yeah. assad's there to stay. and he's got a hell of a mess to clean up. does he send the theocracy in saudi arabia the bill?
see, the major concern to look out for in the future is what happens ten years from now when the country is back in order and he wants pay back. as out to lunch as the saudi attack was, he can't be left there. and i hope the russians have the foresight to realize that.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/06/saudis-fight-a-losing-battle-against-change/
Sunday, November 10, 2013
that list of 14 stalled agreements is comical. it's correct about the ftaa. the rest had little to do with protest movements.
i'm going to ask a difficult question.
do you think it's easier to generate opposition to trade agreements in the western hemisphere due to racism around migrant issues? if not, why is opposition so much stronger to agreements like cafta, nafta, ftaa than it is to tpp, apec, etc.
the tpp isn't going to create a flood of migrants. is that a factor in the lack of opposition to it?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19843-trans-pacific-partnership-we-will-not-obey-building-a-global-resistance-movement-to-transnational-corporate-power
i'm going to ask a difficult question.
do you think it's easier to generate opposition to trade agreements in the western hemisphere due to racism around migrant issues? if not, why is opposition so much stronger to agreements like cafta, nafta, ftaa than it is to tpp, apec, etc.
the tpp isn't going to create a flood of migrants. is that a factor in the lack of opposition to it?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19843-trans-pacific-partnership-we-will-not-obey-building-a-global-resistance-movement-to-transnational-corporate-power
i haven't looked into this, but, generally, areas that are not under treaty are considered to be owned in allodial by the state and parcelled out in aboriginal title to the inhabitants if they can prove use relative to a complex and sort of trivial set of clauses. i don't see why that would be different here.
it's a little weird that they're doing this through court battles, though, rather than treaty. yet, i guess that's what got forced on to them by the logging.
i'd expect the court to rule something along the lines of that a treaty negotiation needs to be started. it would be under the treaty that questions of logging and land-sharing would be discussed.
i know the nisga'a agreement implements some aboriginal concepts of land ownership, which are generally not exclusive. hunting grounds, for example, were often shared by multiple groups of people.
ironically, that's part of the reason that settlers were able to set up here so easily. the indigenous peoples on the *atlantic* coast largely only considered the areas directly around their settlements to be under their ownership. the rest of the land was owned by a 'creator' and free for general use. the settlers badly took advantage of that.
so, generally, these cases only wish to exert *explicit* ownership over the areas they live, and *joint* ownership over the areas they rely on for fishing and game. which is of course confusing in the british court system, although there are precedents - there were commons all over britain, as they are remembered today by the tragedy of the commons if by nothing else.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/key-b-c-aboriginal-land-claim-case-starts-before-supreme-court-1.2418130
well, ok, there's a framework in place - indicating that the government implicitly acknowledges the claim.
http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/treaty/key/down/tsilhqotin_sea_amended.pdf
it's a little weird that they're doing this through court battles, though, rather than treaty. yet, i guess that's what got forced on to them by the logging.
i'd expect the court to rule something along the lines of that a treaty negotiation needs to be started. it would be under the treaty that questions of logging and land-sharing would be discussed.
i know the nisga'a agreement implements some aboriginal concepts of land ownership, which are generally not exclusive. hunting grounds, for example, were often shared by multiple groups of people.
ironically, that's part of the reason that settlers were able to set up here so easily. the indigenous peoples on the *atlantic* coast largely only considered the areas directly around their settlements to be under their ownership. the rest of the land was owned by a 'creator' and free for general use. the settlers badly took advantage of that.
so, generally, these cases only wish to exert *explicit* ownership over the areas they live, and *joint* ownership over the areas they rely on for fishing and game. which is of course confusing in the british court system, although there are precedents - there were commons all over britain, as they are remembered today by the tragedy of the commons if by nothing else.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/key-b-c-aboriginal-land-claim-case-starts-before-supreme-court-1.2418130
well, ok, there's a framework in place - indicating that the government implicitly acknowledges the claim.
http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/treaty/key/down/tsilhqotin_sea_amended.pdf
re: the recent shift in american strategy on iran.
i wouldn't expect the americans to stop the cyber-attacks, the sanctions or the attempts to stir internal revolt any time soon. reducing iran to a puppet regime remains an american strategic objective, so regime change is likely to remain an active goal.
but, as iran integrates more and more into military alliance with china and russia, the military option is becoming increasingly infeasible. and don't think this has nothing to do with syria.
that's forcing the americans to rethink how they deal with iran. i'd expect them to stop treating iran like an unruly lost colony and start treating it the same way it treats countries like china and russia - passive aggression.
that's going to piss off the israelis. more importantly, it's going to piss off the saudis. there's going to be some consequences. but there's not much they can do - iran has found a way out of this.
http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-sco-membership-summit-nato-821/
i wouldn't expect the americans to stop the cyber-attacks, the sanctions or the attempts to stir internal revolt any time soon. reducing iran to a puppet regime remains an american strategic objective, so regime change is likely to remain an active goal.
but, as iran integrates more and more into military alliance with china and russia, the military option is becoming increasingly infeasible. and don't think this has nothing to do with syria.
that's forcing the americans to rethink how they deal with iran. i'd expect them to stop treating iran like an unruly lost colony and start treating it the same way it treats countries like china and russia - passive aggression.
that's going to piss off the israelis. more importantly, it's going to piss off the saudis. there's going to be some consequences. but there's not much they can do - iran has found a way out of this.
http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-sco-membership-summit-nato-821/
yeah, my analysis only works in canada, where the bubble is being propped up by banks.
it's hard to see how this mess ends except with mass homelessness, as idiotic as that is in a country with so much housing supply. yet, that sows the seeds of revolt. it's what is happening down there.
so, expect to see more squatting, and more riots when the cops get increasingly aggressive about it. more people in jail for being homeless. where's the breaking point?
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/11/why-your-rent-rising-faster-inflation/7484/
it's hard to see how this mess ends except with mass homelessness, as idiotic as that is in a country with so much housing supply. yet, that sows the seeds of revolt. it's what is happening down there.
so, expect to see more squatting, and more riots when the cops get increasingly aggressive about it. more people in jail for being homeless. where's the breaking point?
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/11/why-your-rent-rising-faster-inflation/7484/
i don't think that "islamism" has a single source, but i don't think it's much of a reaction to zionism, either. the dominant force was probably soviet influence. the soviets were fundamental in organizing states in syria, iraq and elsewhere that were based on a concept of "arabic socialism". as in other places (east asia, africa, south america), the kremlin felt it was necessary to inject an ethnic component into the struggle in order to build greater solidarity. this isn't very socialist, but it happened.
the americans reacted to this by training mujahideens in afghanistan with saudi capital. this is the more direct source of the islamism we see.
counterpunch carefully straddles the line of anti-semitic conspiracy theory, and i've long been cautious of it. the articles they post often give the impression that they were written by jew haters that are toning down their language and rhetoric for polite consumption. this is one of them.
and i'm stating that from a perspective that is highly critical of israeli ethnic nationalism (i think this article does get the point right, despite it's wonky attempt to put islamic terrorism on the long list of crimes perpetuated by jews).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/04/israel-and-the-dangers-of-ethnic-nationalism/
the americans reacted to this by training mujahideens in afghanistan with saudi capital. this is the more direct source of the islamism we see.
counterpunch carefully straddles the line of anti-semitic conspiracy theory, and i've long been cautious of it. the articles they post often give the impression that they were written by jew haters that are toning down their language and rhetoric for polite consumption. this is one of them.
and i'm stating that from a perspective that is highly critical of israeli ethnic nationalism (i think this article does get the point right, despite it's wonky attempt to put islamic terrorism on the long list of crimes perpetuated by jews).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/04/israel-and-the-dangers-of-ethnic-nationalism/
what is morality? for some people, it's something innate - something
they feel. yet, that's probably an illusion. why do they feel that way?
my hypothesis is that people look to educational sources to try and understand morality - that it's entirely taught. those sources may be parents, teachers, philosophers. i've tended to prefer logicians, and have come out a secular humanist. for most people, though, the source is religion.
the ancient hebrew religion derived catastrophe as a result of turning away from god. byzantine religion assigned military defeat to impiety. modern calvinistic american religion argues that the poor are poor because it is their own fault - they are poor because god assigned them that way, like the untouchables in india. our collective lack of empathy stems from our collective concepts of morality. to change this, we need a religious revolution.
...preferably one to secular humanism....
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19780-are-heartless-people-simply-born-that-way
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/mead/V53.0395/Kahl.pdf
my hypothesis is that people look to educational sources to try and understand morality - that it's entirely taught. those sources may be parents, teachers, philosophers. i've tended to prefer logicians, and have come out a secular humanist. for most people, though, the source is religion.
the ancient hebrew religion derived catastrophe as a result of turning away from god. byzantine religion assigned military defeat to impiety. modern calvinistic american religion argues that the poor are poor because it is their own fault - they are poor because god assigned them that way, like the untouchables in india. our collective lack of empathy stems from our collective concepts of morality. to change this, we need a religious revolution.
...preferably one to secular humanism....
