Returns a centered matrix, i.e., each column of the matrix is replaced by deviations from its column mean.
In our two previous posts, we discussed what to do before starting to sight-read a piece. Now we’re ready to talk about what happens while we sight-read. There are three things teachers commonly tell their students to do when they play a piece at sight: keep going without stopping, try not to look down at your hands, and try to read ahead. These are all correct and excellent, but often quite difficult to do. So in the next several posts, we will address each of these individually, starting with the exhortation to keep going and not stop.
The ability to keep going while sight-reading is dependent on three factors: a strong sense of pulse, an acceptance that wrong notes and other mistakes will occur, and a willingness to simplify when necessary. Difficulty with any one of these can hold us back; ease with all of them allows us to move forward.
Paradoxically, a rhythmic sense of pulse does not seem to be innate in everyone, even though we all carry a constant pulse within us. Like so many musical attributes (harmonic sensitivity, aural acuity, musicality in general), this is not an inborn talent, but a faculty that must be cultivated from the earliest lessons. We hear again and again that students should count out loud while sight-reading, but this is futile if they are in the habit of practicing out of time. We are the way we practice. I believe that many pianists have poor rhythm because they play alone most of the time, and study pieces that are too hard for them, forcing them to play out of time. Students who have grown up practicing their music in time, playing piano duets, and doing rhythmic work away from the piano, will not need to use a metronome or count out loud in order to maintain a constant pulse when sight-reading. The idea of a regular beat will already be an imperative in their musical consciousness.
In modern performance, note accuracy is highly prized. It’s an admirable ideal, even if it is fueled by a standard set by highly edited recordings. But it also creates a fear of wrong notes that can undermine confidence and inhibit spontaneity. It’s always rather heart breaking to me that so many students feel they must say “sorry” after playing a wrong note. This guilt feeling makes them want to go back and immediately correct the wrong note, but that of course breaks the rhythmic flow, a habit which, with repetition, destabilizes their sense of pulse and, in some cases, creates a stutter that can be extremely difficult to correct. In repertoire practice, we can help students to avoid this tendency by having them practice always to the end of the phrase, only going back to fix any mistakes afterwards.
Perhaps the best way to overcome the fear of wrong notes is with improvisation. Good jazz musicians, piano bar players, harpsichord continuo players, and improvising church organists rarely seem to play wrong notes. No doubt this is mainly because they know their craft, but it must also come from the freedom of not being bound to a score for every note they play. Below are two improvisation activities you can use with your students. Many more can be found in books and online.
In sight-reading, we can minimize the temptation to go back and correct wrong notes by making sure that students play frequently in ensembles, and by giving them music to read that is within their means (the goal is 80% accuracy within 80% of full tempo, as I mentioned in a previous post). Most importantly, we must teach them methods for simplifying the music so that they can keep going even when they are not able to negotiate all the notes. This ability to simplify, reduce, or outline music is not only essential in sight-reading, but vitally important in learning repertoire. We will therefore devote a separate post to this issue.
