Alien Robots Worship Jesus!

It’s true!!!

Because they were programmed to!

Okay, I know that I normally blog about heavier subjects, but please indulge me in a moment of whimsy.

Recently on my personal blog I did an entry featuring a bit of computer animation I had discovered that offers a fascinating presentation of Bach’s Toccata and Fugue in D Minor (it’s really cool).

But this was not the only animation in the series. There are a lot of them, and one that caught my eye was titled “Bach, Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring, from Cantata 147 (sung by alien robots).”

Alien robots singing a favorite like Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring”? That’s worth checking out.

BTW, here is what the alien robots are singing in German:

Jesus bleibet meine Freude,
meines Herzens Trost und Saft,
Jesus wehret allem Leide,
er ist meines Lebens Kraft,
meiner Augen Lust und Sonne,
meiner Seele Schatz und Wonne;
darum laß’ ich Jesum nicht
aus dem Herzen und Gesicht.
—from BWV 147, Chorale movement no. 10

The usual English translation of this does not correspond with the German text, but here is a more literal translation (source (see no. 10)):

Jesus shall remain my gladness,
Essence of my heart, its hope;
Jesus from all grief protecteth,
He is of my life its strength,
Of mine eyes the sun and pleasure,
Of my soul the joy and treasure;
Therefore I will Jesus not
From my heart and sight allow.

So with no further ado, alien robots sing “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring”!

Two more from YouTube — Christmas & Star Wars

EDIT: Comments below revised.

SDG here with another Christmas song from Straight No Chaser, this time a straight rendition of Silent Night.

And also, I can’t resist posting a non-Christmas acapella song pointed out to me by JA.o reader Matheus on another subject beloved of JA.o fans. I have a few comments on this one below — but don’t read the comments below until you’ve watched the second video!

Straight No Chaser – Silent Night

Star Wars – John Williams Tribute

Comments on the John Williams tribute below.

(you did watch it, right?)

  1. HT to Bill for pointing this out: This song was written and recorded by an acapella group called Moosebutter. A different YouTube video is available showing , but not this recording of it (you can tell it’s the same voices, but not the same recording). The video above shows a “paid YouTuber” name Corey Vidal lip-synching a different recording of the song. Thos video was apparently made with Moosebutter’s cooperation, but lots of people (including me at first) haven’t glommed that Corey isn’t actually singing. Anyway, I’m keeping the Corey version here because the recording is cleaner, with less mugging, and I like the way it sounds better, but it does dampen my enthusiasm to know that that’s not the real guy singing.

  2. One of my favorite bits is the E.T. theme, where they’re doing Luke complaining to Uncle Owen about not getting to go to Toshi Station for power converters — they get Luke’s whiny tone exactly right.

  3. I also love the goofy dissonance between the soaring, majestic Jurassic Park theme and the sinister dialogue they put over it.

Things Are Bad In The Music Industry

CD sales are down, but online sales haven’t picked up the slack.

But here’s a piece of good news:

Sales of rap, which had provided the industry with a lifeboat in recent years, fell far more than the overall market last year with a drop of almost 21 percent, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Maybe the culture is starting to turn away from rap.

I also found this interesting (EXCERPTS):

Aram Sinnreich, a media industry consultant at Radar Research in Los Angeles, said the CD format, introduced in the United States 24 years ago, is in its death throes. “Everyone in the industry thinks of this Christmas as the last big holiday season for CD sales,” Mr. Sinnreich said, “and then everything goes kaput.”

Some music executives say that dropping copy-restriction software, also known as digital-rights management, would stoke business at iTunes’ competitors and generate a surge in sales. Others predict it would have little impact, though they add that the labels squandered years on failed attempts to restrict digital music instead of converting more fans into paying consumers.

“They were so slow to react, and let things get totally out of hand,” said Russ Crupnick, a senior entertainment industry analyst at NPD, the research company. “They just missed the boat.”

GET THE STORY.

