I thought it was interesting and therefore I should share it with you. Some of you might already know about this. A new metric has been introduced in cricket called the pressure index (PI). I came across this index in the rediff.com page while looking at the scores for the first World Cup 2007 match between WI vs Pak.
I was curious to know what it meant. I clicked on it and it opened up the pressure index for the Pakistan team as 134/200. Then it also gave me the link to the article about the index. It seems like a good index to see where the match is tilted at any given moment. Index ranges from 0-200. 0 would mean near absolute victory and 200 near absolute loss. It is calculated only when the second team comes into bat. So if a chasing team’s PI is 125 then conversely the defending team’s PI is 75. Professor Rajeeva L Karandikar, the well-known statistician and psephologist, has developed the mathematical theory of the pressure index. Professor M J Manohar Rao, who also developed the Rediff Test and ODI Rankings and Rediff's Most Valuable ODI Player Index, originally conceived the idea of a pressure index. Take a look at the following articles.
http://www.rediff.com/wc2007/2007/mar/08pressure.htm
http://www.rediff.com/wc2007/2007/mar/13pressure.htm
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Poker Play
I have been thinking of writing about poker for quite sometime now. Until 3 months back I did not even know what type of game it was and now I play almost all weekends with my friends (thanks to one of my friends who persevered in convincing us all to play). It is still at a stage where there is no real money involved (it could be a completely different game when the real money is involved, also it varies with stakes). To make it a little more serious and interesting for everyone to play, we have started to have a prize for the winner for each game and also to keep track of the scores for each game and finally decide on the most consistent player with max points at the end of our small little “tournament”.
A very big reason for me to get interested in poker is that I saw a link to poker strategies in a Game Theory (one of my favorite subjects) web page. The basic rules of the game are quite simple. Everyone gets 2 cards dealt face down and then the first round of betting starts. When everyone has matched the highest bet, the dealer turns 3 cards face up (called the flop) and the second round of betting starts. When the betting is over the dealer opens the 4th card face up (called the turn or fourth street). 3rd round of betting starts and so on and the dealer opens the 5th card face up (called the river) and then the final round of betting starts. At the end of this round who ever stays in the game has to show (called showdown) their cards and the best hand wins. If there is only one person left (rest all others folded) in the last round that person takes the whole pot (money that has been bet by everyone) and does not need to show his/her cards. All these 5 face up cards are called the community cards. At any stage of the game a player can do one of the 3 things, Fold (throwing the hand away), Bet or Raise. Objective for a player is to make the best hand possible (as per the hierarchy of hands) by using any 5 cards (2 cards from the hand also called hole cards and 5 community cards). Books talk about top 10 hole cards and some mediocre playable cards.
Poker is quite interesting in the sense that one does not know what the other person is having. This is a perfect game of incomplete information. One has to make an intelligent guess as to what the other person might have by the other person’s gestures and betting behavior. This is where the intricacy comes in, the way someone checks, bets or raises. Bluffing is a major strategy in this game where a player acts as if s/he has a good hand. Dealer button keeps moving on the table. Position of a player matters a lot. Person having the dealer button plays last and has the advantage of observing others in the game before playing himself/herself. If you are the first one to decide whether to bet or not, another strategy that is very handy is to check and see how other people are reacting. If anyone bets after you have checked, then you would have to at least match the bet to stay in that round. This game replicates many real life situations where we are pitted against others and have to make a reasonable guess about others and make the best out of the given situation.
An article from Financial Times
http://www.timharford.com/favourites/pokermachine.htm
A very big reason for me to get interested in poker is that I saw a link to poker strategies in a Game Theory (one of my favorite subjects) web page. The basic rules of the game are quite simple. Everyone gets 2 cards dealt face down and then the first round of betting starts. When everyone has matched the highest bet, the dealer turns 3 cards face up (called the flop) and the second round of betting starts. When the betting is over the dealer opens the 4th card face up (called the turn or fourth street). 3rd round of betting starts and so on and the dealer opens the 5th card face up (called the river) and then the final round of betting starts. At the end of this round who ever stays in the game has to show (called showdown) their cards and the best hand wins. If there is only one person left (rest all others folded) in the last round that person takes the whole pot (money that has been bet by everyone) and does not need to show his/her cards. All these 5 face up cards are called the community cards. At any stage of the game a player can do one of the 3 things, Fold (throwing the hand away), Bet or Raise. Objective for a player is to make the best hand possible (as per the hierarchy of hands) by using any 5 cards (2 cards from the hand also called hole cards and 5 community cards). Books talk about top 10 hole cards and some mediocre playable cards.
