Further changes in Music

I just can't seem to leave music alone. Perhaps it's because it strikes a cord in me. As I continued to muse about modern music I realized that I could continue to talk about the evolution of music with some neat examples.

First, my theory of modern soundtracks being the newest wave of classical music. The Piano Guys helped vindicate me on these thoughts. They have a couple of videos that use soundtracks mixed with classical music to produce an amazing combination. The two big ones are Bourne Vivaldi and Mission Impossible (featuring Lindsey Stirling).

If you read the "Story behind the song" in the notes of Bourne Vivaldi you'd find the following:

There are few "hooks" in the movie-music world that are as grabby as the Bourne Identity Soundtrack riff. like the movie series, its intensity commands attention. We just had to figure out a way to use it. In our usual style, we thought we'd create an "action movie soundtrack" that combined this and a piece of classical music...With no "action movies" in the 1700's, [Vivaldie's piece] was probably the closest you could get to one. It has intense and exciting moments between beautiful lyrical moments. It was this piece, among others, that got Steven (the cello guy) excited about classical music - it was one of the first pieces he played with orchestra.

 The piano guys are known for mixing classical music with everything they do, demonstrating the tendency to mix different styles to create new sounds. While different forms of classical music have done this in the past, it appears to be a staple of modern music in general. Not just in mixing classical with soundtracks or pop, but different pop styles, rap, alternative, and everything in between. I am not a big rap fan. Most of the time I take issue with the content or style of rap, but I do have a collection that I enjoy. A particular favorite is the YouTuber Eppic featured in these videos (with Peter Hollens, Kait Weston, and Alex G).

I like the addition of the rap and the way it fits with the other singers and the style of the songs. the blend is good and despite the differences in styles I feel that it adds something. To go in the reverse, the Salt Lake Pops Orchestra takes popular songs and puts them to full orchestration. They are also doing fun things with orchestration (calling it the "Radioactive Orchestra") as shown in these videos with Kristen Jensen and Alex Boye and Lindsey Stirling.

One last alteration in music that follows a more experimental theme is music based on more than just emotion, narrative, or even any kind of music tradition. Alan Key writes and produces music for Brady Haran (and others) and is featured in many of the science and math videos that I enjoy. Brady has also worked with Dave Lens, a singer/song writer who has been inspired by science concepts. Below are recent videos from each of them. Alan's Pi March is based on the number pi (3.14....). He has also done music based on Tau, e, and Khinchin's constant. Dave's video was inspired by the vast differences in size between the smallest form of matter and the largest. While the music itself is original, he had to do extensive research (using Brady's help) to compile the facts, sizes, and accuracy for the lyrics. His song has grown on me over the time since he posted it on one of Brady's channels. The video features a chores by ViHart, who is a professional mathemusician at the khanacademy.org. So we can view music as it's influenced by math and the sciences.

These videos also demonstrate a principle that I was trying to blog but just never came together. With the rise of the recording industry music became a regulated industry. Only those that the production company thought were worthy would receive wide spread distribution. Sure artists could self produce, but generally access to equipment was expensive, marketing was non-existent, and exposure was limited. But then the digital revolution happened. Peer-to-peer file sharing, particularly of music, enabled people to spread music faster then the recording industry, often times spreading music without the recording companies and the artist receiving any money. This, of course, was not seen as a good thing for the people who make or produce the music. While Peer-to-peer was eventually locked down and regulated (for the majority) when Napster lost their lawsuit against the RIAA, another potential enemy of the recording industry loomed its head - YouTube.

There is lots of debate on whether and how YouTube hurts the music industry. And I don't have anything to add or subtract from what has already been said. There is obviously one huge effect of YouTube on music - exposure. Musicians are able to expand their audience much more now than ever before. The Piano Guys, Lindsey Stirling, and The Salt Lake Pops have all been able to expand their music beyond YouTube because of their success on YouTube. Many other YouTubers are able to support themselves (some completely, others partially) through their productions. But anyone can post a video and potentially become the next new thing. Previously artists would of had to go through a recording company for an opportunity to reach the same size audience. Many YouTubers will collaborate with others to increase their audience. This results in many of the mixes, mashes, and variations that occur, including some of those above.

