no....there's too many things i can't do. it's not an option.
but
do i like the treblier mix, or do i want to just re-upload the original
files? i suspect i'll convince myself of the remixes. i mean, there
were reasons for it...
i'd kind of like to just upload the
original cd-r as one half of a double and a fully instrumental version
as the other half. i could maybe do that by phase cancelling the vocals.
reality: this is never going to stop bugging me. but maybe it's a good time to listen to everything one more time...
i'm going to set it up in a playlist, with original-remaster all the way through and see how i respond afterwards.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
ok, that gets me through the first 6 tapes (that's 24 channels) from
1998, which were labelled. now i have another dozen that aren't. i think
most of them are half empty, but there's a period in early 1999 that
i'm hoping is in there somewhere. i think i should be done digitizing by
the time the sun comes up.
listening through a few snippets, i seem to have bounced the drums together with sequencers and effects, meaning i have little space to play with what comes off the tapes. to me, the value in isolating the songs at this stage is to draw attention to the drum machine, which tended to sometimes get lost in the mix. but there's only a couple of tracks where this is really meaningful.
the more i think about it, the more i have to place it in proper sequence between inri004 and inri005 and there isn't anything that i want to really take out. so, how? well, on the one hand, i realize it would be useful for a consumer to get these appended to the end of inri004, which is otherwise only 11 minutes. it's about the same time frame, too. but i separated inri004 out for it's conceptual value, and this is necessarily a different concept as well. so, i might, instead, create a consolidated cd release with two separate downloads - inri004a and inri004b. inri004, then, is the fall of 2007, which is what it is right now - i'd just be looking at it two different ways. that's my leading mental concept right now, anyways. but i'm not likely to do this at all unless i'm convinced that the results are going to be substantially different than the reconstructed versions i'll do next year. if i think i'm just going to take the bases of these files and add stuff on top, i'll wait and maybe do a few singles when i get there, just adding the material on as bsides. i'll also want to take that approach if i only pull out two or three songs.
it's almost done; i'll make these decisions over night.
listening through a few snippets, i seem to have bounced the drums together with sequencers and effects, meaning i have little space to play with what comes off the tapes. to me, the value in isolating the songs at this stage is to draw attention to the drum machine, which tended to sometimes get lost in the mix. but there's only a couple of tracks where this is really meaningful.
the more i think about it, the more i have to place it in proper sequence between inri004 and inri005 and there isn't anything that i want to really take out. so, how? well, on the one hand, i realize it would be useful for a consumer to get these appended to the end of inri004, which is otherwise only 11 minutes. it's about the same time frame, too. but i separated inri004 out for it's conceptual value, and this is necessarily a different concept as well. so, i might, instead, create a consolidated cd release with two separate downloads - inri004a and inri004b. inri004, then, is the fall of 2007, which is what it is right now - i'd just be looking at it two different ways. that's my leading mental concept right now, anyways. but i'm not likely to do this at all unless i'm convinced that the results are going to be substantially different than the reconstructed versions i'll do next year. if i think i'm just going to take the bases of these files and add stuff on top, i'll wait and maybe do a few singles when i get there, just adding the material on as bsides. i'll also want to take that approach if i only pull out two or three songs.
it's almost done; i'll make these decisions over night.
i'm used to driving myself pretty hard to stay awake for long periods to accomplish things. coffee & nicotine are tools for this, and i'm admittedly not smoking right now. regardless, when i pass out early two nights in a row after mere 15 hour days, the truth is i'm subconsciously trying to avoid something...
i can't let that happen a third time. this call will be made tomorrow morning.
for today, i guess i can go back to digitizing files and do some laundry.
subconscious drivers and no nicotine aside, digitizing requires a lot of sitting around and waiting. and, when you sleep seldomly, your body learns to take advantage of down times, as well. if i can get the digitizing done quickly, chances of nodding off while i'm waiting for the channel to finish are minimized...
i can't let that happen a third time. this call will be made tomorrow morning.
for today, i guess i can go back to digitizing files and do some laundry.
subconscious drivers and no nicotine aside, digitizing requires a lot of sitting around and waiting. and, when you sleep seldomly, your body learns to take advantage of down times, as well. if i can get the digitizing done quickly, chances of nodding off while i'm waiting for the channel to finish are minimized...
rap news 30
as for the vid, it's a long debate that goes around in circles. i don't think anybody that can think clearly about it really denies our own role (although maybe a vid like this helps in holding that mirror up), but trying to address it becomes recursive very quickly, breaking down into the obvious statement that we have to change ourselves but without a clear approach on how to actually do it.
there's this whole gramscian view that we uphold the system because we're taught to. from this perspective, it's impossible to do this "the revolution starts inside" bit until we're able to abolish the institutions that put the bit of the oppressor inside of us. but, we'd need to transcend the condition in the first place. and around in circles we go, tracing out an infinite series....
the only way to break this is to acknowledge a vanguard or what could be called an anti-vanguard. i think vanguard politics are discredited, myself. the anti-vanguard takes us into post-leftist thinking. temporary autonomous zones. but this assumes real revolution is impossible. that sounds defeatist, but is it merely realism?
