Disclaimer: This may seem harsh but I really don't mean to be harsh.
If you have "only" completed Codecademy or similar, you're nowhere near the intermediate mark. I have used Codecademy and Code School and they are indeed great. But they give a false sense of security and accomplishment to the user. They are great for introduction to a language but they only introduce you to the language, nothing beyond that.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for your will to learn programming. I'm not trying to make your accomplishments look insignificant. But I believe that, at this point, your accomplishment is not finishing Codecademy's very very introductory course on Python but taking the first step in the path in learning programming.
I suggest that you take a look at Zed Shaw's Learn Python The Hard Way. The beginning may look a bit too easy, after all Codecademy does teach you stuff. But midway through you will probably see that Learn Python The Hard Way introduces beginner stuff that hasn't been covered in Codecademy.
After that, continue reading about Python. Sadly, the real world isn't divided into categories marked as "Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced". Read source codes that actually interest you. You are bound to come across stuff that you have no idea about. Start reading about that stuff. Chances are really high that you will come across other stuff that you don't know about when you're reading about the first stuff that you didn't know about. You will probably end up reading (and learning) craploads of stuff, but in my experience that's how you really learn stuff.
I have learned this during my journey in programming. In the end, you are the only one who knows how much you know. Don't measure your knowledge by Codecademy's standards. They may tell you that you are intermediate but you may not even understand how a relatively simple library works.
To anyone who will flame me for writing this, try Codecademy's or (Code School's) courses. Try and choose a language which you don't know. Don't read any of the info, just read what is expected of you. You will still pass the course. That is a VERY big problem. I'm a beginner, I have felt that false sense of accomplishment. It hurts a lot when you see what real intermediate and advanced people do with a programming language.
SICP is an introductory course in computing. It covers meta-linguistic abstractions. The Code Academy course in JavaScript I completed required a bit of filling in the boiler plate for its final project.
Code Academy is a great project, in part because it is designed to help students achieve success without the pain of the real world. That is also a weakness.
I don't see why you're asking these questions, if english is not your native language and you really wonder what "rose up" means, search around first. Your second question is equally pointless.
PS: Read about "phrasal verbs" and you may stop plaguing actually useful submissions with pointless comments.
I think the idea's good but the analogy presented is ridiculous.
As far as I could see, there isn't an escalator reserved for only men and one that is reserved for only women. The article touches on women having to use the one that is usually going down, and I kind of understand that to mean they are presented with extra difficulties, but in the given situation if someone wants a job more than the others and tries to climb the harder escalator, I believe that deserves a round of applause whether it's a man or a woman.
Another problem is that being most skilled is equated to being the fastest in the analogy. Here's where things go hard to explain without offending anyone but I'll try to take my chances. Just keep in mind that I'm not against females in any industry. If the real world is like the analogy and females can't get a tech job because they aren't as fast as men, then it is a good thing. Being a women is nothing special. For every woman who can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough, I bet there are 2 or more men who also can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough compared to others. I don't see men complaining in this situation. And to be perfectly honest I myself have lived through something like this recently. I am a very new comer to the programming world and I was turned down on my application to GSoC. I didn't think of trying to find nonexistent reasons, I knew it was because I was good enough (yet). From what I've been reading about female take on these situations, I'm led to believe that about half of them (or perhaps even more) would think that they were turned down because they are not male.
What I mean to say is that the article inherently implies that there are so many fast men that women can't get a job. I believe that is warping the truth to make people feel sorry into women. I'll most likely be crucified for saying this, but I would be glad if an unskilled woman can't get a job because there are more skilled men, I say that's a good thing. (I have long learned that the internet community and extreme feminists like to cherry pick on what you say while missing your point just to make a case against you, so I'll say that I would also be happy if the reverse is true, that is a man gets turned down because he isn't skilled enough).
And the last thing. The article mentions women who see that the escalator is overflowing with men largely turn around and not even try. This is a very female-centric approach. Men don't see something entirely else magically, they also see the escalator flowing with men. If anyone, male or female, turns around because the escalator is overflowing, then s/he does not want the job enough, s/he wants an easy ride.
This part of the analogy both degrades women and shows something entirely unlikable about the author's view. It implies that most women give up in the face of difficulty (the difficulty being that there are too many men). If that is the case this is not a case that can be argued against male domination in any industry. If women want to be represented more, then they should try more. Keep in mind this is assuming that what the author is implying.
