Old Book Reviews, Part Two: Blind Wachers of the Sky

This is the second of old book reviews I found in my archives.  First published in the SEPA Journal, (Southeastern Planetarium Association) it was written for an audience already familiar with the history of astronomy.  Still, that shouldn't take away from the original message of the piece, which is to READ THIS BOOK!  :)

Blind Watchers of the Sky -- The People and Ideas that Shaped Our View of the
Universe.
by Rocky Kolb
©1996
ISBN # 0-201-15496-X Pbk
Helix Books
$14.00
338 pages

 

Buy it at Amazon

Before I begin my review of this book, I feel I should -in the spirit of full disclosure-
admit that I have a strong bias in favor of the chosen subject matter and writing style.
There, now that that’s out of the way, the rest of what I have to say boils down to this:
READ THIS BOOK!  It really is a treasure, and should be the source of a great deal of
inspiration to all of us.

Like several other books in the last decade (The God Particle and Coming of Age in the
Milky Way come to mind) Mr. Kolb’s book takes us on a historical journey of science. In
some ways, the scope of that journey is smaller and more focused than is presented in the
other two books, but is also more warm and intimate, more human.

Blind Watchers of the Sky is divided into three parts:  The Solar System, The Galaxy, and
The Universe. Roughly chronological, the story of how we as a civilization have
expanded our understanding of the scope and workings of our universe starts with Tycho
Brahe and works up to today (or at least 1996).

If forced to pick, I would have to say that part one was my favorite. The four chapters
here concentrate on Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, respectively. Most of us are at
least somewhat familiar with the lives of these legends, but Mr. Kolb breathes life into
them as people. His relaxed writing style really soars here.  Especially nice is Mr. Kolb’s
tendency to put historical events in the context of modern times. (Imagine Tycho Brahe
having to deal with a congressional committee!)

Part two relates how we began to come to terms with the size of our surroundings, from
the Earth and the solar system, all the way to the farthest galaxies. (hint:  we know how
big the universe is because of a hole in the ground in Aswan.) It also has one of the best
recountings of the Shapley/Curtis debates on the nature of the spiral nebulae.

Part three takes us into the realm of the expanding universe. (“The expansion of the
universe is an expansion of space, not an expansion of galaxies into space” is now my
new mantra whenever my mind boggles.) Hubble, Einstein, Penzias, Wilson, and others
are covered here.  Like every other character in his narrative, Mr. Kolb truly fleshes them
out, makes them real.

Blind Watchers is intended for the lay reader, but should be fascinating to even the most
technical among us. The stories related within it’s pages are our stories, our common
heritage in the world of astronomy. It is a pleasant look back at the past, to see how far
we have come. Only with that understanding, can we appreciate how far we have yet to
go.

Old Book Reviews, Part One: Starry Messenger

I was going through some old files the other day, when I found some book reviews I had published in the Southeastern Planetarium Association (SEPA) Newsletter in the late 90's.  I thought they were fun, or at least something to pad my blog with, so without any more delay, here is the first of up to four.  

Starry Messenger:  Galileo Galilei
Created and Illustrated by Peter Sis
© 1996
Frances Foster Books
37 pages
$16.00

 

http://www.petersis.com/content/starry_messenger.html

While visiting Nashville, TN last year, Waylena McCully and I were fantasy shopping in,
where else, the local book stores. Walking that thin line between desire and sensibility is
always a risk, but we both managed to escape with our wallets non the worse for wear.
This was made all the more remarkable when you take into account the surprising find of
the year.

Waylena was browsing the children’s section when she happened upon a gem of a book.
Starry Messenger has the look and feel of a children’s book, but it’s subject matter is a
little heavier than most of the genre.

Drawn in first by its ornate and beautiful artwork, we sat and read the whole book right
there, mesmerized by each turn of the page.  Each page is divided into wonderful
drawings and two kinds of text.  Large, friendly fonts relate the basics of Galileo’s life
and his accomplishments.  Acting as a supplement to this, handwriting give’s details for
the more curious, but is not needed if reading the book to a child.  (More on that later.)