Poker is quite interesting in the sense that one does not know what the other person is having. This is a perfect game of incomplete information. One has to make an intelligent guess as to what the other person might have by the other person’s gestures and betting behavior. This is where the intricacy comes in, the way someone checks, bets or raises. Bluffing is a major strategy in this game where a player acts as if s/he has a good hand. Dealer button keeps moving on the table. Position of a player matters a lot. Person having the dealer button plays last and has the advantage of observing others in the game before playing himself/herself. If you are the first one to decide whether to bet or not, another strategy that is very handy is to check and see how other people are reacting. If anyone bets after you have checked, then you would have to at least match the bet to stay in that round. This game replicates many real life situations where we are pitted against others and have to make a reasonable guess about others and make the best out of the given situation.
An article from Financial Times
http://www.timharford.com/favourites/pokermachine.htm
Friday, March 09, 2007
Mathematical Diversions
1) Two archaelogists, English and a French man come across a rock which has four letters carved on it. The english man thinks its an english word and the french thinks its a french word the clue for the word are as follows....
a) each alphabet has a number associated with it....for eg:a=1, b=2, c=3........ z=26.....
b) the sum of the 4 nums equals 20
c) the sum of any 3 nums of these 4 numbers, divided by the fourth one leaves a remainder zero....eg: if abcd is the word.....then a+b+c/d ,b+c+d/a ,c+d+a/b, d+a+b/c all leave a remainder zero.
Find the 4 letters (if possible the English word) with the help of the above clues...
a) each alphabet has a number associated with it....for eg:a=1, b=2, c=3........ z=26.....
b) the sum of the 4 nums equals 20
c) the sum of any 3 nums of these 4 numbers, divided by the fourth one leaves a remainder zero....eg: if abcd is the word.....then a+b+c/d ,b+c+d/a ,c+d+a/b, d+a+b/c all leave a remainder zero.
Find the 4 letters (if possible the English word) with the help of the above clues...
Billionaires Club
I was reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6433367.stm article in BBC about India topping the Asian billionaire list with 36 billionaires. 2nd in line is Japan with 24. I could not help but feel proud about this achievement. I think it definitely gives you a kick to see fellow Indians at the top (even though people like Lakshmi Mittal made it big outside India). It might provide the drive for us in our own lives to be like them. But I also could not help think about all those people who are still below the poverty line in India (of course it is much worse in some other countries around the world mainly sub Saharan Africa).
On one side India is booming and on the other it is still entrenched in all types of orthodoxies and superstitions. In fact it is in a way promoting these things through the television channels. In the name of entertainment and culture, India has only Bollywood (Mumbai Film Industry) to boast about. Even the news channels now discuss at length about movies and TV serials and its famous personalities. India produces enough food to feed everyone but has enough bureaucracy to fritter it away. It has awesome tourist places but has no roads to approach them. There is no doubt in my mind that India is full of contradictions.
Where is the India of thinkers, intellectuals, statesman, engineers and mathematicians? There is no point just basking in the past glory. President Abdul Kalam has high hopes from a country of 1 billion people. India has to provide the platform for everyone and should recognize the latent talent and should groom it properly at the right time and not just take the credit when someone makes it big own his or her own. I hope our President’s dream of India 2020 comes true where it has a well-rounded development, which does not leave anyone behind where everyone has avenues to become a billionaire where everyone dreams big. I would like to sign off with that hope.
On one side India is booming and on the other it is still entrenched in all types of orthodoxies and superstitions. In fact it is in a way promoting these things through the television channels. In the name of entertainment and culture, India has only Bollywood (Mumbai Film Industry) to boast about. Even the news channels now discuss at length about movies and TV serials and its famous personalities. India produces enough food to feed everyone but has enough bureaucracy to fritter it away. It has awesome tourist places but has no roads to approach them. There is no doubt in my mind that India is full of contradictions.
