might like, so I suggest the following: try concertos. A concerto is an orchestral piece written specifically for a featured soloist. So in a violin concerto, there is a violin soloist, and the whole orchestra, of course, which has additional violins! A veritable plethora of violins. Why do I suggest concertos? The most important reason is that concertos are all about contrasts, loud and soft, solo and orchestra, slow and fast. At this time, when you're still exploring the orchestral sounds that you can relate to, the concertos will provide you with variety, so that even if you don't enjoy the whole concerto, you will probably find parts of each that you can enjoy. Also, concertos are usually (but not always) written for pure pleasure, rather than for emotional expression alone. Of course, composers being what they are, they pack a fair amount of emotion into everything they write. But concertos must also pass the test of whether the soloist is satisfied with them, rather than just the conductor, so are almost invariably more fun to listen to than a symphony, for instance. Another point in their favor is that concertos are about 30% shorter on the average than symphonies, and clock in at around 45 minutes or less. [Important philosophical note: it would be a mistake to consider that in a concerto, the orchestra just plays as background. You might be justified in thinking so, but you would be wrong. It is an understandable mistake, and sometimes the soloists do understand it this way, but they wouldn't dream of actually saying so; it is a mistake. Don't mention my name if you want to say this kind of stuff where people can hear it.] Just walk into the classical music section, and look for any of the following. You might like some, but not others: J. S. Bach: The violin concertos BWV 1041, 1042, 1043, and the triple concerto 1044. 1042 is particularly lovely. (The BWV numbers are just catalog numbers for Bach pieces, similar to the K numbers for Mozart.) Mozart: The 5 violin concertos, usually available on 2 CDs. Mozart: Piano concertos no. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25. These are some of the most wonderful music ever written. Number 23, K 488, is a particularly beloved concerto, which might spoil you for any other piece of music, sort of like the kiss of an angel! Mozart: Clarinet concerto, K 622. (These K numbers are just opus numbers, a sort of old-time ISBN for music.) Mozart also wrote a gorgeous concerto for Flute and Harp, for a father-and-daughter team. Since the daughter was more accomplished than the father, the harp part is more difficult than the flute part! Beethoven: 5 piano concertos, all wonderful, and one violin concerto. So any Beethoven concerto is a good risk, to begin your exploration. Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E minor. This is an excellent choice for a starter CD. Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto. He also wrote a wonderful piano concerto, so pick that up if you can't find the violin concerto. Brahms: Violin concerto, 2 piano concertos, and a double concerto for violin and 'cello. Brahms's music tends to be a little abstract, by which I mean that the concertos aren't primarily intended to show off the solo instrument, but rather to be expressive, like a symphony. Dvorak: Violin concerto, 'Cello concerto. Both of these are really gorgeous, but the 'Cello concerto is played much more frequently than the violin concerto, for what it's worth. [Added later: Do try the piano concertos of Schumann, Grieg and Chopin. They are all lovely and exciting. There are violin concertos by Bruch and Paganini, and also two by Wieniawski.] What is classical music all about? It has been about different things over the years, but in the classical period and afterwards (after around 1750), it has been about writing moderately substantial pieces that develop a musical idea. A piece of more than a minute or two long has to get your attention, and keep it. This is done using two tricks: (1) catchy tunes that are memorable, and which return every so often, (2) some variety, including altering earlier catchy tunes to have a slightly different character. So, though listeners are apprehensive about being able to follow a long-ish classical piece, the composer comes more than halfway to help you. The most popular composers are the ones who have come more than halfway most successfully, obviously. What are you listening for, here? Firstly, get a feel for the kind of music you like: what instruments, what performers, and most of all: which composers?! So, happy listening, and we'll talk about your adventures after you've done your shopping, and listened to the pieces. Archimedes

Is Good English Important?