As we read the book there in the store, a passerby would have heard the following
exchange:  “You don’t think it will go into...”  “No way, it couldn’t...”  To the surprise of
both of us, it did. 

For a children’s book, Starry Messenger deals with the trial and conviction of Galileo
quite frankly and openly.  One of the passages in the book reads:  “Galileo was afraid. He
knew that people had suffered terrible torture and punishment for not following
tradition.” We were both quite impressed with the honesty.  However, I’m not sure that
all parents would feel the same way that we did.

The artwork is absolutely outstanding, and is by far the best part of the book.  Large,
woodcut type color illustrations range from the simply beautiful to downright frightening.
Each is superbly detailed, and will supply literally hours of enjoyment examining them.

Now over a year later, I have finally tracked down a copy of the book for very my own. I
highly recommend it for anyone interested in the history of astronomy and science.  It is
well worth the price for the pictures alone. (Have I mentioned how stunning they are?)

But as far as giving the book to a kid, I really don’t know.  To be honest, I would be
hesitant to read it to any child without clearing it with their parents.  That said, Starry
Messenger will be proudly displayed on my bookshelf.

On taxes, and how net worth is distributed in America

Not too long ago, my father sent me the following joke via e-mail.

Subj: U of Georgia explains the tax system in 3 minutes

No magic, no slight of hand, just a brief, simple example of the facts:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all
such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to
pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were
unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six
men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six
is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth
man and the sixth man would now also each end up being paid to drink
his beer. So,the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I
got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they
just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Well, I was having a day at the time, and really felt like ranting.  This was my opportunity.  As I haven't posted in a while, I figured I would share my response to the joke.  No, it's not funny, but I think it makes some good points about the necessity of our tax system being progressive.  Comments are, of course, welcome.

Well, that's cute and all, but it hardly explains the whole system. It's a bit more complex than that. Let's not forget that the tax code has to accomplish many things all at once, not the least of which is providing the services that all of us need. First and foremost, it must leave tax payers enough to live on, and considering how steep the income and total worth curves are, it can't be done without each person playing their part.

For example, in this (very simple minded) scenario set up in the original e-mail, if the tenth man decided to "opt out", there would be no roads for him to even travel on to find another bar, no police to protect him from all the drunk drivers out there drinking free beer, and no regulators to make sure the airplane he charters out of the country meets at least the minimum of safety requirements. (And on regulations, if you trust that corporations running on the profit motive will self regulate and not cut corners, then I refer you to work and safety conditions in 1900, or many products coming out of China and other countries.)

And even if they do make it out of the country, they will have to deal with much higher taxes (and better services) in much of Europe, or spend more money on graft, corruption, and private security in the third world. Good luck there.

In reality, incomes and net worth at the highest levels have risen so much that the tax code just hasn't kept up. There is a real need for several more tax brackets. By way of example, I point to the following two articles:

http://news.oxerjen.com/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/04/15/the-400-richest-americans-and-their-terrible-tax-burden/

The short version of these links shows the following: The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth more than the bottom 50% of us. While the over all percentage of taxes paid by this group has gone up slightly over the last 20 years, the percentage of income tax paid has gone down. (This group's wealth has risen so sharply that even with the lower percentage, they end up paying more actual cash.)

BTW: as of 2007, the median net worth of households in the U.S. is $120,300. (for those of you that have not taken stats in a while, that simply means that you line up each house hold's worth, from lowest to highest, and pick the middle one.) If we take the mean, or add up all the net worths and divide by the number of households, it jumps up to $556,300. The uber-rich really skew the numbers.

http://www.investingblog.org/archives/707/average-and-median-net-worth-data/

And what about you? Are you rich? Well, the median household income for the US (2009) was $49,777. Congratulations, if you made more than that (all members combined in your house) then you are in the richer half of the nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Okay, so maybe the top half doesn't make you rich. Does your household bring in $65K? You're in the top third. $100k? Top 17%. How about $250k? Now you're in the top 1.5% of US households. Consider yourself lucky. You were probably born into a white, middle class to upper middle class home, had good schools, and plenty of well off friends to network with.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/

The top federal tax bracket (2010) in the US is 35%. That kicks in at $373,650, both for joint filing and single earners, effecting about 1% of us. 

http://www.moneybluebook.com/2010-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/

I don't begrudge the uber-rich, or even the moderately well off their money. They earned it, absolutely. But we are all in this together, and the only way the system will work is if we all kick in what we can, when we can.

