…the NFL has reportedly requested its top three choices for the 2015 Super Bowl Halftime Show — Rihanna, Katy Perry, and Coldplay — to pay the league for the privilege of performing at halftime.
David H. writes:
Yes, this Forbes list is a miserable failure, but it got me thinking about how to quantify coolness. Good restaurants are valuable, but to be cool, restaurants also need to be affordable and a little off-putting. If I were doing this, I would generate a list of touring bands that rank highly in RYM, knock out the superstars, and then see what US cities they played in the last 4 years. Each band-visit would count as a portion of coolness for that city, and a partial portion for the immediate vicinity. Also, RYM records which cities the bands came from. That should count for a lot. Then I would look for cities with an outsized and lively gay scene. I’m not sure how the causation works – whether a gay scene adds substantial coolness or whether it follows coolness – but the correlation seems pretty clear to me.
Coolness is unstable partly because it’s much more difficult to achieve in expensive cities. San Francisco and Berkeley are sinking in coolness partly for this reason. A truly cool city needs a critical mass of underemployed creative types who will devote a great deal of time to “the scene”, and this is hard to do when you’re paying $6+ for each of your beers. So, the lower the urban rents and general cost of living, the cooler the city, other things being equal.
OK, Forbes was right that proportion of young people living in the city is important. I also think that trends are important, like: Which cities are gaining young people, and which are losing them?
The link to RYM was added by me. I would think that a truly cool place cannot be rated as cool by too many other sources. How about that retirement community in Florida, an incorporated city, ruled largely by contract, where only the elderly live and the visits of grown children are regulated and rationed? How about the city in America which has the highest birth rate? Isn’t that kind of cool? Seriously. That would put Memphis, Ogden, and Provo in the lead. What’s so cool about tracking RYM?
Here is what has been sticking with me most so far this year, this list is drawn from full recordings rather than individual songs:
1. Sd Laika, That’s Harakiri, a new sound world, best on vinyl.
2. Calypso: Musical Poetry in the Caribbean 1955-1969, best on vinyl.
3. Shostakovich string quartets, Pacifica Quartet. The best versions of these ever? Very Soviet-sounding, muscular in approach, totally bleak.
4. Complete Haydn string quartets, Mosaiques Quartet. My favorite of all the complete recordings of these.
5. Mala, Mala in Cuba. Think Buena Vista Social Club for dubstep fans.
6. Deafheaven, Sunbather. “Black metal for people who don’t like black metal.” Alternatively, “Serving as an artistic lucid dream of warmth despite the stinging pain of life’s cruel idealism.”
7. Dick Hyman’s Century of Jazz Piano, five CDs, quite familiar music, some of it corny even, nonetheless these remain remarkable pieces and they are impeccably played. A joy of rediscovery.
Lots more Benjamin Britten, including String Quartet #3, and many versions of Mahler’s Sixth.
Facebook manipulated the emotions of hundreds of thousands of its users, and found that they would pass on happy or sad emotions, it has said. The experiment, for which researchers did not gain specific consent, has provoked criticism from users with privacy and ethical concerns.
For one week in 2012, Facebook skewed nearly 700,000 users’ news feeds to either be happier or sadder than normal. The experiment found that after the experiment was over users’ tended to post positive or negative comments according to the skew that was given to their newsfeed.
The research has provoked distress because of the manipulation involved.
Clearly plenty of ads try to manipulative us with positive emotions, and without telling us. There are also plenty of sad songs, or for that matter sad movies and sad advertisements, again running an agenda for their own manipulative purposes. Is the problem with Facebook its market power? Or is the the sheer and unavoidable transparency of the notion that Facebook is inducing us to pass along similar emotions to our network of contacts, thus making us manipulators too, and in a way which is hard to us to avoid thinking about? What would Robin Hanson say?
Note by the way that “The effect the study documents is very small, as little as one-tenth of a percent of an observed change.” How much that eventually dwindles, explodes, or dampens out in the longer run I would say is still not known to us. My intuition however is that we see a lot of longer-run dampening and also intertemporal substitution of emotions, meaning this is pretty close to a non-event.
I hope you’re not too sad about this post [smiley face]!