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19780-are-heartless-people-simply-born-that-way
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/mead/V53.0395/Kahl.pdf
actually, they're both wrong. in the current economy, what's going to happen to that stimulus money is that it's going to go to pay down debt.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters13/26-debate2.php
(stiglitz is more right though. and the argument about wage stagnation being an impediment to economic recovery, if not the outright cause of the current recession, is what i was looking for.)
see, i agree with stiglitz here, too. i think what krugman is saying is that percentages don't matter - it's the absolute amount that does. i'll agree with that. but krugman is citing a correlation. the question is whether there's a cause and effect relationship between tax cuts for the rich and spending by the rich, and the idea doesn't strike me as reasonable.
the upper middle class, maybe. the middle class? depends on the indebtedness. see, the hard part is finding where that line is. that requires some empirical analysis, not a deductive approach, and i'm not going to do that.
but it doesn't approach the real issue, which is indebtedness. and contrary to the calvinist media narrative, this isn't caused by some kind of entitlement but simply by historically low real wages.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/inequality-and-recovery/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/inequality-is-holding-back-the-recovery/
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/newsletters13/26-debate2.php
(stiglitz is more right though. and the argument about wage stagnation being an impediment to economic recovery, if not the outright cause of the current recession, is what i was looking for.)
see, i agree with stiglitz here, too. i think what krugman is saying is that percentages don't matter - it's the absolute amount that does. i'll agree with that. but krugman is citing a correlation. the question is whether there's a cause and effect relationship between tax cuts for the rich and spending by the rich, and the idea doesn't strike me as reasonable.
the upper middle class, maybe. the middle class? depends on the indebtedness. see, the hard part is finding where that line is. that requires some empirical analysis, not a deductive approach, and i'm not going to do that.
but it doesn't approach the real issue, which is indebtedness. and contrary to the calvinist media narrative, this isn't caused by some kind of entitlement but simply by historically low real wages.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/inequality-and-recovery/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/inequality-is-holding-back-the-recovery/
the reagan deficits were the result of absurd war spending. they're comparable to the wwII and civil war deficits.
i think he makes some worthwhile points about why keynesian policy cannot work in an open economy, and why offshoring doesn't lead to comparative advantage. well, these are points i've made myself. i have a rant somewhere that explains the failure of free trade due to the size of the asian industrial reserve army (the trade is goods for labour, not goods for goods, so people are the commodity here, which is not inconsistent with ricardo's example, but creates a situation where free trade is impossible).
krugman, i also agree, is out of touch. he's living in the world that existed before clinton. ironic? maybe, but it's true.
that doesn't mean i think sovereign deficits matter.
they don't.
i wish stiglitz carried a higher media footprint than krugman.
i should point out that my marxism up there is vulgar; i don't think the point is lost, nor do you even really need to use marxist language to get to the basic point that massive supplies of asian labour decrease labour prices - which is exactly why labour is concentrated there.
see, and it *is* a comparative advantage if you identify the actors as multinationals and consumers. higher profits, lower costs. but it's not sustainable, because it cuts into buying power, which collapses both economies in the long run.
(not to mention the horrific living conditions that it assigns to asian workers)
but that analysis relies on understanding the trade as labour for goods rather than goods for goods, which is closer to colonial mercantilism than free market economics. as the differences in population are so dramatic, which means labour costs will always be lower on one side, it's almost impossible to construct a scenario where free market trade can actually function to a real comparative advantage on a good-for-good basis. you'd have to construct global wage requirements, which maybe aren't a bad idea, but the result of that is going to be a return to local production - rather than create a system of widespread mutually advantageous trade, we'd have a system of minimal trade where the advantage is actually mutual based on accesses to resources.
...which isn't really market-based at all. it's a perversion of the concept of comparative advantage, which is in fact partially based on labour costs!
i'm not the first person to point this out. the idea of large scale free trade agreements is entirely incoherent. it's just a reduction of liberal economics to a tool of propaganda in which to spread mercantilism with.
the key point i'm trying to get across is that any analysis of the situation has to begin with the understanding that there are three billion people in asia competing for a relatively small number of jobs, that labour costs in those countries are a reflection of that reality more so than they are of any statist policy and that strategies for increasing wages in the long term in these areas while maintaining such a high population density (something that is necessary to reconstruct economies in the 'developed world', so long as open borders are maintained) are extremely difficult to grapple with.
can fordism operate in such high population densities?
i think he makes some worthwhile points about why keynesian policy cannot work in an open economy, and why offshoring doesn't lead to comparative advantage. well, these are points i've made myself. i have a rant somewhere that explains the failure of free trade due to the size of the asian industrial reserve army (the trade is goods for labour, not goods for goods, so people are the commodity here, which is not inconsistent with ricardo's example, but creates a situation where free trade is impossible).
krugman, i also agree, is out of touch. he's living in the world that existed before clinton. ironic? maybe, but it's true.
that doesn't mean i think sovereign deficits matter.
they don't.
i wish stiglitz carried a higher media footprint than krugman.
i should point out that my marxism up there is vulgar; i don't think the point is lost, nor do you even really need to use marxist language to get to the basic point that massive supplies of asian labour decrease labour prices - which is exactly why labour is concentrated there.
see, and it *is* a comparative advantage if you identify the actors as multinationals and consumers. higher profits, lower costs. but it's not sustainable, because it cuts into buying power, which collapses both economies in the long run.
(not to mention the horrific living conditions that it assigns to asian workers)
but that analysis relies on understanding the trade as labour for goods rather than goods for goods, which is closer to colonial mercantilism than free market economics. as the differences in population are so dramatic, which means labour costs will always be lower on one side, it's almost impossible to construct a scenario where free market trade can actually function to a real comparative advantage on a good-for-good basis. you'd have to construct global wage requirements, which maybe aren't a bad idea, but the result of that is going to be a return to local production - rather than create a system of widespread mutually advantageous trade, we'd have a system of minimal trade where the advantage is actually mutual based on accesses to resources.
...which isn't really market-based at all. it's a perversion of the concept of comparative advantage, which is in fact partially based on labour costs!
i'm not the first person to point this out. the idea of large scale free trade agreements is entirely incoherent. it's just a reduction of liberal economics to a tool of propaganda in which to spread mercantilism with.
the key point i'm trying to get across is that any analysis of the situation has to begin with the understanding that there are three billion people in asia competing for a relatively small number of jobs, that labour costs in those countries are a reflection of that reality more so than they are of any statist policy and that strategies for increasing wages in the long term in these areas while maintaining such a high population density (something that is necessary to reconstruct economies in the 'developed world', so long as open borders are maintained) are extremely difficult to grapple with.
can fordism operate in such high population densities?
not that there’s anything wrong with that (original album mix)
this is that faux-homophobe song again, and i'm going to call myself
out for it this time on two levels. i'm kind of uncomfortable uploading
it not once but twice, but i promised myself i'd upload everything, so
here it is.
i've been uncomfortable with this since i wrote it, basically. i really hesitated for a while in releasing this. it was one of the first things i recorded with my new 4-track (the timestamp is jan 17, 1998), but it didn't make it to the first demo. it only made it to the second demo in feb, 1999. with a lot of caution. i ended up releasing it because i liked the fact that it sounded like ministry.
in my defense, i should point out that these kinds of songs exist in the punk rock tradition going back to the glam days. ministry wrote a number of songs like this, ridiculing exaggerated masculinity. this is what i was going for the second time around. further, in the sense that the song is about me being picked on, i feel i sort of retain the right to express myself about it.
where it falls into trouble is it's level of ambiguity. it's meant to be satire, but how is anybody supposed to know that? the answer is the seinfeld line - and this was consciously inserted for that very reason. yet, the signal that sends isn't "this song is sarcastic" so much as it is "homophobes aren't the brightest people". that's really what the song is about - i was getting picked on by people i didn't think were very smart, and i was reacting by ridiculing their intelligence through merely repeating what they were saying. this is meant to shock, and that's where the track gets it's "edge".
we would refer to such a thing nowadays as "hipster homophobia", and this is where i'm calling myself out, here. my argument is essentially "it's ok to be hateful if you're being ironic". but, that's not an argument i would currently make - it's an argument that i'd argue rather strenuously against.
again: i feel i had the right to express myself here, and the song is anti-oppressive in it's intent. yet, i didn't articulate that well, and sort of fell into a trap. i can convincingly argue that i was a teenager and didn't really know any better, but that argument necessitates that i correct myself.
the original version and write-up are over here:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with-that
recorded in jan, 1998.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/06-not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with-that
i've been uncomfortable with this since i wrote it, basically. i really hesitated for a while in releasing this. it was one of the first things i recorded with my new 4-track (the timestamp is jan 17, 1998), but it didn't make it to the first demo. it only made it to the second demo in feb, 1999. with a lot of caution. i ended up releasing it because i liked the fact that it sounded like ministry.
in my defense, i should point out that these kinds of songs exist in the punk rock tradition going back to the glam days. ministry wrote a number of songs like this, ridiculing exaggerated masculinity. this is what i was going for the second time around. further, in the sense that the song is about me being picked on, i feel i sort of retain the right to express myself about it.
where it falls into trouble is it's level of ambiguity. it's meant to be satire, but how is anybody supposed to know that? the answer is the seinfeld line - and this was consciously inserted for that very reason. yet, the signal that sends isn't "this song is sarcastic" so much as it is "homophobes aren't the brightest people". that's really what the song is about - i was getting picked on by people i didn't think were very smart, and i was reacting by ridiculing their intelligence through merely repeating what they were saying. this is meant to shock, and that's where the track gets it's "edge".
we would refer to such a thing nowadays as "hipster homophobia", and this is where i'm calling myself out, here. my argument is essentially "it's ok to be hateful if you're being ironic". but, that's not an argument i would currently make - it's an argument that i'd argue rather strenuously against.
again: i feel i had the right to express myself here, and the song is anti-oppressive in it's intent. yet, i didn't articulate that well, and sort of fell into a trap. i can convincingly argue that i was a teenager and didn't really know any better, but that argument necessitates that i correct myself.
the original version and write-up are over here:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with-that
recorded in jan, 1998.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/06-not-that-theres-anything-wrong-with-that
cat’s apocalypse (original discarded outtake)
this is a remix of the track 'war' (http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/11-war) that i had no intention of releasing. i was trying to irritate a cat lover (i can't recall who). epic troll, really.
i'd trigger it for cat owners, but it's really too absurd and disingenuous to be offensive.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cats-apocalypse-1998-archive-2
i'd trigger it for cat owners, but it's really too absurd and disingenuous to be offensive.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cats-apocalypse-1998-archive-2
slaves (original discarded outtake)
this was inspired by an snl skit. pure silliness.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/slaves
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/slaves
permission (original discarded outtake)
this is the remake of permission, which is really funky and neat, but i ended up rejecting it because the guitar solo directly lifts the ending melody from "the perfect drug". i don't really remember the logic behind how it got there in the first place (did i realize after or was it purposefully meant as a 'sample'?), but i do specifically recall saying "i can't use this". i think maybe i also thought the lyrics were sort of dumb, after all.
of course, a lot of the songs on those cassette demos recycle ideas from nine inch nails, and i've cringed a few times in uploading these songs, but in the context of the tracks mostly being experiments in learning how to record music it's less of a problem for me, in hindsight, then it could be. those were things that affected me, at that age. they're there for a reason. the cassette demos were never meant to be brilliant works of original art, or even for sale at all (and they never have been). it was just something i did as a sort of a release.
these cd demos, though, were meant to be more professional. there are a few awkward samples interspersed throughout them in ways that were meaningful to me and seem questionable now looking back, but part of the reason i redid these songs in the first place was to reclaim them from myself as entirely original pieces.
my sister's backing vocals have been replaced with myself, digitally altered. there's also a lot of electronic soundscaping: this is a substantially different piece of music than the cassette demo, which is here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/permission
actually, i think i'm remembering that i put the 'sample' in on purpose because the vocals were so derivative, then kibboshed the whole thing.
yeah. i was playing the melody as i was testing levels, and i decided that it actually sounded really good - but that I couldn't use it, or i would be sealing the track as an outtake. i then decided that it should be an outtake anyways and went with it.
recorded in january, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/permission-2
of course, a lot of the songs on those cassette demos recycle ideas from nine inch nails, and i've cringed a few times in uploading these songs, but in the context of the tracks mostly being experiments in learning how to record music it's less of a problem for me, in hindsight, then it could be. those were things that affected me, at that age. they're there for a reason. the cassette demos were never meant to be brilliant works of original art, or even for sale at all (and they never have been). it was just something i did as a sort of a release.
these cd demos, though, were meant to be more professional. there are a few awkward samples interspersed throughout them in ways that were meaningful to me and seem questionable now looking back, but part of the reason i redid these songs in the first place was to reclaim them from myself as entirely original pieces.
my sister's backing vocals have been replaced with myself, digitally altered. there's also a lot of electronic soundscaping: this is a substantially different piece of music than the cassette demo, which is here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/permission
actually, i think i'm remembering that i put the 'sample' in on purpose because the vocals were so derivative, then kibboshed the whole thing.
yeah. i was playing the melody as i was testing levels, and i decided that it actually sounded really good - but that I couldn't use it, or i would be sealing the track as an outtake. i then decided that it should be an outtake anyways and went with it.
recorded in january, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/permission-2
nails (original album mix)
homer, indeed. i think that might be the ry30 with the drums, recording directly into the back of the pc.
