1000. Adiós. Goodbye.

ME MUDO A / MOVING TO: http://guti.wordpress.com

Me voy, pero sigo.

Si el contador de Blogger fuera correcto, esta sería la entrada número 1.000 de este blog. Creo que cuenta también borradores que nunca se publicaron, así que en realidad debe de haber 960 entradas publicadas. Pero el caso es que el marcador señala ahora un redondo 1.000.

1.000 ideas, 1.000 tonterías, 1.000 trocitos de algo. 588 en español, 334 en asturiano, 55 en inglés, 14 en francés (sí, no suman 1.000; habré etiquetado mal). Quién iba a pensar aquel día de 2006 que no sólo no me iba a cansar a los dos días, sino que 2.358 días después seguiría vertiendo aquí lo que se me pasa por la cabeza. Parece que cada dos o tres días tengo algo que me apetece decirle a alguien y a nadie. Hay casi 100.000 visitas, así que en el fondo alguien escucha a veces.

Escribir no es un invento de Steve Jobs; se ha hecho siempre. Y escribir por escribir, también. Hay gente a la que se lo pide el cuerpo. Debo de ser de esos.

Y es buen momento para cerrar una etapa. Tengo intención de que este sea mi último artículo aquí.

Pero eso no significa que deje de escribir. Es que me mudo.

Ya dije ayer por qué no me gusta Google, y quiero empezar a hacer las cosas de otra forma. Así que, de momento, el blog se mueve a Wordpress. He importado los artículos allí, y parece que ha funcionado. Se impone un cambio de aires.

Hasta siempre, blog. He aprendido mucho aquí.

Y por lo que respecta a ti, si quieres, nos vemos en http://guti.wordpress.com. Nada me gustaría más.

Hola, blog. Espero que me acompañes miles de días.

-----------------------------

I'm leaving, but I'm carrying on.


If Blogger counter is right, this would be post #1000. I think it counts drafts as well, so there are probably just about 960 published posts. But anyway, the counter shows a perfect 1000 right now.

1000 ideas, 1000 silly things, 1000 pieces of something. 588 in Spanish, 334 in Asturian, 55 in English, 14 in French (yes, they don't make 1000; probably I forgot some tags somewhere). Who could have guessed, in 2006, that I wouldn't just get tired after a couple of days, but instead I'd keep pouring here whatever comes to my mind. It looks like every two or three days I've got something to tell to somebody, to anybody. There are almost 100000 visited pages, so somebody is listening sometimes, after all.

Writing was not invented by Steve Jobs; it has always been done. And also writing without any purpose, of course. Some people just need it. I must be one of those.

And this is a good moment to move on. My intention is that this is my last post here.

But that doesn't mean that I'll stop writing. I'm just moving.

Yesterday I wrote why I don't like Google, and I want to change the way I do some things. So, by now, this blog is moving to Wordpress. I've imported posts there, and it seems to work. So I'm moving.

Good bye, blog. I've learnt a lot here.

And as for you, if you want, see you in http://guti.wordpress.com. Nothing would make me happier.

Hi, blog. I hope you'll keep me company for thousands of days.

Four jazz lessons in two minutes

The Muppets were a superb source of wisdom. And here we have four lessons about jazz in just two minutes.

1.- If they are paying you, you must play. Whatever. Charlie Parker will forgive you from up there.
2.- The roots. NEVER forget to play the roots.
3.- Some drummers can get really, really annoying.
4.- And if they do, here's the only way to put them out of your way...

On strike

Pues eso.

Este blog hoy está en huelga.

About jazz singing

An interesting post, and above all, a sentence to remember:

And to do two difficult things at the same time doesn’t make it twice as hard, it makes it ten times as hard.

The author wrote it about scat singing, but it applies (maybe even better!) to instrument playing. I can't tell if the numbers (ten) are right, but the general idea is right.

Well, don't take it too seriously; any jazz musician could (should) think that improvising is not such a big deal. But you can bet it's not easy.

Jazz singing, by Drake

Jane Monheit's advice for singers

In an interview by Jeff Winbush in 2007, Jane Monheit was asked about American Idol (Operación triunfo in Spain) and the advice she would give to the contestants, should she be invited as a celebrity judge. Her answer:

I'd tell them to learn music if they didn't already. Don't sing by ear and don't let their pianist do it for them. Learn music and have the same exact knowledge as all the instrumentalists have. You need it. It's absolutely necessary and there are so many singers who don't operate from that place. I don't understand how they're making it. Whenever people ask me for advice for singers that's the first thing that I say.

Particles and waves

I could have studied Physics. Really. As Ernest Rutherford is said to have said: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting".

As with many other subjects, I deeply enjoy being an amateur; and that's why I cannot understand why journalists and TV people think they have to embellish or enrich their stories. The truth, the real world, is astounding. Be it cuneiform script, jazz music, lawn mowing or quantum mechanics.

I've been trying to understand quantum mechanics. For years. As an example, right now I'm reading The God Particle, by Leon Lederman (interesting, but not so good, so far). But I think I haven't quite understood what's going on yet.

