regarding therapy, something immensely valuable my wife and I stumbled on is working with a child psychologist who, rather than meeting directly with our children, does "parent training" sessions.
these takes the form of hour long meetings in which we relay a specific challenge we're having with one of our kids. Our therapist asks questions, offers suggestions, and reacts to different strategies we're currently trying.
it's been so helpful to have an objective third party who can offer kind feedback on approaches we're using, give us heads-up to potential fallout of certain strategies or reactions to difficult behavior, and also offer great suggestions on new or altered approaches to take based on our own family values.
I wonder about the practicality of complementing that stage of the decomposition with a free-range poultry operation. Bringing in chickens, the birds eat the larvae, and generate more fertilizer along the way.
Reminds me of some permaculture setups I've seen that do something exactly like that. There's a raised bin full of food scraps, it gets populated with fly larvae, which the chickens eat.
There are also startups that take in organic waste and use it to breed soldier fly larvae, which they then harvest and sell as protein for animal food etc.
When I was tutoring music theory, some students who had a similar experience had "aha" moments when we tried to focus more on how the harmony of a piece of music is linked to the meter.
So I wonder, how much do you hear harmonic changes in a given piece of music? Maybe a better way, for you, to develop an ear for rhythm is to focus on the regularity of those harmonic movements, which are what really "suggest" a meter in the first place. In most music, rhythm really is just the subdivisions of those larger "beats" implied by the harmony, and discussions like the OP end up being more or less "Oh, this is interesting because it doesn't line up with the expectations that accompany rest of the surrounding music"
You are right, I'm not very good with harmonic changes either, or functional harmony in general.
> it doesn't line up with the expectations
This idea of expectations comes up often when up when discussing music, and I get the impression that that people have stronger expectations than I do.
This whole situation leads funnily enough me happily listening all sorts of "complicated" music (jazz/prog/classical/electronica), not because I appreciate the complexity in any intellectual way, but because it just sounds fun. That of course doesn't help me reinforce any music pattern parts of my brain if I listen music that intentionally breaks all the conventions and "rules"
Yes, exactly! I have a couple of "expensive music degrees" and in my experience, most folks within the academy who are applying western-tradition theory and analysis on non-western-tradition practices are doing it full well knowing it's a limited lens to use.
It's usually a pragmatic move, because the alternative ways of discussing the music are sometimes not very clear, or you end up using time stamps generated in audacity to try to demonstrate "they kind of rush this 5/8 bar, but it still sounds cool and carries a lot of energy with it."
I've had similar experiences trying to transcribe non-western folk music, like Bata drumming from Cuba. You can definitely notate it, but the formal structure of the songs doesn't fit well into traditional notation, so it is necessarily an incomplete technique that more or less HAS to be married to audio recordings or videos if you want to learn the music at a later point.
Typically in music theory, we would talk about a hemiola as a rhythmic technique in which a rhythm in a simple (2) metric division is introduced in the context of a compound (3) division of the beat, or vice versa.
What the parent post describes isn't an isolated gesture like that, but a sustained state of overlapping meters, if I'm understanding correctly. In the case of the ICM described, as well as math rock/meshuggah/etc, I would describe the technique as "Polymetric" or maybe a "Sustained polyrhythm," and not a hemiola.
I think you are exactly correct. My big revelation in graduate school (music performance) was the idea that vocalizations of music "short circuit" our learning process and tend to get a performer closer to what we'd call an "expressive" or "musical" rendition.
Notated music's function is simply to give a systematic way to for people to reproduce/recreate an aural experience, but it is a "lossy" format that western classical musicians have to spend years training in performance practice and interpretation to adequately recapture the expressive elements that are not easy to capture in notation but are vital for engaging performances.
I think there are some operations that are trying to do this well. Granted, I'm probably pretty susceptible to their marketing efforts, but I find White Oak Pastures Farm in GA a really exciting example of an establishment that is pushing back against industrial farming practices.
https://whiteoakpastures.com/
The discussion on the EARN IT act starts around 1:42:00
Any mention of concerns over encryption are with a really incredulous, dismissive tone. I have a hard time understanding whether that's actual ignorance on the part of the Senators, or if it's some kind of theatrics that plays into the broader politics of the situation.
Based on similar things I’ve seen here in Australian political circles it’s because they are so deeply misinformed that it’s become dogmatic. They like to get simplistic overview briefings and dislike getting sufficiently deep briefings that they can be informed of the fundamental flaws that simplistic briefings pass over.
They also decide who works for them so no subordinate will “make them learn” and everyone perpetuates a cycle of ignorance that leads to the establishment of a dogmatic position that people trying to make things seem more complicated are wrong because I have all my own people telling me it’s not that complicated. Unless they care to be informed and ASK for it, it will never happen.
I have no evidence for this, but I think it's highly likely they're using "ignorance" as a form of brinkmanship or plausible deniability. If these senators speak with any of their colleagues, they'll know the risk and reward tradeoffs of these decisions, but they'll choose to side with interests that benefit their own person.
I know Hanlon's razor stands against me, but I just find the dynamics of a highly connected set of professionals in DC too conducive to passive knowledge of these issues to justify a bunch of "key senators" to be fully ignorant on these subjects. I find it way more likely that ignorance is a convenient narrative to push their agenda without accountability from the opposition.
Plausible deniability yes, but even just safety. If I don't engage with a topic in a detailed manner, it's very unlikely I'll say something wrong about it, that could later come back to haunt me. Remember "the internet is a series of tubes"? The guy was hammered for trying to understand a complex topic - and he wasn't even dramatically wrong, just used a metaphor (almost certainly thought-up by someone in his staff) that was just excessively reductionist.
The media playing gotcha has made it fundamentally dangerous for a politician to be publicly wrong on any topic. The reaction is to avoid engaging with complex issues.
it's been so helpful to have an objective third party who can offer kind feedback on approaches we're using, give us heads-up to potential fallout of certain strategies or reactions to difficult behavior, and also offer great suggestions on new or altered approaches to take based on our own family values.