The growth of the online musician increases with digital production and sales. I own both albums and singles of several of my favorite YouTubers' music, buying it from iTunes but it is also available via that artist's websites. Even if the artist is not looking to support themselves but just do something that they think others would like they can accomplish their ends very easily. Music as a medium and a industry is changing and it's not about to stop any time soon.

Here there be Dragons

In the last six months I have read two Dragon Lance books, books entitled Dragon Run and Dragonflight, and returned to a classic computer role-playing game based on Dungeons and Dragons. I also picked up a book called Storm Riders which featured a dragon on the cover, but it turned out to be the 2nd book in a series so I have to go find the first one, Shadow Raiders. I may be on bit of a dragon kick. But I could probably argue that I've always been on a dragon kick.

Dragons have been featured in stories for centuries and across many different cultures. I thought it was interesting that the American Museum of Natural History in New York has information on the natural history of dragons. I was also able to find a website entitled Draconika which had a nice organized selection of information on dragons and dragon lore. It was rough doing research on this as there is lots of websites that discuss draconian lore, but as they are fantastic creatures of folklore there really isn't a council of authorities that peer review the information out there. As such dragons and related creatures may be subject to multiple interpretations. I have to say my favorite and perhaps the most extensive source of established draconian lore is the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manuel. It is just one take on dragons, but is very well built and exists for the purpose of building stories. It is not based on actual folklore that I'm aware of.

One of my favorite dragon stories is Flight of Dragons, a 1982 movie with the voice talent of James Earl Jones, Harry Morgan, and John Ritter. I was ten or eleven the first time I saw it and liked the explanations it gave for dragon flight and why they sleep on gold as well as the story line in general. I was further delighted when the film How to Tame your Dragon was produced and turned dragons into the equivalent of motorcycles and dive bombers. Both of the films show a variety of dragons (How to Tame your Dragon doing a better job of it), but with such fantastic creatures you can really come up with anything. In many ways they defy the laws of physics. I don't know the equations, but I'm pretty sure the giant monstrosity of a dragon that Hiccup and Toothless fight (in the film) is physiologically impossible. And for such a creature to fly would be quite a feat. However, as mentioned dragons are fantastic and as fantastical creatures they are given abilities that can explain their oddities and the violations of the laws of physics and biology. They are powerful beings and as such are not to be limited by mere science!

There are many stories of both evil and good dragons. Metaphorical and literal monsters and steward teachers or saviors of mankind. I've tried to think about what it is about dragons that makes me excited. Perhaps it the might of these creatures, the power to do anything. Most dragons are attributed with intelligence, so maybe its the idea of non-human sapient life. Let's face the fact that breathing fire or some other kick trash compound is awesome. The idea of riding a dragon, or befriending one, makes for a compelling image of power and ability. Maybe it's just the pure fantastic about them - that they can be anything and do anything - a subject of creativity. The musing is endless.

I think I can establish one concrete idea about my interest in dragons, however. If there is an alpha predator it is the dragon. In many stories humanity makes up a staple in dragons' diet. They are big enough, fast enough, strong enough, and smart enough to challenge our primacy on whatever world we both inhabit. Even in books such as Dragonflight where dragons are simply tools for humans, they are powerful and it is clear that if they want to humanity wouldn't stand a chance. They are a natural predator and we are their natural prey. Like many enjoy hunting bears, lions, tigers, and other creatures that can harm humans, dragons could hunt us under similar circumstances. Yes, humans may kill dragons, but it is not easy. A challenge for both dragon and knight. Even under more modern circumstances taking a dragon down would be difficult as is demonstrated in Monster Hunter Legion.