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nails
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/nails
war (original album mix)
the beginning is from a disney film or something, i can't recall
which one. it's all wiped away by a wash of war drums and civ2 samples.
it's more misanthropic than anti-war, really.
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/war
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/war
Saturday, November 9, 2013
catchin’ up (original album mix)
noises generated with cool edit. it seemed like the coolest thing in the world, at the time.
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/catchin-up
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/catchin-up
fuck the dead (original album mix)
well, it's a song about necrophilia. what?
this is actually the first thing i recorded in the new electronic style, and i sort of picked up where i had left off, thematically.
ok, if it's not blatantly obvious, it's entirely tongue-in-cheek and absurdist. i'm poking fun at what i'm assuming people are perceiving the spooky goth stereotype as.
i have removed a section full of painful homer samples. i put the spiderman sample in after and it's one of the things i'm most proud of, actually.
recorded in jan, 1998. edited on nov 9, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead-1998-archive
this is actually the first thing i recorded in the new electronic style, and i sort of picked up where i had left off, thematically.
ok, if it's not blatantly obvious, it's entirely tongue-in-cheek and absurdist. i'm poking fun at what i'm assuming people are perceiving the spooky goth stereotype as.
i have removed a section full of painful homer samples. i put the spiderman sample in after and it's one of the things i'm most proud of, actually.
recorded in jan, 1998. edited on nov 9, 2013.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-the-dead-1998-archive
a psycho kills a cow (original album mix)
so,
there's this dude, and he sounds sort of like one of the monsters from doom II,
and he lures a cow with a weird mating call and then attacks it and it's kind
of twisted and hilarious. subtle vegan brainwashing? yes, but more on an
environmentalist level.
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow-2
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/a-psycho-kills-a-cow-2
about a squirrel (original album mix)
the guitar loop is taken from a popular nirvana song, whereas most of the building sound pasted on top is from civ 2. no real message here. just a particularly savvy squirrel that's getting ready for winter by building some kind of fortress.
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/about-a-squirrel-2
created in the fall of 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/about-a-squirrel-2
skaters (original album mix)
the original version of this track, along with a write-up, is over here:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters
this version is sped up a little bit and has some keyboard sequencing added to it but is otherwise pretty similar.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters-1998-archived-112-kbps-mp3
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters
this version is sped up a little bit and has some keyboard sequencing added to it but is otherwise pretty similar.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/skaters-1998-archived-112-kbps-mp3
useless (original album mix)
kind of a new wave / synth pop track. as can be heard, i'm still not
out of the clutches of trent reznor - there's an awkward nin sample in
the middle of the track.
this is the first track with my new synth on it. that's a large part of what the track is.
this isn't the first document that demonstrates my struggle with coming to terms with the futility of existence, but maybe it's the first meaningful one. in a very real sense, that struggle has defined most of my life. listening to the lyrics now, they seem sort of trite. yet, there's a large amount of who i've become within these words.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless-valium-sped-up
this is the first track with my new synth on it. that's a large part of what the track is.
this isn't the first document that demonstrates my struggle with coming to terms with the futility of existence, but maybe it's the first meaningful one. in a very real sense, that struggle has defined most of my life. listening to the lyrics now, they seem sort of trite. yet, there's a large amount of who i've become within these words.
recorded in jan, 1998.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/useless-valium-sped-up
boogeyman reconstruction (discarded first vocal take)
this was recorded over the christmas holidays on my brand new 4-track. i ended up rejecting the track, then redoing the vocals for the second demo. it is itself a redone version of a track on one of the cassette demos:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/boogeyman-depressed
you can hear that the drum programming was fairly meticulous here, adding all kinds of unusual sounds. there's no synths or samples here, it's all ry30.
while the strong backbeat improves part of the track, i prefer the cassette demo, overall.
recorded in dec, 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/boogeyman-first-vocal-take
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/boogeyman-depressed
you can hear that the drum programming was fairly meticulous here, adding all kinds of unusual sounds. there's no synths or samples here, it's all ry30.
while the strong backbeat improves part of the track, i prefer the cassette demo, overall.
recorded in dec, 1997.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/boogeyman-first-vocal-take
friedrich engels - socialism: utopian & scientific
for a review of the introduction, please click here. also note that this text is taken directly from a larger work, anti-duhring. the pamphlet places three separate stages of socialism within a historical perspective, with a chapter for each stage. sequentially, these stages are utopian socialism (socialism's irrigorous past), scientific socialism (the then present, rigorous state of socialism) and communism (the eventually implemented future of socialism). engels' goal appears to be to separate what he considers to be "respectable" forms of socialism from "primitive" or "naive" forms of socialism, as well as to (ironically) act as somewhat of a socialist clairvoyant.
the utopian stage of socialism is explored through three major icons: st. stephen, charles fourier and robert owens. engels derives this stage out of the disappointment of the french revolution, the so-called "triumph of reason" that climaxed in despotism and perpetual war. according to engels, the french revolution was the product of french "materialism" and the great "materialist" philosophers of the eighteenth century who placed everything in subservience to reason. engels seems to differentiate these "materialist" philosophers from the aforementioned "socialist" philosophers by their attention to class; the french rationalists "do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once.", whereas st. simon speaks of the class conflict between the "workers" and the "idlers". the purpose of this section seems to be to briefly inform the reader about the roots of socialism without getting into it too much, mostly because engels doesn't want you to get into it too much. in fact, engels wants you to reject these utopian thinkers because "the more completely they (early/utopian systems of socialism) were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting into pure fantasies.". while engels does clearly hold robert owen in high regard, going so far as to say that "every social movement, every real advance england on behalf of the workers links itself to the name of robert owen.", his real interest is in what he calls "scientific socialism", which is something that he derives from marx.
the second section provides the reader with a cursory outline of the renaissance of dialectics and an explanation of how this renaissance allowed for the construction of a "materialist" history. this "materialist" history is what we would today call "marxist history", the view that history is characterized by class struggle. engels attributes this "materialist history" to marx and conflicts it with what he calls the "idealistic" (and incorrect) view that history is an unending evolutionary process, one where perfection is pushed further and further away as we reach our previous conceptions of it, which he attributes to hegel. in engels' view, this deep discovery necessitates a complete rewriting of all history (a scary proposition!) and is, along with the discovery of surplus value, one of the two breakthroughs that allowed marxism to call itself a "science", despite the loud objections of scientists, no doubt. surplus value is simply the idea that, no matter how much the capitalist pays for labour, the capitalist will always extract a greater value than he pays for labour. i'm going to assume that this is an observation and not a proposed sociological law and then note that a capitalist would both call that greater value "profit" and argue that it's the whole point.
the third section is the heart of the essay and requires a few reads to understand fully. what engels is doing, ultimately, is explaining why we need communism. in the process, he...well, to be blunt, he meanders through a variety of loosely connected historical, economic and philosophical concepts. there's quite a bit written here, but it's not written very coherently; this is more than a translation issue, it's an organization problem. no contemporary editor would let this to pressing. yet, it did make it out (twice!) so this is what we have to deal with...
engels starts off by describing the evolution in production from the medieval guildsman to the socialization of production, with the aim of deriving the natural conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. many years ago, producers were in complete control of their product from the point of gathering raw materials to the point of sale. the producer of a canoe, for example, would begin by carving the canoe and end by selling it. consequently, the producer would both set the price of the product and retain all profit from it's sale. with industrialization, however, came the socialization of production. factories were able to produce products faster and cheaper than individual guildspeople, hopelessly outcompeting them to the point that individual tradespeople became unable to exist upon their skills. faced with the loss of their only source of income, the tradespeople were forced into selling their labour to the very factories that put them out of business. such was the beginning of a new class of individuals, the proletariat - those who have no good to exchange for existence other than their labour. with this change, however, did not come a change in the way that goods are exchanged. the owners of the factories - the capitalists - became the sellers of products which they did not create on their own. so, while the goods were made by several people, they were only sold by one; engels sees this as a contradiction and labels it to the root of the class conflict between the workers and the owners of the factories, manifested as an argument over wages paid out by the capitalists to the workers. of course, both sides will seek to maximize their own share of profits at the expense of the other. at this point, engels' argument is not just reasonable but obvious; nobody disputes the existence of this class conflict or it's irresolvability without the final triumph of one side over the other.
the next thing that engels discusses is what he calls the "anarchy of production". what he's really describing is competition. in the old days, workers only produced what they were asked to produced. that aforementioned canoe would not have been randomly built and sold in a marketplace; an agreement would have been reached with the buyer before the canoe was built. with industrialization, however, goods were just produced with the hope that they would be sold eventually. as multiple factories/companies ended up doing this, often producing the same surplus goods, a type of competition that was hitherto unknown began to develop. engels has a distinct distaste for this; he describes competition using words such as "anarchy" and "animalistic", blames it for the existence of commercial wars and even goes so far as to claim that the struggle between individual companies is darwinian in nature. he once again sees this conflict between organized and chaotic production as a symptom of the contradiction between capitalistic appropriation and socialized production.
