well, that was indeed a kafkaesque mess but i got my expedited border clearance. hey, all those years of avoiding a criminal record came in handy. i'm squeaky clean. i get to use the special line...
but, that doesn't mean this wasn't a pain in the ass. i've ranted about this here quite a bit over the last year. it's only fitting that the last section of it was off the wall ridiculous...
getting across the actual border was not a problem. i just showed them my letter, and he let me through. but, he chuckled and wished me luck. he knew what was coming...
the walk up fort street at around 7 am was purposefully brisk; i was admittedly a little uncomfortable. but, the more i walked, the more it just reminded me of montreal. yes: detroit is full of decaying bridges, falling apart buildings, abandoned industrial centres, smoldering sewers and people sleeping on the street. but, i didn't feel threatened so much as i felt a level of empathy. how'd it get that bad, anyways?
the other thing that made me relax a little was a friendly retriever that ran over across a field to say good morning. it's funny how goldens are basically the universal stress reliever.
it was about twenty minutes to the bridge, which is a short walk for me.
once i got there, though, i wasn't sure how to proceed. i tried going under the bridge first. this is the first point that the smog got to me: i nearly heaved, and had to sit down. first attempt at directions was a hotel that looked like something out of a stephen king movie...
"do you know if i can get in some kind of plaza around the bridge?"
"no."
"does that pay phone work?"
*laughs* "no."
"do you know if there's a phone around here?"
"there's no gas stations for a good ways in either direction."
"well, thanks, then."
so, i went back under the bridge again...
there was a side street running along the complex (and it was a complex. it looked like a prison.) that i decided to take a walk up, and it took me into a nicer street full of very old churches and quaint, if dilapidated houses. three houses in a row had angry, barking, unchained rottweilers that could have easily hopped their four foot tall enclosures should they have decided to. it's a problem in windsor, too. cheaper than a security system, i guess.
and apparently very necessary.
i bumped into a border cop on his way to work and flagged him down...
"how do i get in here?"
"do you have a car?"
"no."
"well, why do you want to get into here?"
"i have a nexus interview."
"why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?"
"so i can get across the border. i'm from canada..."
"you're from canada? how did you get across the border?"
"the tunnel."
"and how did you get here?"
"i walked."
*awkward pause*
"well, you can't get in here without a car. you're going to have to call a cab."
ok, so here's the thing: i can see the enrollment centre through the fence. it's a few hundred yards, at most. and, yet i need to call a cab to transport me those few hundred yards? yes, i do: this is what the cop is trying to tell me. but, i'm not about to call a cab, so i keep walking.
eventually, i get to a cross street with a big sign
MICHIGAN WELCOME CENTER* --->
*note yankee spelling.
well, that sounds like a good thing to try.
hours:
9 am - 4 pm
it's like 7:30...
so, i look up the road and notice it runs into customs. i'm thinking "maybe there's a phone in there". customer service is closed, and there's no barriers so i just keep walking, until a border cop yells at me:
"WOAH. WOAH. YOU CAN'T BE IN HERE. WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING?"
well, i'm looking for a phone. is there one in that building?
"PLEASE STEP TO THE SIDE AND EMPTY YOUR POCKETS."
ok.
so, i pull out some pieces of paper, keys, a few dollars...
"who do you want to phone?"
"i'm trying to get in contact with the nexus office."
"how did you get in here?"
"i just walked in. there's no barriers or anything."
"do you have a car?"
"no."
"why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?"
"well, i'm from canada and..."
"you're from canada? how did you get across the border without a car?"
"i took the tunnel."
"what? how did you get here?"
"i walked"
*awkward pause*
another officer walks over....
"this person just strolled in here, can you believe that."
"where are you going?"
"i'm looking for nexus."
"do you have a car?"
"no."
"why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?"
i laughed out loud at this point.
"because i'm from canada and..."
"wait. how did you get across the border?"
"i took the tunnel."
"and they let you in without documents?"
"well, i have this nexus document. i'm here for a defined purpose."
"pfft. anybody could print that off. do you have any drugs on you?"
