Listening to Jason Becker’s Raspberry Jams. Link to the mp3s from Becker’s site here.

Review from Guitar Player Magazine, January 2000:

The Jason Becker story is one of the more tragic in the world of rock guitar. As a hot-shot teenager, he rose to prominence with a couple of super-shred instrumental albums, and eventually landed one of the most sought-after gigs in rock and roll—following Steve Vai in David Lee Roth’s band in 1989. After recording just one album, Becker was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)—a condition that he battles to this day. The Raspberry Jams is a collection of demos and song ideas recorded between 1987 and 1992 that provide a glimpse into the world of a guitarist who never truly got to do his thing.

Because Becker didn’t intend to release these songs and snippets, some (“Throat Hole,” for example) are very raw. Others, such as “Dang Sea of Samsara,” sound remarkably polished for a demo. Production aside, Becker’s playing is burning throughout—from the funky syncopations of “If you Have to Shoot…” to the full-blown shred of “Ghost to the Post.” Throughout The Raspberry Jams he explores a range of tones and sets himself apart from many of his contemporaries by getting some great clean sounds. His Louis Armstrong imitation of “Jasin Street” is spot-on and shows refreshing depth for a young rocker.

Becker occasionally wears his influences on his sleeve, but that’s not exactly uncommon for a 20-year-old. It’s hard not to think that he would have taken these influences and run with them if he were given half a chance. He might very well have been the guy to fuse the precision of Yngwie with the shoot-from-the-hip quality of Van Halen. The Raspberry Jams shows the potential of a great rock guitarist that will, sadly, never be realized. Shrapnel.

My own opinion? Surprisingly listenable and good quality stuff for a random recording/demo.

The one and only Son House, playing my favourite Son House song : Death Letter Blues, which incidentally was covered by the White Stripes. Unfortunately, this is not my favourite video of the song. But nonetheless, the intensity of the performance is still pretty much out of this world.

Here’s the lyrics:

I got a letter this morning, how do you reckon it read?
“Oh, hurry, hurry, gal, you love is dead”
I got a letter this morning, how do you reckon it read?
“Oh, hurry, hurry, gal, you love is dead”

I grabbed my suitcase, I took off, up the road
I got there, she was laying on the cooling board
I grabbed my suitcase, I took on up the road
I got there, she was laying on the cooling board

Well, I walked up close, I looked down in her face
Good old gal, you got to lay here till Judgment Day
I walked up close, and I looked down in her face
Yes, been a good old gal, got to lay here till Judgment Day

Oh, my woman so black, she stays apart of this town
Can’t nothin’ “go” when the poor girl is around
My black mama stays apart of this town
Oh, can’t nothing “go” when the poor girl is around

Oh, some people tell me the worried blues ain’t bad (note 1)
It’s the worst old feelin’ that I ever had
Some people tell me the worried blues ain’t bad
Buddy, the worst old feelin’, Lord, I ever had

Hmmm, I fold my arms, and I walked away
“That’s all right, mama, your trouble will come someday”
I fold my arms, Lord, I walked away
Say, “That’s all right, mama, your trouble will come someday”

And here’s something amusing I read from Seeking Son House:

I’d purchased or taped virtually every recording of Son House’s spine-chillingly deep baritone voice and had compiled a pretty complete picture of his life from album jackets and books on music. But nowhere did I find the answer to the question: “What happened to Son House?”

... But one night on my blues show, listening to my closing theme music—- Son House’s a cappella chant, “Grinnin’ in Your Face”—- I realized it would be sacrilegious to continue playing this song without knowing what became of this man. I decided to find his house in Corn Hill. There might be a clue there—- papers left behind, an address…. The next morning found me staring at the empty lot at 61 Greig Street. Son’s house was gone. Then I remembered something else the manager at Play It Again Sam told me: John Mooney, a young blues singer from Honeoye Falls, had once been real close with Son. I’d chosen to ignore this information, having ambivalent feelings about younger white men interested in old black blues singers. I found the John Mooney Blues Band playing 40 miles south of Rochester, in the Naples Hotel, where I cornered Mooney between sets. He was pretty sure Son was alive and, last he knew, living in Detroit. He pulled an address book from his guitar case and gave me Son’s phone number. Two days elapsed before I mustered up the courage to make the call. Son had likely died since he gave this number to Mooney. If not, he wouldn’t want to bother with some guy from Rochester. I waited for my housemates to leave before I placed the call, so they wouldn’t witness my disappointment or rejection. I paced in the empty kitchen while I listened to the phone ringing in Detroit. A woman answered, in a tone that said she’d already seen and heard it all. Yes, she was Son’s wife. And yes, he was alive. She consented to let me come and interview the then-79-year-old Son for Upstate Magazine, the Democrat & Chronicle’s old Sunday supplement. She reluctantly agreed on a date. I said “Good-bye,” but instead of responding with her own farewell, she yelled in the phone, “...and they don’t allow no geetar playin’ here!”