One could argue that nobody really understands quantum mechanics; that subatomic world is counterintuitive, and that you cannot really aspire to understand it. After all, Richard P. Feynman, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, the co-author of one of the most succesful theories in the history of physics (quantum electrodynamics) and an excellent teacher, is often quoted as having said things like these:

- I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics.

- If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.

- Things on a very small scale [like electrons] behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.

So... do you have to give up?

I don't think so.

I still believe that, given a proper explanation, given the right one for you, you can understand everything. After all, Ernest Rutherford said as well: "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid".

Today, I've just read a sentence that I absolutely have to record here. The problem is: I can't tell whether it's absolutely correct or not (and, according to Feynman, it isn't). But at least it says something, and I understand it. It mentions a doubt I have, and it says something clarifying. Actually, I knew everything it says; but I hadn't seen these ideas put together, in such a simple and elegant way.

So, be it correct or not, I make a note of it.

How can something be both a particle and a wave at the same time? For one thing, it is incorrect to think of light as a stream of particles moving up and down in a wavelike manner. Actually, light and matter exist as particles; what behaves like a wave is the probability of where that particle will be.

Thank you so much, Todd Stedl.

[EDIT]
Other sentences by Todd Stedl:

atomic particles possess an intrinsic angular momentum, or spin, and that this spin is quantized (that is, it can only have certain discrete values). Spin is a completely quantum mechanical property of a particle and cannot be explained in any way by classical physics. It is important to realize that the spin of an atomic particle is not a measure of how it is spinning! In fact, it is impossible to tell whether something as small as an electron is spinning at all! The word 'spin' is just a convenient way of talking about the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle.

And these were written by Stephen Jenkins:

wave phenomena, such as diffraction, are generally only important when waves interact with objects of a size comparable to their wavelength. Fortunately for the theory, the wavelength of everyday objects moving at everyday speeds turns out to be incredibly small.

New ministers sworn in

Yesterday, seven ministers of the Spanish government were sworn in. I think we can safely assume that religious authorities (in the religious sense) do not pay much attention to this; after all, no matter what a minister (or even the government in full for that matter) decides, it won't affect any religious dogma. Religious authority does not accept the slightest interference. Religion is a different world, according to them, and not subject to human law or democracy.

On the other hand, Spain, according to its Constitution, is a non-denominational state. That is, it does not adhere to any specific religion. Officially, at least.

The ministers ceremony is a completely civil event. In addition, it has mainly a symbolic value; the hard legal consequences actually come, I suppose, from documents and the like, signed off the record.

Spanish public television offered a pretty montage yesterday; by composing fragments of different ministers' swearing, we could see the seven of them, but hear the full text only once. Good idea. Below you can see a summary of the images. Does this ring any bell for you?



Yes. Every one of them took up their post in front of a catholic cross, and presumably with a bible on the table. In fact, the video shooting even shows them behind the cross. The true center of the image is not the minister, but the cross; that's the reason why the above collage looks like a cemetery. In particular, the woman in white coat even looks like a bishop; at first glance, the cross seems to be a part of her clothing. This woman is Rosa Aguilar, a former member of the Spanish equivalent to the communist party. One can't but wonder which meaning of the word "ministers" does apply here.

I can find lots of good reasons for strictly and deliberately avoiding any religious symbol, no matter how small or discrete, in a public, civil ceremony. I can't find a single one for considering that having them in such a prominent place is a good idea.

So this is our flamboyant, non-denominational country. 35 years after the theoretical end of the catholic dictatorship, everything has still to be apparently approved by a nihil obstat. The point is not that some of the ministers might need to believe in some god in order to observe ethics (which, by the way, would be pretty scaring in itself); they could just do that, believe, or internally talk and swear to some superior being, by themselves. The point is the public exhibition of power, the visible presence of the church in that ceremony. Even the highest representatives of popular sovereignty must show symbolic submission to a religious sign, which appears, vigilant, as the guarantor of the correct fulfilment of their duties (or else...!)

Well, if we can't avoid the presence of symbols which are totally unrelated to the purpose of the ceremony, at least we could have some variation, which would rise interest and maybe even generate income for the public treasury. Something like this:

Flashforward

A long time since my last post in English... and now I have to write something, or I'll end up forgetting English completely.

I've seen... maybe the third episode of Flashforward. I'ts a TV series about a worldwide faint, that every person in the world suffers exactly at the same time, and lasts exactly the same: 2' 17". During that time, every person has a vision about the future, exactly six months later; those visions are apparently coherent. So it seems that they have really seen the future. That's the flashforward, as opposed to flashback. The main character (Mark Benford) is an FBI investigator who, in his flashforward, saw himself in front of his noticeboard with the collected evidences.



The investigators begin to collect information, visit people and so on. And everything seems to fit, so it looks like they have really seen the future. Of course, in many cases people don't like what they see; they hide some details to their close friends or lovers (as the truth may be unpleasant). Even worse: during the event some of them did not have any flashforward at all... does that mean that they'll be dead six months later?

This approach is a great idea in the sense that you can write tons of stories and raise lots of questions upon it. But there's a big risk you'll end up ruining such a great idea. After all, the idea is not so original; it's great only if you manage to overcome the difficulties where others have failed. Namely, time travel.