"what? no..."
"yeah. right. step into the office, please"
so, i walk into the office...
he takes my id and starts running it through the system, asks me all kinds of absurd questions, accuses me repeatedly of living in collingwood and having a record of escaping the custody of an officer, visibly shatters a blood vessel in his forehead when i provide "jessica" as an alternate name and eventually gives up.
"go back to the michigan welcome center and call a cab from there."
again with the cab. they were really serious about this.
i did walk back to the welcome center, but i was planning on calling the enrollment centre, not the cab. it's now barely 8:00, so i have an hour to wait, and wait an hour i did.
the cop drives by about 8:30...
"listen, i knew this was going to be a problem, but i'm pretty sure the person i initially talked to said they'd give me a lift. the thing is i think they meant from canada, and i couldn't get a hold of anybody to provide instructions, so here i am."
he seems to have softened up a bit, after realizing i'm both harmless and frustrated. the absurdity of the situation actually seems to have become clear to him. but...
"i'd drive you down there myself, but then i have to pat you down, which means i need a female officer present and there aren't any."
"i can't waive that?"
(i don't care what gender my doctor is, and i don't care what gender the cop patting me down is)
"no. plus, i'd have to do all kinds of paperwork, and i just don't want to."
ah, yes. a lazy cop. gee, whudda thunk that possible, huh?
"but, i'll call you a cab if you want."
there's no irony in any of this.
i refuse the offer, and suggest i'll call the place when the welcome center opens.
this is where i got a break, and i have to say it's every bit as surreal as the rest of this. the place opens at 9:00, i use the bathroom, and then ask if there's a pay phone...
there isn't, but he offers the office phone, depending on who i'm calling.
i'm calling nexus, because i'm on foot and need to find out how i'm going to get in there.
apparently, this kind fellow has been working at the michigan welcome center for years and years, and given out instructions on how to get into the nexus office hundreds of times, but has never been in there himself. he's been wondering the whole time if his directions are even accurate, and he wants to know what it looks like inside the complex.
so, he offers to drive me in.
and i graciously accept.
he takes me back along the side street i came in at, past the entrance the first border cop went in, back under the bridge and around through a gated area. i am now finally at the nexus enrollment area. i thank the kind fellow and that is that.
but, the border guards are concerned about how i'm going to exit the complex.
"i guess i'll call a cab."
nobody else got the sarcasm. i was actually planning on asking somebody for a lift to the other side of the fence.
so, the interview goes well. the interviewer was a little older, and i seemed to convince him i'm a good kid. which is what i needed to do.
i got the marijuana question, i was honest, and he overlooked it. they can be very strict about that. but, the thing should get here in 7-10 days.
at the end of it, he asks me if i have a phone. i don't carry a phone. so, he picks up the phone and starts dialing the number for a cab for me...
"listen. if you call me a cab, i'm just going to ask that they drop me on the other side of the fence and walk back to the tunnel. so, why don't you just let me ask somebody for a lift out?"
and, finally, i got some fucking logic from somebody.
"no. we'll just escort you out."
a few minutes later, a truck pulls up with a border cop in it.
"are you here to escort me out?"
"yes."
so, i reach for the door....
"no. i'm not driving you. you're going to walk."
at first, he tries to lead me to the exit to the ambassador bridge.
"canada is that way, but where's your car?"
"i don't have a car."
"why do you want a nexus card if you don't have a car?"
i was on the brink of being a smartass, but managed to restrain myself.
"so i can get across under the tunnel. i just need to get to fort street."
"well, how are you going to get over the bridge?"
"no, i want to walk to the tunnel."
"walk...to...the....tunnel?"
at this point, i understand that every single one of the awkward pauses was shock that i'd walk that far. remarkable.
"yeah."