engels then turns to the topic of machinery replacing human labour, inevitably resulting in labour surpluses, which he calls the "industrial reserve army". these labour surpluses then reduce wages through market forces, which destroys the market altogether because the increasingly unemployed workers have no buying power beyond subsistence. the capitalists must consequently search for foreign markets to sell the goods produced by the workers. the process is consequently one of wealth trickling upwards to a select few, leaving a mass of starving slaves to work the machines that are unable to afford to purchase the very good that they make. furthermore, engels sees this as inevitable within any capitalist society. production consequently must seek greater and greater foreign markets to justify it's own existence, which is of course impossible. as mechanization increases, production increases faster than markets are able to grow, leading to surpluses of goods and subsequent market crashes; this is the marxist explanation for recessions, and while we may argue today that it's a little over-simplified, it's basically correct. this is also considered to be inherent within market capitalism and an inescapable implication of the anarchy of production, as demonstrated by the historical fact of boom and bust cycles.
engels finishes the essay by outlining what he sees as the necessary and correct ordering of steps involved in a communist revolution. first, the capitalists must recognize the social nature of production. once they have fully understood this aspect of the nature of production, they will understand that the most efficient way to exploit workers and markets is to form trusts, or monopolies. however, as engels puts it, "no nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of dividend-mongers", so the trusts will inevitably eventually be placed directly under the direct control of the state, reducing the capitalists to mere bureaucrats. engels does not see this as a final solution because he views the state as a crude means for the capitalists to control the workers in the first place; within a marxist framework, the final solution is the end of the state altogether. it is truly the class relation that is abolished by reducing the capitalists to proletarians, as they now *also* must rely *only* upon their labour to survive. the class struggle consequently absolves itself along with class itself, anarchy in production is replaced with order and the state ceases to exist along with it's justification for existence, exploitation based on class. the emancipation is total - not just of the proletariat, but of all of society from the violence of the class relation.
i'm going to restrict my brief critical analysis to the very last part of the essay and reduce it to the fact that engels has completely ignored the third class, the aristocracy, which is of course still present in society and in government in some way or another, either through direct power or through indirect, financial power. the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not used here, but the concept is also essentially aristocratic. so long as the aristocracy still exists, the reduction of the bourgeoisie to the proletariat will obviously merely result in the reconstruction of a feudal relation, and i don't mean to offer an alternate proof of hayek's thesis. to be fair, it must have been assumed that the aristocracy was initially eliminated in the bourgeois revolution, but this does not accurately reflect any historical bourgeois revolution. an active mechanism to reduce the aristocracy to wage slavery must also be incorporated, lest socialism become a road to serfdom.
full text:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/HX/276.E55/index.html
friedrich engels - on historical materialism
required reading
"on historical materialism" is the title present in the feuer text, but the essay (which is the introduction to the 1892 edition of socialism: utopian and scientific) has apparently also been subsequently published as a standalone text. the core of the essay compares and contrasts the approaches of the british and continental aristocracies to the question of religion, coming to the conclusion that the british aristocracy took a much more "effective" approach in controlling its population.
the essay begins with a defence of "materialism", which engels defines as a peculiarly english philosophy ultimately rooted in bacon's scientific method. to bacon, and apparently engels, "natural philosophy" (the archaic name for "science") is the only true philosophy. however, bacon was also an alchemist; it was only through the further development of hobbes and locke that english materialism, in a fully atheist form, was to be exported to france for still further development. the point that engels is trying to make is twofold: (1) that materialism had it's roots and origins within england and not france or germany as may have been popularly thought at the time and (2) that despite the advancements in thought that were occurring in english universities, the "unwashed masses" of english peasants and the bourgeoisie were still deeply ignorant and deeply religious.
engels also separates materialism from both agnosticism and deism in case there was any question as to the atheistic nature of what he is proposing. he casts aside deism without so much as a second thought by quoting marx as follows "deism is but an easygoing way of getting rid of religion". he spills much more ink on agnosticism but does not give it much more respect. agnosticism, according to engels, is an archaic approach to the question of religion because the science of the day had discarded the necessity of a creator. of what value is a creator if it is not accountable for the creation? he further derides agnostics as materialists in all but name by going through a long-winded argument that is essentially little more than a summary of hegel's response to kant...
if i may interject, i'd like to point out that this introductory section will probably come off as largely juvenile by today's standards. after all, the double-slit experiment (and quantum physics in general) is enough to go back to taking kant seriously again. the contempt that engels shows for his irrational, ignorant opponents actually makes him come off as somewhat of an atheist fundamentalist, which also characterizes the text with a large dosage of irony.
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religion muss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
full text:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Engels_Socialism_Utopian_and_Scientific.pdf
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/D/16.9.E57/index.html
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19565-americas-new-employment-reality
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19553-why-the-climate-movement-should-have-no-keystone
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19564-growing-clash-between-immigrant-rights-activists-and-washington-power-brokers
here, thom hartmann fails to realize that the reason liberals are more frightening than conservatives is that they understand how capitalism works.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19592-stop-treating-capitalists-like-theyre-gods
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19553-why-the-climate-movement-should-have-no-keystone
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19564-growing-clash-between-immigrant-rights-activists-and-washington-power-brokers
here, thom hartmann fails to realize that the reason liberals are more frightening than conservatives is that they understand how capitalism works.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19592-stop-treating-capitalists-like-theyre-gods
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history
this article got some push back; hedges is widely seen as a reactionary liberal and is not particularly well regarded on the left.
my feed has been weird recently. a few days ago, i realized democracy now disappeared about a month ago. truthout disappeared about two weeks ago. the solution is easy: unlike, wait five minutes, like. why this is happening in the first place, i don't know. democracy now and truthout are both popular sources of fairly *centrist* news perspectives. they're both pro-capitalist; neither are very far from the democrats. if somebody is targeting these sources for being radical, that's just hilarious. only in america?
so, yeah, the hedges article that got some pushback. i think he's being pretentious and don't want to really fall into the trap. we expect pretension from the likes of chris hedges. it's probably better to point it out and then ignore it.
he's not completely wrong, and i've never argued that he is. when he talks about the pointlessness of property damage (and he calls that violence, why i don't know - his point would be better taken if he'd say property damage), he makes good sense and has the potential to hold an audience. nor are many people going to disagree that non-violence is preferable to violence in theory - even if there's disagreement about whether meaningful, systemic peaceful change is actually possible or not. it's only when he rejects violence on a dogmatic, ideological level that people start calling him a liberal reactionary - and for good reason, because that's what his arguments logically imply.
this article seems to suggest that he doesn't really understand the criticism. quoting emma goldman to present a position of dogmatic non-violence? listen, he could quote god herself, it wouldn't matter. what's being rejected, chris, is your dogmatism, your suggestion that violence is always wrong under any circumstance. as anarchists, we reject the idea because it's dogmatic, not because we like violence. responding with what you perceive to be your opponent's dogma is just really head-scratching.
but, as mentioned, he's really just being pretentious, and it's better just to ignore it - except to point out that if somebody could convince him to be less dogmatic then having him on board would be an asset.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19658-our-invisible-revolution
my feed has been weird recently. a few days ago, i realized democracy now disappeared about a month ago. truthout disappeared about two weeks ago. the solution is easy: unlike, wait five minutes, like. why this is happening in the first place, i don't know. democracy now and truthout are both popular sources of fairly *centrist* news perspectives. they're both pro-capitalist; neither are very far from the democrats. if somebody is targeting these sources for being radical, that's just hilarious. only in america?
so, yeah, the hedges article that got some pushback. i think he's being pretentious and don't want to really fall into the trap. we expect pretension from the likes of chris hedges. it's probably better to point it out and then ignore it.
he's not completely wrong, and i've never argued that he is. when he talks about the pointlessness of property damage (and he calls that violence, why i don't know - his point would be better taken if he'd say property damage), he makes good sense and has the potential to hold an audience. nor are many people going to disagree that non-violence is preferable to violence in theory - even if there's disagreement about whether meaningful, systemic peaceful change is actually possible or not. it's only when he rejects violence on a dogmatic, ideological level that people start calling him a liberal reactionary - and for good reason, because that's what his arguments logically imply.
this article seems to suggest that he doesn't really understand the criticism. quoting emma goldman to present a position of dogmatic non-violence? listen, he could quote god herself, it wouldn't matter. what's being rejected, chris, is your dogmatism, your suggestion that violence is always wrong under any circumstance. as anarchists, we reject the idea because it's dogmatic, not because we like violence. responding with what you perceive to be your opponent's dogma is just really head-scratching.
but, as mentioned, he's really just being pretentious, and it's better just to ignore it - except to point out that if somebody could convince him to be less dogmatic then having him on board would be an asset.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19658-our-invisible-revolution
Friday, November 8, 2013
publishing inrisampled (inri003)
i spent the summer and fall of 1997 programming drum tracks into an ry30, notating them into a tablature program and sequencing them using noteworthy composer. i did not know how i was going to record these tracks. i think i was expecting to use the computer, but that was probably naive; instead, i was gifted a 4-track recording machine. i then spent the next year and a half rearranging and rerecording the songs i programmed over that period. as these tracks were recorded into my pc, they are time stamped...so i have a much clearer understanding of when they were finished.
the jump to incorporating computers into the recording process is something i always wanted to do, it's just that it wasn't really previously feasible. first, there was a learning curve. i was a smart kid, though; the learning curve was just a time concern. the larger problem was simply access to a pc. i did have a pc at my disposal, but it did not have a modem and it was only equipped to run windows 3.1, which basically meant i could run civ 2 and wolfenstein and little else. the windows 95 computer had dial up but it was in a central location for family use.
when we moved across the city, my dad bought a new computer and i happily inherited his old one. this gave me internet access, which allowed me to download some freeware. it also gave me the time i needed to learn how to do certain things.
i'm separating out a handful of my first electronic sound experiments and collecting them together into an ep. what these blasts of noise have in common is that they were constructed on a windows 95 computer out of samples or generated sound and with very primitive software while i was waiting to get some kind of recording equipment. most of it was pasted together meticulously using the windows 95 sound recorder; the rest of it was constructed in cool edit, which i used as a sort of a synthesizer.
for the most part, these weren't really ever meant to be songs. i ended up using them as connectors, introductions, background. "continuity". yet, i find the idea of throwing them together here to be interesting from an autobiographical perspective.
created in mid 1997. sequenced in november, 2013. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - cool edit (wave synthesis, digital wave editing), windows 95 sound recorder (sampling, digital wave editing), yamaha ry30 drum machine (programming)
released dec 1, 1997
1) the beginning is from a disney film or something, i can't recall which one. it's all wiped away by a wash of war drums and civ2 samples. it's more misanthropic than anti-war, really.