There is plenty of room for argument about our tax code, and it's more than time for us to have a national debate on this. But this is a complex subject, with many people more interested in protecting their own vast fortunes by twisting facts and manipulating emotions. The only way to come to a reasonable consensus is to be honest about the facts, figures, and desired outcomes.

It certainly doesn't help to spread simple metaphors that any collage professor, or even high school teacher, that I ever had would laugh out of the class room.

Album Review: Wilderness Heart by Black Mountain

Wilderness Heart

Wilderness Heart is the newest album by the Canadian rock band, Black Mountain, released in the U.S. tomorrow. It's a more focused and in many ways restrained follow up to their 2008 release, In The Future.

Black Mountain is a five piece band, drums, bass, keys and guitars. The guitar player (Stephen McBean) serves as one half of a singing team along with a female vocalist, and is the sole credited writer. Musically, the band wears their influences on their sleeves, giving a familiar yet new feel to most of their music. Vocally, the two singers often blend in beautiful and haunting harmonies, at other times take turns on solo lead. Amber Webber's voice is used quite movingly as a back up instrument, too.

This album just drips with late sixties, seveties, and early eighties rock. Echos of Deep Purple appear throughout, with hints of Dylan and Jefferson Airplane, although that last is an easy comparison due to the nature of Webber's voice. (That is not a bad thing!) Black Mountain also makes great use of Led Zeppelin's juxtaposing heavy and light sections. While much of it may sound derivative, to my ears they are taking up the mantle of music long past its popularity. Like Wolfmother, they are leaders in reviving the Rock form, and deserve to be much better known.

The opening track is one of the highlights. “The Hair Song” features a nice acoustic and electric guitar riff that falls into a groove and never climbs back out. In many ways, it feels like a Zep out take, or the best song that the Black Crows could ever record, if only they made good songs. It would make a great single, especially in 1974.

“Old Fangs” on the other hand is their first single. With a heavy bottom and rough edged organ riff, it sounds good, but doesn't quite feel right. Perhaps it's a little too simple and uninspired, especially in the verse sections. It feels like they are trying too hard to make a “Rock” song. With its early 80's, pre-hair band vibe, it's easy to picture it as the offspring of Deep Purple and Jefferson Starship. I haven't yet decided if that's a good thing or not, but it is my least favorite part of the record.

Acoustic guitars and wonderful harmonies dominate “Radiant Hearts”. A little Dylanesqe phrasing compliments the lyrics that don't quite want to fit in with more traditional rock styles. In some perverse way, it actually reminds me of some early Genesis songs, like “Carpet Crawlers” or even “Ripples”. It's mellow, but in a very intense way.

“Rollercoaster” opens up dramatically with a welcome heavy organ/synth riff, calming down into a quiet first verse. The second verse builds a basic rhythm, to just flat out rocking there after. This very solid song ends well, but ends too soon.

In fact, if I have any major complaints about Wilderness Heart, it's that none of the songs really stretch. Each song has a tight arraignment, quite well done and mostly tasteful. Black Mountain's last album had a good mix of shorter songs and some longer pieces, such as the epic 8 minutes of “Tyrants” and the spacey, moody “Bright Lights” at double that time. Here, the longest of the ten songs is 5:14, the shortest 3:52.

Wilderness Heart shows Black Mountain are growing as song writers and arrangers, but maybe a little less adventurous. Some of the songs even feel like they are trying to be more popular, instead of playing from the heart.