And the author's silent implication (which is very offensive to me) that women should have a women only escalator that will overflow with women in time.
Go ahead, crucify me because this apparently is against what most people defend but it is important to keep everything fair while defending women's positions.
-It does look great. But I'm also curious as to what will happen if my friends are not good photographers. How about when they post pictures of what they have eaten?
-I most likely take my phone out of my pocket more than a hundred times each day, they got that part right. Sometimes I just use the phone screen to check the date and time. Sometimes to check if someone has called me or texted me/mailed me. If I'm the only one who checks his phone's screen in order to learn the time, then this is probably a moot point. If not, it's going to be annoying.
-It's all good and dandy to be connected to my friends all the time but I use my phone for what it was meant for, phoning other people. It's very rare that I take my phone out of my pocket to check up on friends through social media. If I want to check up on people, I call them. If I want to do it over facebook or similar, I use the apps.
-Ads. It's most likely get ugly and annoying, fast.
"How about when they post pictures of what they have eaten? [...] It's very rare that I take my phone out of my pocket to check up on friends through social media."
If your friends are posting pictures of what used to be something that they've eaten, it's not surprising that you rarely want to check up on that stuff.
I would love it if this were real but I have this nagging feeling in me that tells me that this is just an attempt to exploit the romantics in us... I do hope it really is a kid trying to raise money to create a game.
Seen this one a couple days ago and I honestly can't understand what the hype is all about. I've been playing the piano for 11 years now and I can't see myself or any classical pianist using this product. I'm aware that this is most likely not intended for classical musicians but still, I fail to see the reason to change the design of an instrument that's been around for a very long time in one form or another. Change for the sake of change is pointless.
I've been playing piano for... over two decades now, and additional ways of modulating synthesized sound are welcomed with open arms. There are songs I play where I wish so hard that I had polyphonic aftertouch on my keyboard, but alas, it has monophonic aftertouch only. I play a lot of classical, and I even want modulation there.
Your concerns... they are carbon copies of the same complaints people had about the introduction of the piano in the early 18th century!
Nowadays, the idea that you'd play "The Well-Tempered Clavier" on anything BUT a piano relegates you to a niche in classical (or rather baroque) music, despite the fact that the songs were written for the harpsichord. The assumption that the piano will be how we play Beethoven 50 years from now -- well, I'm sure the piano will still be alive and well in 2063...
Instruments come and go, it's the music that lives on.
The jump from the harpsichord to piano was a huge one but the key profile didn't change as much as this. Integrating new technologies with instruments is all good and dandy but we're now fabricating the sounds with computers. We're changing the way these instruments function and we're changing the way we interact with them.
My concerns may be similar to those of 18th century people but the changes that we're experiencing now are not similar to the changes they experienced. We don't have the technology to replicate the acoustic sound of a piano. And I quite honestly don't see this being used to perform classical music. I'm not talking about all the stuff (mind you, I'm very partial to calling these music) that's being "composed" these days, I'm talking about the music up to the 1950s.
I'd like to touch on another aspect of your post, you say that you want modulation and polyphonic aftertouch when you play the piano. And you say that it's the music that lives on. For classical music, the music is the composer's, s/he composed the music with the limitations of his/her era and re-interpreting their music with new technologies in ways they didn't even imagine. This is not making their music live on as far as I'm concerned.
Basically my point is that, considering that I only play classical music, I don't see a use for this. It's good to read about it but I don't think that this will ever be used for classical music performance. And no, I don't mean the odd youtube videos here and there, I mean used for performance by concert pianists.
I believe I'm entitled to my opinion about this. It's a cool piece of tech but it's just that. The fact that Jordan Rudess from DT endorses this doesn't mean anything to me. He's not a classical music performer (although he has been educated as one) and this may be good for his uses. I'll be amazed if Martha Argerich or Maurizio Pollini say that they will use this product.
And just a little note, and I know this can sound like I'm attacking you but I'm not, I'm just trying to share a bit of information. The pieces in The Well-Tempered Clavier are not "songs" per se, they are individual pieces. Song is another form in classical music and employs the use of human voice.