Where is the India of thinkers, intellectuals, statesman, engineers and mathematicians? There is no point just basking in the past glory. President Abdul Kalam has high hopes from a country of 1 billion people. India has to provide the platform for everyone and should recognize the latent talent and should groom it properly at the right time and not just take the credit when someone makes it big own his or her own. I hope our President’s dream of India 2020 comes true where it has a well-rounded development, which does not leave anyone behind where everyone has avenues to become a billionaire where everyone dreams big. I would like to sign off with that hope.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Cricket Corner
1) BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/other_international/india/6376707.stm
actually predicts that there is a good chance of India winning the world cup (author is not an Indian). Being an Indian I just hope that it comes true. I seriously feel that Tendulkar deserves a world cup trophy to his credit and India owes him one. This might well be Tendulkar's last world cup appearance.
Australia and South Africa are going to be tough teams to beat but so was the case in 1983 (India one the world cup). West Indies was invincible at that time. Perhaps many people wrote of India in that world cup when India slumped to 17/5 and then Kapil walked in to bat with Kirmani and scored 175 (it is a pity that there is no recording of this match) .
The web site talks about the top 8 teams their strengths and weaknesses/injuries. India seems, at this moment, to be a very well balanced team(at least on paper). If only they click this time. Pitches in West Indies are not going to be fast. It might help the slower bowlers and India has plenty of them (even the fast bowlers are at max slow medium according to international standards !!!). Tendulkar might be very handy with the ball in the world cup. Ganguly has found his touch hope Sehwag does the same.
May the best team win.
2) Discussion on Super 8
This is seriously ridiculous..ICC has already predicted the results of round one...and have also put it in their official website..Rediff.com - Super 8s : India vs Pakistan, April 15
3) Sportstar Starspeak
I was reading this in the Starspeak column of Sportstar where veteran Indian players have put their bets on different teams. One thing that caught my eye was the views of 3 former Indian cricketers (Srikanth, Maninder Singh, Kirti Azad) who were not in favor of having the minnows for the world cup stating the following reasons that:
it might devalue the game in the initial stages of the world cup
the world cup goes on for too long
it tends to affect the fitness of the players
if it rains it might hurt the better teams
I myself am a little confused about which side to take in this debate but I tend to incline towards allowing the minnows in the world cup. My point is that if the teams have cleared the criteria for the world cup then what is the problem in having them. Granted that the initial stages of the world cup would be a little boring but this is a way for the weaker teams to experience the adrenaline rush. Even Soccer world cup has strong and weak teams. How much ever you play international cricket, world cup has it own charm and its own pressure.
Also a consistent thing, which pretty much every one is saying, is that India might have a good chance (given all other things) at the world cup because the pitches in West Indies are pretty much like the Indian subcontinent. Out of this, one funny thing I read was Maninder Singh actually giving England (Rank: 7) and New Zealand (Rank: 3) a go at the cup just because they have 2 good spinners in each team. Has he forgotten that even India (Rank: 5) has 2 great spinners in Kumble and Harbhajan (270 and 147 ODIs resp). New Zealand’s Jeetan Patel is just 17 ODIs old. England’s Panesar is just 9 ODIs old.
4)Duckworth-Lewis method of adjusting targeted scores
http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/rules/d-l_method.pdf
http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/rules/d-l_table.pdf
actually predicts that there is a good chance of India winning the world cup (author is not an Indian). Being an Indian I just hope that it comes true. I seriously feel that Tendulkar deserves a world cup trophy to his credit and India owes him one. This might well be Tendulkar's last world cup appearance.
Australia and South Africa are going to be tough teams to beat but so was the case in 1983 (India one the world cup). West Indies was invincible at that time. Perhaps many people wrote of India in that world cup when India slumped to 17/5 and then Kapil walked in to bat with Kirmani and scored 175 (it is a pity that there is no recording of this match) .
