and here it is, finally - done.
the editing here was much deeper than the first cd demo. while i was initially less excited about this one, the end result is comparable - there's one specific track, the 6th, that i just wish didn't exist.
in every way, it's a bit more extreme. the bad decisions were worse; in the sense that i've removed them, it doesn't matter, but in the sense that they remain they're painful. it's mostly related to vocal tracks. but where the first failed on content, this one fails more often on singing. thankfully, there's only two or three tracks that are painful.
the rest of it is actually pretty good. the noisy/experimental/glitch sections are more extreme. the techy parts are more elaborate. the ambient sections are thicker. the silliness is sillier...
as before, the record/demo bounces back and forth between "songs" and "experiments". on this demo, though, the songs are no less interesting than the noise.
the problem with the sixth track is explained on the page. i was being ironic, but not obviously, and it's kind of left me in the awkward position of identifying as queer and yet having a queer-bashing song. *shrug*. it's not queer-bashing, but it would be easier if it just didn't exist...
for the rest of it, i need to reiterate that it is valid, even when it's trite, because it's real. that is to say that it sounds like i'm 18 and less than well-adjusted. if it could be better than it is, it would lack the authenticity of being a demo produced by a troubled teenager. i might not articulate my feelings of being ignored at a very high level of thought or with much compelling poetry, but i'm certainly feeling them and that feeling certainly gets across in my unique and goofy sort of way. likewise, when i go into juvenile shock rock i am actually convincingly juvenile and convincingly shocking (unless i'm trying to be ridiculous, in which case i pull that off just as well).
that means you have to listen to it from a certain distance because a big part of what you're listening to is the spectacle of a demented child being demented, but when you do that it comes off as some of the most idiosyncratic leftfield synth pop i'm aware of. you've never heard anything quite like this.
so, if i could remove the 6th track without killing the flow of the disc, i would. beyond that, the edits that i've made have left me comfortable with throwing this out there as it is - under the existing caveats.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-lp
==
this is very much a follow-up to the previous demo (there's a pun, here) and in fact is largely constructed of "leftover tracks" from that period. this demo may be a bit glitchier/noisier than the last one, jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-lp.
some of these songs are reworked versions of tracks i had recorded previously. in almost all cases, i consider the versions here (and on the previous demo, inri) to be the authoritative versions of these tracks.
the demo is consciously constructed to alternate between "conventional songs" and "experimental pieces", although both definitions are stretched. it generally takes the form of connecting passages. it's meant to give the record the feel of a cohesive work rather than a collection of songs.
lyrically,
i'm still a teenager, but i'm starting to grow into myself a little more. there
are some points of significant embarrassment on this recording, but it's really
only the sixth track that makes me cringe to the point of regret. i was also
experimenting with an "ironic distance" type of spoken word style that,
in hindsight, doesn't come off so well.
the guitar work is one of the things that separates the sound from a typical industrial aesthetic. i've never been a fan of heavy metal and largely shied away from creating that kind of thing. yet, i found myself connecting more with psychedelic guitar at this point than punk rock. industrial psych generally implies something like trance, but it need not to. industrial hendrix? well, maybe it ends up sounding more like synth pop, which has historical roots in psychedelic music and progressive rock. the point is that the music does manage to carve out a unique space between industrial music and synth pop that i don't know of any clear comparisons to. people have suggested mid-period swans, the legendary pink dots and nine inch nails - only the last of which was a significant influence, and none of which are really that close. a better comparison, although still not a significant influence at this time, would be joy division - who would become a significant influence after this phase. my actual influences at the time would have been more like brian eno (through his 70s and 90s work with david bowie, as well as his work with u2), early prog (genesis/floyd/crimson), peter gabriel, the beatles, radiohead, the smashing pumpkins, REM, sonic youth, the tea party and a bit of contemporary electronic music (prodigy, nin, coil, foetus, autechre, nitzer ebb, ministry, econoline crush, gravity kills, stabbing westward, skinny puppy and side projects). the sense of humour is coming from frank zappa and matt groening, if they are not actually the same person. i wasn't listening to much tears for fears, i don't think, but you can hear them lurking underneath everything.