. [This is a work in progress, and I'll try to add links to relevant articles as I find them.] I have been teaching for 32 years in the USA (also known as the US in certain quarters, but let's say no more about that. One of these days we may get down to just the U, which should serve to distinguish from the UK. Unless they go for the U first. They're into abbreviation too; e.g. "Half five" means 5:30). In the course of this travail, I have learned to use proper grammar, to be understood by the younger generation, and spell words properly, such as "fanilly" (And fanilly they fall in love), and "alot" (And fanilly they fall in love alot). I must not forget to mention "definately". (And fanilly, they definately fall in love alot.) Nobody seems to read my blog (well, hardly nobody, that is; or nobody hardly reads it. Gosh, I hardly write it,) and I think it's because I haven't really got my grammar good. In the teaching profession, especially, it's important to be understood by your pupils, and you can't do it unless you speak their language. Just like the tree falling in the forest, is it not appropriate to judge language by its ability to express the ideas rather than by its correctness? If there are only trees in the forest, hearing the fall of the particular tree that has been singled for study, does the tree not make a sound to them? Indeed it does. Who are we to deny the noise of the fall simply because we are not there? If you're there, and I'm not, why should I take your word, rather than the silent word of a mass of patient flora? When they are cut, do they not bleed their green blood? Just so, perhaps it is the happy language of the younger generation that matters, since they will be the ones to write the laws of this century, and one hopes that the laws will not be written in the strained prose of a bygone era. And the Supreme Court will have to labor alot over the meaning of them, until fanilly they figer a definate meaning of them, lol! [Added 2009/3/16: At right is an article in the New York Times sometime in 1906 deploring the quality of public education of the time. Note: this article is from the distant past, and the little fragment of the article that follows the one about English should not be taken seriously as policy for the present day.] Arch

The Cynics Have Been Discredited, so Where Do We Turn?

. There were always two ways to approach taking a test. During a test, some students are busy writing on their papers, lost in thought. Others are looking around, trying to steal an answer from their neighbors. Many have gone through school borne on the wings of stolen information. Investing in the Stock Market used to be a matter of researching the quality of a company: how much money have they made; what is the potential for their product; what is the quality of their leadership; what is the market likely to do to their product? Of late, though, this has become too much trouble for investors. They have found it easier to slide their eyes towards their fellow-investors. Studying the stock market itself was a substitute for studying the market. The questions became: what stocks shall I buy, so that I can sell it at a profit, rather than what stocks shall I buy, so that I can collect dividends on them? The analogy might not be convincing to an investor. To them, copying off their fellow investors is a legitimate and responsible thing to do, and researching company quality is left to professional reporters; a sort of Cliff's Notes approach to investment. Many investors are really too important to concern themselves with research, and they can afford to hire underlings to do this research for them. It really should have worked beautifully for ever. At the time of writing, the country is faced with two major problems: increasing loss of jobs, and increasing loss of houses. Banks, which were the major resource for keeping money safe during times of moderate chaos, have become actual agents of chaos. The ECONOMY, that abstraction that served to simplify reasoning in circumstances in which individual eccentric behavior was averaged out to concentric aggregate behavior, is no longer a useful concept, because the eccentricities are no longer averaging out. Too few people are acting reasonably, so that prediction is unreliable. As always, the people will turn to the idealists. Idealists must guide us through times when all mistakes are costly, and big mistakes will be very costly. The country has turned to the Democrats, and the Democrats have turned to President Obama. If he succeeds, it will be a bigger accomplishment than that of FDR, and the people will probably forget the mistakes of Reagan and two generations of Bushes in their relief. But if times turn really bad, we will all turn to the calm, reasonable voices of our neighbors. What will they say? What will we say? There are no big easy answers. There are only small, hard choices.