"well, follow the truck around the building and meet me at the crossing."
i did this, and we walked to the gate that first border cop went through. then i was out the side street and back up fort towards the tunnel...
without having to call a cab.
this is your tax dollars at work protecting you from terrorism.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
so, i took a google tour up fort street, which is where i'm headed this morning.
it's pretty run down, but it's an industrial area so i'm not really walking through the 'hood. and there's only been one shooting in the vicinity this year.
there's been two on my block in windsor. yeah. well, it's perspective.
i'll be fine...
i'll point out i *am* wearing $5 shoes and a stained white tshirt.
it's less about wanting to keep the shoes and more about not projecting wealth.
not that i have any wealth, of course. but shit is relative.
it's pretty run down, but it's an industrial area so i'm not really walking through the 'hood. and there's only been one shooting in the vicinity this year.
there's been two on my block in windsor. yeah. well, it's perspective.
i'll be fine...
i'll point out i *am* wearing $5 shoes and a stained white tshirt.
it's less about wanting to keep the shoes and more about not projecting wealth.
not that i have any wealth, of course. but shit is relative.
uploading the time machine to the scratchpad
and, now i'm mulling if i want guitars at all in the end part...
i think i want one. maybe two. probably not three, unless it comes out at me.
this is consequently close to a final mix.
http://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
i think i want one. maybe two. probably not three, unless it comes out at me.
this is consequently close to a final mix.
http://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
see, in order to get across the border, i need a nexus card. but, in order to get the nexus card, i need to get across the border. it would be a simple exercise if the enrolment centre was in an accessible location, but it's located directly underneath a bridge that i cannot cross. (that sounds poetic, but i can't cross because i don't have a vehicle, and they do not allow pedestrian crossing, and there's no public transportation, and it's almost impossible to find a taxi cab driver both willing and able to cross). so, the only option i can conceive of is to try and cross somewhere else, and hope they let me walk, or escort me to the centre and back. but i'm not really hopeful either is a possibility...
i will say that when i get to the border, i'm certain that i'll understand what my actual options are. i'm just a little fearful that none of them are going to be realistic.
but, logically, is there really much of a difference between letting me drive over a bridge to the center and letting me walk over? i'm clearing customs and being allowed to move from customs to the centre on my own either way, right? i may be freaking out over a perception of the location of the office to the bridge, rather than anything rational that the border guards can actually interpret, one way or the other.
if my plan *does* work, i'm basically going to be walking through detroit at 6:00 am. well, i'm going to end up doing that relatively frequently anyways. my experience with walking through unsafe neighbourhoods has mostly been that thugs go after thugs and so long as one does not project wealth (meaning, it's not a good idea to pull out a roll of hundred dollar bills....as though i have any, right...), there's really little risk in these supposed high risk neighbourhoods.
and, for me, in the end, i'm on their side. i've had my share of conversations with thugs that are probably thinking some nasty shit in the back of their mind, but i tend to convince 'em i'm cool - and not any better off than they are. despite being white and well spoken....
the only other thing i can think of is trying to hitch over the bridge. if that's my only option, that's my only option. i'll find out.
i don't want to come off some drug war narc, i'm really not, but i know that the big problem is not poverty but drugs.
and not any drugs. it's the nasty ones. coke. meth. there's no discussion there, no attempt to size me up - it's just a possible income source to exploit to get high.
i know to stay on the main roads.
and 6:00-7:00 am is not 3:00 am, either.
i'll be fine...
like, i've never seen or heard of a fight in any place in any city in any downtown that wasn't ultimately about cocaine. even when it's about sex, it's really about cocaine...
so...
hey, kids.
i'm not going to tell you not to do drugs. drugs can be fun, sometimes!
but cocaine is baaaaaaad.
baaaaaaaad.
baaaaa.
it IS though. don't do coke...
i will say that when i get to the border, i'm certain that i'll understand what my actual options are. i'm just a little fearful that none of them are going to be realistic.
but, logically, is there really much of a difference between letting me drive over a bridge to the center and letting me walk over? i'm clearing customs and being allowed to move from customs to the centre on my own either way, right? i may be freaking out over a perception of the location of the office to the bridge, rather than anything rational that the border guards can actually interpret, one way or the other.