2) noises generated with cool edit. it seemed like the coolest thing in the world, at the time.
3) homer, indeed. i think that might be the ry30 with the drums, recording directly into the back of the pc.
4) i'm using cool edit as a synthesizer and a wave editor, but i think the core of it was done with the sound recorder.
5) some more sound created and manipulated in cool edit.
6) so, there's this dude, and he sounds sort of like one of the monsters from doom II, and he lures a cow with a weird mating call and then attacks it and it's kind of twisted and hilarious. subtle vegan brainwashing? yes, but more on an environmentalist level.
7) the guitar loop is taken from a popular nirvana song, whereas most of the building sound pasted on top is from civ 2. no real message here. just a particularly savvy squirrel that's getting ready for winter by building some kind of fortress.
the jump to incorporating computers into the recording process is something i always wanted to do, it's just that it wasn't really previously feasible. first, there was a learning curve. i was a smart kid, though; the learning curve was just a time concern. the larger problem was simply access to a pc. i did have a pc at my disposal, but it did not have a modem and it was only equipped to run windows 3.1, which basically meant i could run civ 2 and wolfenstein and little else. the windows 95 computer had dial up but it was in a central location for family use.
when we moved across the city, my dad bought a new computer and i happily inherited his old one. this gave me internet access, which allowed me to download some freeware. it also gave me the time i needed to learn how to do certain things.
i'm separating out a handful of my first electronic sound experiments and collecting them together into an ep. what these blasts of noise have in common is that they were constructed on a windows 95 computer out of samples or generated sound and with very primitive software while i was waiting to get some kind of recording equipment. most of it was pasted together meticulously using the windows 95 sound recorder; the rest of it was constructed in cool edit, which i used as a sort of a synthesizer.
for the most part, these weren't really ever meant to be songs. i ended up using them as connectors, introductions, background. "continuity". yet, i find the idea of throwing them together here to be interesting from an autobiographical perspective.
created in mid 1997. sequenced in november, 2013. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - cool edit (wave synthesis, digital wave editing), windows 95 sound recorder (sampling, digital wave editing), yamaha ry30 drum machine (programming)
released dec 1, 1997
1) the beginning is from a disney film or something, i can't recall which one. it's all wiped away by a wash of war drums and civ2 samples. it's more misanthropic than anti-war, really.
2) noises generated with cool edit. it seemed like the coolest thing in the world, at the time.
3) homer, indeed. i think that might be the ry30 with the drums, recording directly into the back of the pc.
4) i'm using cool edit as a synthesizer and a wave editor, but i think the core of it was done with the sound recorder.
5) some more sound created and manipulated in cool edit.
6) so, there's this dude, and he sounds sort of like one of the monsters from doom II, and he lures a cow with a weird mating call and then attacks it and it's kind of twisted and hilarious. subtle vegan brainwashing? yes, but more on an environmentalist level.
7) the guitar loop is taken from a popular nirvana song, whereas most of the building sound pasted on top is from civ 2. no real message here. just a particularly savvy squirrel that's getting ready for winter by building some kind of fortress.
marx & engels - manifesto of the communist party
required reading
so, this is that "bad" little book, huh? while historically important, the text will be unlikely to shock modern youth, except perhaps in it's portrayal of communists as something less than evil, vampiric beings from outer space.
that appears to have been the point as the european media was then launching intense rhetorical attacks upon the communist revolutionaries that, in addition to reasoned debate, also included slur campaigns, personal attacks, police state repression and flat-out lies. hysterical over-reactions to leftist ideas were not isolated to the united states in the 1950s, they go back to well before the era of revolution, back to questionable crusades launched against communal, and conveniently heretic, settlements throughout the mediterranean and still further back to the roman civil wars. they are inarguably still with us today. the text was written just long enough after the french revolution had failed that various tweaked attempts to rekindle the revolution were beginning to pop up in the capitals of europe. the revolts of the mid-nineteenth century had many of the same goals as the revolts of the mid-to-late eighteenth century, most prominently the overthrow of a ruling class (here "bourgeoisie", there "aristocracy"), a revival of democracy and a return to a scientific, rationalist pre-christian greco-roman society. fear of enslavement by industrialization fuses with hope that technology will be able to revolutionize society; the idea was never to destroy production but to ensure that compassionate humans are always in control, never machines that lack the ability for empathy. despite what eventually came of marxism, it's important to understand this manifesto within this historical context; communism was meant as the new rationalism and the new democracy, a democracy of labour, as an attempt to correct the errors that led to the failure of the first revolution.
it's within this historical irony that the manifesto surprises. today, nobody picks up the communist manifesto expecting to read about how democracy is the ideal form of government. nobody expects marx to describe how the "historical struggle" for democracy will end up with communism, and may even think that these concepts are inconsistent with each other. here he argues against the exploitation of children, there for the fair and equal treatment of women and somewhere else for universal education. the communist future will have no state, no laws, no crime, no class and no inequality.
now, it should be noted that all of that sounds a little bit utopian and it's easy to accuse marx of naivety because of it. however, the manifesto was written for an existing audience of communists and authors more than it was written as a sterile delve into academic theory and there are more than a few passages that, in their simplicity, seem designed to convince the irrigorous, not lay out the theory in intricate detail. this text is a political document. it is a propaganda pamphlet designed to organize growing resistance under the control of a director and was used in precisely that way to stir up several revolts.
it should also be pointed out that marx had less than utter disdain for the bourgeoisie, although he certainly exaggerates his outrage throughout the text. marx saw the bourgeoisie itself as characteristic of a sort of failed revolution, the remnants of an upheaval in class and technology that usurped power from the aristocracy during industrialization. he points out some of the positive aspects of this failed revolution, suggesting that it was not a totally lost opportunity to improve living conditions: the collapse of feudalism (even if what replaced it is not much better), urbanization and the rescue of "a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life", unheard of levels of production leading to more and more goods to be used by proles and bourgeois alike, etc. what he attacks is the failure of the bourgeoisie to take these reforms to the next step. he speaks about the failure of the bourgeoisie to bring democracy to europe, indeed of their construction of a new form of "despotism" instead, and the slave-like conditions that exploited workers, viewed as little more than cogs within machines, were forced to endure in order to reap larger and larger profits for the bourgeoisie as they expanded into greater and greater markets. his solution was simple and really quite rational: the only way to ensure that factory workers are not exploited is to allow them to run their own factories. when all of the theory, jargon and rationalizing of thousands of pages of writing by marx and engels is stripped to it's very core, giving workers control of the means of production to ensure that they can never be enslaved by an upper class is really all there is to the central idea of marx' philosophy. it's an idea that actually strikes me as heavily influenced by jefferson's argument for the separation of powers as it is based upon the same simple idea that the only way to avoid despotism is through making it very, very difficult to gather the instruments of control under a single pair of hands.
the value in reading this short text is to strip yourself away from the staggering level of ignorance that exists around marx in the west today. prepare to be surprised as the biases that the media has injected within you for your whole life are disintegrated by the simple task of actually reading the source material. be prepared to recognize that, ultimately, and despite the idiosyncrasies inherent within his writing, marx was merely another left-libertarian in the meta-liberal tradition of jefferson and mills. finally, be prepared to learn why, despite the allure of the status of being labelled that way, you are probably actually not a communist.
of further interest...
- marx presents the argument that only the proletariat has potential as a revolutionary class, but doesn't specify whether he's speaking of workers specifically or what he would call the lumpenproletariat. this is a specific point of contention within socialist thought. do wage labourers really have revolutionary potential or did marx completely goof on this point?
- what we would today call "small business owners" (marx would include the self-employed) are presented as conservative reactionaries with zero revolutionary potential. i think this is a very astute point that is currently lost on a lot of people. supporting small business over large business may be consistent with free market liberalism, but it is not consistent with socialism.
- the communists are more or less defined as the vanguard of the proletariat.
- marx separates between personal and private property, but he does so in a way that upholds the idea of exchanging labour for personal property. this is another issue that would be hotly debated amongst socialists: if the practice of exchanging labour for wages to purchase personal property is maintained, class will persevere and capitalism will not truly be abolished. marx explicitly states that he does not wish to abolish the wage system but only aims to make it more fair. while marx may be enraged by the suggestion, that really reduces his system to a type of reformed capitalism. many socialists and anarchists have pointed this out.
- his definition of the minimum wage as the minimum expenditure required to keep labourers alive (and producing) is very clear-minded in the context of understanding wage labour as a form of slavery. yet, he only suggests a more enlightened form of that slavery, rather than emancipation from it.
- abolishing the family is presented as a necessary task to achieve the full individual freedom of women and children. in this, we see marx' liberal individualism defining his concepts of socialism. marxism is not to be thought of as a type of collectivism, but as a means of rescuing the individual from the collectivization inherent within socialized production.
- marx' attack on proudhon is a little bit weird, but not really wrong. he calls him a bourgeois socialist and accuses him of wanting a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. proudhon's ideas strike me more as a type of gestating anarcho-capitalism, a classical liberalism, than a type of socialism. where marx is right is that it isn't revolutionary in thought (society would remain ordered by markets) and will not lead to an emancipation of the proletariat. but, what he seems to miss is that his own system shares the same point of failure.
full text here:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/HX/39.5.A5213/index.html
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: sennheiser.ca
To: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Hi Jessica,
The required cable is available in our Montreal warehouse.
Part number: 069427
Cable steel 3m jack3.5/jack6.3
Cost: $ 36.19
Shipping: $ 9.00 plus applicable taxes.
Grand total: $ 51.06
Please send a cheque or a money order to:
Sennheiser (Canada) Inc.
221 ave. Labrosse
Pointe-Claire, QC
H9R 1A3
Please make the cheque or money order payable to:
Sennheiser (Canada) Inc.
Reference: Parts department.
Have a lovely weekend!
To: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
Hi Jessica,
The required cable is available in our Montreal warehouse.
Part number: 069427
Cable steel 3m jack3.5/jack6.3
Cost: $ 36.19
Shipping: $ 9.00 plus applicable taxes.
Grand total: $ 51.06
Please send a cheque or a money order to:
Sennheiser (Canada) Inc.
221 ave. Labrosse
Pointe-Claire, QC
H9R 1A3
Please make the cheque or money order payable to:
Sennheiser (Canada) Inc.
Reference: Parts department.