• Think for yourself. This is no time for cribbing. Second-hand, stolen advice is highly suspect, and I'm not giving any.
• Keep healthy. Eat carefully, dress warm, look after the kids; this is no time to get sick.
• Don't give in to paranoia. Panic and paranoia only make a bad situation worse.
• Look after your neighbors. In bad times, nobody can make it alone. In good times no one can, either. In bad times it's just more obvious.
• Don't choose one dramatic thing to do. Of course, for some special people, there may be some spectacular thing that they must do. For most of us, a little of everything makes better sense. Buy American, but also buy foreign. Grow food in your back yard, but also buy something from the grocers. They need the jobs, too!
• Don't shortchange the kids on education. To come out of this depression, and to live well after the depression is over, a good education is important.
• Be moderate. Don't only save, don't only spend. There is no magic formula.

Most of all, don't simply stew over the state of the economy; it just isn't helpful. Keep away from destructive vices, but by all means indulge in non-destructive vices, if there are any! I'd say, as personal advice, have as good a time as you can, without waiting for the depression to end. As John Lennon said: Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. Don't get too busy making other plans. Don't look for some miraculous big leader to lead you out of this mess. We are the leaders. When the cynics bite the dust, the idealists take their turn. Archimedes

Oils, Cholesterol, and all that: What's the Story?

. For years I have resented the deprivation I have suffered from avoiding cholesterol. Cholesterol burst on the public scene in the sixties, after having lived exclusively within medical circles for years, scattering fear and excitement among nutritionists and laymen alike. By the end of the seventies, Cholesterol was Public Enemy Number 1, closely followed by Saturated Fats. Coconut Oil, long a major component of the diet of tropical island peoples all over the world, was condemned alongside all the other saturated fats, thus casting a pall over many foods that were delicious, especially in confections, and Thai food. But last year, on a visit to my sister, I was told that there was new research that coconut was not only not harmful, but good for you. Living in the US, we're all a little suspicious of research. In this country, particularly, a great deal of research is unduly influenced by commercial interests. Recent news stories have made the Food and Drug administration look very much like a den of goofballs from whom one is unable to get the merest vestige of unbiased information. So what's the story? A few remarks may be helpful for readers who hate this subject, but feel obliged to read through anyway. The early parts of most of the articles below do give an accurate description of the basic facts: (1) Fat is a component of almost all the food we eat and drink, but there are different types, hence the plural: fats. Both food from animals (meat, fish, eggs, milk) and food from plants (veggies, fruits, juices, grains, oils) contain fats, but oil and lard, of course, contain the most fats of all, ounce for ounce. (2) Fat contains many times the calories of sugars and starches, so we tend to store excess calories as fat in our bodies as a guard against the "lean times." People who eat more calories than they burn up will put on weight, are more likely to get diabetic, high blood pressure, strokes and heart attacks generally speaking. This includes me, so don't get mad. (Though fat is unsightly, we would look incredibly worse if we simply stored the carbohydrates. Fat is actually the low-volume alternative, sort of zipfiles for calories.) (3) Many vitamins are carried only in fat: A, D, E and K, though I don't know what vitamin K is, really. This means that in order to get these vitamins naturally through your diet, you have to eat foods rich in these vitamins, which will carry them dissolved in fat. (It does not mean that all fat contains vitamins.) So you should not totally avoid fat. Kids, especially, should not be put on strict low-fat diets. However: obesity in children is just as bad as --or worse than-- obesity in adults; if your youngster is less active in good ways (games and sports) and overactive in bad ways (inattention in class, inability to concentrate) move him or her towards less sugar and less fat. I remember seeing a study in which obese childhood was linked with obese and unhealthy adults. (You don't need to cut down the amount of food, nor do you need to eliminate fats entirely. You just need to alter the balance.) (4) Unsaturated fats are fats with many carbon-carbon double bonds, for you chemistry freaks. You can force hydrogen into these bonds using a catalyst, which is called saturating the fats. This artificial "saturation" results in the hated Trans Fats, and no study I know has anything good to say about those. Why does anyone want to saturate a fat? Because then they become more thick, and can be made into sticks, just like butter. (5) There are polyunsaturated fats, and monounsaturated fats. Until recently, the polyunsaturated fats (canola oil, for instance has a lot of these) were considered very healthy. New research is showing that there are problems here: frying with polyunsaturated fats can cause something --free radicals-- which is associated with cancer formation. Don't panic right away; a lot of things can cause cancer. But maybe we should avoid frying with polyunsaturated fats. Monounsaturated fats have fewer carbon-carbon double-bonds, and so are less likely to be a problem. At the same time, monounsaturated fats have been associated with improved levels of Good Cholesterol. (6) Cholesterol is a substance found in artery blocks after heart attacks, etc, and was naturally implicated as the culprit. But apparently cholesterol is an essential part of the body's chemistry, especially in growing children. There are different types, though, and as far as I can understand, there is a Good Cholesterol, ("high density" lipoproteins) which helps prevent heart attacks and clogging of blood vessels, and Bad Cholesterol, ("low density" lipoproteins) which does the clogging, and some fats result in increase of one, and some fats result in increase of the other. It was thought that any animal cholesterol you eat is immediately converted into people-cholesterol inside us. This is not apparently the case necessarily, though it's hard to get a definitive word on the matter. (7) Omega-3 Fatty Acids. These are just another kind of oil commonly found in fish, and flax seed oil. This oil is considered very beneficial --it is also an unsaturated oil-- so much so that it is encouraged in the diet, especially for the elderly and children. (8) Trans fats are unsaturated fats that have artificially been partially saturated. All I know about them is that they are harmful, and there is universal agreement that the tiniest bit of trans fat can cause large increases in Bad Cholesterol. They are the villains of the fat world (for the moment). The State of California has passed laws that will eliminate trans fats from all restaurants by next year. (If someone discovers that Trans fats are good for you, I swear I will go totally postal.) The following is simply a brief survey of what's available on the Web. The heading links to the original article. Do please follow up on your own, and act on what you discover. [My own remarks are in green.] Harvard Schools of Public Health : My summary:

