this record is now finished.
==
when i sat down to complete my discography in 2013, one of the ideas that immediately jumped out was to try and reinterpret some of the inri tracks from the late 1990s as modern pieces. as i believed that my source tapes were unusable at the time (which i eventually realized was not the case - see inri024), the conditions for this being a workable project would need to be the existence of the original drum tracks, along with the existence of some midi files.
i was gifted my ry30 in the summer of 1997 to compensate for the loss of my drum kit and studio space, but i did not have any recording gear again until christmas. so, i spent the fall programming the drum machine and teaching myself the basics of sequencing and sound design, using the primitive tools i had available to me. by the time i got my four track, as well as my jx-8p, the ry30 was full, and re-recording my first songs was just a matter of transferring the completed material from the electronic equipment to tape. so, i initially considered making a companion ep to inrisampled that would document my time spent programming the ry30 along with my time spent learning how to manipulate sound. the difference between the drum tracks at this stage and the initial collage experiments, however, is that the drum tracks were not complete songs. so, this was abandoned due to the product being a little dry. but, i still wanted to make an ep around the ry30, perhaps by orchestrating the existing companion midi tracks.
this idea then quickly merged with what would become thru (inri070) and eventually discarded itself within itself when it was realized that the existing midi files for the 90s material were too sparse to really utilize, especially in comparison to the midi files from the early 00s. thru was deleted and then resuscitated over the course of 2014 and 2015, eventually releasing in mid 2015 as a 2001-2003 project, leaving the 90s material in the dustbin of my own history.
it was in june, 2015 that i realized that the source tapes were usable after all, and cycled back around to the beginning of the reconstruction in order to complete the relevant tracks as instrumental pieces. this idea kind of recreated itself in the nature of the source tapes, as i had bounced all of the electronics together into the same channel as a mixing step, back in the 90s. so, i found myself with these ready-to-publish electronic tracks right off the tape that incorporated a combination of the ry30 tracks, jx-8p parts, soundblaster programs, zoom 1010 noises and cool edit experiments. all they really needed was a little attention on the mastering.
i flipped this over, in the end: what each of these tracks are is their final album mixes, with the guitar and bass parts deleted (unless the bass was done on a synthesizer). so, there was some post-production added over 2015 in the form of updated soundfonts, digital mastering and digital effects processing. but, these are really flourishes on the existing tracks.
it was at the end of dec, 2015 that further similar electronics-only ry30-centric remixes were creating for some later songs, as well, thereby filling out the disc and closing the project.
i sold my ry30 in may, 2003 to raise money to go to british columbia. my logic was that i'd really maximized what i was going to get out of it, and that i'd already discarded it, anyways: by that time, i'd been writing drum parts in the scorewriter for a few years already, and had barely touched the ry30 in a long time. but, i regret that decision, in hindsight. and, i expect to pick up another one, one day.
originally written, programmed and recorded from 1996-2002. reclaimed & remixed from june to december of 2015. initial completion date was december 31, 2015. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - drum & other programming, orchestral & other sequencing, guitar effects, digital effects processing, digital wave editing, synthesizers, loops, vocal noises & relics, sampling, sound design, production
the various rendered electronic orchestras include organ, sitar, bells, synthesizer effects, tuba, saxophone, flute, clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and various full string sections
released april 22, 2003
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/electronic-pieces-in-a-primitive-style
Thursday, December 31, 2015
idischzo
so, this version got done first.
i think that the track is actually fine, it's just that the static this morning is a little bit strong. we'll see if i'm right and it fades over the day.
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed july 12, 2015. reprogrammed and reconstructed on dec 31, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/idischzo
i think that the track is actually fine, it's just that the static this morning is a little bit strong. we'll see if i'm right and it fades over the day.
initially written in 1996. recreated in feb, 1998. reclaimed july 12, 2015. reprogrammed and reconstructed on dec 31, 2015.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/idischzo
at
12:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the term "natural climate change" implies that it's an act of god or something. but, historical climate change has been the consequence of a myriad of complex causes, including biological activity. look up the great oxygenation event for one particularly extreme example. one should consequently not mentally categorize "natural" and "anthropogenic" climate change as different things. they're really fundamentally the same thing - same causes, same consequences. and, we can modify so-called "natural" climate change just as well as we can modify so-called "anthropogenic" climate change.
the real question is about how long it takes for the oil industry to drop the orwellian charade and realize they're only fooling the village idiots.