The web site talks about the top 8 teams their strengths and weaknesses/injuries. India seems, at this moment, to be a very well balanced team(at least on paper). If only they click this time. Pitches in West Indies are not going to be fast. It might help the slower bowlers and India has plenty of them (even the fast bowlers are at max slow medium according to international standards !!!). Tendulkar might be very handy with the ball in the world cup. Ganguly has found his touch hope Sehwag does the same.
May the best team win.
2) Discussion on Super 8
This is seriously ridiculous..ICC has already predicted the results of round one...and have also put it in their official website..Rediff.com - Super 8s : India vs Pakistan, April 15
3) Sportstar Starspeak
I was reading this in the Starspeak column of Sportstar where veteran Indian players have put their bets on different teams. One thing that caught my eye was the views of 3 former Indian cricketers (Srikanth, Maninder Singh, Kirti Azad) who were not in favor of having the minnows for the world cup stating the following reasons that:
it might devalue the game in the initial stages of the world cup
the world cup goes on for too long
it tends to affect the fitness of the players
if it rains it might hurt the better teams
I myself am a little confused about which side to take in this debate but I tend to incline towards allowing the minnows in the world cup. My point is that if the teams have cleared the criteria for the world cup then what is the problem in having them. Granted that the initial stages of the world cup would be a little boring but this is a way for the weaker teams to experience the adrenaline rush. Even Soccer world cup has strong and weak teams. How much ever you play international cricket, world cup has it own charm and its own pressure.
Also a consistent thing, which pretty much every one is saying, is that India might have a good chance (given all other things) at the world cup because the pitches in West Indies are pretty much like the Indian subcontinent. Out of this, one funny thing I read was Maninder Singh actually giving England (Rank: 7) and New Zealand (Rank: 3) a go at the cup just because they have 2 good spinners in each team. Has he forgotten that even India (Rank: 5) has 2 great spinners in Kumble and Harbhajan (270 and 147 ODIs resp). New Zealand’s Jeetan Patel is just 17 ODIs old. England’s Panesar is just 9 ODIs old.
4)Duckworth-Lewis method of adjusting targeted scores
http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/rules/d-l_method.pdf
http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/rules/d-l_table.pdf
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Sourav Ganguly back with a bang
I am also back to my blog with Ganguly back in the team. He once again proved his critics wrong. It is exactly one year since I last wrote about Sourav Ganguly in my blog. I felt bad at that time the way he was removed from the team. I am very happy to see our very own dada back on the field caressing the ball through the cover. It is always a delight to watch Ganguly play his shots through the off side.
He has class and he bounced back (India's pathetic past performance might also have been a factor for his inclusion) as he did after he was dropped from the squad in 1992. Granted that he had age on his side then, but he had maturity and records on his side now. He played so well that he walked away with the man of the series award for the Ind-SL series on his return to the Indian team.
Ganguly is a changed man these days. On one hand where he is still in fine touch on the other he is also taking more singles and rotating the strike and is also very agile on the field. May be the removal from the team was a blessing in disguise so that he could rejuvinate himself. I am happy that Ganguly took everything in his stride and walked back into the team like a true prince of Calcutta (I guess Geoffrey Boycott would be very happy to see him back). I agree that talent and only talent should be respected and no one should start taking their slot in the team for granted, but I thought that people played politics in Ganguly's removal and were harsh on him.
I hope India performs well in the upcoming 2007 world cup and Ganguly makes merry at the crease. 3 cheers for dada..
He has class and he bounced back (India's pathetic past performance might also have been a factor for his inclusion) as he did after he was dropped from the squad in 1992. Granted that he had age on his side then, but he had maturity and records on his side now. He played so well that he walked away with the man of the series award for the Ind-SL series on his return to the Indian team.
Ganguly is a changed man these days. On one hand where he is still in fine touch on the other he is also taking more singles and rotating the strike and is also very agile on the field. May be the removal from the team was a blessing in disguise so that he could rejuvinate himself. I am happy that Ganguly took everything in his stride and walked back into the team like a true prince of Calcutta (I guess Geoffrey Boycott would be very happy to see him back). I agree that talent and only talent should be respected and no one should start taking their slot in the team for granted, but I thought that people played politics in Ganguly's removal and were harsh on him.