if my plan *does* work, i'm basically going to be walking through detroit at 6:00 am. well, i'm going to end up doing that relatively frequently anyways. my experience with walking through unsafe neighbourhoods has mostly been that thugs go after thugs and so long as one does not project wealth (meaning, it's not a good idea to pull out a roll of hundred dollar bills....as though i have any, right...), there's really little risk in these supposed high risk neighbourhoods.
and, for me, in the end, i'm on their side. i've had my share of conversations with thugs that are probably thinking some nasty shit in the back of their mind, but i tend to convince 'em i'm cool - and not any better off than they are. despite being white and well spoken....
the only other thing i can think of is trying to hitch over the bridge. if that's my only option, that's my only option. i'll find out.
i don't want to come off some drug war narc, i'm really not, but i know that the big problem is not poverty but drugs.
and not any drugs. it's the nasty ones. coke. meth. there's no discussion there, no attempt to size me up - it's just a possible income source to exploit to get high.
i know to stay on the main roads.
and 6:00-7:00 am is not 3:00 am, either.
i'll be fine...
like, i've never seen or heard of a fight in any place in any city in any downtown that wasn't ultimately about cocaine. even when it's about sex, it's really about cocaine...
so...
hey, kids.
i'm not going to tell you not to do drugs. drugs can be fun, sometimes!
but cocaine is baaaaaaad.
baaaaaaaad.
baaaaa.
it IS though. don't do coke...
uploading the wonderful noise to youtube
the track switches over, tonight. in the alter-reality, it's now nov 17, 1996.
traffic was up this week, so schizoid did well, even though it was only up the one week. it will cycle back in a little later...
========
i suppose this is my first real "noise" construction. i was going for a sort of an "obliviously insane" feel. like, imagine bach just losing his mind one day down at the cathedral. i think i hit it, overall, but the tools i had available to me at the time weren't the best; this could have been more unsettling than it is, if i did have access to better tools (i was thinking that at the time). this was constructed on a 4-track tascam with the aid of a kawaii and a few effects pedals....there were no computers involved...
the "hurricane" part of the noise was constructed by looping little bits of sound over themselves. this is oversimplified, but basically it: i took every cassette i could find and dubbed them all on top of each other. not simultaneously, but in different bits. so, i guess if you had more advanced wave analysis tools you could deconstruct that...
the rest of the noise is multiple tracks of guitar noodling through multiple effects patches, mostly high feedback.
a part of the composition involved fucking with cords and pressing pause while i was mastering it. i was sort of playing with the fantasy/reality split. i wouldn't have been able to articulate that then like i could now, so i'll just sort of let that be. i was thinking in terms of being awoken out of a dream.
please use headphones.
over the next few years, i raided this for samples...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHCzsrJk55M&list=PL3JSjmqp0cbslW9qCBKT_nEcwUt1DY0aN
traffic was up this week, so schizoid did well, even though it was only up the one week. it will cycle back in a little later...
========
i suppose this is my first real "noise" construction. i was going for a sort of an "obliviously insane" feel. like, imagine bach just losing his mind one day down at the cathedral. i think i hit it, overall, but the tools i had available to me at the time weren't the best; this could have been more unsettling than it is, if i did have access to better tools (i was thinking that at the time). this was constructed on a 4-track tascam with the aid of a kawaii and a few effects pedals....there were no computers involved...
the "hurricane" part of the noise was constructed by looping little bits of sound over themselves. this is oversimplified, but basically it: i took every cassette i could find and dubbed them all on top of each other. not simultaneously, but in different bits. so, i guess if you had more advanced wave analysis tools you could deconstruct that...
the rest of the noise is multiple tracks of guitar noodling through multiple effects patches, mostly high feedback.
a part of the composition involved fucking with cords and pressing pause while i was mastering it. i was sort of playing with the fantasy/reality split. i wouldn't have been able to articulate that then like i could now, so i'll just sort of let that be. i was thinking in terms of being awoken out of a dream.
please use headphones.