What would life be like if we lived with a natural predator impacting our daily lives? How would it have shaped society if we had an evolving intelligent creature that hunted us at its leisure? Would we have invented the computer or satellites? Would our culture be different in our choice of celebrities and heroes? Would we have the conflicts with other groups of people - would war exist if we had a common enemy? Would dragons choose to rule and would we be treated like slaves, chattel, or peons? I'm familiar with a fair number of stories with dragons and can say that I've seen many of these questions asked and answered with varying results. Still the questions pose themselves. Dragons are a great way to explore them as you can create any kind of dragon you want. The only requirement is that it be awesome.

Read an awesome flash fiction story about a dragon written by EA Younker inspired by Kanga, my daughter. 

(picture citation)

The Evolution in Music

The original idea for this post was to look at the music industry and how it's changed, but for whatever reason that musing has failed to find a place to settle. It's still going around in my head, but I'm having difficulty with posting it. In the mean time, I had another musing that took me back in time to several courses on music history.

For the majority of people I've met the term "Classical Music" does not pertain to music written in the classical era (Mid 1700s to early 1800s), but rather any music that is "Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition." (citation). Interestingly enough, the current musical tradition - Modern or 20th Century - has changed during its period of classification. So there are multiple kinds of 20th Century music, including Avant-garde which tends to shun musical traditions of all kinds. My band instructor in high school played us a part of Schoenberg's Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte as an example. Microtones - the notes between notes, Sprechgesang - the space between singing and speaking, and Experimental music notation are elements often associated with 20th Century music. As just an example, Igor Stavinsky is considered one of the the essential composers of the 20th Century music, yet he was also known for several different styles of music. From what I can tell the only "tradition" of 20th Century music is how it changes, both establishing and rejecting the norms.

Now, I understand that classical music is still being written, however I can't say that I ever hear it or even know where to find it. Perhaps the most likely place to find modern classical music might be a junior or high school band or orchestra performance. I played baritone/euphonium for six years and played through my share of music that I never heard again. Many of them I enjoyed playing (most of them really). I'll always have a soft spot for "The Gathering of the Ranks at Hebron" by David Holsinger, particularly the way my part sounded. However, such music is not commonly heard elsewhere. With technology allowing artists to expand their reach the 20th Century has been filled with new traditions of folk, jazz, rock, country, blues, R&B, rap, and alternative. These all mesh, blend, and get remixed with each other. Particularly as we have entered the 21st Century, I can't say that I've seen much of what may be called "modern classical." The closest thing I've described as "classical" is William Joseph, a pianist who does a mixture of covers and original pieces.

In fact it was a recent William Joseph collaboration with Lindsey Stirling, self-proclaimed hip-hop violinist that got me thinking about a post on this topic. The video in question can be seen here.

The piece is call "Halo Theme" and many of my generation will recognize it. If you do not, I invite you to listen to it's complexity, the way it moves, and the energy it coveys. It never had any words and is just the beginning of a multi-themed work. It was written to covey "importance, weight and a sense of the ancient." It is the soundtrack to a video game.

I've always been a fan of movie and video game soundtracks. Some favorites soundtrack composers include: John Williams, Hans Zimmer, Alan Silvestri, Howard Shore, and John Powell. "Traditional" classical music and modern soundtracks have a fair amount in common. In fact, many movies have used classical music as the soundtrack. The Thief of Baghdad used Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov Op 35 Scheherazade (1888), 2001 Space Odessay's main theme was composed by Richard Strauss and is actually titled "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (1896), and don't forget that the Lone Ranger rides to the William Tell Overture by Gioachino Rossini (1829). Disney's two Fantasia movies from 1940 and 2000 used classical music as the basis for creating visual images to entertain and delight. When much of the music was being written it was without the benefit of visual images outside of the audience's imagination. Often music was based on a story or image the composer wanted to convey, Beethoven's Symphony no 6., the Pastoral symphony, or Stravinsky's The Firebird  (both of them featured in the Fantasia movies) are perfect examples of this.