Not long ago, a group of people were sitting around a New York City Laotian restaurant and a challenge was made. The challenge was to create a list of a particular kind, drawing upon the wisdom of the groups. The producer of the dare (not myself, the person wishes to remain anonymous) put it like this:
…these are MUSTS, not “here’s something I like.” You aren’t recommending, you are obligating. That is a much larger responsibility and I urge you to use it with extreme caution. Also, adding to the list constitutes a commitment to take in the list [emphasis added by TC], with the one caveat.
There is currently no food or visual art on the list. We briefly discussed adding some food but I think it was going to get out of hand, plus Amazon can’t drone you tacos from Tyler’s favorite gas-station Mexican restaurant. If the food or visual art is in NYC and readily accessible it could be considered.
Yes, we all obliged ourselves to consume the resulting list. And what did we put on it?
[I am going to remove Upstream Color from the list. I think it's a better movie than Primer, and I would watch it again twice back to back right now, but it's less of a cultural touchstone. ]
The Power Broker (book)
Nature’s Metropolis, especially Chapter 3 (book)
“Blink” (episode of Dr. Who from TV)
Before Sunrise trilogy (movies)
A State of Wonder: The Complete Goldberg Variations 1955 & 1981 (music)
The Forever War (book)
A Deepness in the Sky (book)
[Redacted and I agree that the first book, A Fire Upon the Deep, is excellent but not as good as this. All voices say the third book is a pass]
Prisoners of War (TV series, Israeli)
Loveless (music, 1991 album by My Bloody Valentine)
The Lives of Others (movie)
[there was some controversy around this one]
Thought of You (animated short)
Persona (movie, Ingmar Bergman)
The Godfather (movie)
Beethoven String Quartet Opus 132 (music)
What would you add to such a list? Of course from this list I do not endorse every pick, but I can report that I do not have “too much extra work to do.”
Craig Richardson sends me this story with some interesting numbers.
Los Lobos and George Clinton and Bone Thugs and Harmony and Toots and the Maytals charge in the 20-35k range for appearances; that’s not so much considering what you get. Fountains of Wayne (remember them?) goes for 20-30k.
De la Soul goes for 15-20k, as do the Indigo Girls, and for Jefferson Starship it may go up to 25k. The English Beat and PM Dawn (still underrated, apparently) cost only 5-10k.
Bruce Springsteen is a million dollars and up. Many artists I have never heard of go for 200k and up.
Dave Matthews tribute band is 10k, while Dave Matthews is $1 million.
There is a new paper by Benjamin Hermalin, with the intriguing title “At the Helm, Kirk or Spock? Why Even Wholly Rational Actors May Favor and Respond to Charismatic Leaders.” The abstract runs like this:
When a leader makes a purely emotional appeal, rational followers realize she is hiding bad news. Despite such pessimism and even though not directly influenced by emotional appeals, rational followers’ efforts are nonetheless greater when an emotional appeal is made by a more rather than less charismatic leader. Further, they tend to prefer more charismatic leaders. Although organizations can do better with more charismatic leaders, charisma is a two-edged sword: more charismatic leaders will tend to substitute charm for real action, to the organization’s detriment. This helps explain the literature’s “mixed report card” on charisma.
Here is what actually drives the argument:
As shown below, a savvy leader makes an emotional appeal when “just the facts” provide followers too little incentive and, conversely, makes a rational appeal when the facts “speak for themselves.” Followers (at least rational ones) will, of course, understand this is how she behaves. In particular, the rational ones—called “sober responders”—will form pessimistic beliefs about the productivity state upon hearing an emotional appeal. But how pessimistic depends on how charismatic the leader is. Because a more charismatic leader is more inclined to make an emotional appeal ceteris paribus, sober responders are less pessimistic about the state when a more charismatic leader makes an emotional appeal than when a less charismatic leader does [emphasis added]. So, even though not directly influenced by emotional appeals, sober (rational) responders work harder in equilibrium in response to an emotional appeal from a more charismatic leader than in response to such an appeal from a less charismatic leader.
Would this same reasoning also imply we should choose intrinsically panicky leaders, because then, if we see them panic, we would think the real underlying situation isn’t so bad after all and we are simply witnessing their innate propensity to panic? Yet no one would buy that version of the argument.