this material was recorded throughout 1998 and the very beginning of 1999, but some of it was written as far back as 1994. unfortunately, i decided that the songs sounded better in mp3 and consequently compressed everything before burning. i understand now that i was hobbling together a crude mastering process, but it means (unfortunately) that the closest thing i have to the finished tracks are low quality mp3s and a cd-r. these tracks were taken off of a cd-r and run through digital post-production in dec, 2013 in a process that also included minimal editing (mostly the removal of badly placed samples, but also the removal of some vocal sections where it was possible). as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, synthesizers, drum programming, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, vocals, cool edit synthesis, production, found sounds, strategies
released feb 10, 1999
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inriched-lp
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
(this was a rant posted in response to somebody pondering a nuclear holocaust)
a concept developed out of the 60s, called mutually assured destruction, pointed out that any future large scale war would be against the interests of virtually everybody. if you accept the idea that war is economic, it follows that that kind of war isn't likely.
the one caveat to that is the idea of population control, particularly in the developing world, but climate change may make that unnecessary.
in short, i don't think there's a serious threat of anything blowing out of proportion. obama buckling to russian pressure on syria just enforces that point. that doesn't mean people shouldn't take the idea seriously; specifically, it doesn't mean that "decision makers" shouldn't behave as though the threat is real. it just means realizing that we're actually not that stupid.
again, the way that that analysis could be flawed is the threat of extremist movements, which could be religious or political - anything ideological. just groups that actually are that stupid. looking at the world, the greatest threat is religious. the americans have pakistan under control, but india is persistently on the brink of hindu extremism. the jews are currently actually pretty prudent but there's a sector of their ruling class that is very frightening. and the saudis are flat out insane.
there's also the republican right in the united states, but they're subservient to the military-industrial complex. the americans can't be too destructive because it would be bad for business. it's a balancing act between ensuring the flow of profits and cutting them off entirely.
i think it's worth cautiously acknowledging that the political situation in russia is somewhat fragile and that, despite western perceptions to the contrary, the most likely successor to putin - at this point - exists on the hard, pro-nationalist right. putin is reacting to populist forces that are further right than him in an attempt to maintain power, not pushing right-wing policies out of his own desire. if elections in russia lead to a shift to a fascist government, the whole calculus of power in asia changes. conflict instantly develops with china, to begin with. that's a wild card, but it's a threat at the moment rather than a reality.
china's expanding nationalism looks scary, but it's hard to see how anything can break in the region, except by accident. it's more just an excuse to build arms. again: it's scary, and if anybody fucks up it could be lethal. but even if such a flare-up did accidentally happen, it's hard to see why it wouldn't be glossed over quickly. well...there might be a proxy war in southeast asia. vietnam II.
the series of proxy wars that we're fighting right now in the middle east and africa - which is between nato, israel, japan (and allies) and the gulf monarchies on one side and iran, russia and china on the other, with india and south america wavering as neutral - is the closest thing to a world war that we're likely to see any time soon. which isn't to say it isn't a world war, so much as to point out that it's been the state of normalcy for roughly 70 years.
this explains the world war that currently is being fought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
...but it's just an extension of the cold war. and the same basic ideas of MAD apply, even when extrapolated to missile defense.
btw, for those that are all like "that's old news, it died with bush", behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_Security
(i put the see also link in wiki. no comment on other wiki entries i've written :P)
and, creepier, the "new american" thing seems to come from a periodical by these fuckers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
....which is to say that the americans are still trapped in the cold war.
except the cold war is older than the cold war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance
this is apparently the actual source of anglo-russian hostilities, driven by the russian tzar being sneaky and the british developing a distrust of dealing with russian officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_War_%281807%E2%80%9312%29
yeah. that source doesn't discuss it. but apparently the tsar signed a secret agreement with napoleon that was uncovered by british intelligence, and the british have refused to trust them (except when they had to, like in wwii) ever since.