Case in point: “Let the Spirit Ride”. The first thought I had at the opening of the song was Judas Priest circa 1982, back when heavy metal was a sped up version of Deep Purple. The steady 4/4 thump snare on the drums, the guitar and bass playing 8^th note power chords with occasional whole notes tossed in. The guitar solo is like the rest of the song, high energy if a bit cliched. For just a moment during the organ solo, I thought I was listening to “Highway Star”.

On the vinyl version, “Buried By The Blues” opens up side two. This laid back song features wonderful harmonies, giving it a great moody atmosphere. Strumming acoustic chords are backed by long electric guitar notes and what I swore was a mellotron! I had assumed that the strings were a modern day synth recreating the mellotron sound until I checked the album sleeve. Nope, they actually use the damn thing, bless them! (The mellotron was a favorite of King Crimson, and used by the Beatles and the Moody Blues, too. It is a keyboard that triggers actual pieces of tape, usually with voices, strings, or flutes recorded on them. By all accounts, it was a pain to keep in tune, or even working properly when out on tour.)

Looking at my notes for “The Way To Gone”, I see I wrote the following: “I wish my band had wrote this – accessible rock, but w/ integrity!” It starts out with upbeat acoustic strumming and a shaker. It builds into a tight arraignment, with simple parts layered on top of each other, becoming quite dense. The guitar solo is short and sweet. Is it a perfect number? Maybe not, but it's close enough for Rock n' Roll.

The title track starts with a quick drum intro, followed by heavy riffs from the organ and guitar. Very Machine Head era Deep Purple again, but no complaints here. The shuffle rhythm feels like the shark swimming on the cover. “Wilderness Heart” features a nice little break with noodling guitar and heavy toms, followed by more mellotron, using the voices this time. This song is a microcosm of the album as a whole. It feels like a dangerous animal, but one that is caged and ultimately safe.

“The Space Of Your Mind” features more acoustic guitar, the vocals having a slight “Eve of Destruction” feel to them. Over all, it is a very sonically pleasing track.

The final track is “Sadie”. More acoustic guitar, picking this time, underscored by long deep bass notes. Amber's voice augments the lead vocals very nicely. This song is moody, not a rocker, but it does build up, almost forming a groove before fading out. It's a way to end the record, almost as if they knew someone would put the headphones on to listen to the album as they went to bed.

Overall Wilderness Heart is a very solid album. It features a sonic landscape much broader and brighter than In The Future. The song structures may not be pushing the envelope as much, the songs may be a bit more comfortable, but Black Mountain works that to their advantage.

Thougts on the Right on this day when Glenn Beck is holding his big DC rally

A friend of mine was using sarcasm today when talking about the Glenn Beck rally being held in Washington D.C. today, on the anniversary of Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech. This friend's sarcasm came in the form of a Facebook comment supporting the idea that Mr Beck's rally will be remembered for generations to come, and how he only speaks the truth, God talks through him, etc.  The following started out as my response to that, and then kind of just grew into another of my rants.

 --------------------------------
Maybe I've grown too cynical and militant in my middle age, but I am honestly beginning to think the public at large is too ignorant to understand sarcasm, satire and irony. I think Mr Beck's little rally today will be big news for a cycle or two. He may even try to keep it going in the public's mind through various means. But, in the end, he is a buffoon and a clown, lacking even the small amount of gravitas enjoyed by a Senator McCarthy.

One of the drawbacks of the modern communications era is that it is much easier for the backward thinkers, reactionaries, and just plain crazies to find an audience. In the end, though, those people are no more than a distraction away from the real fight. They, in a sense, set themselves up to be straw men.

The more we try to knock down the straw man, to argue against a false argument, we loose sight of what's actually happening behind them. As long as the right keeps us fighting against falsehoods, (death panels, Obama is BOTH a Nazi AND a socialist, mass kidnappings in Arizona, just to name recent examples) we miss our opportunities to set the agenda and promote our own ideals.

The right has learned that the more outrageous they make themselves, the more clownish they become, they can distract us enough to get their way.