Previous Article:How to Find the Tempo When Sight-reading: Rocking, Swinging, and Flowing with the Beat
Previous Entry:How to Find the Tempo When Sight-reading: Rocking, Swinging, and Flowing with the Beat
About book: I like books about the past 100 years of American History so this was a good way to start my year of reading. The main theme of this book appears to be the US's military industrial complex and the way it jumps into wars either needlessly or with an ulterior motive of maintaining control over important resources like oil. The book starts off before World War 1 in which they tried to pass legislation that would greatly reduce the obscene profits that companies make from wars. Didn't pan out that way. One of the most interesting chapters was on the two atomic bombs on Japan, and the book poses that our demand for an unconditional surrender made the subsequent bombing avoidable. It also appears the Soviet Union did most of the heavy lifting in WW2. This book was left-leaning but it criticized presidents Republican and Democrat alike. It didn't make any one president out to be a saint. One thing can be said right away:If you are an "America is the best ever" person, this book will be your nightmare.However I do not quite understand why, since the authors don't really say so much new stuff actually, they simple put what was previously told in several books into one and especially Stone's name gave it wide attention. They have a lot in it that is technically known simply overshadowed by a lot of myths, which makes books like this one important. However I think covering such a long time period comes at the cost of never going into detail (e.g. if a fellow German is reading this and happens to be Sinti… yeah forget it, the book ignores you like most do), but I don't think you can blame the authors for it since the book covers more than 100 years of USA history and it already has more than 650 pages of text, not counting notes and bibliography. Going into more detail would probably turn this into a book 3-times the size of the Bible.So like I said, they do not go into too much detail except for big turning points but rather are concerned with the patterns that emerge and continue. And I think in that way they are doing a pretty good job, you can question their conclusions and since this was coauthored by Oliver Stone I am sure many will mistrust his methods, but not the facts; and in my eyes that is no different to any other author of history books.What this book tackles in its basis is the myth of American exceptionalism and I guess that might piss a lot of people off since it really doesn't shy away from doing it, ever. Reading this there is a good chance that you will find a lot of your views are challenged, which I liked about the book but others will probably hate.However I am sure most will agree where the book is undoubtedly good: The writing and reading flow. Despite all the information it never felt boring to me and the reading experience was without a doubt good and made this very enjoyable, a lot of history books should do it like this.There are some problems with it though, for instance they say in World War II 27 Million Russians died, which wass actually Soviets (which they did right in the documentary series, where they had the forced mass migration that was missing here), which I think was due to the common trap of equating Soviets with Russians, others would be the Tiananmen square massacres whose numbers are contested and also it treats it like just a student's massacre, which is not true since most died all around Beijing, however the info on that is usually scarce so maybe that is the reason. It also looked as if they regarded Japanese people as dark-skinned and if that is what they did then I wonder what they consider light then. But these were minor things.Also, despite what many say, this book was in some way actually even nicer to American foreign policy than it probably should be, e.g. it never mentioned the thousands of instances of rape in Okinawa by American soldiers or the collecting of body parts as trophies (which might be linked to the practice of scalping during the Wild West) and glossed over a few things about Vietnam. So like I said it's actually nicer than many think.Also not all chapters do equally well, the passages on Bush & Clinton may have been the worst with 9/11 getting stronger again, but the prologue was also very good and made me interested in history more.But despite its flaws, again nothing new for me regarding history books, I think is definitely a recommendable book. At the very least it would get readers to rethink much of what they thought they knew about USA policy, and possibly their own country's policy, over the last century.
The Singapore Army is the service of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) tasked with land operations. It is the largest of the three Services. The Singaporean army is primarily a conscript army that, in the event of war, mobilises most of its combat power by calling up military reservists.
Two infantry regiments formed the nucleus of the Singapore Army. These were established pre-independence, in anticipation of self-rule following British decolonisation. The First Singapore Infantry Regiment (1 SIR) was formed in 1957, under British auspices. The Second Singapore Infantry Regiment (2 SIR) followed in 1963. After a fraught merger with the Federation of Malaya and subsequent separation in 1965, newly-independent Singapore formally established its army by passing the Singapore Army Bill in December 1965.[5]
In 1972, Parliament passed further legislation (the Singapore Armed Forces Act) to reorganise and consolidate the armed forces' disparate commands and administrative functions.[6][7]
May 2007 – June 2013, International Security Assistance Force. Deployment of close to 500 personnel including Singapore Army soldiers as part of Singapore's contributions to multinational stabilisation and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.[8]
2014–present, Military intervention against ISIL. Logistical support of coalition forces in the ongoing War on Terror.[9]
The stated mission of the Singapore Armed Forces is to deter armed aggression, and to secure a swift and decisive victory should deterrence fail. The Army is also tasked with conducting peace-time operations to further Singapore's national interests and foreign policy. These range from disaster relief to peacekeeping, hostage-rescue and other contingencies.[10]
The Army views technology as a force-multiplier and a means to sustain combat power given Singapore's population constraints. Jointness across three branches of the SAF is integral to the Army's warfighting doctrine. Joint operations undertaken with the Navy and Air Force include amphibious landings and critical disaster relief operations in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.