Writing about time travel in any form is not a simple thing. It has been done millions of times in the past, and just raising the issue as a great idea and leaving it open to reflection won't work anymore; you must assemble a credible story, and you must be really good at that, since you must cope with (and solve) many possible paradoxes. For instance, I've recently read some stories by Greg Egan, that faced this subject, and he's brilliant in some ways, but I didn't like his way of solving these problems (neither his narrative style, quite confusing). And, in my opinion, something's going wrong with Flashforward. Maybe the book it's based on is better built, or maybe everything will make sense later, but at this moment I'm quite disappointed with some details.

For instance: Benford recalls some pictures of his noticeboard, as he guides the investigation. And he goes on finding evidences that take their place in the noticeboard, as he had seen in his flashforward. That sort of jigsaw-solving is great as a dramatic resource. But...

Woulnd't it be obvious that anybody in his situation would try to change the future? He would use a different noticeboard, or put the pictures and notes in a completely different layout on purpose. Let's see if we have really seen the future, right? There are things which we don't know, and they are happening right now and taking us to that moment we've all seen in the future. But what about the things that we already know? Let's turn them upside down! Let's challenge this phenomenon!

Of course, that would be a paradox. And it would be difficult for the authors to solve that. Maybe something will end up mending everything at the last minute so as the prophecy will come true, but in that case the writer will have to be really thorough with the details, and it won't be credible anyway. Or maybe that won't happen, since the things people alter are not significant for the future; but then, it would be quite difficult to tell which details are relevant or not, once some flashforwards are invalidated by human actions (what would, then, prevent us from altering the whole future?).

The point is, I can't imagine why on Earth the characters don't try to do this and challenge their own flashforwards.

So the series is not bad, but I hope they have a great plot behind these naïve decisions. If that's not the case, any Terminator film would have been better written than this...

Journalism ethics and Wyoming

El Gran Wyoming (The Great Wyoming) is actually a spanish showman. He's well known, among other things, for holding a clear personal position in some politics issues. Some of his opponents consider him to be very near to the party currently governing in Spain (although that doesn't prevent him from making parody of it, now and in the past).

Intereconomía is a TV channel absolutely opposed to the governing party, and aligned with ultra-catholic, right-wing positions. They are fiercely critics with Wyoming, among others. So Wyoming and Intereconomía keep an ill-concealed clash.

Recently, the TV channel where Wyoming works recorded a fake video where Wyoming appeared to be severely mistreating an intern, showing an unfair and arrogant attitude. They sent that video to Intereconomía, pretending that it had been recorded secretly. Xavier Horcajo, the director of that channel and conductor of a program, took the bait, showed the video as a "world exclusive" and, of course, he and his partners took the opportunity to call Wyoming every name under the sun... once more.

I personally haven't learned anything new about Wyoming or Intereconomía. But some controversy has arised about the limits of journalism and professional deonthology, that looks interesting to me.

I've been considering different points of view. First, the reaction of Horcajo: lots of accusations against Wyoming (totally unrelated to the issue: the financing of his TV channel, for instance). But not even the slightest acknowledgement of any mistake. Given that sign of credibility (and he's the director of the channel!), I think it's his spectators to blame from now on.

As for Wyoming, apparently Madrid Press Association has criticized him. Its president (Fernando González Urbaneja) has said that Wyoming's trap is disrespectful with journalism and violates the rules of this profession.

As for traps, or hidden cameras, I have mixed emotions. On one side, I believe that publicly denouncing things, and sheding light over dark issues, is one of the main goals of journalism; on the other side, it's easy to exceed the limits and adopt an unfair behaviour. I believe the key point is to make a honest use of these resources, and most of all, avoiding to become the star of the history. That makes the difference between a journalist and an idiot. In that sense, I could agree with González Urbaneja.

But after some thinking, I have to redeem Wyoming, for several reasons.

First because, actually, the result of his trap is more valuable as a journalistic work than Horcajo's. He has showed Horcajo up as someone who is a slave of his own prejudice and hate, a sectarian person that doesn't accept a second thought and whose work as a journalist is affected by that attitude. And he doesn't admit a mistake, even when he has made a fool of himself in front of the public. That is clearly relevant for his role. As I see it, Wyoming's main goal was not exactly to ridicule or mock Horcajo in itself, as some others have done in the past with some politicians, pretending to be presidents of some country or things like that in phone jokes, with no other intention. He has shown that a supposed journalist is eager to publish a (pretty obviously) fake information to satisfy his personal hatred. QED. Horcajo has not proven any significant point against Wyoming.

Second, because González Urbaneja, and Horcajo, are forgetting a vital point: Wyoming is not, neither claims to be, a journalist. His is not a news bulletin; it's a humoristic show. Whenever it resembles a news program, it is an obvious parody. One can argue about humour limits, but not about fair journalism in this case.

Of course, my judgement would change if Horcajo admitted to be actually making a humoristic show and not a serious program. But that's not the case. Unfortunately.

Unless Intereconomía is, in itself, a viral parody made by Wyoming. Sometimes I find it difficult to believe otherwise.

On the other hand, the director of the newspaper where I read González Urbaneja's criticisms becomes the star of a hideous story about a theft. He appears, very happy and enjoying his role, with a stolen object. Is that journalism?

