Skip to main content

Me and Mozart

What do Mozart and I have in common? At first blush you might suggest, “Both of you like Mozart’s music,” not adding that, “and it ends there.” Yet, there is common ground.

The answer is that ...

Mozart and I are both “techies.” It all began in 1698. After hundreds of attempts by dozens of craftsmen, the Italian instrument maker Bartolmeo Cristofori* finally solved all the problems inherent in making a harpsichord with hammers, the Piano Forte. While it is unimportant just what the problems were, the result was the creation of a new instrument with a dynamic range that completely eclipsed the harpsichord. The new sound excited the public; the powerful and rich Medici’s listed one of Christofori’s instruments in a 1700 inventory of instruments. Here was a powerful new tool, hardly touched by new composition. Techniques and rules of composition for it did not exist. The first explorers with the new technology, which included Mozart, would have a great impact. 

In the beginning the piano could not be mass-produced, because the technology was too complex. This would take several more decades. The piano therefore was a rather experimental and expensive technology.  By the time Mozart (1757 – 1791) was a youngster, these problems had been solved.   Pianos were available inexpensively; Mozart had access.  And as we know Mozart composed hundreds of works for this new instrument - the hi-tech piano. Joseph Hayden (1732 – 1809) began his career composing for the harpsichord and ended it composing for the piano. So important was this new instrument that the greatest composers, including no less than Ludwig von Beethoven (1770 – 1827), wrote extensively for it. From our vantage point of history, we may find it difficult to believe that throughout the 18th century the Piano was more-or-less an experimental and high tech instrument. Eventually, it surpassed the violin as the instrument of choice for soloists.

This story sounds familiar? In the normal course of events, the new technology displaces the old; the new idea supplants the old; the new device replaces the old. It may not even be the case that the old is bad or does not function. In time, the old passes in favor of the new.

This is the case before us - in education. With qualified and capable teachers in ever-greater demand, and without the resources to stimulate greater production, institutions are turning to an less-and-less expensive but effective alternative: technology enhanced learning. Call it what you will, distance education, Web-assisted instruction, online learning, or computer based training (CBT), the technology, the idea, the device all wrapped in one is here to stay. Like an unwanted visitor, it will not go away.

Make no mistake; if the resources were available the best way to teach the young is by face-to-face tutorials given by gifted and talented teachers. This system produced Isaac Newton, Plato, and Archimedes. However, our modern institutions and our contemporary priorities deny this for the several reasons we all know. The least among them is the many lucrative paths offered these same people.

So, what is better: uncertified and unqualified teachers porting knowledge as best they can or a hi-tech and online alternative?  Maybe a blend?

*By 1711 the instrument was detailed in the Venetian Giornale de' letterati d'Italia by Scipione Maffei who referred to Cristofori's invention the gravicembalo col piano e forte ("harpsichord with soft and loud"). Names change; ideas survive.

http://used-ideas.blogspot.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view