"Alexander agreed to join Napoleon's Continental Blockade against Great Britain, and in a secret addition to the treaty, Europe were divided into an eastern and a western part, the eastern Russian part including Sweden. Europe was thereby and in this way, divided between the two great empires."
^ that, there:
http://www.multi.fi/~goranfri/bioalexander.html
a concept developed out of the 60s, called mutually assured destruction, pointed out that any future large scale war would be against the interests of virtually everybody. if you accept the idea that war is economic, it follows that that kind of war isn't likely.
the one caveat to that is the idea of population control, particularly in the developing world, but climate change may make that unnecessary.
in short, i don't think there's a serious threat of anything blowing out of proportion. obama buckling to russian pressure on syria just enforces that point. that doesn't mean people shouldn't take the idea seriously; specifically, it doesn't mean that "decision makers" shouldn't behave as though the threat is real. it just means realizing that we're actually not that stupid.
again, the way that that analysis could be flawed is the threat of extremist movements, which could be religious or political - anything ideological. just groups that actually are that stupid. looking at the world, the greatest threat is religious. the americans have pakistan under control, but india is persistently on the brink of hindu extremism. the jews are currently actually pretty prudent but there's a sector of their ruling class that is very frightening. and the saudis are flat out insane.
there's also the republican right in the united states, but they're subservient to the military-industrial complex. the americans can't be too destructive because it would be bad for business. it's a balancing act between ensuring the flow of profits and cutting them off entirely.
i think it's worth cautiously acknowledging that the political situation in russia is somewhat fragile and that, despite western perceptions to the contrary, the most likely successor to putin - at this point - exists on the hard, pro-nationalist right. putin is reacting to populist forces that are further right than him in an attempt to maintain power, not pushing right-wing policies out of his own desire. if elections in russia lead to a shift to a fascist government, the whole calculus of power in asia changes. conflict instantly develops with china, to begin with. that's a wild card, but it's a threat at the moment rather than a reality.
china's expanding nationalism looks scary, but it's hard to see how anything can break in the region, except by accident. it's more just an excuse to build arms. again: it's scary, and if anybody fucks up it could be lethal. but even if such a flare-up did accidentally happen, it's hard to see why it wouldn't be glossed over quickly. well...there might be a proxy war in southeast asia. vietnam II.
the series of proxy wars that we're fighting right now in the middle east and africa - which is between nato, israel, japan (and allies) and the gulf monarchies on one side and iran, russia and china on the other, with india and south america wavering as neutral - is the closest thing to a world war that we're likely to see any time soon. which isn't to say it isn't a world war, so much as to point out that it's been the state of normalcy for roughly 70 years.
this explains the world war that currently is being fought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
...but it's just an extension of the cold war. and the same basic ideas of MAD apply, even when extrapolated to missile defense.
btw, for those that are all like "that's old news, it died with bush", behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_a_New_American_Security
(i put the see also link in wiki. no comment on other wiki entries i've written :P)
and, creepier, the "new american" thing seems to come from a periodical by these fuckers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
....which is to say that the americans are still trapped in the cold war.
except the cold war is older than the cold war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance
this is apparently the actual source of anglo-russian hostilities, driven by the russian tzar being sneaky and the british developing a distrust of dealing with russian officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Russian_War_%281807%E2%80%9312%29
yeah. that source doesn't discuss it. but apparently the tsar signed a secret agreement with napoleon that was uncovered by british intelligence, and the british have refused to trust them (except when they had to, like in wwii) ever since.
"Alexander agreed to join Napoleon's Continental Blockade against Great Britain, and in a secret addition to the treaty, Europe were divided into an eastern and a western part, the eastern Russian part including Sweden. Europe was thereby and in this way, divided between the two great empires."