EMI To Nix DRM!

Good news, everybody!

EMI–one of the world’s largest music labels–has decided to give DRM-free online music a try. The deal is they’ll start selling their entire catalogue (except The Beatles) via iTunes in DRM-free form for $1.29 a song (up from 99 cents a song for the DRM-hobbled version of the music).

Personally, I’d pay the extra 30 cents for music portability, and I suspect a lot of other folks will, too.

As for The Beatles . . . well, they’ve been stick-in-the-muds for years, being slow to adopt changing music technologies. They were among the last artists to make their music available on CD, even when it was clearly the preferred choice by consumers. It’s like they’ve still got their heads stuck in the ’60s of something.

Steve Jobs also says that he expects half of the music on iTunes to be available in the premium, DRM-free version by the end of the year, which suggests he’s in negotiations with other labels for the same thing.

GET THE STORY.

Apple Vs. DRM?

If true, then

GOOD.

HERE’S STEVE JOBS’ ORIGINAL ESSAY.

EXCERPT:

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Final Holdouts Now Surrendering To Pod People

A piece back I decided I wanted to listen to some songs by the Beatles, so I went to the iTunes music store and typed in their name. Know how many songs were available for download?

Absolutely none.

The Beatles, y’see, (technically, Apple Corps, which is responsible for looking after their copyrights) has not allowed their music to be made available for download.

So I just got the songs I wanted on CD and ripped them.

This is not the first time the Beatles have been behind the technological curve. They were also one of the last bands to make their work available on CD.

C’mon, guys! Don’t stay stuck in the ’60s!

The Beatles, however, are not the only big-name act that hasn’t wanted to allow its fans to be able to (legally) download its music. Others include Bob Seger, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Garth Brooks, and Kid Rock.

But the times, they are a-changin’!

The number of pod people out there has now become so vast that these last few holdouts are starting to recognize that their struggle is futile, and they are beginning to surrender.

Bob Seger and Metallica have now joined the revolution, and the writing is on the wall for the rest of them:

But bands can no longer risk losing out on sales and marketing generated from the digital formats, especially on iTunes, said Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, a market research firm. With CD sales continuing to drop, it’s only a matter of time until the last holdouts give up, he said.

GET THE STORY.

So, special message for the Beatles . . .  YOU’RE NEXT!

The Immortal Johnny Cash

Johnnycash_2 There have been a lot of sightings lately of the recently-deceased Johnny Cash. No, he hasn’t been backing-up Elvis at Memphis honky-tonks. His music has been selling like hotcakes.

"In life, Johnny Cash was merely a legend. In death, he is proving immortal.

"Almost three years after he died at the age of 71 after a decade of poor health, the country outlaw is the most popular artist in the United States, currently at No. 1 on the pop and country charts with an album of new material.

"The album, ‘American V: A Hundred Highways,’ recorded in Cash’s final months as he looked forward to reuniting with his late wife, June Carter Cash, sold 88,000 copies in the week ended July 9. It’s his first chart-topper since 1969’s live prison album ‘Johnny Cash at San Quentin.’"

GET THE STORY.

I suppose most of the Cash fans these days hopped on the bandwagon with the success of the bio-flick Walk the Line. Having grown up in a family of country-music lovers, I liked Johnny Cash before it was cool to like Johnny Cash. Some of my favorites are A Boy Named Sue, Ring of Fire, and One Piece at a Time.

[JIMMY ADDS: Those are three of my favorites, along with Folsom Prison Blues.]

The only thing that ever really annoyed me about Cash was not Cash himself but the idealization by many people of his marriage to June Carter Cash … a relationship that began when at least one of them was married to someone else. I forget the full details of their "love story" but my repulsion at the popular idealization of adultery is one of the reasons I skipped Walk the Line when it was in theaters. (To be perfectly clear, I’m not saying anything here about Johnny and June Carter Cash. My disgust is with those who seemed to think their marriage one of the Greatest Love Stories of All Time.)