over the next few years, i raided this for samples...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHCzsrJk55M&list=PL3JSjmqp0cbslW9qCBKT_nEcwUt1DY0aN
grargh. i still can't get a hold of anybody on the other side of the border. and it turns out booking a taxi is a process of trial and error - most taxi drivers can't or won't drive across the bridge. after all, that's what the tunnel bus is for. and it's going to cost like $40....
catch-22s. gotta love 'em.
i'm just going to show up at the tunnel really early and see what happens. i'm hoping that if they don't let me walk they'll escort me, and if they don't do that they'll let me call the center from detroit, where it's not long distance.
i tried calling two of those numbers from a pay phone.
one was a full mailbox, the other was an automated system. i can't be dropping $5 on dead ends over and over. that $10 is waste enough.
catch-22s. gotta love 'em.
i'm just going to show up at the tunnel really early and see what happens. i'm hoping that if they don't let me walk they'll escort me, and if they don't do that they'll let me call the center from detroit, where it's not long distance.
i tried calling two of those numbers from a pay phone.
one was a full mailbox, the other was an automated system. i can't be dropping $5 on dead ends over and over. that $10 is waste enough.
clearing my head at a math rock show in windsor
i needed to clear my head a little tonight, so i hit a show with a few different spins on what's currently called "math rock". i'm glad i did, as i'm feeling nicely relaxed at the moment.
first up was sly why, which was a valiant (and sometimes successful) attempt to cross hip-hop with chick corea. when it clicked, it was pretty groovy, but i was left with the overall impression that it was a proof of concept that requires quite a bit more work to get to where it needs to be.
the rhythm section was really outstanding in the synthesis. the bassist did a decent jaco, while the drummer effectively spliced breakbeats with fusion drumming. where it fell apart a little was with the vocalist/keyboardist.
it's not that he wasn't a good player - he was. but , the vocals seemed rather superfluous, in the sense that i didn't get much interesting out of it. further, he used the same electric piano sound on every single track, and it got a little monotonous after a while. i mean, chick had limited technology at his availability in the late 60s and early 70s. this guy could make his keyboard do whatever he wants it to by merely connecting it to his phone, y'know? why settle for a single, 40 year old tone?
i wanted to suggest he check out some squarepusher, but i instead just suggested he consider orchestrating the keys a little more. i suspect the thought has already crossed his mind, as he mostly agreed with me.
with that in mind, these kids have the potential to do something special, if the vocalist also decides to step back a little from the mundane topics explored in modern commercial hip-hop. i'd keep an eye on this space. i know i will.
toasted plastic, which i'm not repeating the silly chillwave anti-phonetic styling on, was up next and they presented a somewhat generic (but entirely competent) rendition of the emo/math thing that's been floating around since roughly 2000. if there's something worth noting here, it's that the drummer is quite talented. he was able to push through some otherwise predictably unpredictable (if you know math, you get that) songwriting and entirely generic singing.
on the other hand, sometimes you just want to stand in front of some amps and get blown over by them. it's kind of why i left the house tonight, actually.
it's nothing special, but it's loud and melodic and just a little bit complex and it's consequently worth cover if you're looking for it.
what i wanted tonight was just to sit back and have a beer and relax, and it was this act that i thought would be most conducive to that atmosphere. it was a lot of tapping on the ol' ibanez, with some relaxed drumming. again: not a lot to talk about, in terms of originality. but if you like the kind of passive jazz/post/math that's been floating around on bandcamp the last ten years or so, and you want a beer, it's worth the $5.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/07/15.html
first up was sly why, which was a valiant (and sometimes successful) attempt to cross hip-hop with chick corea. when it clicked, it was pretty groovy, but i was left with the overall impression that it was a proof of concept that requires quite a bit more work to get to where it needs to be.
the rhythm section was really outstanding in the synthesis. the bassist did a decent jaco, while the drummer effectively spliced breakbeats with fusion drumming. where it fell apart a little was with the vocalist/keyboardist.