Heart of darkness

I've just finished reading "Heart of darkness", by Joseph Conrad. It’s the first book I’ve ever read by Conrad, and it’s my friend Rumbonín to blame. There was no Spanish translation available at the library at the moment, so I decided to be bold and read it in English; I knew I was going to have a hard time, since my English is not good enough to read such kind of literature easily.

Of course, I could not understand every word, every adjective. Moreover, Conrad’s style is not the easiest thing to read; it’s somewhat elaborate, it’s the prose of a great writer from the XIX century. But I believe in trying to read in the original language when remotely possible, even at the price of not fully understanding some portion of the text.

Coincidentally, a couple of days ago, at a sale, I could hold a copy of a Spanish translation. And the first sentences of the book had lots of unknown words; there are plenty of sea expressions that I could not fully understand, even in Spanish. But I’m pretty sure that’s not the most important feature of the book.

As a matter of fact, I think I’ve understood enough of it to enjoy Conrad’s work. I haven’t looked for many words in the dictionary; I’ve decided to just go on and let myself get caught in… well, the heart of darkness. And think again about those men that faced new, unknown worlds. I’m not much of an adventurer myself, but I admire their ships, their sails, their effort, their fear, their strength. Be it fictitious (Ishmael) or real (Cherry-Garrard).

You don’t have to agree with every sentence, but you’ll recognize yourself in those thoughts and doubts and fears:

Droll thing life is – that mysterious arrangement of merciless logic for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself – that comes too late – a crop of unextinguishable regrets.

Obvious metaphors

You meet some special, helpless plant. And some mysterious connection occurs. And, although you hadn't planned it, you start to take care. Communication is difficult between so different worlds but, in your strange, human way, you shower it with attention. You give it things it probably doesn't need, but you try your best anyway. You see it grow. You feel better. It seems to blossom. It soon will become a real tree. Strong, tall. It will probably survive you. And in its strange, vegetable way, it looks grateful, it looks like a friend.

And then, in only one week, this happens.



I have no idea, but it probably was this..

And, of course, lots of obvious thoughts and analogies and metaphors come at once.

I'll miss you, anyway.

Ingenuidad / Naivety

[Artículo bilingüe / Bilingual post]

Sergio has made me think. Is it that naive believing in goodness?

Believing in goodness, trusting mankind, may be considered a stupid position, since there are so very many brutal counterexamples.

Thermodynamics are probably the strongest law in the universe. After all, thermodynamically speaking, fuel runs out, animals die, stars go out, systems find a stable, motionless state. Life in itself goes against the tide; it is a pointless phenomenon, a bid against logic. But a strong force, too. Delicate like thunder.

And here we are, knowing all of this, and knowing that we will die someday, but striving to get up every day and acting as if we were ignorant of that. And that's the correct way to act. And without that positive and apparently irrational attitude we wouldn't survive a single day. If we are not that confidence, we are nothing.

Thermodynamics rule; it's much easier to do evil than to do good. But we shouldn't give thermodynamics more advantage than strictly necessary.

And, anyway, there's something great in playing this fascinating game with style, even when you loose at the end.

---

Sergio me ha hecho pensar. ¿Es tan ingenuo creer en la bondad?

Creer en la bondad, tener fe en el género humano, puede considerarse una posición absurda, habiendo tantísimos contraejemplos brutales.

La termodinámica es, quizás, la ley más inexorable del universo. Al fin y al cabo, termodinámicamente los combustibles se acaban, los animales mueren, las estrellas se extinguen, los sistemas encuentran un estado estable e inmóvil. La vida, de por sí, va contracorriente; es un fenómeno sin sentido, una apuesta contra la lógica. Pero también es una fuerza inmensa. Delicada como un trueno.

Y aquí estamos, sabiendo todo esto, y sabiendo que un día moriremos, pero luchando por levantarnos cada día y actuar como si no lo supiéramos. Y esa es la forma correcta de actuar. Y sin esa actitud positiva y aparentemente irracional no sobreviviríamos ni un solo día. Si no somos esa confianza, no somos nada.

La termodinámica manda; es mucho más fácil hacer el mal que el bien. Pero no deberíamos dar a la termodinámica más ventaja de la estrictamente inevitable.

Y además hay algo grande en jugar este juego fascinante con estilo, incluso aunque se pierda al final.

Your wildest dreams

I've just received a quiz entitled Your wildest dreams. You must rank ten options:

Never grow old
Time travel
Marry the one you love
Be a movie star
Win millions
Be a famous athlete
Find the perfect mate
Travel to outer space
Be the president
Date your favorite star

Rankings are usually difficult for me to establish; I usually don't think in terms of order relationships, but of equivalence relationships. Well, I'd like to travel to outer space, and I find time travel attractive (paradoxes aside). As for marriage or perfect mates, I'm done. Never growing old could be partially desirable, in terms of health, but not in terms of eternal life. And as for the rest... I think I would possibly reject them. Yes, winning millions included.

And I find myself thinking about my wildest dreams. And about dreams in general. And I think about mom.