Have a lovely weekend!
remastered inri001 re-release completed
my second
demo, recorded over the second half of the tenth grade, is a
considerably more polished recording. by this time, i had learned a lot
about how to record things and had improved my drumming and keyboard
playing. while the vocals remain highly erratic, ranging from
precociously insightful to devastatingly stupid, the music here is
actually not far from a professional recording.
recorded in spring 1997, remastered in fall 2013. as always, please use headphones.
recorded in spring 1997, remastered in fall 2013. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, keyboards, tapes, vocals, sounds, metronomes, production
released june 1, 1997
demo #27: nothing to say
this is really the only thing that's quite like this in my discography, partly because the synthesizer is a tool that wasn't fully available to me at the age that i would have written more upbeat psychedelic pop songs like this (15-17). by the time i had really secured access to a synth i could use on my own terms, i had defaulted fairly heavily to a type of structured synth pop - and i then grew out of pop altogether rather quickly.
this is also the absolutely last thing that i recorded before i lost my studio for the first time due to moving across the city. specifically, the drums were sold (i was given a drum machine as a replacement, which worked out just fine) and the 4-track i was using went back to my dad's friend, who owned it. i ended up getting a 4-track for christmas, and a synth for my birthday. i spent the next six months refocusing in various ways, and honing in on a more electronic sound.
i think i needed that time, and this song (along with the few before it) are evidence of that. the music was tightening up, but i was getting a little bored with the topics i was exploring.
so, this closes this introductory experimental/learning phase of my musical career.
the explanation of this functions on two levels. i knew this was the end (for the foreseeable future) as i was recording it, so it's written as a reflection. maybe it's true that i didn't really have anything worthwhile to say...
however, the lyrics are all restatements of things that i heard other people around me say at school. i'm reflecting equally on the irrelevance of daily conversation, and suggesting that if this is what we're wasting our time doing then maybe we should all just give up and go home. so, it's a little tongue-in-cheek at the same time as it's not. as always...
musically, this is one of the more developed pieces in the early demos - it's the second keyboard driven vocal track i did, and required sneaking into my sister's room to record the parts. i think there's something forward-thinking about it as it kind of foreshadows a strain of indie/psych/punk/pop that was popular in the mid 00s. but, i'm honestly not sure what i was drawing on. like i say, it sort of stands out...
recorded in may, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
this is also the absolutely last thing that i recorded before i lost my studio for the first time due to moving across the city. specifically, the drums were sold (i was given a drum machine as a replacement, which worked out just fine) and the 4-track i was using went back to my dad's friend, who owned it. i ended up getting a 4-track for christmas, and a synth for my birthday. i spent the next six months refocusing in various ways, and honing in on a more electronic sound.
i think i needed that time, and this song (along with the few before it) are evidence of that. the music was tightening up, but i was getting a little bored with the topics i was exploring.
so, this closes this introductory experimental/learning phase of my musical career.
the explanation of this functions on two levels. i knew this was the end (for the foreseeable future) as i was recording it, so it's written as a reflection. maybe it's true that i didn't really have anything worthwhile to say...
however, the lyrics are all restatements of things that i heard other people around me say at school. i'm reflecting equally on the irrelevance of daily conversation, and suggesting that if this is what we're wasting our time doing then maybe we should all just give up and go home. so, it's a little tongue-in-cheek at the same time as it's not. as always...
musically, this is one of the more developed pieces in the early demos - it's the second keyboard driven vocal track i did, and required sneaking into my sister's room to record the parts. i think there's something forward-thinking about it as it kind of foreshadows a strain of indie/psych/punk/pop that was popular in the mid 00s. but, i'm honestly not sure what i was drawing on. like i say, it sort of stands out...
recorded in may, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
demo #26: stupid
i was violently anti-tobacco in my teens. to an extent, i still am.
i like the music here. something i'm realizing going through these old songs is how much they shadow the creation of post-rock, which was beginning to happen right at about the same time but that i had no realization of. i was in tune with something without realizing it.
lyrically, again, i wish i had articulated myself just a bit better. i wouldn't present the health care argument at this point; i guess my thinking has evolved away from that kind of base liberalism and to something a bit more universal in scope. well, i reject the entire concept of currency at this point, so it doesn't make a lot of sense. nor do i think we'd have to make resource-based decisions if it weren't for the limits provided by currency. so, i'm retracting that statement.
i think the general theme remains valid, though. smoking tobacco is hard to describe without using the word 'stupid'.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
i like the music here. something i'm realizing going through these old songs is how much they shadow the creation of post-rock, which was beginning to happen right at about the same time but that i had no realization of. i was in tune with something without realizing it.
lyrically, again, i wish i had articulated myself just a bit better. i wouldn't present the health care argument at this point; i guess my thinking has evolved away from that kind of base liberalism and to something a bit more universal in scope. well, i reject the entire concept of currency at this point, so it doesn't make a lot of sense. nor do i think we'd have to make resource-based decisions if it weren't for the limits provided by currency. so, i'm retracting that statement.
i think the general theme remains valid, though. smoking tobacco is hard to describe without using the word 'stupid'.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
demo #25: sick
ok, so this. i forgot about this. umm...
i think i was trolling, but i think i was also applying the disturbed pathologies i was exploring in these songs to people around me and realizing that maybe we're all fucked up inside in our own different ways. there's actually somewhat of a message of egalitarian social reform buried in this. are any of us really 'better' than any of the rest of us, or are we all guided by the same contemptible, morbid fantasies? a little cliched, but...
....i think i was mostly just trolling.
i was also coming to the point where i had finished exploring what i wanted to explore and wanted to shift directions, thematically. the song is meant to be a sort of a summary of what i'd written previously, offering a conclusion.
i should also trigger this. the attempt was to be shocking on a dark humour level rather than seriously disturbing, but it's at least somewhere near that line that separates out good taste.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
i think i was trolling, but i think i was also applying the disturbed pathologies i was exploring in these songs to people around me and realizing that maybe we're all fucked up inside in our own different ways. there's actually somewhat of a message of egalitarian social reform buried in this. are any of us really 'better' than any of the rest of us, or are we all guided by the same contemptible, morbid fantasies? a little cliched, but...
....i think i was mostly just trolling.
i was also coming to the point where i had finished exploring what i wanted to explore and wanted to shift directions, thematically. the song is meant to be a sort of a summary of what i'd written previously, offering a conclusion.
i should also trigger this. the attempt was to be shocking on a dark humour level rather than seriously disturbing, but it's at least somewhere near that line that separates out good taste.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 8, 2013.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
william gibson - pattern recognition
meh
"pattern recognition is kinda slow"
i have to agree with kim gordon. this page isn't meant to discuss plotlines, but this one is consciously weaved into itself: pynchonesque, perhaps, but maybe more like an episode of the x-files from scully's perspective. it seems like the entire thing was an attempt to test the strength of a security system. a war game, if you will.
the plotline is complex, but inconsistent, and not always as informed as it could be. for example, there's an insignificant twist where gibson speaks of western oil companies taking control of russian oil as a reaction to the instability in saudi production, presenting the implication of a shift of alliances towards russia. that seems laughable here in 2013, and should have seemed no less absurd in 2002, as the project for the new american century kicked in - neither was the russian state about to hand over or sell it's resources to western firms, nor was the west about to blow the historic opportunity to take control of areas in the russian sphere of influence. what is pushed here is a sort of an american-centric, unipolar, cnn-penned type of narrative that very much upholds the status quo perspective about the triumph of capitalism (for better or for worse) at the end of history but is in truth completely oblivious to the complexity of a deeply multipolar world, where events have causes rooted in multiple perspectives. i suppose that gibson touches on this theme of paranoia, but it seems like it's largely to push it off as too rigorous to account for reality. the result is a sort of coffee-shop pop literature loaded with superfluous references to the vapidness of american capitalism, but low on any real understanding of the world outside america's borders.
the thing is that i don't really care about plotlines or how consistent or realistic they are. a larger problem is that the text lacks any kind of measurable depth, and that the actual ideas that gibson conjures are invariably lost almost immediately. his brief exploration of advertising as an every day activity (and humans as cogs in the advertising machine) was interesting, but not remotely expanded upon. he makes some interesting observations about the back-stabbing, self-interested careerism of life in a corporatist system, but reduces them to the characteristic traits of the rather cartoonish villain, rather than as systemically enforced ideals. there may be an attempt at absurdism in making computers old-fashioned collectibles, but it really isn't particularly absurd...
so, it's a vapid text without much to explore beyond the basic plot, which doesn't even really add up. that's not to say it isn't moderately fun, it's just to say that it doesn't hold up as serious writing.
related media:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/books/congress/PS/3557.I2264P38/index.html
demo #24: not that there’s anything wrong with that
so, i'm glad this isn't the first track i'm uploading. by this point, it should be clear that i had a tendency in this period to take first person perspectives of unsavoury characters in order to mock them - skater thugs, rapists, terrorists...
standard punk rock technique.
here, i'm a homophobe. and i'm kind of harsh; there's a certain level of comedy through the track if you have a dark sense of humour (and this was intentional), but it's harsh. so i should trigger warning this.
in truth, i was the stupid fag that was getting told to go away, although i was always very coy about my sexuality. well, how do you bring the topic up to a bunch of mostly sexually insecure teenage boys that have never dated and don't appear likely to date in the near future? i've mentioned to many people that i've never really been interpreted as a gay male, and that's absolutely true; it's not really the level i got attacked on. it wasn't even on the level of being effeminate; i've never really exaggerated my femininity, ether. the rejection was more on the level of not being able to relate to guy things. at that age, a certain kind of mindset deduces that not caring about certain guy things logically implies homosexuality. the logic is airtight, with the right axiom.
it's a little more complex than that, though. there was a sort of shielding effect at work. not with me, really (as mentioned, i just avoided the topic on just about every level), but with some of the other kids i was associating with. i'm not going to name any names, but i was sort of mocking them a little. what's between the lines is that old freudian suggestion, and in hindsight it really doesn't matter if i was right or not (it was out of line).
but, yeah. this is my mocking homophobe track, complete with aggro nu-metal riff, or at least the closest thing to an aggro nu-metal riff i could muster up. actually, i was a fan of life is peachy - and limp bizkit hadn't released their first disc yet, so i think i was actually sort of predicting something.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 7, 2013.
standard punk rock technique.
here, i'm a homophobe. and i'm kind of harsh; there's a certain level of comedy through the track if you have a dark sense of humour (and this was intentional), but it's harsh. so i should trigger warning this.