...and about why it is that humans insist on separating themselves from nature.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/huge-natural-gas-leak-still-spewing-methane-in-california/61769/
the real question is about how long it takes for the oil industry to drop the orwellian charade and realize they're only fooling the village idiots.
...and about why it is that humans insist on separating themselves from nature.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/huge-natural-gas-leak-still-spewing-methane-in-california/61769/
at
05:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm still holding out hope on a winter cancellation in the very south-western reaches of ontario. i think it's a definitional problem, though: what defines winter in an empirical sense? is it temperature dependent? because it's not unknown in canada to have short, disconnected bursts of cold weather at any time of the year. so, then it should be sustained. see, i'm not convinced we can get a sustained level of sufficiently cold weather here this year to qualify, but what is the temperature, anyways? zero seems reasonable. but, then is it zero for the overnights or zero for sustained highs? i don't see a sustained period of subzero highs here in windsor, so by that metric it seems doubtful.
but, it's probably not the best to measure it by sustained highs, as we're dealing with a continuous rather than a discrete problem (quantizing things isn't always useful, and is pretty much always really just a shorthand guess when it is). so, if we get a sustained continuous period of near-zero temperatures with only moments above freezing, that may be close to qualifying as winter. but, then how near-freezing is it, really, and what are the actual observable changes? that happens sometimes in november, or even october, and we consider that to be fall.
i think a better metric is probably related to snow cover. that is a clear indication of winter. and, i think that's what i'm holding out on not happening at all this year in windsor - that we're able to avoid any serious cold snap below -10, and that we're able to avoid any snow cover at all. if that happens, winter will have been cancelled for the year.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/january-pattern-change-to-make-mildness-a-distant-memory/61773/
but, it's probably not the best to measure it by sustained highs, as we're dealing with a continuous rather than a discrete problem (quantizing things isn't always useful, and is pretty much always really just a shorthand guess when it is). so, if we get a sustained continuous period of near-zero temperatures with only moments above freezing, that may be close to qualifying as winter. but, then how near-freezing is it, really, and what are the actual observable changes? that happens sometimes in november, or even october, and we consider that to be fall.
i think a better metric is probably related to snow cover. that is a clear indication of winter. and, i think that's what i'm holding out on not happening at all this year in windsor - that we're able to avoid any serious cold snap below -10, and that we're able to avoid any snow cover at all. if that happens, winter will have been cancelled for the year.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/january-pattern-change-to-make-mildness-a-distant-memory/61773/
at
04:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i have wiped out my block list.
it's yearly amnesty - but don't interpret it as a decrease in expectations.
it's yearly amnesty - but don't interpret it as a decrease in expectations.
at
04:19
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if this is a culmination of ten years of work, how did you end up titling it obama in china?
so, what do i think about the rebalance, or the pivot, or the strategic rethink or whatever you want to call it? well, i think the first point is that questioning what you want to call it immediately brings up the question of who the audience is for this, and i have to assume it's domestic - because the administration has to realize that the chinese are going to see past the marketing issues and analyze it for what it actually is. so, the question of whether this is a containment policy or not is really directed at the pacifist streak in the democratic base.
of course it's a containment policy.
but, see, even the language they use indicates a containment policy, it's just being marketed as some kind of reasonable containment policy. the united states is an established power. china is a rising power with the - distant - potential to eclipse it. no established power is going to try and work against the interests of a rising power. rather, it's going to seek to protect it's own interests and then attempt to interact with the rising power as a collaborator, perhaps to attempt to influence it to help carry out it's own goals. that's what a containment policy means in the existing context.