I've thought for years that the niche that "traditional", story based, designed to entertain classical music occupied for many centuries has been filled by soundtracks. They are both (when done well) designed to stir emotions, trigger responses, extend the imagination, and help the listener enjoy themselves. The biggest difference is that soundtracks are inherently designed to go in support of another medium. However, a well written soundtrack can encourage people to imagine comparable images to what the director puts on the screen. John William's iconic themes to Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Harry Potter are good examples, as are Hans Zimmer's theme to Pirates of the Caribbean and Peral Harbor - Attack, and Alan Silvestri's Translavian horses amoung others.

The same is true of video game soundtracks. More and more game designers realize that they need music that enhances the gameplay as well as provocks emotional responses in the player. It is interesting how regardless of what you are seeing what you hear is more prone to direct your emotions. Take the fight sciences in The Lord of the Rings films (done by Howard Shore). At points during the action the music changes to melodic tones full of sorrow and feeling. In those moments ye action itself is overshadowed by the motives behind the characters. Such is the impact of good music. And such has been the goal of music ever since early spiritual hymns were sung in worship and rejoicing. I know that there is this new form of classical music but I will continue to argue that the real classical music, the music that today most matches the goals and intentions of the period music we still listen to, is the soundtrack.

It's a small word

"It's a small world" - Idiom - Said to show your surprise that people or events in different places are connected, Cambridge Dictionaries Online.

I've had my fair share of "small world" experiences. They tend to happen as we meet new people or try new things. It can be a fun experience when you meet someone who knows your best friend, or has been to the same place as you, or turns out to be a relative (or the ex of a relative). That last one happens more times than not when you belong to my family. I remember one of my teachers in high school telling me that not only were my first and last name the same as her fathers, but we even had the same middle initial. That same year I learned that my dance instructor was my aunt's cousin, and that my dad had dated my band teacher's older sister.

Many may say that with the world of technology that we live in such experiences may be more likely to happen. If you think about it when the most the average person could travel in a day was twenty miles and communication was limited to how loud you could yell, it was very likely that you knew everybody that everybody else you knew was  acquainted with. When your area of impact is relatively small it is unlikely that your ripples will be felt by others. Many may cite the butterfly effect and say that we are all connect regardless of distance and time. While I do agree in the idea of a connected existence I also believe that, like the ripples on a pond, the further away from us our influence travels the smaller it gets. Unless, of course, you are a quantum weather butterfly. But even then your thunderstorms are only about 6 inches across.

Returning from our flight of fancy into the butterfly effect, I do find that our modern forms of travel do decrease the size of our world. For instances, my parents live below the radar domes pictured here. They are large enough that you can see them from over 20 miles away. Every time I see them I think about the original settlers in the area who walked or rode horses or carts to travel. A trip from my current home to there is a little under an hour. Trip on horseback could be anywhere from 10 hours to an hour and a half. As it is, I have no difficulty driving down to see them for an afternoon and then getting back in time to put the kids to bed. Now a days if I can see it I can reach it fairly easily. That has not always been the case.

When you take into consideration that we have ways of traveling all over the earth in less than a day it has a way of "shrinking" your world. Take the longest flight in the world (supposedly currently running) Newark to Singapore. A 9,545 mile flight done in a little less than 19 hours. Seeing how the Earth is 24,901 miles around that flight is 37% the total way around. If I figured this right, that means you could circumnavigate the globe in an Airbus A340-500 in little over 51.3 hours. Just over two days. Ferdinand Magellen's crew did it in 3 years in the early fifteen hundreds. Even the Great White Fleet of Theodore Roosevelt which set sail in December of 1907 didn't return until February of 1909 - a 14 month trip. Even with air travel, the first flight around the world took 175 days. I've discovered that in March of 2010 the world record for a flight around the world was 57 hours and 54 minutes, so my estimate of 51 hours was a little off of reality. The story of Jules Verne Around the World in 80 Days (which was published in 1873) has been dreamed, enacted, and surpassed. It may be realistic to suppose that you could reach anywhere on the globe in a matter of days, and that's not considering parachuting.