The Army has a technically proficient, relatively well-educated draftee pool and officer corps (non-commissioned and commissioned) reflective of the population at large, and has sought to leverage this to ease its transition into a more sophisticated, networked fighting force.[11]
Combat readiness is a linchpin of Army policy, and military exercises up to divisional level are conducted many times yearly, simulating full-spectrum operations, up to and including full-scale war. Divisional war games are a combined arms, tri-service affair involving the Republic of Singapore Navy and Air Force. Because training space is limited in Singapore—artillery fire would quickly traverse the island—some military exercises are conducted overseas. Reservists periodically [12] train abroad, their units regularly evaluated for combat readiness.[11] The Army also trains bilaterally with some host nations, and military exchanges are frequent. Training is billed as "tough, realistic and safe," with a premium on safety, given the sensitivity of military deaths in a largely conscript army.[10]
Following the Revolution in Military Affairs, and in tandem with modernizing its weapons systems, the Army is forging a transition to a more network-centric fighting doctrine that better integrates the Air Force and Navy.[13]
The Army is headed by the Chief of Army (COA). Assisting him are the Chief of Staff, General Staff[14] and Commander, TRADOC (Army Training and Doctrine Command).[15] There are six branches of the General Staff (G1-G6), a National Service Affairs Department (G8) dealing with National Service issues, and an Inspectorate. The six branches handle manpower (G1), intelligence (G2), operations (G3), logistics (G4), planning (G5) and training (G6) respectively. Each department is headed by an Assistant Chief of the General Staff (ACGS). Also advising the Chief of Army are the Senior Specialist Staff Officers (SSSOs) of the various formations (Infantry, Guards, Armour, Commandos, Artillery, Engineers and Signals).[16][17]
The Army's main organizational components are its Combined-Arms Divisions, of which there are three:[20] the 3rd, 6th and 9th Divisions.[21] They include both active and reserve units that are operationally ready, all subject to mobilization orders in the event of war.[12]
Under the Division-National Cadet Corps (NCC) affiliation scheme, NCC West District is affiliated to the 3rd Division.
2 People's Defence Force (PDF) is responsible for homeland security, including that of key civilian installations and infrastructure. 2 PDF is also responsible for the coordination and secondment of military resources to civilian agencies in the event of a civil emergency.[22]
Designated as Army Operational Reserve (AOR), the 21st Division is a rapid deployment force of highly mobile infantry (Singapore Guards) specializing in amphibious, heliborne, and maneuver warfare. The armoured and artillery components of the division are lightweight, amphibious or airborne, and rapidly deployable.
Of the three infantry brigades, one is active and staffed mainly by career servicemen. Two are held in reserve, one tasked with heliborne operations, the other tasked with amphibious landings.[23]
Tim Huxley speculates in Defending the Lion City that "the reorganisation of 1991 and 1995 left one armoured brigade, 4 SAB, outside the divisional structure, prompting speculation that it has been earmarked to form the core of a conceptualised new mechanised division." Huxley asserts that it was "initially codenamed as 32nd Division at the planning stage."[24] Given the large quantity of armoured vehicles that the Singapore Army has in its inventory, it is highly likely that such a Division exists, however the division's make up and real numbering is presently unknown.
Special Operations Task Force – Joint task force consisting of members from the Naval Diving Unit, Commandos and the Special Operations Force
Aggressor Company – subordinate to TRADOC/ATEC, this company-sized detachment organizes itself according to the hypothesized enemy's order of battle and acts as the OPFOR in training evaluations. They are the 'red' opposing force in ATEC evaluations.
Medical Response Force (MRF) – Battalion-sized counter-chemical and counter-biological warfare unit, staffed by combat medics.
^ "The Singapore Army Is Established". HistorySG. National Library Board Singapore. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
^ "Joint Statement Issued by Partners at the Counter-ISIL Coalition Ministerial Meeting". Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs. Office of the Spokesperson, Washington, DC. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
^ Tim Huxley, Defending the Lion City, Allen & Unwin, 2000, p. 127. Huxley's source note on 32nd Division appears to refer to an article by defence journalist Prasun Sengupta (1992, p. 76), but Huxley's bibliography is incomplete.
