ramble through the bronx

Sunday, February 12, 2006

No, no, no, not wankers...

But you want to know how to tell the difference between a merrywang (an oddly familiar looking instrument) and a barstool? Look no further....



Thanks to Harmonia's Big B Musical Excessories for the picture!


Obviously I've been pretty hardcore into Old Time Music, what with the new banjo and all.* But I've been into folk music in general since I was a kid -- I think the coolest thing about learning more about the Appalachian music is that it's reflecting back to my knowledge of Cape Breton folk & Scottish/Irish/British folk -- it's neat to see how it's all connected. (Doesn't hurt that one of the banjo books I got has a whole section on playing Prince Edward Island fiddle tunes on banjo!)

Here's an online radio station that plays old time music. Yay!


* Roughly speaking, "Old Time Music," or "OTM" as it's called in fancy internet banjo mailing lists, is

music that originates in the southern Appalachian region of Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee but which also includes related music, for example, from Missouri, Quebec, or New England (contra).

(from the rec.music.country.old-time FAQ). (Here's the Wikipedia piece on Old-Time music.) Bluegrass is an offshoot, traced back to Bill Monroe (a mandolin player & bandleader) and his Bluegrass Boys (so named 'cause Monroe was from Kentucky). Bill Monroe admitted Earl Scruggs into his band in 1945; Scruggs had worked out a rapid 3-finger banjo style that became known as "Scruggs style" and is now the main bluegrass style. Bluegrass-style banjo is often opposed to clawhammer-style banjo, which is what I'm learning to play. Clawhammer uses the thumb and the back of either the middle or index finger (you hit the string with your finger nail in a downstroke, rather than plucking upward). Clawhammer is said to be more old-timey. Of course, there's controversy & folks argue about different styles & their precursors, etc., etc., etc. I just dig the clawhammer sound. And it goes nicely with the old-time music.

jane 11:16 PM [+]

Cool Canadian Cities

So, in the next couple of weeks I should be hearing about my funding for the next year (2006-2007) at Fordham. Either I'll get a Senior Teaching Fellowship ($19 000), a Dissertation Fellowship ($25 000 and I don't have to do anything other than work on my dissertation -- sweet!), or I get a Teaching Associateship ($12 000-- three courses, I get paid per course, about $4000 apiece; two of them would be in the same semester -- so one semester I'd make $8000 and the next $4000). Obviously the first two options would be great; the last would suck, given that I can't work off campus, and I don't qualify for much in terms of loans. Also, only 3-4 folks in our department will be getting the first two kinds of fellowship, and there are at least ten or so of us applying. I think I'm in the running, but I'm definitely not guaranteed anything.

All of this brings me to the following point: why don't I just move back to Canada where I can temp or get some mildly fulfilling job that's just enough work to pay the bills, and work on my dissertation on the evenings/weekend? After all, all I have to do now is write the damn thing, and I don't need to physically be at Fordham, or in New York City, to do that.

So what's a cool city to move to? Because I could move anywhere -- why limit myself to Toronto or Ottawa? I figure I could pretty much live just about anywhere for a year -- if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have to stay there. The main criterion is that it be affordable to someone who'd just be temping or working some crap job -- I don't want to have to put too much thought into what I do for money, since I really do want to finish my diss in a reasonable time. (Oh yeah -- and my French is pretty rusty these days -- so most of Quebec outside of Montreal is probably off-limits eh?)

What are your votes? Saskatoon? Moncton? The 'Peg? Or should I follow the homing pigeons back to Torontottawa?

jane 8:05 PM [+]

What do y'all think?

Sorry I've been posting so seldom lately; I've been pretty busy, and spending my free time either reading X-men (thanks Dawn!!) or playing my banjo. That said, I wanted to ask you what you thought about this article by Judy Rebick at rabble.ca and her criticism of the NDP & post-election talk. This is the last paragraph of the article:

While we are far from the revolutionary situation in many Latin American countries, the debate we must have now is more profound than the one suggested by Jim Stanford. The problem is not only the divisions between the NDP and the social movements but the weaknesses of both. It is not only the NDP that is failing to present an alternative vision of society.

Being in the US right now, I was actually happy to see the nature of some of the election discussions, since they couldn't even happen down here. That said, does the NDP mostly look good to me since it's so bad down here? Am I getting cynical down here in America? How radical should we attempt to be?

jane 2:08 PM [+]