it's not that he wasn't a good player - he was. but , the vocals seemed rather superfluous, in the sense that i didn't get much interesting out of it. further, he used the same electric piano sound on every single track, and it got a little monotonous after a while. i mean, chick had limited technology at his availability in the late 60s and early 70s. this guy could make his keyboard do whatever he wants it to by merely connecting it to his phone, y'know? why settle for a single, 40 year old tone?
i wanted to suggest he check out some squarepusher, but i instead just suggested he consider orchestrating the keys a little more. i suspect the thought has already crossed his mind, as he mostly agreed with me.
with that in mind, these kids have the potential to do something special, if the vocalist also decides to step back a little from the mundane topics explored in modern commercial hip-hop. i'd keep an eye on this space. i know i will.
toasted plastic, which i'm not repeating the silly chillwave anti-phonetic styling on, was up next and they presented a somewhat generic (but entirely competent) rendition of the emo/math thing that's been floating around since roughly 2000. if there's something worth noting here, it's that the drummer is quite talented. he was able to push through some otherwise predictably unpredictable (if you know math, you get that) songwriting and entirely generic singing.
on the other hand, sometimes you just want to stand in front of some amps and get blown over by them. it's kind of why i left the house tonight, actually.
it's nothing special, but it's loud and melodic and just a little bit complex and it's consequently worth cover if you're looking for it.
what i wanted tonight was just to sit back and have a beer and relax, and it was this act that i thought would be most conducive to that atmosphere. it was a lot of tapping on the ol' ibanez, with some relaxed drumming. again: not a lot to talk about, in terms of originality. but if you like the kind of passive jazz/post/math that's been floating around on bandcamp the last ten years or so, and you want a beer, it's worth the $5.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/07/15.html
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
so, i've got my border pass interview on thursday and i have to admit
i don't know how i'm going to get over that bridge to the enrollment
centre. i've been sending out emails and calling people all month, and
nobody has a good answer for me.
the thing is that the bridge is closed to pedestrian traffic. somehow, the bridge became privately owned, which makes the owner liable. there were some suicides in the 70s from jumpers, and the owner had to pay out, and it's been closed to pedestrians and bicyclists ever since. i'm going to avoid ranting about property rights, other than to note that none of the governments in the region at any of the levels have had anything but problems with the guy. i mean, he has a monopoly on cross-border traffic that can't fit through the tunnel, which is virtually all trucks amongst other things, and he hasn't really been responsible about it....
so, they're building a publicly owned bridge in reaction, but it won't be done until like 2020. i should be able to take my bike on that one, but it's also way out of the way. you'd have to think the operator will make some changes when he gets some competition. until then, i simply can't walk over the bridge.
the tunnel is also closed to pedestrians and cyclists because it doesn't have a sufficient walkway, which is a court case i'd probably win if i bothered, but it's a lot of effort i don't really have to expend. it does have tunnel bus service, which is what i'd have to use to get across the river when i want to. most of the places i'd want to get to are then within walking distance up woodward avenue, but i may want to go to pontiac from time to time and i'd have to take the bus for that. if i find myself doing that often, i'll probably get a worthless bicycle and lock it somewhere near the tunnel in detroit. i mean, they won't let bikes on the bus either, unless they're disassembled into a bag, which is really outrageous. i'd probably want to take one of the tires with me back and forth...
so, the problem is that i'm going to show up at the border crossing on thursday morning and not know how to get across. i'm HOPING the border guards will just drive me over, but i'd like to get some verification of that. if i can't, my plan is going to be as follows...
1) i'll show up to the earliest tunnel shuttle across and hope the border people either let me walk to the enrollment centre or escort me there. hopefully, that's worked out before 6:00 am.