Thank god, Chloe lets me play the guitar! But unfortunately, the article I linked to has a sad ending.

Links
Feeling the Power & Glory of the Great Son House

This Old House

Howlin’ Wolf pontificating on what the Blues is:

Must stop writing about black musicians. Must go sleep now. Will be so sleepy at work tomorrow.

Something about these two pictures of Billie Holiday struck me:

Wish I could upload the first songs I heard from her: Travelling Light and Body and Soul. Still remember I was testing this cd at Supreme Music (which has closed down since) at Far East Plaza.

Those songs gave me goose pimples. I could feel her “presence” in the room when I played her songs. Still remember many depressing days spent listening to her songs. Quite remarkable, don’t have that sort of experience with most other singers.

Links

Wikipedia bio
PBS Bio, American Masters.
Another PBS bio.
Official Billie Holiday site.
Unofficial Billie Holiday site.

Listening to Stanley Turrentine’s Easy Walker album (Review here.). Wonderful, bluesy, jazzy, groovy album. Excellent drum work by Mickey Roker and nice swinging piano work by the redoubtable McCoy Tyner. Quite struck.

Didn’t know he started his career playing with Ray Charles, Max Roach and Lowell Fulson.

Like Grant Green, Turrentine is an almost forgotten jazz musician who is just being “rediscovered”. Here’s an interesting anecdote (I love photos and stories about jazz and blues musicians):

Turrentine later told the story of how his father helped him develop his characteristic richly focused sound on his instrument (he actually began on cello, but he switched to tenor saxophone at the age of 11 after he was taken to hear Coleman Hawkins). His father made him stand facing a wall while playing a single note for hours, concentrating on producing the full depth and richness of sound from the horn. The exercise seemed strange and even pointless to the boy at the time, and it was only in later years that he really understood its purpose, and made full use of the foundation which it had provided.

Mosiac Records link on Turrentine.

Link to NPR programme on Turrentine.

Ran for about 20 minutes yesterday evening. 3 rounds round the Padang.

Following my last post on Wang’s Paradox, so, what the hell is strict finitism? I’ll post what little I know of it here.

It’s a philosophy of mathematics normally contrasted with constructivism.

Let’s see whether Dummett’s explanation of constructivism and strict finitism makes any sense:

“Constructivist philosophies of mathematics insist that the meanings of all terms, including logical constants, appearing in mathematical statements must be given in relation to constructions which we are capable of effecting, and of our capacity to recognise such constructions as providing proofs of those statements; and, further, that the principels of reasoning which, in assessing the cogency of such proofs we acknowledge as valid must be justifiable in terms of the meanings of the logical constants and of other expressions as so given.

...Traditional constructivism has allowed that the mathematical constructions by reference to which the meanings of mathematical terms are to be given may be ones which we are capable of effecting only in principle [emphasis mine]. It makes no difference if they are too complex or, simply, too lengthy for any human being, or even the whole human race in collaboration, to effect in practice. Strict finitism rejects this concession to traditional views, and insists, rather, that the meanings of our terms must be given by reference to constructions which we can in practice carry out, and to criteria of correct proof on whic we can in practice prepared to rely…

...Strict finitism was first suggested as a conceivable position in the philosophy of mathematics by Bernays in his article “On platonism in mathematics” (1935).”

More information on strict finitism here, which provides this piece of information crucial to understanding Dummett’s article: Strict finitism rejects mathematical induction. Also check out a post on FOM here, I assume ultrafinitism and strict finitism are the same.

Burning question: Is contructivism the same as finitism?

I had a damn lousy day! Took like 5 hours to draft a memo at work cos my laptop kept crashing! Lost my nicely woven arguments and turns of phrases. What a waste of time! Could have been put to much better use, even if I wasted it away lazing. Argh!

Then I forgot to take my helmet to work! Had to wear a probably unwashed helmet worn by countless other strangers. The sweat smell accumulated by various people in the helmet made me wanna puke! Still, that wasn’t as bad as one of Sovan’s helmet I wore once. At least the driving centre suns the helmets but that particular helmet of Sovan’s probably never saw the sunlight! That was an unforgettably nasty experience, years ago but still unforgettable, the smell I swear, still reeks in my mental nose, I mean my mind’s nose.