As a side note, reporters can be a real hoot sometimes:

"Almost three years after he [Cash] died at the age of 71 after a decade of poor health…"

Wow, whoever heard of dying after a bout with "poor health"? And here I thought that only the healthy died.

A Most Ingenious Paradox

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I would like to see someone write a long article on the strange combination of traditional values like patriotism, family and a faith that plays right alongside praising infidelity, praising being drunk and Tim McGraw’s ambivalent song about abortion. There seems to be a strange disconnect among Country singers and their fans who can sing along with Restless Heart’s "Why does it have to be wrong or right?" one minute and then switch to "Believe" by Brooks and Dunn the next.

It’s like reading Cosmo and Inside the Vatican and not seeing any conflict.

Weird.

I think I can shed some light on the paradox. The reason for it is very simple: Country music is a form of folk music.

Folk music, by definition, reflects the interests of a particular people or "folk." Since there are saints and sinners in every group, folks music invariably includes songs that appeal to both. By its nature, folk music is broadly reflective of whatever the particular folk is interested in, which includes things like their religious lives, their families, their romances, their jobs, their frustrations, and their entertainments. The particular mix of these topics will vary from culture to culture and from time to time even within a particular musical tradition, but the same topics show up over and over again, just in different ratios.

Folk music can be distinguished from more selective musical traditions which are more polarized topically. Religious music–particularly those song that are sung in church–for example, is very, very narrow topically. Perhaps it’s the most narrow genre of music that shows up in each culture since it is devoted to the holy, which by definition is set apart from the ordinary.

Children’s music is also quite narrow in topics because its target audience is only just learning about life and the music created for children is focused on what children are interested in (e.g., animals, the jobs of the adults they see around them) and what is considered appropriate for them at their age.

Classic rock and roll, which received its foundational imprint as music for mid 20th century adolescents and young adults, is also narrower in topic than country music since its target audience hasn’t really come to terms with life as adults. It’s also marked by the obsessive interest of young males with a few particular topics (e.g.,  dating, sex, cars, rebellion against authority). It also shows notable traces of the particular era in which it was formed (e.g., songs about drug abuse rather than alcohol abuse).

Country music received its foundational imprint as music for traditional American adult society, which has historically been rural and religious. This means that you get some songs that are heavily religiously themed but also songs about sin. Since people struggle with their sins, you get some songs that reflect the struggle ("Why Does It Have To Be Right Or Wrong?"). Since people also give themselves over to their sins, you also have songs that glorify sinning ("Get Drunk And Be Somebody"). Since people get hurt by others’ sins, there are songs about that, too ("Your Cheatin’ Heart"). And there are songs that morally censure sinning ("Wreck on the Highway"). And songs from the perspective of those hurting under their own sins ("Honky Tonk Blues"). And songs that worry about whether people will escape from their sins ("Will The Circle Be Unbroken?").

You even get some songs that are like something from a Flannery O’Connor story (e.g., the Dixie Chicks’ "Goodbye, Earl" or Rock County’s "Turn It On! Turn It On! Turn It On!").

It’s a big, complex mix because folk music reflects the lives and struggles of the folk it represents. It includes both the good and the bad, leading to the paradox of amazingly powerful spiritual songs right next to ones glorifying sin.

That’s not to say that people to whom the folk music is addressed like all of the songs in the tradition. Religious country music fans frown on the glorify sin songs. Irreligious country music fans may roll their eyes at the  religious songs. But the mix is there because the music represents a folk and the folk itself is mixed. Some fans appreciate both kinds of songs because both reflect their lives and aspirations.

The paradox seems particularly striking if one is used to music that is topically more narrow (e.g., used to only religious music–which has the holy stuff but leaves out the sin-oriented songs–or used to rock and roll–which is more oriented toward the sinful stuff and tends to leave out the holy most of the time).