My hope, my optimism, comes from the suspicion that they have gone, or are about to go, too far. The extreme right has been emboldened to come out of the woodwork, not just in the entertainment / distraction industries, but even with candidates for congress. The same modern communications era will make it much easier for every one to see just how far out there these people are.

People suck: or, Why we need a Constitution

Recently there has been some controversies (the mosque and cultural center in NYC and the gay marriage issues in California) that have me thinking about the big picture in our nation.  The following started out as a short reply to a Facebook post.  As it grew, I decided it should stand alone.

--------------------------------

It's times like these that we can see people's real values at work.  Individuals can and do have inherently contradictory values all the time.  These values, however, cannot be weighted equally. It's one thing to value freedom of religion and freedom of expression in an homogeneous environment, but quite another in a heterogeneous one, if you also have strong xenophobic tendencies.  (I'll define xenophobic as anything that compels one to treat the "other" in a negative way, regardless of perceived motives.)

Now, some people will believe that loyalty to their religion is a higher calling than loyalty to a system of government.  Some will value money and profit higher still.  Some value a sense of security over our written system of government.  And some value a personal freedoms highest.

Unless one wants chaos, some system of rules are needed.  These rules should do as much as possible to allow the most freedom to the largest number of people possible.  This is precisely what our Constitution does.

Why did the framers of the Constitution do this?  Why let just anybody speak his or her mind?  Why let everyone choose to follow their own religions?  Why not put everything up to a majority rule vote?  They did this because they knew something that many of us have forgotten:  people suck.

Sure, governments can suck from time to time, but all governments are, are people. (At least until the day the robotic overlords come.)  They knew that, given a chance, people would start to see their own views as being the views that everybody should have.  The only problem with that is, no view is universally held.  Maybe you hate the idea of homosexuality, or feel that Islam is a dangerous cult that has to be stopped.  That's fine if you feel that way.  I encourage you to use your constitutionally protected freedoms to try to convince people you are right.  Maybe you'll do a great job at it, and pretty soon no one wants to be gay or Islamic. 

But now you want to pass a LAW that says you cannot marry a person of the same sex, or that you cannot build a place of worship and community center.  The Constitution disagrees.  Why?  Because you suck!  (I'll define sucking as being too short sighted to understand what is good for you and yours in the long run.)

That's right, suckers.  You've just opened a door that allows the tyranny of the majority to dictate freedoms.  Next thing you know, the self righteous suck even more than you do, and go after something else.  Maybe next on the chopping block are Mormons.  After all, they're not "real" Christians.  Probably the Catholics and Jews next.  Then the infighting can begin.  Who knows where the fashions will go next.  Maybe something you care about will be looked down upon.  What's left to protect you?  Not the Constitution.  You just allowed your short sightedness to ruin it for everybody.

The trend in this country is to ensure the freedoms expressed in the Constitution expand to more and more groups of people.  As the public conscience grows, we come to realize that some people have been left out.  Women, "racial" minorities, and now the LGBTers.    White Christians are feeling marginalized.  They are feeling that their freedoms are being taken away.   They aren't really.  It's just that others are enjoying the same freedoms, and they aren't the only players in town anymore.

Tony Levin

The other day I was posting videos to my Facebook page, a sort of romp down memory lane of the music I was listening to between the ages of 10-13, or there about. I ran across this video:



I mean, wow! At first, I thought it was Cheap Trick covering the song, but it turns out to be a much more interesting story. From what I can gather, this was the original recording of "I'm Losing You". John had hired the guitar player and drummer from Cheap Trick to play the song, and Tony Levin was the session player he was using for the album anyway. According to some sources, Yoko thought it was too "edgy", and wanted John to rerecord it with just the session players. Whether it was Yoko, John, or the producer that pushed for it, that's exactly what happened. This version of the song was unheard until Lennon's box set was released in '99. At that time, the original players got together to make the video.

Now, I've known that TL played bass on Double Fantasy for years. He's one of my favorite bass players. He's been a member of King Crimson and has played on almost every Peter Gabriel album and tour. In addition to bass, he plays the Chapman Stick and invented the "Funk Fingers", extensions worn on the fingers used to strike the bass strings harder, producing a slapping sound.