I hope India performs well in the upcoming 2007 world cup and Ganguly makes merry at the crease. 3 cheers for dada..
Thursday, November 02, 2006
A Legend Named Amitabh Bachchan
I have often wondered who Amitabh Bachchan is? Is he an actor, son of one of the greatest poet Dr. Harivanshrai Bachchan, or a brand ambassador for UN. He still remains an enigma to me. I am sure everything that could have been written has already been written about him. This is just a small little tribute from a great fan of his.
So what is it that keeps him going? It is very easy to be in the limelight and command respect for some period of time, but to be humble after you have reached the pinnacle of success is really a commendable job. I am in awe of his personality and every time I see him speak I am just dumbstruck and am bowled over by his modesty. I have never got an opportunity to see or meet him in person. I think even if I get that chance I would juggle for words and my mouth would go dry.
I remember my childhood days when there used to be a TV program on film music (Chitrahar) which was aired once a week on Wednesdays and then later after a few years, twice a week on Wednesdays and Fridays. People used to eagerly wait for those 30 minutes of musical extravaganza unlike now where you have same music playing in all the channels.
I literally used to pray to god that there should be at least one Amitabh song and if by chance my wish was granted, I would pay my obeisance in front of god. In fact my relatives and friends used to make fun of me for doing all this (about which they still mention). With age as I matured I stopped doing all that childish stuff but the respect for him and stature of him in my eyes just kept growing.
He carries himself so well, never says anything bad about anyone. He is always praise for everyone. Command over his language Hindi or English is just amazing. We rarely ever get to see such demeanor in the glamor world. As a true great fan I have enjoyed and appreciated his great acting and also criticized him for his bad ones. For me Amitabh Bachchan is not only a great actor but a great human being. There are, have been and will be great actors even greater than Amitabh Bachchan but there will be one and only one Amitabh Bachchan.
So what is it that keeps him going? It is very easy to be in the limelight and command respect for some period of time, but to be humble after you have reached the pinnacle of success is really a commendable job. I am in awe of his personality and every time I see him speak I am just dumbstruck and am bowled over by his modesty. I have never got an opportunity to see or meet him in person. I think even if I get that chance I would juggle for words and my mouth would go dry.
I remember my childhood days when there used to be a TV program on film music (Chitrahar) which was aired once a week on Wednesdays and then later after a few years, twice a week on Wednesdays and Fridays. People used to eagerly wait for those 30 minutes of musical extravaganza unlike now where you have same music playing in all the channels.
I literally used to pray to god that there should be at least one Amitabh song and if by chance my wish was granted, I would pay my obeisance in front of god. In fact my relatives and friends used to make fun of me for doing all this (about which they still mention). With age as I matured I stopped doing all that childish stuff but the respect for him and stature of him in my eyes just kept growing.
He carries himself so well, never says anything bad about anyone. He is always praise for everyone. Command over his language Hindi or English is just amazing. We rarely ever get to see such demeanor in the glamor world. As a true great fan I have enjoyed and appreciated his great acting and also criticized him for his bad ones. For me Amitabh Bachchan is not only a great actor but a great human being. There are, have been and will be great actors even greater than Amitabh Bachchan but there will be one and only one Amitabh Bachchan.