But the paradox of modern country music is normal in folk music. If you go back and listen to 19th century American folk music, the exact same themes are there: You’ve got explicitly religious songs and ones that hit the standard life and sin themes. "Ol’ Rosin the Beau" glorifies a reprobate who dies and goes to hell and drinks whiskey with the devil. "Soldier’s Joy" has alcohol/drug abuse in it ("It’s 25 cents for the morphine/It’s 15 cents for the beer/It’s 25 cents for the morphine/Gonna drink me away from here"). The original, pre-War version of "Dixie" has adultery in it ("Old Missus married Will the weaver/William was a gay deceiver . . . Old Missus played the foolish part/She died for a man who broke her heart"). "Sweet Betsy From Pike" has implied extramarital sex and possible illegitimate preganancy in it. "Buffalo Gals" and "The Yellow Rose Of Texas" are about being attracted to the opposite sex. "Cindy" is about the opposite sex being attracted to you. "Lorena" is about lost love and missed opportunities. The "Boatman’s Dance" is about glorifying a particular job/lifestyle.

And the same is true of folk music in other times and cultures. Back in the Middle Ages they had all kinds of religiously themed songs, but they also had drinking songs they’d sing in the taverns. And songs about romance and sex and loneliness and hardship and everything else that is part of the human condition.

Because that’s the paradox of true folk music: It reflects the paradox of the fallen human condition.

As to the paradox of why particular singers will sing both religious songs and those that glorify sin, the answer to that is simple also: They’re doing what singers have always done . . . trying to make money.

Incidentally,

MUSINGS FROM A CATHOLIC BOOKSTORE ALSO HAS A DISCUSSION OF THIS GOING.

STICKS HICKS NIX DIX CHIX

Dixie_chicksSince I was talking about music earlier today, I may as well touch on this story as well.

To the left is the cover of the Dixie Chicks’ new album, Taking the Long Way, which is their first new album since they shot off their mouths in a spectacularly rude way at a specutacularly bad time that was sure to alienate their country music audience.

GET THAT STORY IF YOU DON’T KNOW IT.

They could have recovered from that, but instead they issued a string of smouldering non-apologies and eventually appeared–bizarrely!–on the cover of Entertainment Weekly stark nekkid with inflammatory words and phrases painted on their bodies.

That ain’t really the country thing to do, and their fans turned their backs on them.

Now, personally, I don’t care if they hold the opinions of President Bush that they expressed in England. I’m not happy with President Bush, myself. But to say what they did (that they’re ashamed that the president is from Texas) when they did (in wartime) where they did (on foreign soil) to whom they did (Euro liberals) was sure to hack off the people who bought their records, and following it up with a bunch of non-apologies and bizarro stunts LIKE THIS (skin warning!) was utterly contemptuous of their core audience.

In other words, they were alienating their base.

So, three years later out comes their first new album and their label starts pitching it to country music stations and with news stories being written with headlines like "Dixie Chicks Return To Country Radio."

So have three years changed things? Is all forgiven? Will their country fans start listening to them again?

A precondition for forgiveness is repentance, and with defiant, in-your-face songs on the album like "Not Ready To Make Nice"–a contemptuous stab at those who were offended by their actions three years ago–it’s clear that the Chicks have some repenting to do if they want to be forgiven by their country fans.

AND SO THE ALBUM IS GOING NOWHERE, MANY STATIONS AREN’T PLAYING ITS SONGS, AND THOSE THAT ARE ARE GETTING COMPLAINTS.

Good.

I used to listen to their songs–I particularly liked "Goodbye Earl"–but the Chicks showed themselves to be a bunch of spoiled girls who have never grown up. I have no interest in listening to their songs because I will have no ability to enjoy them until they can adopt an attitude other than contempt for those who gave them their success by buying their albums and supporting them and their careers.

A basic rule of getting along in life for public figures is "Don’t show contempt for your base."

That’s a principle Mr. Bush ought to learn if he’d like his reputation to fare well in the long term, too.