Combine this with instantaneous communication (or "screaming fast" like my internet provider advertises) and you you can not only be anywhere in days, reach almost anyone within minutes. Apparently there are enough mobile phones in the world to cover 87% of the population. Or to put it another way - more people have cell phones than toilets. Now it appears that only 34.3% of the population of the world has internet access, but that's is still around 2.4353 billion people. Just think, the ripples you could be casting don't have to travel geographically anymore. Just from your fingers to your keyboard and from the screen to someone's eye. Current events are real time. Wars are fought with words as much as weapons, and the fighters can be everyday people with a smart phone or laptop. The world is indeed smaller.

The really cool thing is that despite the world shrinking in terms of travel and communication there scientists discover about 18,000 new species every year. And that's just the zoologists and botanists. Think about the discoveries in physics, chemistry, engineering, electronics, geology and all those other greek words. The world may be shrinking, but there is still plenty of it to explore.

What is the value of time?

I apologize for a last blog this week. It's been a little busy and I was unable to really decide upon and topic and get it researched as much as I like. I've got one on the works about the importance of irrigation and am still working on the evolution of the music industry. Unfortunately neither one of those is ready. I also need to write a book review for my other blog, Grandfather's Wish. I just finished Time of the Twins, the first in the Dragon Lance Legends by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman. (sign) So much I'd like to do and I just need to find the time.

Time is an interesting thing though. There are 168 hours in a week. The average human is said to need 8 hours of sleep a night (even though that's not entirely true), so that's 56 hours for sleep. "The typical" work week is 40 hours a week, but often that's 8 hours of work with an hour lunch  so lets call it 45 hours. That leaves 67 hours for everything else. The average commute in the US is 25.4 minutes, with drastic changes based on region, so subtract 5 more hours (on average). Eating and drinking can be upwards of 67 minutes a day, not including when we are multitasking with food. So there goes another 7+ hours a week But wait, that doesn't take preparing food - which takes another 33 minutes at day on average (p. 27), and don't forget shopping. Take down another 5 hours we'll call it. The average bath/shower time is about 65 hours a year, so call it and hour + a week. And don't forget dressing, and all those other little things that just add up. It's not uncommon for people to get to the end of the day and ask, "Where did time go?" Why, into the past of course!

Time truly is precious. I got this quote from Board of Wisdom.com, but have seen it before elsewhere. I've changed it from the source to how I remember seeing it - cause I like it better.

To realize the value of ONE YEAR, ask a student who failed a grade.
To realize the value of ONE MONTH, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realize the value of ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realize the value of  ONE Day, ask a hourly wage worker with a family to feed.
To realize the value of ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realize the value of ONE MINUTE, ask a  person who just missed their flight.
To realize the value of ONE SECOND, ask someone who just avoided an accident.
To realize the value of One MILLISECOND, ask the person who won a silver medal at the Olympics.

My mother encouraged me watch a lecture given by Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He gave a lecture on time management and started it by showing a picture of the pancreatic cancer that was killing him as he stood there before the audience. I now encourage others to watch it if they are interested in learning about time management. Obviously I need to work on it myself.

Randy is also known for giving another lecture, titiled "the Last Lecture." I recommend that one as well.

Oh, and case you were wondering: time to turn an intended apology into a decent blog post on time management - 25 minutes.

The modern Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Working in education gives me a lot of opportunities to meet, talk with, and learn more about students. Over the last couple of years I have seen a real trend that is disturbing. One of my colleagues compared it to The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Like the odious potion in the book it can literally transform students from gentle, inspiring persons into hate filled, aggressive, belligerent alter-egos. It is considered the ultimate four letter word of academia and is the most infamous curriculum ever imposed upon students. It is math.