in truth, i was the stupid fag that was getting told to go away, although i was always very coy about my sexuality. well, how do you bring the topic up to a bunch of mostly sexually insecure teenage boys that have never dated and don't appear likely to date in the near future? i've mentioned to many people that i've never really been interpreted as a gay male, and that's absolutely true; it's not really the level i got attacked on. it wasn't even on the level of being effeminate; i've never really exaggerated my femininity, ether. the rejection was more on the level of not being able to relate to guy things. at that age, a certain kind of mindset deduces that not caring about certain guy things logically implies homosexuality. the logic is airtight, with the right axiom.
it's a little more complex than that, though. there was a sort of shielding effect at work. not with me, really (as mentioned, i just avoided the topic on just about every level), but with some of the other kids i was associating with. i'm not going to name any names, but i was sort of mocking them a little. what's between the lines is that old freudian suggestion, and in hindsight it really doesn't matter if i was right or not (it was out of line).
but, yeah. this is my mocking homophobe track, complete with aggro nu-metal riff, or at least the closest thing to an aggro nu-metal riff i could muster up. actually, i was a fan of life is peachy - and limp bizkit hadn't released their first disc yet, so i think i was actually sort of predicting something.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 7, 2013.
demo #23: skaters
this is maybe a little hard to understand, if you weren't a teenager in a very specific period - about '91-'99, the 90s i guess, when the nu metal shift "corrected" things and tough guys went backing to being metalheads.
that period overlaps with a period when punk fashion moved from subculture to dominant culture. as with any other failed social revolution, the period is more defined by certain subculture traits being co-opted than it was by any meaningful change in social attitudes, even if it did correspond with a move towards liberalizing social attitudes in the older members of gen x.
i remember playing this for my aunt, who was a teenager in the 80s, and she was just confused by it. in her day, the skaters were the skinny punk kids that got picked on by the meathead jock metal heads. as mentioned, i think people that were teenagers in the 00s may more readily associate with this as well.
but the 90s were weird in this sense. skater culture in the 90s was defined by a sort of thuggish machismo gang mentality that overlapped more into gangster rap than punk rock. what you had where i grew up was a lot of upper middle class white kids skating because it was advertised to them as the "cool thing to do" and in the process co-opting this sort of survivalist 'hood mentality into a tool of oppression that they used to bully and intimidate the kids that, a decade before, would have identified as skateboarders. those kids may have maintained an interest in punk rock, but weren't generally accepted into the skater clique - which was essentially the "in group".
the culmination may seem a little surreal nowadays, if for no other reason than that it's been forgotten. but i remember sneaking through back alleys, evading skateboarding gangs made up of kids into slayer, while i had socal punk music blasting through my headphones. and i'm sure you'll get similar stories if you ask around - or maybe you were also that kid.
on one hand, this track was constructed to be sort of precious, and i think that it is. it's a pretty catchy pop song, really. on the other hand, i think i was trying to be a bit tougher than i actually was. i wasn't one to back down from confrontation - i'm still not. while i think it's true that i could have taken most of these brats one-on-one, i probably would have mostly chosen not to. see, the fear was always more that they'd convert the boards into weapons and then jump you. in canada, guns aren't much of a concern, but knives are.
...and the fear often came out of trivial reasons. talking with somebody's girlfriend. having a pair of headphones or a pair of shoes that might be worth something. basic thug shit.
in hindsight, the analysis here is a little simplistic. suggesting that these kids are going to grow up into pimps is problematic on numerous levels, although i can state with blunt honesty that a number of the people the song was about have grown up to be petty criminals with lengthy criminal records. i have to own that lack of depth and how it comes out in sometimes less than ideal statements, but i'm going to once again blame that on my age.
overall, i like this track on both a musical and thematic level. i just wish i had articulated myself a little bit better.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 7, 2013.
that period overlaps with a period when punk fashion moved from subculture to dominant culture. as with any other failed social revolution, the period is more defined by certain subculture traits being co-opted than it was by any meaningful change in social attitudes, even if it did correspond with a move towards liberalizing social attitudes in the older members of gen x.
i remember playing this for my aunt, who was a teenager in the 80s, and she was just confused by it. in her day, the skaters were the skinny punk kids that got picked on by the meathead jock metal heads. as mentioned, i think people that were teenagers in the 00s may more readily associate with this as well.
but the 90s were weird in this sense. skater culture in the 90s was defined by a sort of thuggish machismo gang mentality that overlapped more into gangster rap than punk rock. what you had where i grew up was a lot of upper middle class white kids skating because it was advertised to them as the "cool thing to do" and in the process co-opting this sort of survivalist 'hood mentality into a tool of oppression that they used to bully and intimidate the kids that, a decade before, would have identified as skateboarders. those kids may have maintained an interest in punk rock, but weren't generally accepted into the skater clique - which was essentially the "in group".
the culmination may seem a little surreal nowadays, if for no other reason than that it's been forgotten. but i remember sneaking through back alleys, evading skateboarding gangs made up of kids into slayer, while i had socal punk music blasting through my headphones. and i'm sure you'll get similar stories if you ask around - or maybe you were also that kid.
on one hand, this track was constructed to be sort of precious, and i think that it is. it's a pretty catchy pop song, really. on the other hand, i think i was trying to be a bit tougher than i actually was. i wasn't one to back down from confrontation - i'm still not. while i think it's true that i could have taken most of these brats one-on-one, i probably would have mostly chosen not to. see, the fear was always more that they'd convert the boards into weapons and then jump you. in canada, guns aren't much of a concern, but knives are.
...and the fear often came out of trivial reasons. talking with somebody's girlfriend. having a pair of headphones or a pair of shoes that might be worth something. basic thug shit.
in hindsight, the analysis here is a little simplistic. suggesting that these kids are going to grow up into pimps is problematic on numerous levels, although i can state with blunt honesty that a number of the people the song was about have grown up to be petty criminals with lengthy criminal records. i have to own that lack of depth and how it comes out in sometimes less than ideal statements, but i'm going to once again blame that on my age.
overall, i like this track on both a musical and thematic level. i just wish i had articulated myself a little bit better.
recorded in april, 1997. remastered on nov 7, 2013.
Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: sennheiser.ca
To: s
Cc: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
S, would you be so kind as to render an assist here?
To: s
Cc: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
S, would you be so kind as to render an assist here?
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: sennheiser.ca
i'm really relieved by how easy it's going to be to fix these.
i have a credit at a music store in ottawa (steve's) that i'm going to try and cash in, but i'm not sure if it's enough to cover it. if that doesn't work, i'll want to order the part (the 069427) directly from you via check or money order. could you put me in contact with s for that? if she can send me the price, i guess i'll attach the check to the service form and send that in....?
jessica
To: sennheiser.ca
i'm really relieved by how easy it's going to be to fix these.
i have a credit at a music store in ottawa (steve's) that i'm going to try and cash in, but i'm not sure if it's enough to cover it. if that doesn't work, i'll want to order the part (the 069427) directly from you via check or money order. could you put me in contact with s for that? if she can send me the price, i guess i'll attach the check to the service form and send that in....?
jessica
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: sennheiser.ca
To: Jessica Murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
I'm sorry!
I missed this entire thread.
Let's see what you come up with, in terms of experimentation. We take cheques, so if you decide a parts order is for you, s. on the Parts Desk can give you bottom line. Same deal for repairs, it just lengthens the process somewhat.
We're not huge, so we've never set up a warranty depot chain. In fact, the only one we ever did set up, dropped us because he didn't get enough business! Considering that we have a fairly large product catalogue, I guess that's a good thing!
To: Jessica Murray <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
I'm sorry!
I missed this entire thread.
Let's see what you come up with, in terms of experimentation. We take cheques, so if you decide a parts order is for you, s. on the Parts Desk can give you bottom line. Same deal for repairs, it just lengthens the process somewhat.
We're not huge, so we've never set up a warranty depot chain. In fact, the only one we ever did set up, dropped us because he didn't get enough business! Considering that we have a fairly large product catalogue, I guess that's a good thing!
The
HD 440 II was designed to be user serviceable. This is no longer true
with our products, save for the really high end stuff. This is why I
mentioned rehabilitation of the old, rather than buying new.
The cable will come out without destroying anything. Wiggle the boot while firmly pulling downward on it. It's been in there a long time, it'll be stubborn. Observe polarity! Letter faces out.
The cable is steel on your model. Big on strength, but tough to solder. If it's not completely trashed, you can put a new plug on. Your call on whether it's worth it.
This model was one of the first to come from the Tullamore factory. They make almost all of Sennheiser's European product nowadays. A few(Uber-expensive) models come from Germany, while the buds and streetwear are out of China.
If your problem is intermittent operation, you can reverse the cable and see if the problem switches sides. If it doesn't, the capsule is trashed, and there's nothing to be done about it. Those parts are long out of production. (One of our techs still uses a pair of these, just to underscore how durable they are)
069427 is the number of the cable, just FYI
if you're not following that, it's excellent news - i just need to replace the fully modular cord.
i remember seeing an audiophile shop down on.....ottawa street. be back in a few minutes, hopefully with good news.
The cable will come out without destroying anything. Wiggle the boot while firmly pulling downward on it. It's been in there a long time, it'll be stubborn. Observe polarity! Letter faces out.
The cable is steel on your model. Big on strength, but tough to solder. If it's not completely trashed, you can put a new plug on. Your call on whether it's worth it.
This model was one of the first to come from the Tullamore factory. They make almost all of Sennheiser's European product nowadays. A few(Uber-expensive) models come from Germany, while the buds and streetwear are out of China.
If your problem is intermittent operation, you can reverse the cable and see if the problem switches sides. If it doesn't, the capsule is trashed, and there's nothing to be done about it. Those parts are long out of production. (One of our techs still uses a pair of these, just to underscore how durable they are)
069427 is the number of the cable, just FYI
if you're not following that, it's excellent news - i just need to replace the fully modular cord.
i remember seeing an audiophile shop down on.....ottawa street. be back in a few minutes, hopefully with good news.
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: sennheiser.ca
To: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
The HD 440 II was designed to be user serviceable. This is no longer true with our products, save for the really high end stuff. This is why I mentioned rehabilitation of the old, rather than buying new.
The cable will come out without destroying anything. Wiggle the boot while firmly pulling downward on it. It's been in there a long time, it'll be stubborn. Observe polarity! Letter faces out.
The cable is steel on your model. Big on strength, but tough to solder. If it's not completely trashed, you can put a new plug on. Your call on whether it's worth it.
This model was one of the first to come from the Tullamore factory. They make almost all of Sennheiser's European product nowadays. A few(Uber-expensive) models come from Germany, while the buds and streetwear are out of China.