I will instead suggest that we (sometimes) follow charismatic leaders because they have high social intelligence, and most of all because other people are inclined to follow them. Some of those followers of course do not have rational expectations but rather they are touched by the charisma directly. Given that, why not follow the focal leader, even if you yourself are not touched by the charisma?
A related question is to ask how many recent world leaders are in fact charismatic. Obama and Clinton yes, but how about David Cameron? How about most Prime Ministers of Japan, Abe being a possible exception? Arguably Merkel has become charismatic through a sort of extreme, cultivated anti-charisma, but I would not cite her in favor of the theory. Any Canadian since Trudeau? Helmut Kohl?
Putin? Well, he’s not charismatic to me but now we’re getting somewhere. And what does Putin have that say Prime Ministers of Japan do not? Could it be a citizenry that gets excited relatively easily by the brutish? Come to think of it, the USA has a wee bit of excitability of its own, though more about national pride and foreign policy than anything like Putin. Hint: does your theory predict that Argentina will have charismatic leaders relative to Denmark? Yes or no?
In which business sectors are the CEOs most likely to be charismatic?
For the pointer I thank the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Addendum: Hermalin responds here.
RULE ONE: Find a place you trust, and then try trusting it for a while.
RULE TWO: General duties of a student: Pull everything out of your teacher; pull everything out of your fellow students.
RULE THREE: General duties of a teacher: Pull everything out of your students.
RULE FOUR: Consider everything an experiment.
RULE FIVE: Be self-disciplined: this means finding someone wise or smart and choosing to follow them. To be disciplined is to follow in a good way. To be self-disciplined is to follow in a better way.
RULE SIX: Nothing is a mistake. There’s no win and no fail, there’s only make.
RULE SEVEN: The only rule is work. If you work it will lead to something. It’s the people who do all of the work all of the time who eventually catch on to things.
RULE EIGHT: Don’t try to create and analyze at the same time. They’re different processes.
RULE NINE: Be happy whenever you can manage it. Enjoy yourself. It’s lighter than you think.
RULE TEN: We’re breaking all the rules. Even our own rules. And how do we do that? By leaving plenty of room for X quantities.
HINTS: Always be around. Come or go to everything. Always go to classes. Read anything you can get your hands on. Look at movies carefully, often. Save everything. It might come in handy later.
In tough times, do happy or sad songs top the charts? Do we prefer music that reflects our fears and hardships, or tunes that allow us to temporarily forget our troubles?
Newly published research suggests the answer varies dramatically by genre. Pop fans reflexively gravitate to music that mirrors their emotions, while country devotees go for escapism.
In an analysis of the most popular country songs over six decades, Jason Eastman and Terry Pettijohn II of Coastal Carolina University finds top hits are “lyrically more positive, musically upbeat, and use more happy-sounding major chords during difficult socioeconomic times.”
In contrast, previous research on best-selling pop songs found that, in times of societal stress, those numbers “are longer, slower, more lyrically meaningful, and in more somber-sounding keys.”
There is more here. And here is the NYT article on how country music has gone totally mainstream. After all, why not lower your systemic risk? Is the higher cyclicality of on-country music due to what is possibly a younger demographic profile of listeners, including many students who may not yet be so worried about the state of the labor market?
After a mere week or so at work, it can no longer be said that Catherine Rampell is the most underrated force in economics writing and journalism (or can it?). Here is her post on which are the most expensive schools. It is art and music schools, when you take all relevant costs and financial aid into account. Excerpt:
Now here’s a list of the top 10 most expensive four-year private nonprofits, after subtracting the average amount of government and institutional grant/scholarship aid at each institution:
1. School of the Art Institute of Chicago
2. Ringling College of Art and Design
3. The Boston Conservatory
4. Berklee College of Music
5. California Institute of the Arts
Do see the earlier MR post “Artists grew up in households w/typically higher incomes than doctors did.” What does this imply about the competitiveness of the sector? About our models of child-rearing?