the expanded pyramid you put up is worth dwelling upon. i think that, existing in the middle of the pyramid, we lack the ability to really change anything - largely because we can't adjust to a system that we neither have the right to tear down nor the right to reconstruct. the best we can really do is stand in solidarity with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in helping them reassert their autonomy, the meaning of which changes from situation to situation. it's only once we can start talking about labour rights in china or land-use rights in brazil that we can understand how we can adjust to a fairer globe.
in the mean time, it probably means that post-leftism is realism rather than defeatism. that's a level of humility that inhabitants of the heart of the empire are going to find difficult to adjust to. perhaps that humility is in truth the real necessary first step.
i mean, i think the expanded pyramid sort of obscures the controlling aspect. you see a pyramid like that and you think that each level is dominant over the next, but is it really so? there's little doubt that "debt slaves" in the advanced industrial world are heavily reliant on production outside of it, but it's worth pointing out that that's a situation that keeps them in place rather than one that empowers them. we're increasingly seeing a situation of structural high unemployment in the developed world that's a reaction to unionization and is directly caused by outsourcing the labour that would alleviate the unemployment; while the unemployed may end up consuming foreign products with what amounts to debt, that doesn't put them in a less dependent position, or in any kind of a position of control. the pyramid presentation is consequently somewhat inaccurate. but, it's inaccurate at the higher levels, as well - this absolutely ordered hierarchy is a gloss any way you look at it. we used to think of this the other way around - we used to think of colonial areas as places to dump goods, in order to enrich the colonizing powers. switching the relationship doesn't construct a power relationship so much as it exposes the underlying economic mechanism. that is, it's more accurate to think in terms of two ends of a market. in order to make money, you need to be able to produce goods cheaply and have a place to sell them. if you take either end point out, the whole thing collapses. it's not entirely fair to suggest that the consuming side of this is as well off as the producing side of it. but it is perhaps instructive to point out that the entire purpose of the new world order (if it's defined as advancing neo-liberalism in the post-soviet era) is to slowly place them on an equal footing. i'm going to agree that if you ask the factory worker in china what the nwo is, they'll tell you it's the consumer base in america. but, if you ask the mass of unemployed workers in spain, they'll tell you it's the absence of economic opportunity created by the globalization of labour. and, maybe they're both right. that takes away a lot of our own agency. and, again, i think that's even more frightening. but i think it's very true.
there's this whole gramscian view that we uphold the system because we're taught to. from this perspective, it's impossible to do this "the revolution starts inside" bit until we're able to abolish the institutions that put the bit of the oppressor inside of us. but, we'd need to transcend the condition in the first place. and around in circles we go, tracing out an infinite series....
the only way to break this is to acknowledge a vanguard or what could be called an anti-vanguard. i think vanguard politics are discredited, myself. the anti-vanguard takes us into post-leftist thinking. temporary autonomous zones. but this assumes real revolution is impossible. that sounds defeatist, but is it merely realism?
the expanded pyramid you put up is worth dwelling upon. i think that, existing in the middle of the pyramid, we lack the ability to really change anything - largely because we can't adjust to a system that we neither have the right to tear down nor the right to reconstruct. the best we can really do is stand in solidarity with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in helping them reassert their autonomy, the meaning of which changes from situation to situation. it's only once we can start talking about labour rights in china or land-use rights in brazil that we can understand how we can adjust to a fairer globe.
in the mean time, it probably means that post-leftism is realism rather than defeatism. that's a level of humility that inhabitants of the heart of the empire are going to find difficult to adjust to. perhaps that humility is in truth the real necessary first step.
i mean, i think the expanded pyramid sort of obscures the controlling aspect. you see a pyramid like that and you think that each level is dominant over the next, but is it really so? there's little doubt that "debt slaves" in the advanced industrial world are heavily reliant on production outside of it, but it's worth pointing out that that's a situation that keeps them in place rather than one that empowers them. we're increasingly seeing a situation of structural high unemployment in the developed world that's a reaction to unionization and is directly caused by outsourcing the labour that would alleviate the unemployment; while the unemployed may end up consuming foreign products with what amounts to debt, that doesn't put them in a less dependent position, or in any kind of a position of control. the pyramid presentation is consequently somewhat inaccurate. but, it's inaccurate at the higher levels, as well - this absolutely ordered hierarchy is a gloss any way you look at it. we used to think of this the other way around - we used to think of colonial areas as places to dump goods, in order to enrich the colonizing powers. switching the relationship doesn't construct a power relationship so much as it exposes the underlying economic mechanism. that is, it's more accurate to think in terms of two ends of a market. in order to make money, you need to be able to produce goods cheaply and have a place to sell them. if you take either end point out, the whole thing collapses. it's not entirely fair to suggest that the consuming side of this is as well off as the producing side of it. but it is perhaps instructive to point out that the entire purpose of the new world order (if it's defined as advancing neo-liberalism in the post-soviet era) is to slowly place them on an equal footing. i'm going to agree that if you ask the factory worker in china what the nwo is, they'll tell you it's the consumer base in america. but, if you ask the mass of unemployed workers in spain, they'll tell you it's the absence of economic opportunity created by the globalization of labour. and, maybe they're both right. that takes away a lot of our own agency. and, again, i think that's even more frightening. but i think it's very true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)