^ that, there:
http://www.multi.fi/~goranfri/bioalexander.html
at
17:55
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
lol.
i can't compute this one. is google censoring on behalf of the cia or is the moscow times (a legit and big moscow paper) working with the kgb?
http://www.google.ca/interstitial?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fraids-on-german-ngos-may-harm-ties-berlin-says%2F477544.html
i can't compute this one. is google censoring on behalf of the cia or is the moscow times (a legit and big moscow paper) working with the kgb?
http://www.google.ca/interstitial?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themoscowtimes.com%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Fraids-on-german-ngos-may-harm-ties-berlin-says%2F477544.html
at
16:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what i was looking for was this.
apparently, the americans have (unsurprisingly) rejected the proposal.
but, see, it's a cynical ploy in the first place. the russians are trying to build international sympathy in the face of blatant american aggression against them, from containment strategies in the middle east to ops in the ukraine to ballistic missiles hovering over them....
http://rt.com/business/russia-usa-trade-shuvalov-111/
i've laughed at them for being naive, but it's become clear that it's a strategy: every time the americans act belligerent, they respond with fig leaves.
they know it's not going to get a response, but their options are limited. and one gets the impression that they mostly mean it, in the sense that they don't want to fight.
to an extent, i think it seems to be working. we'll have to see in the upcoming months how effective it is.
apparently, the americans have (unsurprisingly) rejected the proposal.
but, see, it's a cynical ploy in the first place. the russians are trying to build international sympathy in the face of blatant american aggression against them, from containment strategies in the middle east to ops in the ukraine to ballistic missiles hovering over them....
http://rt.com/business/russia-usa-trade-shuvalov-111/
i've laughed at them for being naive, but it's become clear that it's a strategy: every time the americans act belligerent, they respond with fig leaves.
they know it's not going to get a response, but their options are limited. and one gets the impression that they mostly mean it, in the sense that they don't want to fight.
to an extent, i think it seems to be working. we'll have to see in the upcoming months how effective it is.
at
16:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it's nice to realize that my bedroom is perfectly positioned to take maximum advantage of the winter's mid-afternoon sunlight. the last few places i've occupied have been less ideal, to say the least.
it's also sort of neat to realize this right after the solstice.
place must have been built by druids...
it's also sort of neat to realize this right after the solstice.
place must have been built by druids...
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
jessica amber murray
....and, now, to attempt to have a few drinks without smoking any cigarettes. considering the temperature outside (along with my absolute aversion to indoor smoking), i think i'm likely to do well. we'll see.
regarding the smoking thing...
the packs have been almost entirely cut out. i've bought probably around ten packs, total, since the beginning of september. what i've been doing instead is falling back to these single cigars that can be picked up at the corner store for around $1 whenever i'm about to crack. it's a little more costly on the face of it, but it's a good shot of nicotine so it works for a while. one of the problems quitters will run into is that when they crack once they want another one almost right away; the cigars seem to mitigate that. more importantly, it has broken me of a lot of routines, like smoking after meals. to me, that's the harder part. i know nicotine is a physical addiction (meaning that coming off of it will produce physical effects, like drowsiness) but i don't really feel hooked on that level. it's more about breaking routine...
...and not drinking. i've always been a social drinker, so no people has meant no drinking. i mean, i spend most of my time reading, and i'd rather be sober for that. i prefer marijuana as a creative aid. what i'm about to do is uncharacteristic.
so, i can't claim i'm nicotine-free. but i *have* broken the routine, to the point where i can honestly state that i'm not a habitual smoker anymore.
which is all i really wanted to accomplish in the first place. i don't mind being a social smoker that specifically smokes around alcohol and marijuana. what i no longer wanted to be was a solo smoker. on that point, mission accomplished.