If your problem is intermittent operation, you can reverse the cable and see if the problem switches sides. If it doesn't, the capsule is trashed, and there's nothing to be done about it. Those parts are long out of production. (One of our techs still uses a pair of these, just to underscore how durable they are)
069427 is the number of the cable, just FYI.
To: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
The HD 440 II was designed to be user serviceable. This is no longer true with our products, save for the really high end stuff. This is why I mentioned rehabilitation of the old, rather than buying new.
The cable will come out without destroying anything. Wiggle the boot while firmly pulling downward on it. It's been in there a long time, it'll be stubborn. Observe polarity! Letter faces out.
The cable is steel on your model. Big on strength, but tough to solder. If it's not completely trashed, you can put a new plug on. Your call on whether it's worth it.
This model was one of the first to come from the Tullamore factory. They make almost all of Sennheiser's European product nowadays. A few(Uber-expensive) models come from Germany, while the buds and streetwear are out of China.
If your problem is intermittent operation, you can reverse the cable and see if the problem switches sides. If it doesn't, the capsule is trashed, and there's nothing to be done about it. Those parts are long out of production. (One of our techs still uses a pair of these, just to underscore how durable they are)
069427 is the number of the cable, just FYI.
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: sennheiser.ca
sorry, one more question.
i'm looking at replacement parts, and it almost looks like the cord clicks into place. well, here's a picture of a replacement part:
you can see what i mean. i'm getting the feeling that i can maybe pull the cord out and then snap a new one in. but i obviously don't want to determine if that's the case or not through experiment.
these are the 440-IIs. there's a big MADE IN IRELAND on the side if that makes a difference. could you determine for me (i understand you may have to forward me to a different department) if the cable is meant to snap in and out that way or if the plastic needs to be broken to recable?
i know it seems like it should be designed to disassemble, almost everything is nowadays, but this model is from the 80s...
jessica
To: sennheiser.ca
sorry, one more question.
i'm looking at replacement parts, and it almost looks like the cord clicks into place. well, here's a picture of a replacement part:
you can see what i mean. i'm getting the feeling that i can maybe pull the cord out and then snap a new one in. but i obviously don't want to determine if that's the case or not through experiment.
these are the 440-IIs. there's a big MADE IN IRELAND on the side if that makes a difference. could you determine for me (i understand you may have to forward me to a different department) if the cable is meant to snap in and out that way or if the plastic needs to be broken to recable?
i know it seems like it should be designed to disassemble, almost everything is nowadays, but this model is from the 80s...
jessica
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: sennheiser.ca
on second thought, i've taken a little closer look at the phones and it looks like the cord is connected to the phones as a single piece. of course, it must be soldered into place underneath the plastic, but it doesn't appear like there's a way to replace the cord without breaking the plastic apart and regluing it. there's no screws or anything. i kind of don't want to do that as a first attempt.
i think i can probably get the phones back in working condition by just replacing the plug, which is a quick soldering job that i can do myself.
if that doesn't work, i'll want to send them in to have the plastic taken apart and put back together - i'll recontact sennheiser if that turns out to be necessary.
thanks for your response,
jessica
To: sennheiser.ca
on second thought, i've taken a little closer look at the phones and it looks like the cord is connected to the phones as a single piece. of course, it must be soldered into place underneath the plastic, but it doesn't appear like there's a way to replace the cord without breaking the plastic apart and regluing it. there's no screws or anything. i kind of don't want to do that as a first attempt.
i think i can probably get the phones back in working condition by just replacing the plug, which is a quick soldering job that i can do myself.
if that doesn't work, i'll want to send them in to have the plastic taken apart and put back together - i'll recontact sennheiser if that turns out to be necessary.
thanks for your response,
jessica
actually, i think it's obvious that i should get something similar.
i've got a price estimate coming in from sennheiser but i expect it to be ridiculous.
so, i think what i should do is take the phones down to a store and see if i can find a similar cord. then see if i can find a soldering iron....
i should really probably have a soldering iron.
i've got a price estimate coming in from sennheiser but i expect it to be ridiculous.
so, i think what i should do is take the phones down to a store and see if i can find a similar cord. then see if i can find a soldering iron....
i should really probably have a soldering iron.
Re: Fw: Neue Anfrage aus dem Sennheiser Kontaktcenter vom 2013-11-03 [##SVS-Web-SK]
From: "Jessica Murray" <death.to.koalas@gmail.com>
To: sennheiser.ca
yeah, they seem to have just shorted permanently, and i'd kind of feel better about letting sennheiser fix them then taking them to a random shop.
i found this order form:
http://www.sennheiser.ca/live/download/Sennheiser_Repair_order_form.pdf
....but i don't have a credit card and, despite my previous rhetoric, i do need to watch the price very carefully. they're obviously well past whatever warranty my dad bought in the early 90s. do you have any licensed repair centres in windsor, ontario i could just take them in to and pay out cash for? if not, i'm wondering if you could give me a quick price quote and let me send you a check.
the symptom is that one of the ears is deaf. there's two possible causes, and i'm not sure which one is dominant. one of the ears has been a little loose, solved by jiggling it a bit. also, the base seems to have a short in it, solved by rotating it. it's the second of these that i've been doing more often. either way, there's two shorts in the wire.
if i'm going to do this, i'd prefer to just replace the entire copper wire altogether, from the phones right down to the plug. i don't want to do it twice, kind of thing. how much do you think that would cost?
To: sennheiser.ca
yeah, they seem to have just shorted permanently, and i'd kind of feel better about letting sennheiser fix them then taking them to a random shop.
i found this order form:
http://www.sennheiser.ca/live/download/Sennheiser_Repair_order_form.pdf
....but i don't have a credit card and, despite my previous rhetoric, i do need to watch the price very carefully. they're obviously well past whatever warranty my dad bought in the early 90s. do you have any licensed repair centres in windsor, ontario i could just take them in to and pay out cash for? if not, i'm wondering if you could give me a quick price quote and let me send you a check.
the symptom is that one of the ears is deaf. there's two possible causes, and i'm not sure which one is dominant. one of the ears has been a little loose, solved by jiggling it a bit. also, the base seems to have a short in it, solved by rotating it. it's the second of these that i've been doing more often. either way, there's two shorts in the wire.
if i'm going to do this, i'd prefer to just replace the entire copper wire altogether, from the phones right down to the plug. i don't want to do it twice, kind of thing. how much do you think that would cost?
ok. they're not as bad as i thought - coming from a quality source, and with the noise reduction turned off. they're not replacements for the 440-II's, but given that i'm just running everything through the same filters *anyways* (same source...i'm doing it track-by-track but i haven't deviated from the base algorithm of custom izotope patch + nr), i think i can use them while i'm waiting for them to get fixed. so i shouldn't get slowed down at least.
i'll also say that they died on me once before and came back. i wonder if it's temperature related, even. i'm going to let them sit for a few days and see if they come back.
....and, now to wade through all kinds of audiophile nonsense trying to get a straight answer about how important the wiring is in the sound...
i'll also say that they died on me once before and came back. i wonder if it's temperature related, even. i'm going to let them sit for a few days and see if they come back.
....and, now to wade through all kinds of audiophile nonsense trying to get a straight answer about how important the wiring is in the sound...
i got a response back from sennheiser. they are indeed long out of
production, and the response i got basically told me that if i want a
similar sound, i'm fucked - they don't make anything remotely like this
model anymore, so i'm better off trying to get them fixed than replacing
them.
he also explained that if i end up getting new ones, i want to focus on open back models. after doing a little googling, i think he's right - and i think that the fact that most of the headphones i've tried have been closed back might be the biggest sound degradation issue i've been unable to get over. that muffed sound seems to be defined by this difference. but that's going to cost me probably close to $300.
it's imperative, though. i can't do anything without headphones.
the pair i got back in january are just not useful for recording. even at the time, i remember wishing that i would have got a gift certificate or something. they turned out to be ok for the laptop. but they run on a battery that turns on a "noise reduction". batteries in headphones isn't a good idea at all. but, that's secondary to all the processing at the headphone stage. i need headphones with zero processing - clean reproduction. those ones are made for people that want to listen to mp3s on their cell phone, not people that are recording or mastering things.
...and when you turn off the battery they're just glorified ear buds. i'm going to try them though....
he also explained that if i end up getting new ones, i want to focus on open back models. after doing a little googling, i think he's right - and i think that the fact that most of the headphones i've tried have been closed back might be the biggest sound degradation issue i've been unable to get over. that muffed sound seems to be defined by this difference. but that's going to cost me probably close to $300.
it's imperative, though. i can't do anything without headphones.
the pair i got back in january are just not useful for recording. even at the time, i remember wishing that i would have got a gift certificate or something. they turned out to be ok for the laptop. but they run on a battery that turns on a "noise reduction". batteries in headphones isn't a good idea at all. but, that's secondary to all the processing at the headphone stage. i need headphones with zero processing - clean reproduction. those ones are made for people that want to listen to mp3s on their cell phone, not people that are recording or mastering things.
...and when you turn off the battery they're just glorified ear buds. i'm going to try them though....
:(
seem to be gone, and it's an emergency. no headphones = no recording. or, for right now, no remastering. which basically means no reason to continue to exist.
i'm going to try and get them fixed, but if i can't then i may have to sell some gear to get new ones. having one pair of good headphones is more important than having two guitars.
hopefully, i can get them fixed, though. that means plans for a telephone and border clearance are going to have to be put on hold for another month, maybe two.
and that i'm going to have nothing to do but read for the next little bit. ugh.
i don't feel i'm at fault. i left them in a safe space, woke up, and caput.
there's two problems. one of the ear plugs is a little weak, but it hasn't been a problem lately. the larger problem has been at the base, which has been solved by spinning the jack around. it seems like it may be a contact problem inside the base, but i have to admit that i'm not intuitively grasping what may be wrong with it.
seem to be gone, and it's an emergency. no headphones = no recording. or, for right now, no remastering. which basically means no reason to continue to exist.
i'm going to try and get them fixed, but if i can't then i may have to sell some gear to get new ones. having one pair of good headphones is more important than having two guitars.
hopefully, i can get them fixed, though. that means plans for a telephone and border clearance are going to have to be put on hold for another month, maybe two.
and that i'm going to have nothing to do but read for the next little bit. ugh.
i don't feel i'm at fault. i left them in a safe space, woke up, and caput.
there's two problems. one of the ear plugs is a little weak, but it hasn't been a problem lately. the larger problem has been at the base, which has been solved by spinning the jack around. it seems like it may be a contact problem inside the base, but i have to admit that i'm not intuitively grasping what may be wrong with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)