Friday, May 05, 2006
paise ka aakarshan
paisa bhi kaisa chumbak hai sabko apni aor aakarshit karta
chota bada gareeb ameer sab ko apne aagosh mein bharta
barabari ka hai ye ek behtareen zariya
jitna ho jiske paas utna hi badhiya
aisi trishna jo kabhi na bhujhe
jiski bujhe uski antim shayya saje
aisa akarshan ki manushya lagaye nirantar iske chakkar
na hota ye suraj to manushya rehta mrit, jeevit reh kar
hai ye atoot bandhan, chahe ek tarfa hi sahi
hai sachcha pyar yehi jisme dhokha hi nahi
jitna zyaada jiske paas utna hi use aur mile
utna hi wo aur phale uski bagiya aur khile
iski bhashaa har jagah smaan
amrika,britan ya hindustan
bhin bhin vastron mein dikhti
apne aakar se sabko lubhati
phat jaaye to jod ke chale
bheeg jaye phir bhi na gale
jhuriyon se bhi na umr dhale
kisi ko bhi na kabhi ye khale
janm se mrityu tak hai jiski zaroorat
ho jiske paas lage wohi khoobsoorat
hai ye manushya ki hi paidaish
par hai kaise nahi iski koi khwahish
chota bada gareeb ameer sab ko apne aagosh mein bharta
barabari ka hai ye ek behtareen zariya
jitna ho jiske paas utna hi badhiya
aisi trishna jo kabhi na bhujhe
jiski bujhe uski antim shayya saje
aisa akarshan ki manushya lagaye nirantar iske chakkar
na hota ye suraj to manushya rehta mrit, jeevit reh kar
hai ye atoot bandhan, chahe ek tarfa hi sahi
hai sachcha pyar yehi jisme dhokha hi nahi
jitna zyaada jiske paas utna hi use aur mile
utna hi wo aur phale uski bagiya aur khile
iski bhashaa har jagah smaan
amrika,britan ya hindustan
bhin bhin vastron mein dikhti
apne aakar se sabko lubhati
phat jaaye to jod ke chale
bheeg jaye phir bhi na gale
jhuriyon se bhi na umr dhale
kisi ko bhi na kabhi ye khale
janm se mrityu tak hai jiski zaroorat
ho jiske paas lage wohi khoobsoorat
hai ye manushya ki hi paidaish
par hai kaise nahi iski koi khwahish
Not just cricket
Yes, it was exactly what the title suggests "Not just cricket". There is this program called "Not just cricket". The hosts were Maninee Mishra and I donot remember the male anchor's name and the panel members were Mohinder Amarnath and Ajay Jadeja & a person immitating Navjot Singh Sidhu.
I think I watched the program for 30 mins or so and they were discussing about the Eurasia cup finals cricket match between India A - Pak A. The whole time it was the male anchor asking all the questions (ofcourse many a times such discussion just talks about the same issues again and again but that is besides the point) not once did I see Maninee Mishra ask a question and moreover I thought she was wearing something "inappropriate" if I might say so. Mandira Bedi was criticized by the media in the past for a similar portrayal. Not that I am personally offended or anything. Why do we need two people to sit there, when one of them just sits quietly not asking or saying anything. Do we really need a glamour content in everything we do. I can still understand had she asked any questions, but this clearly seemed to me that she was there just sitting like a doll just for the glamour content of the show.
Talking about the other person who dressed like Sidhu and tried to immitate and basically make fun of Sidhu, I thought that was also uncalled for. I can understand these things if it is a comedy show or something. But when you call players who have played at the international level and are discussing about cricket why on earth do we want to make it all look funny. One time atleast, when this guy tried to immitate Sidhu the camera had a close shot and it focussed on Mohinder Amarnath's expression and it clearly showed that it was cheap or he was not interested.
I seriously think, where we are heading towards regarding the quality of programs that we produce and show on our TVs. In the garb of openness and freedom of expression we have deteriorated from bad to worse. I think the sanity would prevail and we would be able to produce good quality programs.
I think I watched the program for 30 mins or so and they were discussing about the Eurasia cup finals cricket match between India A - Pak A. The whole time it was the male anchor asking all the questions (ofcourse many a times such discussion just talks about the same issues again and again but that is besides the point) not once did I see Maninee Mishra ask a question and moreover I thought she was wearing something "inappropriate" if I might say so. Mandira Bedi was criticized by the media in the past for a similar portrayal. Not that I am personally offended or anything. Why do we need two people to sit there, when one of them just sits quietly not asking or saying anything. Do we really need a glamour content in everything we do. I can still understand had she asked any questions, but this clearly seemed to me that she was there just sitting like a doll just for the glamour content of the show.