(meaning i'm not going to get too mad at myself if i buy a pack on christmas, just like i didn't get too mad when i bought a pack a few weeks ago when it was over 10 degrees, just as an excuse to hang out outside for the day. stuff like that is enjoying the drug, not being a slave to it.)
mom
Wow! That's Great!...Wish, I could have that much self-control!
jessica amber murray
i don't think it's a question of self-control so much as it's a question of doing what one wants. i kind of strongly believe that smokers smoke because they want to, not because they're zombies. the physical withdrawals are coercive, no doubt, but it comes down to wanting or not wanting to quit.
mom
Addiction Stinks!....And in the end it WILL TAKE CONTROL!.....DENIAL is an addicts BEST FRIEND.
jessica amber murray
well, sure. but the semantics break down when you speak of control. what i'm really doing is giving myself permission to indulge, not controlling myself from indulging.
i guess i have a level of broad consistency in my concept of "self-control" that goes into a lot of areas and that my perspective regarding drugs is more of a consequence of how i see things more broadly. consider governments and this idea that their laws dissuade anti-social behaviour, the idea that laws act as disincentives to control people's desires. this is an idea that is, i think, very wrong. sure, on the one hand, you have the logic of poverty that often triumphs over the laws of social order. circumstances where property crimes exist are often circumstances where it's logical for an impoverished person to steal something or otherwise break property laws. governments can produce laws to catch people when they do this, but the laws don't actually succeed in preventing property crime. they merely succeed in criminalizing poverty. rather, eliminating that sort of crime requires a lot of social work to both eliminate the conditions that lead to it as logical and to create a populace that sees it as morally wrong. once you get to that ideal point, preventing crime is less of a process of people controlling themselves from committing crimes and more of a process of people choosing not to behave in a way that is anti-social. that's the ideal.
the way we treat addiction is sort of a cop-out. i mean, i'm not denying that addicts need to admit their addictions. i agree that acknowledgement is the first step. but actually working through it is a process of transcending the desire, not repressing it.
i think it's possible to use drugs without abusing them.
with alcoholism (and for random readers, that's not something i feel i have a problem with), the way to get beyond it is not to have the "self-control" to avoid it but to develop a desire to be sober.
(and i think i'm being a little bit buddhist, but it's something i connect to accidentally and intuitively rather than consciously)
in a moral sense, i find buddhism more rational than western religion. in the west, we've fallen into a sort of false dichotomy between "master morality" and "slave morality". the irony is that the dude that developed that false dichotomy is also the dude that transferred a lot of eastern ideas into the western sphere. he completely missed the obvious synthesis that was sitting right in front of him.
you need to be careful studying buddhism in the west, though, because most of the literature is misinterpreted hippie nonsense. there's a danger of turning into a new age weirdo.
for example, avoid anything that tries to connect buddhism with science.
i kind of like the idea that "only lost people require religion". which is to say that walking into a church or a temple or a synagogue isn't likely to find you people that understand how to behave morally on an intuitive level, but people that are struggling with it. people that "get it" find the whole thing boring and trivial.
not to put myself above it or anything. not declaring myself perfect. but there's a lot of truth to it. and if one can separate the social help from the control and brainwashing [which is difficult, especially for people in fragile states], i'll accept it could have some value.
what i'd rather see, though, is a resurgence of secular social institutions that strip out the brainwashing. i think there's a really open space here for socialist thinkers to walk into and am not really sure why they haven't, given that it connects quite well to the idea that "the social revolution must come first".
....and, now, to attempt to have a few drinks without smoking any cigarettes. considering the temperature outside (along with my absolute aversion to indoor smoking), i think i'm likely to do well. we'll see.
regarding the smoking thing...
the packs have been almost entirely cut out. i've bought probably around ten packs, total, since the beginning of september. what i've been doing instead is falling back to these single cigars that can be picked up at the corner store for around $1 whenever i'm about to crack. it's a little more costly on the face of it, but it's a good shot of nicotine so it works for a while. one of the problems quitters will run into is that when they crack once they want another one almost right away; the cigars seem to mitigate that. more importantly, it has broken me of a lot of routines, like smoking after meals. to me, that's the harder part. i know nicotine is a physical addiction (meaning that coming off of it will produce physical effects, like drowsiness) but i don't really feel hooked on that level. it's more about breaking routine...