I have heard math referred to as "the bane of [a student's] existence," "impossible," "useless," "a waste of time," and "[a student's] worst subject." When talking about math or asking why they have to take it many students are rude, angry, upset, and demanding. I know of no other topic in academia that has such a negative stigma as math. I've seen cases when students would rather wait an hour to have an opportunity to complain to someone, try to work around the system, or rant to a person then perform a simple task (such as watching a 30 minute online presentation) in relation to their math requirement. I have seen people turn from Jekyll to Hyde because of math. I want to know why!

This is a conversation I've had with one of my coworkers several times. She helps keep me grounded because we have had different experiences, have opposing views, and have different perceptions on math and math education. With that said we do agree on a variety of things relating to math (how it might be improved, difficulties in the system, etc) but we do approach it from two very different starting positions. It was she that described her own experiences as Jekyll and Hyde and found herself puzzled by the fact. I won't try to recreate our conversations here, but I do want to express some of the musings that resulted from them. The overarching question that I want to know is: Why do people hate math so much?

Is it because math is difficult? Math is an abstract concept used to describe our real world. You don't see the number three in nature, the same way you don't see the letter A going for a walk. Just as letters are used to provide a visual component to our spoken language, math is used as a medium to express real world patterns and systems. There is plenty of debate on if numbers actually exist, or if math is humans attempting to explain the universe or is it a natural part of the universe we discover, but the bottom line is that it may not be a natural way to think for many people. It is not often intuitive to think in terms of x and y. And because it is difficult to see how the quadratic equation relates to anything you deal with in daily life, many people question it's practicality. Without a clear objective use of it people lose interest, don't remember it well, and generally struggle with learning it. Yet, many people do hard things all the time and continue doing them despite them being hard. Athletes train in rough conditions, computer techs debug code to get their programs working, musicians practice long hours, artist and writers struggle through blocks of creativity. People run marathons, hike mountains, fight wars, win noble prizes, discover stars, cure plagues, go to law school. Our society holds people who overcome difficulty in high honor. Couches tell players to push past pain. Therapists tell clients to work through their problems. And heroes of all kinds tell children to reach for the stars. Yet if the difficulty is math, people are prone to give up, give in, and accept the idea that "I can't do it." So, I think we can discount it being difficult as a reason why it is so hated. Most things are difficult and we get through just fine.

Maybe it is the"impractical" nature of mathematics? As I've described above, it is not a natural way for many people to think and because you will rarely ever see a situation that calls for a logarithmic function there is little use in remembering it, even for the test you have on Friday. However, a couple of years ago a law maker in Utah argued that a liberal arts degrees was a "degree to nowhere." And thinking back on your own education when have you ever used those facts you learned about the Civil War in high school or college history? When have you ever listed the romantic era composers or painters? Since when has world geography, to quote Fred son of Fanny sister to Ebenezer, "put a scrap of money in [your] pocket?" There are many other "impractical" topics out there. In fact, if you talk to enough people you will find that every topic is impractical in one way or another, yet people have studied them for years many times without complaining, and many times while complaining, but rarely with the vim and vigor of the utter detestation that people have for math. Now I've mentioned how it is the facts that are often impractical and I stand by it, but I firmly state that the skills students learn in the classes that I disparaged above are very important. Yet, math contains both skills and facts that are relevant to everyday life. From telling time to figuring out a tip you use small math facts and skills everyday. So, not only are people studying "impractical" topics all the time, but math is more practical than many others. As Adam Savage would say, I think this one is busted.