I'm not a musician, and I don't like going around the internet calling people names, but I'm sorry, you come off as stodgy. From reading your comments and watching a couple of Jordan Rudess videos I'm pretty sure that I'd rather watch him playing than you. Just saying.
That was far from my intent to be honest. Between me and Jordan Rudess, I'd rather watch him as well. But between Jordan Rudess and Martha Argerich I'd watch her playing. This is just another form of labelling stuff. Just because a well known and talented performer is backing something doesn't mean it's going to be useful. Then again my comment was only concerned with how this relates to classical music.
> For classical music, the music is the composer's, s/he composed the music with the limitations of his/her era and re-interpreting their music with new technologies in ways they didn't even imagine. This is not making their music live on as far as I'm concerned.
You're drawing a line in the sand, and saying that technological changes are okay for classical music as long as they don't cross that line, but I'm not sure you realize exactly where that line is drawn. Have you ever played Bach or Beethoven? You might be shocked to learn just how different the modern piano is from the devices that these composers worked with.
Bach composed within the limitations of the harpsichord: harpsichords lack modulation of timbre and volume, except perhaps with an una corda pedal or by use of a separate manual, both of which are extremely crude methods. It is neither practical nor desirable to emulate this on the piano: the piano is capable of dynamics, and so we play Bach's pieces by inventing dynamics for them. (I'm not going to discuss trills, talk to a musicologist if you like.)
Beethoven composed within the limitations of the piano, as it was around the year 1800. You might find such an instrument for sale somewhere, but I doubt it. The piano action has not changed, but the instrument has still evolved considerably from a musical standpoint. I am speaking, of course, of the sustain pedal. Sustain pedal technique is an essential part of classical pianists' training, but it is not historically accurate for classical pieces. Old pianos did not have nearly as much sustain as even cheap modern pianos, and it turns out that pianists in the day would just hold the sustain pedal down. Imagine what that would sound like on a modern piano: a muddy mess of notes.
Just as keyboard dynamics were not part of the music of Bach's era, sustain pedal technique was not part of the music of Beethoven's era. You'll find similar discrepancies with other instruments, such as the enormous difference between modern violin bows, which are of Italian descent, and baroque German violin bows.
Then there's the question for some keyboard pieces of what instrument they were actually written for. There are theories that certain organ pieces were actually clavinet pieces, for example.
Footnote: Yes, Beethoven and Bach composed for other instruments too.
> We don't have the technology to replicate the acoustic sound of a piano.
That's simply incorrect: the keyboard instruments are the easiest to replicate. Go listen to some samples from Synthogy's website, for example. The problem of "how do we make a computer sound like a piano" has been solved for quite some time now.
As a matter of fact I have indeed played Bach and Beethoven among others. Currently, I'm working on the 21st piano sonata of Beethoven for a performance. The example you have given is very accurate, in the 14th piano sonata, Moonlight Sonata as it's affectionately known, Beethoven instructs the performer to hold down the pedal for the whole duration of the first movement. That simply won't work on modern pianos. What do we do now? We try to replicate the sounds Beethoven himself would have gotten from his own piano. There are books written about pedal techniques.
And I worded that wrong. Technology is and should be a part of classical music performances. I just don't see the relevance of this product from a classical music standpoint.
And I did look at Synthogy's website. They have a good product but if you're saying that that product does replicate the sound of a real grand piano, we have to agree to disagree. They have solved some good problems, like half-pedaling. Harmonic resonance modeling is impressive. But in I can't say that these replicate the sound of a true acoustic 100%.
Small note: Dynamics were part of Bach's era. Bach himself was a very talented organ player and there are dynamics in organs. Piano is a descendant of harpsichord, true, but it's also a descendant of organ.
And as I said in my other comments, this is getting pretty off-topic and I don't want to derail the thread. I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you klodolph through mail or whatever.
I'm mainly a guitar player but spend most of my time on piano lately, and this instrument reminds me a bit of both. You can slide and vibrate like a guitar, but with the clear musical vision of piano.
OMG, are you taking the piss with this comment? As if "classical" music, whatever that is, is a perfected form, the terminal point of all musical development. Ironically, it is terminal, as in culturally fading, passed by by the unstoppable rivers of human creativity.