(edit: ask britain about this, regarding it's continuing influence over america)
now, that's a different thing than a containment policy of china fifty years ago, when it was trying to re-establish itself as an actual, existing state. and, it's different than a containment policy for a small, largely irrelevant state like cuba. it's just what a containment policy for a large, potentially powerful state looks like - protection of assets first, and then attempts at co-option.
so, to say that china is meant to be a part of the rebalance is not to deny it is a containment policy, it's just to define what a containment policy means under the existing circumstances.
do i think it's a good idea, though?
i think the idea of china striking a country like australia at any point in the near future is so distant that the chinese are correct to be alarmed by a military build-up in the region. 60% of the navy in what is essentially a colonial holding? so, that's the first point - it makes sense to protect assets, but this is being done with a level of force such that questions about possible offensive capabilities are more than chinese paranoia. it is reasonable to suggest that if it was truly about protecting assets then it would not be such a strong focus.
i also think that the americans are holding to certain positions that have no outcome besides conflict. china has every right to include taiwan and vietnam, at least, in it's sphere of interest. historical chinese claims on the phillipines have long expired but, beyond that, i think that the only region that america has any business seriously defending is japan. even south korea is an inevitable loss, and one that is not worth fighting for.
and, really what are the americans fighting for? the answer is cheap labour. they're trying to siphon out the chinese peripheral through "trade agreements" that reduce largely to plantations for american products. note that the chinese government continues to fund communist insurgencies throughout the region; the inevitable outcome of this is a string of proxy wars that america cannot hope to win.
truly partnering with china as a rising power - and containing them effectively - would require america to back out of certain relationships and hold to a broader peripheral.
there's no doubt that this is logically necessary, if your logic is imperial. but, it's overly aggressive and, if that is not reversed, it may succeed in creating the problems that it's meant to prevent.
so, what do i think about the rebalance, or the pivot, or the strategic rethink or whatever you want to call it? well, i think the first point is that questioning what you want to call it immediately brings up the question of who the audience is for this, and i have to assume it's domestic - because the administration has to realize that the chinese are going to see past the marketing issues and analyze it for what it actually is. so, the question of whether this is a containment policy or not is really directed at the pacifist streak in the democratic base.
of course it's a containment policy.
but, see, even the language they use indicates a containment policy, it's just being marketed as some kind of reasonable containment policy. the united states is an established power. china is a rising power with the - distant - potential to eclipse it. no established power is going to try and work against the interests of a rising power. rather, it's going to seek to protect it's own interests and then attempt to interact with the rising power as a collaborator, perhaps to attempt to influence it to help carry out it's own goals. that's what a containment policy means in the existing context.
(edit: ask britain about this, regarding it's continuing influence over america)
now, that's a different thing than a containment policy of china fifty years ago, when it was trying to re-establish itself as an actual, existing state. and, it's different than a containment policy for a small, largely irrelevant state like cuba. it's just what a containment policy for a large, potentially powerful state looks like - protection of assets first, and then attempts at co-option.
so, to say that china is meant to be a part of the rebalance is not to deny it is a containment policy, it's just to define what a containment policy means under the existing circumstances.
do i think it's a good idea, though?
i think the idea of china striking a country like australia at any point in the near future is so distant that the chinese are correct to be alarmed by a military build-up in the region. 60% of the navy in what is essentially a colonial holding? so, that's the first point - it makes sense to protect assets, but this is being done with a level of force such that questions about possible offensive capabilities are more than chinese paranoia. it is reasonable to suggest that if it was truly about protecting assets then it would not be such a strong focus.
i also think that the americans are holding to certain positions that have no outcome besides conflict. china has every right to include taiwan and vietnam, at least, in it's sphere of interest. historical chinese claims on the phillipines have long expired but, beyond that, i think that the only region that america has any business seriously defending is japan. even south korea is an inevitable loss, and one that is not worth fighting for.
and, really what are the americans fighting for? the answer is cheap labour. they're trying to siphon out the chinese peripheral through "trade agreements" that reduce largely to plantations for american products. note that the chinese government continues to fund communist insurgencies throughout the region; the inevitable outcome of this is a string of proxy wars that america cannot hope to win.
truly partnering with china as a rising power - and containing them effectively - would require america to back out of certain relationships and hold to a broader peripheral.
there's no doubt that this is logically necessary, if your logic is imperial. but, it's overly aggressive and, if that is not reversed, it may succeed in creating the problems that it's meant to prevent.
at
02:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)