• Choose healthy fats, limit saturated fat, and avoid trans fat.
• Monounsaturated fats are healthy,
• polyunsaturated fats are healthy (possibly even healthier?)
• saturated fats are unhealthy,
• trans fats are very unhealthy.
• Omega-3 fatty acids are especially beneficial.

[Note: there is no indication in the Harvard article that some saturated fats might actually be beneficial. - Arch]

Mayo Clinic My summary:

• You don't need to completely eliminate all fats from your meals. Instead, choose the healthier types of fats and enjoy them in moderation.
• Mono- and poly- unsaturated fats are healthy, and reduce both total cholesterol and low-density cholesterol in your blood.
• Saturated and trans fats are "less healthy", and increase your total and low-density cholesterol.

They also provide useful information about sources of fats:

Monounsaturated fat: Olive oil, peanut oil, canola oil, avocados, nuts and seeds Polyunsaturated fat: Vegetable oils (such as safflower, corn, sunflower, soy and cottonseed oils), nuts and seeds Omega-3 fatty acids: Fatty, cold-water fish (such as salmon, mackerel and herring), flaxseeds, flax oil and walnuts Saturated fat: Animal products (such as meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, lard and butter), and coconut, palm and other tropical oils Trans fat: Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, commercial baked goods (such as crackers, cookies and cakes), fried foods (such as doughnuts and french fries), shortening and margarine Dietary cholesterol: Animal products (such as meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, lard and butter)

Suggestions:

• Saute with olive oil instead of butter.
• Use olive oil in salad dressings and marinades. Use canola oil when baking.
• Sprinkle slivered nuts or sunflower seeds on salads instead of bacon bits.
• Snack on a small handful of nuts rather than potato chips or processed crackers. Or try peanut butter or other nut-butter spreads — nonhydrogenated — on celery, bananas, or rice or popcorn cakes. [Note: I believe that some peanut butter products are, regrettably, hydrogenated, and thus sources of trans fat.]
• Add slices of avocado, rather than cheese, to your sandwich. [I endorse this idea!]
• Prepare fish such as salmon and mackerel, which contain monounsaturated and omega-3 fats, instead of meat one or two times a week.
• Do not consume large amounts of any fats; fats add excess calories.
• Butter or margarine? Answer: Margarine, provided you choose one without any trans fat.