I've heard lots of students say that they've had negative experiences with math. Generally a good health (or rather unhealthy) dose of negativity will jade most people. This is one that I can't necessarily disagree with, but I can claim that it is not also the case, nor do I believe it can be the only cause. My own experience with math in junior high is not a positive one. I failed it in seventh grade and was required by my mother to lug a math text home and new an set of problems every day before I could do anything else. An entire summer of doing pre and beginning algebra before I could enjoy the nice weather outside or books and games inside. Also, for both my seventh and eight years my calculators broke early in the school year. Any advanced computations I had to work on on paper with pencil. I went through learning my basic algebra without technical assistance. Geometry  was the same until we got to sine/cosine/tangent. I didn't have a list of ratio tables, or I'm sure I would have had to do that by hand too. Despite this, I never hated math. I hated homework, but I had to do that for all of my classes. I didn't begin to really enjoy math and become an advocate for it until college, during which ironically I never had a math class, but my negative experiences in seventh and eight grades did not cause me to despise math. Now I fully acknowledge that my experience and me as a person is far different from everyone else. Again, I do feel that a sever or series of negative experiences this may cause people to hate math. But what is it can causes many students to have those negative experiences? As part of the Jekyll and Hyde transformation many students are not hesitant to complain about math instructors. Out of all of the instructors I'm told about, math teachers rank the highest in the number and extend of "bad teachers." Not that they are the only source of negative experiences, but they appear to be a big one. Let's look at them for a second.

I think it is very clear that math teachers have an effect on whether students enjoy math or hate it. Students that enjoy math often refer to a teacher that supported and helped them through difficult parts or "made math fun." Students that turn into Mr. Hyde at the mention of math often will complain about the quality of math teaching or refer to a particular instructor as being useless, unhelpful, bad, etc. I have to point out that many students are unwilling or do not want to claim responsibility for their grades which leads to statements like "the teacher failed me" or "he teacher was bad," but I don't want to dismiss teachers and instructors that are not good teachers. While there are students that do not understand that they are required to participate in the learning process there are also teachers that do not provide the support necessary to give students a fighting chance of learning the material. My wife, Angel, who coordinates math tutors at a branch campus of the university we work for felt that the lack of support from instructors is the biggest part. A supportive instructor can help students through difficult times, find practicality and creative means within math, and tends to provide more positive experiences than negative. Angel's own experience was negative and then positive. In sixth grade she was told that she would never succeed in math and to choose something that wouldn't require it. This simply hardened her resolve to prove that teacher wrong. In junior high she had an instructor that supported her in math and helped her learn it. Since then she has completed multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations which is the math base for a degree in mechanical engineering. She loves math, even though she's always had difficulty with it. Instructors have an undeniable effect on their students.

And this leads to what I ultimately believe is the reason that math is such a hated topic. We hate it because we have been taught to hate it. One of the criticisms I've heard of an education program I once worked for was that students who dislike math went into elementary education. Those students became teachers who then went on to teach math. Because they did not like it themselves they instilled that dislike into their students. Math was a chore for them, so it because a chore for the children. etc. Also, think about the perception that people who are good at math have. They are seen as nerd, geeks, or out of touch. There are very few positive perceptions of mathematicians. Anti-social, awkward, shy, naive, unpopular, etc. Who would want to be good at math when there are very few positive role models. Even the discussion of a student having excessive negative experiences in math is a classic example of psychological conditioning. To boot you have stereotypes associated with math - "women and minority populations are bad at math," "math is hard," "math is useless," etc. Ironically, the government is clamoring for more nerds. Industry is calling for more engineers, computer programmers, scientist,  mathematicians. From what I can see, society is both begging for and discouraging people who like math. Generally it's not the same people doing both, but both messages are getting across.

I do know of groups that are doing cool things with math and science. Numberphile, ViHart, Smarter Every Day, Veritasium, Sixty Symbols, Periodic Videos, Minute Physics, Purple Math, Khan Academy and many other discuss math and science (often with the math) and show some really cool things. I'm glad these folks are out that there are resources available to help students learn. I've watched some of their videos with my children (ages 5 and 3). I think the best way to end the hate (and thus increase the "nerds") is to teach that math is not bad. Yes, it can be hard but it can also be interesting, practical, and even (heaven forbid) fun. Math is a critical skill that develops our creative and critical thinking abilities and helps us make sense of abstract and concrete ideas. Stop the negative self talk. Stop the hate. Stop the blogger from harping on this again.