Mom is quite an intelligent person, and someone I admire. She's rather bad at remembering places or understanding maps, just as bad as I am remembering people's names. But she's good at almost everything else.

If mom were to be born again, I know for sure she would have two wild dreams. Wild dream number one: exercising. Wild dream number two: studying foreign languages.

If, for that second life, she got nice legs, she would wear miniskirts with long coats. Probably always.

One of her dreams was to see Venice. And my love, my mom and I traveled to Aveiro, a small Venice in Portugal. I wanted her to see that life hadn't ended. That lots of wonderful things were still to happen. And it was a real dream. She doesn't always remember the correct name of those places, but she remembers every image, every feeling.

But her biggest dream was to see Venice, the one and only. And that one we achieved together. One of my wildest dreams was to convince mom that some of our wildest dreams can become true. I cannot give her the long legs of a lingerie model, or a new birth. But I could travel to Venice. It was only my third flight, and her first one; but we got there. And now we both recall it like... a dream, yes.

I didn't want mom to see those dreams come true as an exception. I wanted her to think that beeing happy was possible, and that more unforgettable moments were awaiting in the years to come. So we travelled to Amsterdam (sort of a northern Venice). And it was... a dream.

There's a thought that kills me: that my mother is convinced that every dream become true is the last one. No matter how many new challenges we overcome together; one can always think that the previous one is the last one. There's nothing I can do about that feeling, apart from denying it.

Being a movie star, a famous athlete, the president, winning millions... Those are empty dreams. I think about mom's dreams. I think about how fortunate we are, being allowed to do sports, to learn languages, to wear miniskirts with long coats.

And more important yet, being allowed to have dreams and not having to give up.

In defence of Marion Jones

I'm not any big supporter of professional sports. I once enjoyed -or maybe I should say loved- NBA basketball. I even got up in the middle of the night with the only purpose of seing my idol, Ben Johnson, defeat Carl Lewis in Seoul 1988. His later disqualification made me think about doping and professional sports. And through the years, I came to one conclusion: the only competition I'm really interested in is the one we keep against our own limits. Any overweighted friend who manages to run 10 minutes non-stop moves me inside much, much more than any slam dunk by Kobe Bryant.

Now, I understand the athletes emotions and wish them the best, but I personally scorn the olympic games (just a huge business). I can't find professional cycling interesting; it has no sense with doping, but without doping it is somewhat hypocrite and has no sense whatsoever. My appreciation for a competition is inversely proportional to the attention and money the athletes get. I sympathize with female cross-country runners, and mostly ignore stars like male 100 m runners.

In this respect, I've never been any fan of Marion Jones. Her medals (the ones I heard of by chance) made me happy because I suppose they made her happy (one person, at least) and that's all. For me, her achievements have never been greater than those of any supermarket cashier that gets to earn her money after an exhausting day.

I had some news about her doping, and how her medals were cancelled. But now I read that she is trying to avoid... jail.

I can (partly) understand professional competition in team games such as basketball or football because it involves skills, creativity, team playing... things that (at least remotely) relate to becoming a better human being. Other competitions, however, are not so significant for me. There is always creativity or tactics involved, but they depend so heavily in muscle performance (or any other bodily function) that verifying which human body gives a better biochemical/biomechanical response to stress, or speed (100 m running, long-distance cycling, and so on) is just a scientifical question that I can hardly relate to human virtues. Personal effort, training, tenacity or discipline are a must, of course, but it's unlikely that they will make the difference in a biological parameter to win a world-class competition. What are you giving medals to, then?

It seems that Marion Jones broke some rules. And she was punished for that. All of her effort (putting even her own health at risk) became useless when her medals vanished. I think that's a severe penalty for an athlete, whose only purpose in life until a certain age was winning the glory of being remembered as a winner. Each one of her thousands of long, hard training hours was completely in vain.

Does she deserve jail? Just for lying during an investigation to defend herself? Then, what sentence would deserve, say, George W. Bush for lying to send several countries to a never-ending war? What sentence would the TV channels, the sponsors, the cities, all of those guys who made money with Marion and pushed her to her limits and took advantage of her, deserve? And regarding the sports authorities, the enthusiasts, the audience... What were you rewading exactly with medals? Did you give any appreciation to the runner who arrived in sixth place, or to the athlete that lost in the trials and never got to the olympic games? Did you give any credit or tribute to the second-rate athlete that trained endlessly, without any help (or drugs), and won some local championship, and couldn't get any further because of an injury?

Sending Jones to jail is like trying to make amends for our own sins by punishing her. I've never cared too much about Marion Jones and her five medals in a row. But now I do. Now I'm starting to get interested in her story. Now I feel moved. Now I feel the urge to see her win.

Go, Marion, go. Let them behind. Crush them. I'm with you.

Georgia on my mind

If you feel a bit melancholic, maybe Georgia on my mind will do something for you. Not this version, of course. There are loads of them; Ray Charles, very, very sloooow, accompanied by a flute, is not the worse one.

Last Sunday, at Lamuño, a handful of friends joined once again to play. In both senses of the word, since our rehearsals are not too formal; the main rule is to have fun. No pressure, no discipline; playing. Thanks to Luis, we recorded the session (it's great for learning). And one of the results is this modest version. Its value for us is that it happened just this way, and it is truly improvised. It's not too bad for our very limited talents.