Stephan's Whole Health Source My Summary: some major studies that relate reduced saturated fats to reduced cholesterol and heart problems are flawed, or actually indicate the opposite.

[Note: Stephan's blog is directed towards medical students, but the conclusions are easy enough to understand. - Arch]

American Heart Association My Summary: no summary information, but a plethora of minutiae (which would be obviously interesting to specialists). Perhaps their Fats and Heart Disease Bulletin for the public is hidden somewhere I (and The Public) cannot easily find it. If nobody else, these folks, at least, should give us an unambiguous statement about the facts. Penn State at Hershey My Summary: eat a low-fat, high fiber diet. Trans fat is identified as definitely unhealthy. Recommendations

• Choose lean, protein-rich foods such as soy, fish, skinless chicken, very lean meat, and fat free or 1% dairy products.
• Eat foods that are naturally low in fat such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.
• Get plenty of soluble fiber such as oats, bran, dry peas, beans, cereal, and rice.
• Limit fried foods, processed foods, and commercially prepared baked goods (donuts, cookies, crackers).
• Limit animal products such as egg yolks, cheeses, whole milk, cream, ice cream, and fatty meats (and large portions of meats).
• Look at food labels, especially the level of saturated fat. Avoid or limit foods high in saturated fat.
• Look on food labels for words like "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" -- these foods are loaded with bad fats and should be avoided.
• Liquid vegetable oil, soft margarine, and trans fatty acid-free margarine are preferable to butter, stick margarine, or shortening.
• Children under age 2 should NOT be on a fat-restricted diet because cholesterol and fat are thought to be important nutrients for brain development.

[Generally a disappointing report from Hershey Medical Center, which enjoys great admiration as a center of health education. Still, the suggestions, in line with 20th-century research, are not terrible. Some sources say that eggs, milk, cream, etc are not bad, and possibly good for you: see below. Finally, this report is almost identical with the NY Times article below.]

University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics My Summary: Excessive fat intake is linked to obesity and certain cancers. Saturated and trans fats are are bad. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats are good.

[Again, not very informative, and restricted to conventional wisdom.]

New York Times

[Article essentially the same as that of Penn State at Hershey. Someone has been copying their homework assignment, but who?]

National Institutes of Health Women's Health Initiative My Summary: Reducing Total Fat Intake May Have Small Effect on Risk of Breast Cancer, No Effect on Risk of Colorectal Cancer, Heart Disease, or Stroke.

[Study was terminated prematurely, because some of the treaments (not related to diet, but to estrogen, etc) had to be discontinued.]

BBC Health My Summary: Keep total fats low. Avoid saturated fats. Sweets and juices are bad for your teeth.

[At least the bit about sweets and juices was refreshingly different.]

Coconut Research Center My Summary: coconut oil, unlike the majority of saturated fats, has a different fatty acid structure, which makes it actually more beneficial to use than most other oils. Recommendations:

• Once mistakenly believed to be unhealthy because of its high saturated fat content, it is now known that the fat in coconut oil is a unique and different from most all other fats and possesses many health giving properties. It is now gaining long overdue recognition as a nutritious health food.
• Furthermore, saturated fats might not be the villains they were thought to be. (Certainly, cooking with saturated fats minimizes the free radical problem.) And eggs and dairy products could be a part of a healthy diet.

[I'm just as cautious about adopting their recommendations as I am suspicious of the opposite recommendations of more conventional sources. On one hand, coconut research is (naturally) funded by the coconut industry. On the other hand, if any of these claims are false or misleading, refutations will surely be forthcoming soon. I'm planning to enjoy a bit of cholesterol and coconut oil --which is great to cook with-- until and unless the AHA or the ADA or AXA comes out against these recommendations. Note: Eggs and dairy products should be used in moderation, but that's true about anything.]