Talking about the other person who dressed like Sidhu and tried to immitate and basically make fun of Sidhu, I thought that was also uncalled for. I can understand these things if it is a comedy show or something. But when you call players who have played at the international level and are discussing about cricket why on earth do we want to make it all look funny. One time atleast, when this guy tried to immitate Sidhu the camera had a close shot and it focussed on Mohinder Amarnath's expression and it clearly showed that it was cheap or he was not interested.
I seriously think, where we are heading towards regarding the quality of programs that we produce and show on our TVs. In the garb of openness and freedom of expression we have deteriorated from bad to worse. I think the sanity would prevail and we would be able to produce good quality programs.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Democracy, Meritocracy or Selective Democracy
India has always been democratic from time immemorial. It is not surprising that our leaders of independent India chose this path and till this date have not deviated from it except for a very small time period during the emergency. I completely agree that the way our democracy functions is not perfect. But it is definitely more desirable than other despotic governments where everyone's freedom is curtailed. But is democracy the right thing in every aspect of life.
I am specially interested in discussing about people playing a major role in selecting someone in art or music talent competition. Is it fair to ask people to judge in the field of arts and music? Are people really equipped to make such decisions? I agree that ultimately it is the public that is going to listen to the songs by the one they choose so why not give them the opportunity to choose their singer. There are technicalities and nuances in music which not everyone understands. I can understand when the contest is very tight the audience vote could go either ways. But when one participant sings far better than the other, then one has to be tone deaf to vote that person out. Moreover one is not restricted to vote just once for a contestant. It is very subjective, I agree, about what one likes or dislikes. Elimination should be a gradual process in any competition. My sentiments were actually reflected in one of the episodes of Indian Idol competition when judges walked out because a good singer was voted out compared to the other singer and said that they had controlled themselves for very long but this was the limit.
We know what type of MP/MLAs get elected to the parliament and keep getting elected time and again. Illiterate and poor have been exploited for years in India for different reasons. Can people really make any informed decisions given that there is lack of basic awareness? While I am writing I have mixed feelings about it. I have been following this competition for quite sometime now and episode after episode I notice that good participants get out before the not so good ones. Why does this happen, even after regular pleading by the judges. People more often than not vote by their emotions. Also many a times it tends to be sympathy votes.
Should it go like this? If it does, then there is a very high probability that all good singers will be voted out and what will be left, would be a mediocre singer. One can say that if that is what has been chosen by the Indian public then so be it. People are the ones who are going to listen/see that singer if the singer ever gets any chance. So through this churning process one day we can hope to get some good singers till that time we can only hope. If people in our country really have the ability to decide and judge then I wonder why we still do not have jury system in our courts.
I am specially interested in discussing about people playing a major role in selecting someone in art or music talent competition. Is it fair to ask people to judge in the field of arts and music? Are people really equipped to make such decisions? I agree that ultimately it is the public that is going to listen to the songs by the one they choose so why not give them the opportunity to choose their singer. There are technicalities and nuances in music which not everyone understands. I can understand when the contest is very tight the audience vote could go either ways. But when one participant sings far better than the other, then one has to be tone deaf to vote that person out. Moreover one is not restricted to vote just once for a contestant. It is very subjective, I agree, about what one likes or dislikes. Elimination should be a gradual process in any competition. My sentiments were actually reflected in one of the episodes of Indian Idol competition when judges walked out because a good singer was voted out compared to the other singer and said that they had controlled themselves for very long but this was the limit.
We know what type of MP/MLAs get elected to the parliament and keep getting elected time and again. Illiterate and poor have been exploited for years in India for different reasons. Can people really make any informed decisions given that there is lack of basic awareness? While I am writing I have mixed feelings about it. I have been following this competition for quite sometime now and episode after episode I notice that good participants get out before the not so good ones. Why does this happen, even after regular pleading by the judges. People more often than not vote by their emotions. Also many a times it tends to be sympathy votes.
Should it go like this? If it does, then there is a very high probability that all good singers will be voted out and what will be left, would be a mediocre singer. One can say that if that is what has been chosen by the Indian public then so be it. People are the ones who are going to listen/see that singer if the singer ever gets any chance. So through this churning process one day we can hope to get some good singers till that time we can only hope. If people in our country really have the ability to decide and judge then I wonder why we still do not have jury system in our courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)