Ok, screw the recent meme of "auto-tune every damned thing", but this is kind of awesome.
A trippy remix worthy of blowing Carl "Mr. X" Sagan's mind while smoking ganja.
Thank you for sharing that.
Auto-tuning Stephen Hawking... Heh.
Is it just me, or does autotuned Carl Sagan sound like Kermit the Frog?
You've heard non-autotuned Carl Sagan's voice, too, right? :)
Yeah, without autotune I get more of an Agent Smith vibe.
Also, Carl Sagan on the fourth dimension is a great example of how little editing that one required.
Also, that this guy was an excellent presenter.
Kermit or Ernie, it goes back and forth.
aw; this makes me all warm and fuzzy :)
Actually gives me a little lump in the throat, tbh!
I bawled, I admit it.
I know just how you feel. :D
That's awesome. Probably one of the goofier-sounding voices when autotuned that I've heard. I've been working my way through Cosmos on Hulu, and it's impressive how well it's aged, considering all that's developed in the last 30 years. http://www.hulu.com/cosmos
I got the DVD box-set re-issue a couple years ago. It does hold up remarkably well.
You just have to remember to replace mutually assured nuclear destruction with global warming. Which is quite trivial while on board the starship of the imagination.
You know why? Because my starship of the imagination has M-x query-replace. Oh yes.
It's not only aged well, but remains far, far better than current "science" shows, both in scientific accuracy and in exposition quality.
Where'd we go wrong.
It's a rather different style, but Neil deGrasse Tyson on NOVA Science Now is pretty good, I think. It's sort of a news magazine format focused on new developments in science, with segments of him explaining things on a green screen in front of sciency backgrounds, and some odd Adult Swim-like text-on-black interstitials. Less of the Cosmos marveling at the wonders of the universe, though.
Okay, I forgot about, "NOVA Science Now!"
"NOVA Science Now," strikes me as geared towards middle- and high-school students. Which is Just Fine. I enjoy watching it when I approach it with that assumption. It's not of the same caliber as, "Cosmos," or the 70's-era NOVA programs, but it is of the same caliber and at the same level as the 1st season of, "3 … 2 … 1 … Contact."
All of the other "science" programs out there range from misleadingly imprecise to inaccurate to flat-out fiction. On the rare occasions that I watch NOVA, I want to cry or retch. I've seen episodes covering topics in biology or chemistry which contained statements (not by any of the interviewed biologists bzw. chemists, mind you) that were simply wrong. And I'm a Physicist by training, not a biologist, not a chemist. And I could tell that the scriptwriters got it totally wrong. Then there was a NOVA episode on supervolcanos, which contained a graphical representation of a supervolcano's magma chamber. Except, on the globe cross-section that they showed, the magma chamber would've been the size of Australia.
If the writers on NOVA can't get something as simple as size scales correct, then there's no hope for other science programs. And it shows, when you see "science" programs outside of PBS.
So, as I said: Where did it all go wrong?
Somewhere around when science had to be entertainment, I guess? I mean, Discovery Channel was relatively sciency 10 years ago, and now they have all this paranormal reality show crap. Presumably this shift was driven by some combination of marketing and cable channel ownership consolidation. I wonder if the drop in price and increase in quality of computer graphics helped - now you can do big flashy action movie "explanations" of science that we don't have direction documentation of.
Is this also a problem in children's educational fiction? I don't think there's a current successor to the original 4 Magic Schoolbus books, for example (the remaining books were based on the TV series based on the books, and much lower quality, after #4).
Not directly relevant, but I read this Harper's article on how "mathandscience" is cannibalizing the humanities in academia (on account of market forces); personally I'd say science is in trouble in the collective consciousness as well.
What an odd article.The sad, desperate tone, the pandering, silly jabs at profession sports. The fellating of his boss at UChicago. The author obviously doesn't understand science or know very much about it, but for some reason he feels threatened by it.
Which is odd, because he seems to be in a very comfortable position in his field: English professor, novelist, editor at the New Yorker.
Where did this paranoid rant come from?
The puritans. The universe selects for behaviors which result in the propitiation of those behaviors, both in genes and ideas. We got hit with religion shortly after agriculture, and we're just now recovering. Lifespans are suddenly a lot longer. Whoot!
Haven't you been reading the papers? Science is back! It's got the bucks now, and green is where it's at.
Nova Science Now makes me sad. It's aimed squarely at the demographic I was when Cosmos came out. I'd have been insulted by the tone and shallowness of NSN if I had got it instead of Cosmos.
On a different note: I think that, had Carl Sagan not had cancer and lived to the present day, that he would've worked to keep science programs from sinking to the lowest-common-denominator. (And I mean the ones targeted to an adult audience, not targeted to teens or kids.)
I also think that he'd have been like a kid in a candy-store over the Magellan mapping of Venus, the rover missions to Mars, and especially they Huygens mission to Saturn revealing the exotic lakes of Titan.
That makes me the most sad. Carl had his flaws, sure, but he did great work. He deserved to live to see the discoveries of the past decade.
Thanks for passing this along!
And cheers to you, beardy vest dude!
That's not autotune. It's a vocoder.
Which makes it even cooler.