Unfortunately, our friend Miguel (clarinet) couldn't come this time. So the offenders are, in order of solo appearance: myself (Ibanez Artcore AG75 electric guitar, Behringer VAmp 2 amplifier for recording, although I heard myself through a Roland MicroCube), Luis (Privia keyboard, I think, recorded as MIDI), and the great Miguel (Yamaha acoustic amplified guitar, Peavey amp). Anyway, equalization and mixing was done by Luis, and this is the reason why it sounds pretty decent.

Don't expect too much, but I think the song is so wonderful its charme withstands our performance.

Georgia on my mind [WMA, 2.429 KB]

Thinking aloud about a Ruby book

After Labra's enthusiastic recommendations about Ruby, and although I usually don't feel too excited with new programming languages whose main contribution I can't tell, I've just started to read some introductory texts: Programming Ruby - The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide, by Dave Thomas and Andy Hunt. And as I read (I had no previous knowledge about Ruby) some thoughts came up.

First, the authors say:

Ruby syntax is clean. You don't need semicolons at the ends of statements as long as you put each statement on a separate line.

What? Do semicolons make the difference between clean or unreadable code? Is line-based coding always better? Mmmmm, it seems that we have a religious war on the horizon.

Ruby doesn't use braces to delimit the bodies of compound statements and definitions. Instead, you simply finish the body with the keyword end.

Once again, the claim that using an ending keyword can be described as "simply" and the use of brackets cannot is a bit subjective and unfounded, I think.

Why does one call have its arguments in parentheses while the other doesn't? In this case it's purely a matter of taste. [...] However, life isn't always that simple, and precedence rules can make it difficult to know which argument goes with which method invocation, so we recommend using parentheses in all but the simplest cases.

I wonder: what kind of benefit can bring having loose rules about calling syntax? In addition, what'ts the point of building such flexible rules when one has to admit that using parentheses is recommended anyway? And if we omit parentheses only in tne simplest cases, wouldn't the different, unpredictable, arbitrary use of parentheses eliminate the supposed benefit of being "free" to use them or not?

Of course, this is not relevant regarding neither the book nor the language itself. I think it's just an arguable start. But if Labra likes Ruby, it must be worth it. I'll keep reading.

Transcripción y grabación / transcription and record: There will never be another you (Jimmy Raney)

[Artículo bilingüe / Bilingual post]

Mis deberes de guitarra para el verano de 2007 incluían copiar un solo de guitarra de mi elección, y a ser posible transcribirlo.

No es que conozca mucho a Raney (más bien casi nada) pero de las grabaciones que tenía a mano en MP3 quizás era el solo más adecuado para mi ejercicio. Así que estoy haciendo lo que puedo. No estoy seguro, pero quizás quienes tocan con él sean Sonny Clark (piano), Red Mitchell (contrabajo) y Bobby White (batería).

Fruto de este vano intento es una transcripción que quizás pueda servir a alguien, y por eso cuelgo aquí; he transcrito las dos partes, la de apertura y la de cierre del tema. Creo que las notas son bastante fieles al original, aunque las duraciones evidentemente no; no intento reproducirlas exactamente, porque es tontería. El swing es cosa de cada cual. También hay una digitación y unas indicaciones de dedos, pero nuevamente hay muchas opciones y cada cual elegirá la suya. Los acordes, asimismo, son los que yo oigo y son una de las combinaciones posibles, pero seguro, seguro, que no tocan exactamente esos.

Además de transcribir, estoy intentando tocar. Así que voy a apuntar también una grabación, sólo de la primera parte, en la que se aprecia perfectamente lo patéticas que son mis semicorcheas. A ver si dentro de un mes cuelgo una versión completa y que mejore en algo a esta.

Grabado en Lamuño, guitarra: Ibanez Artcore AG75, amplificador VAmp 2 de Behringer, 21 de agosto de 2007.

There will never be another you (primera parte) [MP3, 1,34 MB]

Y aquí la partitura de la transcripción, con tablatura. He utilizado Lilypond, que me ha gustado bastante. Viene a ser como LaTeX: difícil de usar, pero muy útil.

ThereWillNeverBeAnotherYou [PDF, 551 KB]

Gracias a Lilypond, también puedo colgar aquí la interpretación literal en MIDI de esa partitura:

Parte 1 [MIDI, 6 KB]

Parte 2 [MIDI, 2 KB]

---

My homework assignment for summer of 2007 included copying a guitar solo of my choice, and to transcribing it if possible. Usually, I feel happy if I manage to do 20% of what my teacher asks me to do, but these holidays I was willing to play guitar, so I tried to go a bit further than 20%.

I'm not any expert on Raney (I've hardly listened to him) but, among the records I had at hand in MP3 it was probably the most suited for my exercise. So I'm trying my best. I'm not sure, but maybe the other players are Sonny Clark (piano), Red Mitchell (bass) and Bobby White (drums).