2) if i get sent back, i'll have to walk to the bridge and ask them to get me over there somehow.
the instructions that the center provides just assume i'll have a car. in fact, the primary purpose of this exercise seems to be to get my plates on film.
the thing is that the bridge is closed to pedestrian traffic. somehow, the bridge became privately owned, which makes the owner liable. there were some suicides in the 70s from jumpers, and the owner had to pay out, and it's been closed to pedestrians and bicyclists ever since. i'm going to avoid ranting about property rights, other than to note that none of the governments in the region at any of the levels have had anything but problems with the guy. i mean, he has a monopoly on cross-border traffic that can't fit through the tunnel, which is virtually all trucks amongst other things, and he hasn't really been responsible about it....
so, they're building a publicly owned bridge in reaction, but it won't be done until like 2020. i should be able to take my bike on that one, but it's also way out of the way. you'd have to think the operator will make some changes when he gets some competition. until then, i simply can't walk over the bridge.
the tunnel is also closed to pedestrians and cyclists because it doesn't have a sufficient walkway, which is a court case i'd probably win if i bothered, but it's a lot of effort i don't really have to expend. it does have tunnel bus service, which is what i'd have to use to get across the river when i want to. most of the places i'd want to get to are then within walking distance up woodward avenue, but i may want to go to pontiac from time to time and i'd have to take the bus for that. if i find myself doing that often, i'll probably get a worthless bicycle and lock it somewhere near the tunnel in detroit. i mean, they won't let bikes on the bus either, unless they're disassembled into a bag, which is really outrageous. i'd probably want to take one of the tires with me back and forth...
so, the problem is that i'm going to show up at the border crossing on thursday morning and not know how to get across. i'm HOPING the border guards will just drive me over, but i'd like to get some verification of that. if i can't, my plan is going to be as follows...
1) i'll show up to the earliest tunnel shuttle across and hope the border people either let me walk to the enrollment centre or escort me there. hopefully, that's worked out before 6:00 am.
2) if i get sent back, i'll have to walk to the bridge and ask them to get me over there somehow.
the instructions that the center provides just assume i'll have a car. in fact, the primary purpose of this exercise seems to be to get my plates on film.
lost a few days there due to renovations in the unit. it's actually good i didn't dive into this too far, because i need to reflect on this last section a little more. i don't really need yet another looped over blues jam as an appendage to another ambient section. so, i'm going to want to reanalyze it to ensure i'm not repeating myself.
i've been doing this for the last few tracks: planning something elaborate, and then stepping back from it to stress the simplicity a bit more and let the textures come out.
there's going to be a lot of guitars running through this, i've decided on that. but i want to map it more carefully, to ensure it's not as loop-oriented. i made a conscious decision several years ago to try and move away from minimalist music structures; that decision has only become more necessary to maintain relevance since then, as minimalist post-rock has become so saturated and boring. i don't think anything about this section is guilty of the worst characteristics of modern post-rock - not by a large margin. the textures are too electronic, and the loops are too constructed, for that kind of accusation. but i do think that going back to the old tools brought me back to the old world, where i picked all those old crutches back up again.
which is not catastrophic overall. i think there's something to be said for building styles, and mine is pretty idiosyncratic when you break it apart. but i really want to mix this up so that it's a meaningful addition to my discography, rather than just another piece that follows an existing formula. and it's a correction i'd rather make now than five more tracks down the line.
i want to find a way to interpret these old tools in a new way.
for tonight, i'm going to relax a little and check a local show out with a bit of bailey's in the coffee. i'll revisit this when i get home.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1447034165539685
i've been doing this for the last few tracks: planning something elaborate, and then stepping back from it to stress the simplicity a bit more and let the textures come out.
there's going to be a lot of guitars running through this, i've decided on that. but i want to map it more carefully, to ensure it's not as loop-oriented. i made a conscious decision several years ago to try and move away from minimalist music structures; that decision has only become more necessary to maintain relevance since then, as minimalist post-rock has become so saturated and boring. i don't think anything about this section is guilty of the worst characteristics of modern post-rock - not by a large margin. the textures are too electronic, and the loops are too constructed, for that kind of accusation. but i do think that going back to the old tools brought me back to the old world, where i picked all those old crutches back up again.
which is not catastrophic overall. i think there's something to be said for building styles, and mine is pretty idiosyncratic when you break it apart. but i really want to mix this up so that it's a meaningful addition to my discography, rather than just another piece that follows an existing formula. and it's a correction i'd rather make now than five more tracks down the line.
i want to find a way to interpret these old tools in a new way.
for tonight, i'm going to relax a little and check a local show out with a bit of bailey's in the coffee. i'll revisit this when i get home.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1447034165539685
Monday, July 14, 2014
hi again
1) i was thinking you'd drop by to check on the job, but the guys wanted to ask me to tell you that the plaster needs a second or third job. i think it's just cosmetic.