I know this is coming late, but I just ran into this article towards the end of the week myself. Anyway, my school has a weekly newspaper that it puts out called the Maroon Weekly and this week, they had a little article done by two separate writers over the pros and cons of a public education. One points out the benefits of the government having control of the education system, while the other article argues against the government’s involvement in education. You can view the Pros article here and the Cons of a public education here.
While I agree with the pro article that the government should take responsibility for the education system, I also agree with Tony Listi’s con argument that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to. Simply because many children don’t have access to schools that offer a more substantial education mostly because of location. However, what if a parent cannot make the trip out to the school, especially in this economy where money is tight and gas prices are starting to rise again. Or what if there isn’t a bus that goes to the other school? Some bus stops only extend to certain areas and past that the student has to find their own transportation to and from school. In the case of this, I’d say the government needs to step in and improve schools in all areas and not just certain ones.
The one argument that Listi makes is that children are taught to embrace lies, atheism, socialism, and sexual perversity. Now I don’t know about all schools in the U.S. but I don’t look at it as schools teaching children all of these negative things. I see it as teachers giving their students an objective overview of events so that they can choose whether they think something is right or wrong. I never felt pushed to embrace atheism or socialism, my own views were my own, and the same could be said with my other classmates and friends. Some of us had our own opinions that differed from our parents/guardians, and some of us didn’t drift far from what our parents taught us. It all depends on the individual and I think that’s how it should be.
At least toward the end of Listi’s argument, he does say that parents can have the right to take their children to a private institution, whether it’s affiliated with a church denomination or not, and that’s fine. Parents have the right to do whatever they think would benefit the child or make them happy. But when it comes down to public education, you can’t always have your cake and eat it too. You can’t include everything in education because somewhere along the way someone will get offended by something. The system would have to constantly change their curriculum just to make it politically correct, and yet have it be balanced, which is where the system currently is now. Until there is a new solution for public schools and the curriculum being taught, it will more than likely stay the way that it is.
Lost Song is a well-constructed and surprisingly enjoyable anime series that’ll likely divide audiences by turning things on their head around the mid-point.
Released globally on Netflix today, Lost Song is a 12-part musical fantasy anime series that begins unassumingly and predictably. Produced by Liden Films in collaboration with Dwango and Mages, it’s full of the usual clichés and expected beats. Then, about halfway through, it deploys a welcome switcheroo that recontextualises the steady opening as necessary groundwork for a series that is smarter and more ambitious than you realised.
Not everyone will appreciate the execution, but you have to respect the guts. The first half wouldn’t have set the world alight, but it’s well-constructed despite its familiarity; a typical fantastical kingdom on the brink of war, with the slightly novel idea of the songs being intimately tied to the world’s mythology. Of the characters, the interlinked songstress heroines Rin (Konomi Suzuki) and Finis (Yukari Tamura) were likeable enough (especially the latter), and decent supporting turns from the likes of Chiaki Takahashi, Asami Seto, Misaki Kuno, Seiichirō Yamashita and Ai Kayano helped to flesh out an occasionally-imaginative cast of morally black-and-white heroes and villains.
While I won’t spoil how, the second half of Lost Song turns most of this on its head – and for me, it was a change for the better. The run-of-the-mill plot became much more complex without tying itself in knots, the characters began to develop in sensible and sometimes surprising ways, the stakes were upped, the villain improved, and the finale did an admirable job at tying off loose ends and bringing the whole thing to a satisfying close. It might have used a little more time to develop some minor characters more or to expand on a few intriguing aspects of the worldbuilding, but it had the good sense to get out of its own way, which is always a quality I respect.
And it looks good – sometimes very good, and never worse than decent. It’s all part of a high-quality package that even incorporates the music in a way that won’t rile anyone. There are one or two songs per episode, by necessity, but it’s generally top-notch stuff that never overwhelms the other aspects of the show, and if the Lost Song OST is made available, I’m sure a fair helping of people will pony up for it.
Lost Song won’t be for everyone (what is?) but it’s a ballsy bit of work that deserves some admiration for its willingness to take a clichéd premise in weird and surprising directions.
With 4,200 sq meter lot size and 900 sq meters construction, amazing proyect with this beautiful colonial home with high ceilings, arches, pasta tile floors and much more..