One result of this vain attempt is a transcription that could be useful for somebody, and that's why I'll put it here. I've transcribed both parts, opening and ending of the song. I think the notes accurately reflect the original, although the durations, of course, don't; I'm not trying to transcribe durations exactly, since that's usually pointless. Swing is to be brought by each player. There is also a tablature and fingering, but once again there are lots of options and each one will chose the best. Chords, also, are the ones I hear and only one of the suitable combinations, but I'm pretty sure that they don't play exactly those ones.

In addition to transcribing, I'm trying to play. So I'll archive also a record, the first part only, where one can clearly appreciate how pathetic my semiquavers are. Maybe in one month I'll be able to post a full version, which improves this one somehow.

Recorded at Lamuño, guitar: Ibanez Artcore AG75, amplifier: Behringer VAmp 2, 21 august 2007

There will never be another you (first part) [MP3, 1,34 MB]

And, below, the transcription score, tablature included. I've used Lilypond, which I like very much. It's like LaTeX: difficult to use, but really useful.

ThereWillNeverBeAnotherYou [PDF, 551 KB]

Thanks to Lilypond, I can put a literal MIDI version of the score as well:

Part 1 [MIDI, 6 KB]

Part 2 [MIDI, 2 KB]

Treason

I have to admit that I actually had sort of a crush on that neighbor. That day I helped her, I accompanied her through both of our blocks. Going up and down the stairs with her, talking kindly about that minor problem, giving her a hand, perceiving her slight admiration, both of us flirting subtly without any remote intention to go any further, made me feel great. Nobody would have denied that there was that delightful, innocent, platonic chemistry between the two of us. Until I left her, went upstairs again enjoying my inner flattering... and noticed them almost hidden behind the corner, craftily watching me. Then I recalled that imperceptible shadow of fear and regret in her look at some point. Then all of my just gained self-confidence vanished. Then all of my pride went away. What a stupid I had been.

Should I feel offended?

Some days ago I could see a new campaign by the Spanish traffic authority, reminding drivers about the need to keep atention while driving and avoiding distractions. In general terms, I don't like the style of recent adverts, simply because of aesthetical reasons. Actors seem to be foreigners whose voices are dubbed; they seem to be deliberately overacting and the spot looks like a dramatic (bad) movie. I suppose this is exactly the effect the creatives pursued. I'm not telling it's a bad job; I simply don't like the results.

When anybody speaks about what we should or shouldn't do, many people react. Even our former prime minister said some pathetic things about drinking and driving. I don't smoke while I drive, and very rarely drink alcohol, so I don't take it personally when someone gives some related advice. But in this case, I do get distracted when I'm driving, as most people do.

Strange enough, I don't feel offended by the adverts, even considering that I don't like them. I always try very hard not to get distracted, I try to read every traffic sign or see every traffic light, to see every pedestrian crossing and make sure in advance that nobody is waiting or going to cross, to keep speed under control, to anticipate any other driver's move. When I see the advert, I only feel the urge to try even harder. To drive better. Many lives depend on it, mine included.

If I was a smoker, and somebody told me that smoking while driving was dangerous, I'd probably rant on about state, authority, lack of freedom... I would argue that these campaigns are useless, that they should be doing [whatever] instead with the money, and so on.

Maybe I should feel offended. They've mentioned me, they've told me off. They've treated me like a child.

But, strange enough, I don't.

Same-sex marriage / Matrimonio homosexual

[Bilingual post / Artículo bilingüe]

Some people seem not to have any trouble defining marriage; I find it extremely difficult. And it's not because I don't know anything about the topic.

Although it is far from being universally accepted (both throughout history and throughout the world), I suppose nowadays, and according to our current way of life, falling in love has usually something to do with getting married.

As for eternity, we're human beings, we fail, and we're limited, so we can't be fully sure about any of our deeds becoming eternal or definitive. I believe in divorce as a necessary institution, but I would say that getting married implies having no plans of making any use of it. Thus, marriage is a bet; when one gets married, one offers every one of their strengths, and commits to try their best, at building a life with the other person, a bit every day. That effort can eventually turn out to be insufficient, but I suppose marriage has also something to do with commitment, with duration, with permanence, with overcoming difficulties, with fighting as a part of a team.

Many people see marriage as the way of formalizing an intimate relationship, and consider sex to be a necessary component, probably of the greatest importance. So some kind of sexual attraction is often involved. There are also many people whose idea of marriage involves having children, and that's another valid reason for people getting married.

Of course, the very nature of marriage is also an interesting subject. Some people see marriage under a strictly religious approach, and get married because (among other reasons) religious authorities order it. And we could talk for a long time (maybe not me) about the contractual nature of marriage, as a means of giving legal status to a common life project. And that would bring us to the beginning again: what kind of life project can be considered as a marriage?

I'm married to the love of my life since 1999, and she's the only person I've ever been in love with at this moment. I've had (and sure will have) my dose of struggle, support, love, arguments. And I don't know whether death or divorce will tear us apart in the end, but right now I just can't imagine living without her. I would say that I'm properly married. I would say that this gold ring I have in my finger -the only golden thing, and the only ring, I'm wearing- does represent something great (as great as a mere human business may be). But the funny thing is, if we tried to collect all of the different sides of marriage and critically examine mine, it could qualify as a proper marriage or not, depending on who's giving his opinion.