The bottom line seems to be this:
By using cutting-edge motion-capture technology, we have been able to precisely break down and analyse specific motion patterns in male dancing that seem to influence women’s perceptions of dance quality. We find that the variability and amplitude of movements in the central body regions (head, neck and trunk) and speed of the right knee movements are especially important in signalling dance quality. A ‘good’ dancer thus displays larger and more variable movements in relation to bending and twisting movements of their head/neck and torso, and faster bending and twisting movements of their right knee. As 80 per cent of individuals are right-footed, greater movements of the right knee in comparison with the left are perhaps to be expected. In comparative research, there is extensive literature on the signalling capacities of movement…Researchers have suggested that females prefer vigorous and skilled males; such cues are derived from male motor performance that provides a signal of his physical condition.
The great Robert Ashley, one of the musical geniuses of the last forty years, has passed away. He is one of the few who did something truly new in music. Here is NPR on Ashley. Here is the opera Perfect Lives, perhaps his greatest contribution. Here are parts of that opera on YouTube. Here is Ashley on Wikipedia.
Here is some explanation:
According to Abba: The Official Photo Book, published to mark 40 years since they won Eurovision with Waterloo, the band’s style was influenced in part by laws that allowed the cost of outfits to be deducted against tax – so long as the costumes were so outrageous they could not possibly be worn on the street.
In 2007 Ulvaeus was wrongly accused of failing to pay 85m kronor (£7.9m) in Swedish taxes between 1999 and 2005, and went on to successfully appeal against the decision.
“I am of course very happy that I have been informed in writing that I have always done the right thing concerning my taxes,” he said after the court victory.
The article is here, via Ted Gioia.
Art Carden asks me:
…do you think scholars spend too much time producing new content and too little time revising and refining their arguments? I’m thinking about the Scholars of Old (e.g. Smith) taking their work through multiple editions. Thomas Sowell is good about producing revised versions of some of his books, but a glance at my shelf makes me wonder if Eminent Scholar should’ve revised his/her first book instead of writing a second or third or fourth.Do you think books go through the optimal number of revisions? Is the editing process so good today that the first edition usually should be the last?
In music, Brahms is notorious for having spent a lot of time revising his drafts. Pierre Boulez explicitly revised and improved many of his pieces, after adding in years of extra work. Stravinsky’s later 1947 version of Petrouchka is much sharper and cleaner than his 1911 release. In all of these cases the revisions are worthwhile, because these works were very special and worth improving. Brahms’s first symphony might have done better with some further revisions yet.
When it comes to economics, individual works are less and less special all the time, unlike in the days of Adam Smith. Smith waited, more or less perfected his book, and in the meantime he was not really scooped. Today it is the collective body of work which carries the force. We also live in the age of the working paper, where it is the first released draft which matters most. There is an institutional failure that first released drafts are released too soon, for the purposes of receiving attention and credit. Yet I don’t think there is a corresponding problem of too few editions of the working paper. Ideally there should be no more than two. A first “here I am” version, to stimulate discussion and feedback, and eventually a final version which maximizes accuracy.
In fact if scholars had to commit to only two versions of the paper, they might be induced to make the early release more accurate in advance, knowing they cannot magically revise away errors a week later with the magic of word processing and web re-posting. This move toward fewer editions would offset some of the costs of premature release. Again, we do not see a case where a greater number of revisions would be better.
The scarcity of attention is the key reason why a very small number of accuracy-enhancing revisions is more or less optimal.
For only 23,500 euros (who says you can’t take it with you?):
Sweden’s Catacombo Sound System is a funeral casket that eternally plays the deceased’s choice of tracks while they’re six feet under.
Created by Pause Ljud & Bild, the system consists of three different parts. Firstly, users create an account through the online CataPlay platform, which connects to Spotify and enables customers to curate a playlist for their own coffin or get friends and family to choose the tracks when they’re gone. The CataTomb is a 4G-enabled gravestone that receives the music from CataPlay and display the current track — along with details and tributes to the deceased — through a 7-inch LCD Display. Finally, the CataCoffin is where the parted will themselves enjoy two-way front speakers, 4-inch midbass drivers and an 8-inch sub-bass element that deliver dimensional high-fidelity audio tailored to the acoustics of the casket. The video below explains more about the concept…
Of course I want Brahms’s German Requiem, the Rudolf Kempe recording. I am afraid, however, that I (in some form) will last longer than Spotify does.
For the pointer I thank Michael Rosenwald.