And I failed my 8th practical lesson again! Last round was 12 points with one immediate failure when my bike fell off the plank. This round was 42 points with no immediate failure! Talk about being demoralised!!

Bitch! Fuck! $^&+%#&) What a lousy day!

Warning: This post will not make sense if you do not have the original article Wang’s Paradox by Michael Dummett. You also need to know what is a valid argument (an argument whose conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true) and what is a sound argument (a valid argument with true premises).

After some preliminary comments on strict finitism as a philosophy of mathematics, Dummett introduces Wang’s Paradox:

Premise 1:0 is small;
Premise 2 (induction step):If n is small, n+1 is small:
Conclusion:Therefore, every number is small.

This is a paradox because the premises are true, the argument is valid but the conclusion patently false since there are numbers that are not small. According to Dummett, “The paradox is evidently due to the vagueness of the predicate “small”“. But how exactly? Someone who wants to reject the conclusion of this argument has two options, to either show the argument is not valid or one of the premises is not true.

ARGUMENT IS INVALID

Suppose the argument is invalid. Consider these two explanations.

First explanation: the invalidity comes from wrongly using universal generalisation on vague predicates. In other words, we cannot use universal generalisation on premise 2 (which contains the vague predicate “small”) to arrive at the conclusion that all numbers are small.

Response to first explanation: Even so, we still have a problem since we can arrive at the conclusion that k is small, for some k is not small. Furthermore, to declare that universal generalisation is invalid in this context is to violate the meaning of “all”.

Second explanation: the invalidity comes from wrongly applying induction to vague predicates, i.e. inductive arguments are only valid when applied to arguments containing non-vague predicates.

Response to second explanation: Even so, we still have a problem since we can arrive at the conclusion that k is small, for some k that is not small. Just use a series of conditionals and modus ponens [see footnote 1 below]. If we go with the second explanation, we would also have to reject modus ponens as a valid way of arguing and surely, we don’t want to do that. [Comment: Actually, one option is to say that modus ponens is invalid when applied to vague predicates.]

Ok, so both explanations above are unsatisfactory. How about this third explanation? Third explanation: Deny that “in the presence of vague predicates, an argument each step of which is valid is necessarily valid”.

Response to third explanation: This violates our whole concept of what a constitutes a valid argument!

Counter-response: But hang on, a strict finitist (this is where Dummett’s preliminary comments on strict finitism comes in useful) would accept this explanation since for the strict finitist, “a proof is valid just in case it can in practice be recognised by us as valid; and, when it exceeds a certain length and complexity, that capacity fails”.

Counter-counter response: But Wang’s Paradox can also be a paradox for the strict finitist since “it will always be possible so to interpret “small” that we can find a number which is not small for which there apparently exists a proof, in the strict finitist’s sense of “proof”, that it is small, a proof not expressly appealing to induction”. For the full argument, see footnote 2 below.

This concludes my first post on Wang’s Paradox.

Footnote 1: First find some particular n that is not small, then apply premise 2 as often as you need with actual numbers to conclude that that the particular n is small, (i.e. start with these premises: 0 is small; If 0 is small, then 1 is small; to conclude that 1 is small. And then use “1 is small” and “If 1 is small, then 2 is small” to conclude that 2 is small etc…). The upshot is that we can still use modus ponens to generate a paradox for some particular n that is not small. It would seem like madness to reject modus ponens.

Footnote 2: My simplified version of Dummett’s argument follows: Call n an apodictic number if it is possible for a proof (in the strict finitist’s sense of “proof”) to contain as many as n steps. First premise: 1 is apodictic. Second premise: If m is apodictic, then so is m+1. Conclusion: All numbers are apodictic.

Ok, here goes my first substantial contribution to the blogosphere: an exposition with commentary on Michael Dummett’s Wang’s Paradox. [Aside: G.H. Hardy, the famous mathematician once observed in A Mathematician’s Apology that “Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds.]

Why this particular article?

First and foremost, to bring clarity to my mind on the structure, content and arguments in the article.

Second, to orientate those who are reading Dummett’s paper for the first time and are struggling with it, especially since something like this is presently not available online and this is not a particularly easy paper to read, like most of Dummett’s philosophical writings.

Third, this paper is widely cited in discussions of the sorites paradox and had a significant influence on shaping subsequent literature and thinking on the sorites paradox.

The subsequent posts on this topic will be very rough drafts and frequently revised.