Archimedes

Two things that have got me angry, lately

Recently, two things have got me furious. The first is the the hostile response to the economic stimulus package that the President has proposed. Living in this market-driven world as we do, we must recognize that it is the American Way to gently steer the economy in the 'right direction' by fooling with the interest rates, tinkering with legislation, with nobody really paying attention to the background assumptions that make everything supposedly work. One is that the economy must grow. Fine. (As one of my friends remarked, this is the philosophy of a cancer cell.) A little unemployment is good. Fine. (Good for businesses, apparently.) The stock market must keep going up. Well, that one was a loser. As everyone knows, the insurance industry has enjoyed a ride that depended on the stock market going up and up. They take your money, and take on your risk. They ship it out to Wall Street, and if by chance you need to call on them when disaster strikes, they give you a whole bunch of money from other customers, and go back to watching your money earning moola for them. But they have a contingency plan just in case the stock market goes down and down. It is: call on Congress for a bailout. It is the same plan the auto manufacturing industry uses to avoid making fuel efficient automobiles. Oh sure, the Japanese can make fuel efficient cars. If we were to do it, we would do it right. But we can't, so we won't. The logic is kind of flawless. The people who supposedly knew how to tinker with the economy, having safely brought us to this crisis, are now objecting to the details of Obama's proposed Stimulus Package. Government spending is good, as long as we don't put too much money into giving free health care for kids. Why? Because if kids get free health care, all those sick kids [we are told,] won't spend their own money on health care. Instead of taking the government free health care, and spending their own money on such necessities as french fries and Ipods, they're going to put their money under their little mattresses, and the government money would be utterly wasted. Another loser is education funding. The economically savvy Republicans have decided money infusion into education is a losing strategy. This is another way of saying that only the affluent deserve to have well-educated children. Why is it that the government throws money at everything that needs to be fixed except education? Does it need to be fixed, or does it not? Perhaps it was the Democrats who threw money into education. Let me be perfectly clear: throwing money into education is not enough. The entire country must begin to understand that education takes a village, too. It is the responsibility of teachers, students and parents. And education is not just reading, writing, and arithmetic. It is art, music, history, languages, everything. And money alone will not fix it. But without money, it cannot be fixed. The worst annoyance is this constant labeling of Obama as a Socialist. This name-calling is something America has learned from the Russians, apparently. The second thing that makes me very angry is the tendency of people to want to live in the Wilderness. According to Wikipedia, if the population of the Earth was uniformly distributed over the land area, there would be roughly 34 people per square mile. Now, those who dream of living in the Wilderness must want to do so because they would like to be where their eyes do not fall on other human beings. If they had to share their little corner of Eden with 34 others within shooting distance, this would presumably take some of the shine off the project. So in order to make these wilderness lovers happy, the rest of us have to stay far away. It seems a little preposterous that, by implication, these folks should want to insist on the vast majority of human beings staying in crowded cities (which some of us are inclined to do anyway), in order that their pristine wilderness be reserved for their exclusive delectation. I think the wilderness should be left alone, except for occasional visits by non-wilderness types. Anyone who prefers to be far from other humans (and, believe me, there have been moments when I sympathized with you) should have arranged to have been born in an era when there were far fewer than 6 billion human beings eying the wilderness, dribbling saliva on their bibs. Of course, if they do not want their mail delivered, that would be a point in their favor. Even better if they did not demand paved roads leading close to where they live. Still better if they do not clear too much land around where they live, especially the tops of hills and mountains. Still better if they leave the wildlife alone, and do not play loud music. If they minimize the amount of commuting back and forth to cities, that would be cause of some satisfaction. And if they get sick, one hopes that they manage with whatever facilities they have to hand, and not a helicopter invasion of the wilderness. Any wilderness recluse who reads these words will probably object to the implied denigration, but I'm sorry; I'm not happy with anyone who takes a disproportionate piece of the world's resources. Archimedes