The current musical trends still have a lot of ground to cover to catch up with that "terminal point of all musical development". I don't consider classical music to be the terminal point of all musical development by the way. Those were your words, not mine. You could say that classical music is getting less culturally relevant but you could say that about sculpture or painting.
I understand how my comment has been misunderstood and I didn't want to say that this was useless, just that it was useless for classical music. But your comment is by far the most... hmm... interesting so far.
This is getting out of hand though. If all of you guys want to discuss and throw shit at me and try to convince me that this is the best thing ever, go ahead and create a new submission about technology and classical music or whatever. I have no wish to derail the submission.
It has already been changed. Pianos don't have mod wheels, for example. I could list a hundred or so other changes but the good ones are mostly beneath the surface. But these things aren't really pianos, they just use a piano keyboard.
I agree with the poster who said "this isn't for you." Then again, it's not for many people. Electronic instruments have only changed the basic design slightly because they are tied down by a short-sighted standard. It's why mod wheels have been around forever but these things haven't. See the post at the top about the MIDI spec and such.
And just as a closing note for my own comment, I'm amazed by how hostile people can get over a comment. The fact that I don't see this used for classical music (the music that I enjoy and perform) should be free to express here. What should I have said? Oh great, cool stuff, this is the future of music? I just don't see it that way. It will be useful to some, and will have no effect on others.
When I wrote the first comment, I couldn't understand what the hype was about this and now, on top of that, I can't understand the way people acted over the comment.
> Seen this one a couple days ago and I honestly can't understand what the hype is all about.
> Change for the sake of change is pointless.
You are saying MUCH MORE than just "I don't see this used for classical music." You were giving an actual criticism to a product for which you are not the target audience. This sort of criticism makes zero sense, which is why I recommended (more gently than others I might add) to just move along.
I can't convey to you how good this post made me feel. It's extremely reassuring to me that there's someone out there who feel the same way I do about this stuff.
And the procrastination part made me smile. I keep trying to find better and more optimized ways of learning something and I keep getting stuck at certain points. Only after I've read your post have I realized that this was just another way of procrastination (and perhaps the most insidious form of it).
Thanks billions and billions of times (hat tip to Mr. Carl Sagan) for the very kind words and the motivation!
It sounded overwhelming and after quick skims on some articles about the stuff you recommended, it felt very overwhelming! But that's good I guess, I just have to push through the initial barrier most likely.
I would love to have a helpful dev who can dedicate a small amount of time on mentoring me but I have no idea how to ask people for "donating" their limited time to me. But I can see how immensely helpful that could be.
Building a business is not what I want to do at this stage, I simply want to solve simple problems that I encounter in my life in a simple yet beautiful way. Maybe the business part will come later.
If you have "only" completed Codecademy or similar, you're nowhere near the intermediate mark. I have used Codecademy and Code School and they are indeed great. But they give a false sense of security and accomplishment to the user. They are great for introduction to a language but they only introduce you to the language, nothing beyond that.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for your will to learn programming. I'm not trying to make your accomplishments look insignificant. But I believe that, at this point, your accomplishment is not finishing Codecademy's very very introductory course on Python but taking the first step in the path in learning programming.
I suggest that you take a look at Zed Shaw's Learn Python The Hard Way. The beginning may look a bit too easy, after all Codecademy does teach you stuff. But midway through you will probably see that Learn Python The Hard Way introduces beginner stuff that hasn't been covered in Codecademy.
After that, continue reading about Python. Sadly, the real world isn't divided into categories marked as "Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced". Read source codes that actually interest you. You are bound to come across stuff that you have no idea about. Start reading about that stuff. Chances are really high that you will come across other stuff that you don't know about when you're reading about the first stuff that you didn't know about. You will probably end up reading (and learning) craploads of stuff, but in my experience that's how you really learn stuff.
I have learned this during my journey in programming. In the end, you are the only one who knows how much you know. Don't measure your knowledge by Codecademy's standards. They may tell you that you are intermediate but you may not even understand how a relatively simple library works.
To anyone who will flame me for writing this, try Codecademy's or (Code School's) courses. Try and choose a language which you don't know. Don't read any of the info, just read what is expected of you. You will still pass the course. That is a VERY big problem. I'm a beginner, I have felt that false sense of accomplishment. It hurts a lot when you see what real intermediate and advanced people do with a programming language.