...and not drinking. i've always been a social drinker, so no people has meant no drinking. i mean, i spend most of my time reading, and i'd rather be sober for that. i prefer marijuana as a creative aid. what i'm about to do is uncharacteristic.
so, i can't claim i'm nicotine-free. but i *have* broken the routine, to the point where i can honestly state that i'm not a habitual smoker anymore.
which is all i really wanted to accomplish in the first place. i don't mind being a social smoker that specifically smokes around alcohol and marijuana. what i no longer wanted to be was a solo smoker. on that point, mission accomplished.
(meaning i'm not going to get too mad at myself if i buy a pack on christmas, just like i didn't get too mad when i bought a pack a few weeks ago when it was over 10 degrees, just as an excuse to hang out outside for the day. stuff like that is enjoying the drug, not being a slave to it.)
mom
Wow! That's Great!...Wish, I could have that much self-control!
jessica amber murray
i don't think it's a question of self-control so much as it's a question of doing what one wants. i kind of strongly believe that smokers smoke because they want to, not because they're zombies. the physical withdrawals are coercive, no doubt, but it comes down to wanting or not wanting to quit.
mom
Addiction Stinks!....And in the end it WILL TAKE CONTROL!.....DENIAL is an addicts BEST FRIEND.
jessica amber murray
well, sure. but the semantics break down when you speak of control. what i'm really doing is giving myself permission to indulge, not controlling myself from indulging.
i guess i have a level of broad consistency in my concept of "self-control" that goes into a lot of areas and that my perspective regarding drugs is more of a consequence of how i see things more broadly. consider governments and this idea that their laws dissuade anti-social behaviour, the idea that laws act as disincentives to control people's desires. this is an idea that is, i think, very wrong. sure, on the one hand, you have the logic of poverty that often triumphs over the laws of social order. circumstances where property crimes exist are often circumstances where it's logical for an impoverished person to steal something or otherwise break property laws. governments can produce laws to catch people when they do this, but the laws don't actually succeed in preventing property crime. they merely succeed in criminalizing poverty. rather, eliminating that sort of crime requires a lot of social work to both eliminate the conditions that lead to it as logical and to create a populace that sees it as morally wrong. once you get to that ideal point, preventing crime is less of a process of people controlling themselves from committing crimes and more of a process of people choosing not to behave in a way that is anti-social. that's the ideal.
the way we treat addiction is sort of a cop-out. i mean, i'm not denying that addicts need to admit their addictions. i agree that acknowledgement is the first step. but actually working through it is a process of transcending the desire, not repressing it.
i think it's possible to use drugs without abusing them.
with alcoholism (and for random readers, that's not something i feel i have a problem with), the way to get beyond it is not to have the "self-control" to avoid it but to develop a desire to be sober.
(and i think i'm being a little bit buddhist, but it's something i connect to accidentally and intuitively rather than consciously)
in a moral sense, i find buddhism more rational than western religion. in the west, we've fallen into a sort of false dichotomy between "master morality" and "slave morality". the irony is that the dude that developed that false dichotomy is also the dude that transferred a lot of eastern ideas into the western sphere. he completely missed the obvious synthesis that was sitting right in front of him.
you need to be careful studying buddhism in the west, though, because most of the literature is misinterpreted hippie nonsense. there's a danger of turning into a new age weirdo.
for example, avoid anything that tries to connect buddhism with science.
i kind of like the idea that "only lost people require religion". which is to say that walking into a church or a temple or a synagogue isn't likely to find you people that understand how to behave morally on an intuitive level, but people that are struggling with it. people that "get it" find the whole thing boring and trivial.
not to put myself above it or anything. not declaring myself perfect. but there's a lot of truth to it. and if one can separate the social help from the control and brainwashing [which is difficult, especially for people in fragile states], i'll accept it could have some value.
what i'd rather see, though, is a resurgence of secular social institutions that strip out the brainwashing. i think there's a really open space here for socialist thinkers to walk into and am not really sure why they haven't, given that it connects quite well to the idea that "the social revolution must come first".
at
12:22
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)