After doing some research, though, I found out that he's played on over 500 albums, and he's played for almost EVERYBODY!

I though it would be fun to explore his career as best as I can with You Tube videos, and I would like to share what I've discovered.

The 70's

It seems that Tony Levin's recording career started in the early 70's. I found lots of Jazz stuff that he worked on, including several albums with Gap Mangione. Steve Gadd is on drums.



In 1974, he even played with the Jazz Drum God, Buddy Rich!



It wasn't too long before he was playing Rock with some pretty heavy hitters. Much to my surprise, I found out that he was the bass player on several Alice Cooper albums, starting with his first solo record, Welcome to My Nightmare, and also on Lou Reed's Berlin.





It was sometime around here that Tony met producer Bob Ezrin, working with him on the Alice Cooper album and the Berlin album by Lou Reed. It was through Ezrin that Tony first hooked up with Peter Gabriel.



Tony has toured with PG ever since.



And one more of TL's work with PG:




I believe it was around this time that Tony first hooked up with Robert Fripp, the at the time former guitar player and leader of King Crimson. Fripp was working on his solo album, and working closely with PG on several tracks, and even producing Gabriel's second album. This is from Fripp's solo album, Exposure:





Ever a session player, Levin was very busy throughout the 1970's. Just a small example of this, he played on Paul Simon's Still Crazy After All These Years in '75 and One Trick Pony in '80. Levin also toured with Simon. I found this clip from '82. Steve Gadd is on drums, who, as mentioned earlier, is paired often with Levin.



The 80's

When Robert Fripp decided to put a new band together, he called upon Tony Levin once again. The band was to be called Discipline, but before the sessions were over, it was renamed as the new King Crimson. Crimson recorded three albums between '81 and 84. I think this was the first time that Tony played with the drummer Bill Bruford, with whom he would play on several projects to come.



Later in the 80's, TL would appear on Pink Floyd's Momentary Lapse of Reason, and be reunited with Bruford in the classic Yes lineup, Anderson Bruford Wakeman and Howe.





In 1988, Levin appeared on stage for a tribute to Les Paul along with Eddie Van Halen and Jan Hammer. The video says that the drummer is Bill Bruford, but I can't confirm that, and it sure doesn't look or sound like him to me.



The 90's

Tony Levin seems to have kept very busy in the 90's, not only as a session player, but in a reunited King Crimson and as part of many side projects.

Crimson returned to the studio and stage after an elven year absence. I was lucky enough to catch three of their concerts during this period.



By then, Levin and Bruford had worked together quite a bit, and it shows here:



In '97, Levin joined up with some members of Dream Theater to form Liquid Tension Experiment. I found a few videos, recorded in the 2000's, I think. Here, you can clearly see Levin playing the Chapman Stick, a 10 stringed instrument, I believe.



More Liquid Tension Experiment. As far as I can tell, the band does not use vocals, and it quit adventurous. I'm also guessing, LOUD!



Also in '97, Levin joined with drummer Terry Bozzio and guitarist Steve Stevens to form Bozzio Levin Stevens. They had quite a different sound:



A year later, Tony would team up with Bill Burford yet again, with yet quite a new sound:



2000's

In the new century, Levin continued to work as a session player, work on side projects, and produce solo work.

One interesting sounding project was when he joined up with Goatika. I couldn't find much on them, but I think they are some sort of Russian electronica music collective. Whatever they are, this example of their work with TL is outstanding:



The Tony Levin Band features Jerry Marotta on drums, Jesse Gress, Larry Fast and his brother, Pete Levin. Here they do their version of the King Crimson song, Elephant Talk:



I'll end with this quirky video called Speedbump:



I hope you enjoyed this exploration of one of my favorite musicians. I learned a lot about Tony Levin that I didn't know researching for this post. I've hardly scratched the surface of this amazing bassist's career! For more information, check out www.tonylevin.com, where you can see a complete discography.