Surprisingly enough, people who are neither allowed nor willing to ever get married in their entire life behave as if they were experts in the field, but not just that: the only authorities in the field. They state that same-sex marriage is not marriage. That a family founded upon such a marriage is not a family. I know for sure that they could find arguments to disregard my marriage as well. However, while they theoretize about marriage, and condemn people, and deny, and summon their congregation and throw it against defenceless individuals that want to publicly swear eternal love to each other, I work hard every day to build this thing with my love, whatever we call it. And precisely defining marriage turns out to be quite difficult for me, but is really easy for them. In no doubt, these guys must be inspired by God.

In my humility, I can only say that if I try to isolate what really makes my union a marriage, what is the nature of the bridge that keeps us together (hopefully until the very end), the fact that I'm a man and my parter is a woman is definitely not what joins us or makes us different from the rest of people that crosses the street every day.

I leave absolute certainty and perfect convictions for people with the guts to decide whether to send you to heaven or hell. Or to the pyre.

(Who, by the way, I can't figure out why argue about civil laws that don't have any meaning for them anyway).

---

Hay gente que parece no tener ningún problema para definir el matrimonio; a mí me resulta tremendamente difícil. Y no es porque no sepa nada del asunto.

Aunque dista mucho de ser una verdad universal (tanto a lo largo de la historia como a lo ancho del mundo), supongo que hoy en día, de acuerdo con nuestras costumbres, enamorarse suele tener algo que ver con casarse.

Por lo que se refiere a la eternidad, somos humanos, falibles, limitados, así que no podemos estar seguros de que ninguna de nuestras obras sea eterna o definitiva. Creo que el divorcio es una institución necesaria, pero supongo que casarse implica no tener planes de hacer uso de él. Digamos que el matrimonio es una apuesta; cuando uno se casa, ofrece todas sus fortalezas, y se compromete a hacer lo posible, para construir una vida con la otra persona, un poquito cada día. Ese esfuerzo quizás se revele finalmente insuficiente, pero supongo que casarse tiene algo que ver con el compromiso, la duración, la permanencia, superar dificultades, luchar como parte de un equipo.

Mucha gente entiende el matrimonio como una manera de formalizar una relación íntima, y considera el sexo un componente necesario, probablemente de gran importancia. Así que es frecuente que haya algún tipo de atracción sexual influyendo en la decisión. También hay mucha gente cuya idea de matrimonio implica tener hijos, y esa es otra razón válida para casarse.

Por supuesto, la naturaleza misma del matrimonio es otra cuestión interesante. Algunos lo entienden desde una óptica estrictamente religiosa, y se casan (entre otras razones) porque las autoridades religiosas así lo ordenan. Y se podría hablar largo y tendido (quizás yo no sea el más indicado) sobre la naturaleza contractual del matrimonio, como un medio de dar estatus legal a un proyecto de vida en común. Lo que nos llevaría otra vez al principio: ¿qué tipo de proyecto cabe considerar como matrimonio?

Estoy casado con el amor de mi vida desde 1999, y es la única persona de la que he estado enamorado hasta ahora. He tenido (y seguro que tendré) mi parte de lucha, apoyo, amor, discusiones. Y no sé si al final nos separará la muerte o el divorcio, pero hoy por hoy no puedo imaginar mi vida sin ella. Yo diría que estoy casado correctamente. Diría que este anillo de oro que llevo en el dedo (la única cosa de oro, y el único anillo, que llevo) representa algo grande (tan grande como puede ser un mero asunto humano). Pero lo curioso es que si intentáramos recopilar todas las facetas del matrimonio y examinar el mío críticamente, podría considerarse válido o no, según quién opinara.

Sorprendentemente, gente a la que ni se permite casarse ni quieren hacerlo en toda su vida se comportan como expertos en el tema, y no sólo eso: como las únicas autoridades en la materia. Afirman que el matrimonio homosexual no es matrimonio. Que una familia establecida sobre tal matrimonio no es una familia. Estoy seguro de que podrían encontrar argumentos para descartar de manera similar mi propio matrimonio. Sin embargo, mientras ellos teorizan sobre el matrimonio, y condenan a gente, y niegan, y convocan a sus fieles y los lanzan contra personas indefensas que quieren jurarse amor eterno públicamente, yo trabajo duro todos los días para construir con el amor de mi vida esta cosa, se llame como se llame. Y definir el matrimonio con precisión resulta ser bastante difícil para mí, pero muy fácil para ellos. No cabe duda de que están inspirados por Dios.

Desde mi humildad, sólo puedo decir que si intento aislar lo que de verdad convierte mi unión en un matrimonio, de qué naturaleza es el puente que nos mantiene juntos (espero que hasta el final), el hecho de que yo sea un hombre y mi compañera una mujer no es, sin duda alguna, lo que nos une o nos hace diferentes del resto de la gente que pasa por la calle todos los días.

La certeza absoluta y las convicciones perfectas se las dejo a la gente con cuajo suficiente para decidir si deben enviarte al cielo o al infierno. O a la hoguera.

(Que, por cierto, no entiendo qué pintan discutiendo sobre leyes civiles que no les afectan en absoluto y cuya validez no reconocen de todas formas).