2) i noticed you put some paving stones out in the front. i was going to go get some at the beginning of august (i have a big home depot run planned), but i have to say that's a lot more than i was planning on. i won't touch the stones until you tell me what you want done with them. i was actually thinking that maybe the neighbour might want a little say in it, to be fair about the whole process of ripping down the garden. i *had* asked her not to cover the window, but she did anyways, which is why i just acted. my concern was/is just keeping the window clear; i have no meaningful opinion on the actual landscaping, subject to the practical request. if that's important to her, i have no objection to letting her take control of it - as long as the window stays clear.
3) i'm going to drop the request for the fire inspection because the fire separation to the basement seems to be re-established. just briefly, it seems like the philosophy in the fire code is about risk. there's almost no restrictions on single, detached units because the risk is only to the property owner, and increasing risks for larger and larger buildings because the risk is shared for more and more people. that is, the bigger the property is, the more people the landlord is making risks on behalf of, and the more stringent the requirements. i do feel there's some risk in having the furnace in the kitchen like that, but i don't feel there's any measurable risk down here anymore so i don't feel i have the moral or philosophical right to infringe on risks you decide on for you and your family - that would be characteristic of an overbearing tenant, which i'm trying not to be.
4) i am going to be building some large shelving units down here at the beginning of august (when i make that big home depot run) in the bedroom, living room and a few places in the hall around the kitchen. i want the shelving for books and cds and towels, but they could be used for anything. none of it will be attached to the wall or anything, it will all be free standing, but it's going to be measured and cut to fit the unit so it's going to more or less become a part of the unit. it will be easy enough to remove one day if you have to and/or you want to. but i would be unlikely to take these shelves with me (then again, i think i'm unlikely to move, too). regardless, if you want some influence on that, let me know. right now, i'm just thinking about very simple sealed and unpainted wood units...
5) lastly, i'm not sure if you're aware that the ontario energy board boosted gas prices by 40% on april 1 and that there's some expectation that this will happen a few more times in the next few years. gas is still waaaaaay cheaper than it was even five years ago, but you'd have to expect that's something the gas companies are out to equalize, and there might not be such a dramatic difference in price anymore four or five years from now. it's something to look into further before you switch the rest of the building over. it's a shame that solar is still so prohibitively expensive to install and upkeep, because it can actually generate electricity to *sell* and is the only way to really get off the grid.
j
2) i noticed you put some paving stones out in the front. i was going to go get some at the beginning of august (i have a big home depot run planned), but i have to say that's a lot more than i was planning on. i won't touch the stones until you tell me what you want done with them. i was actually thinking that maybe the neighbour might want a little say in it, to be fair about the whole process of ripping down the garden. i *had* asked her not to cover the window, but she did anyways, which is why i just acted. my concern was/is just keeping the window clear; i have no meaningful opinion on the actual landscaping, subject to the practical request. if that's important to her, i have no objection to letting her take control of it - as long as the window stays clear.
3) i'm going to drop the request for the fire inspection because the fire separation to the basement seems to be re-established. just briefly, it seems like the philosophy in the fire code is about risk. there's almost no restrictions on single, detached units because the risk is only to the property owner, and increasing risks for larger and larger buildings because the risk is shared for more and more people. that is, the bigger the property is, the more people the landlord is making risks on behalf of, and the more stringent the requirements. i do feel there's some risk in having the furnace in the kitchen like that, but i don't feel there's any measurable risk down here anymore so i don't feel i have the moral or philosophical right to infringe on risks you decide on for you and your family - that would be characteristic of an overbearing tenant, which i'm trying not to be.
4) i am going to be building some large shelving units down here at the beginning of august (when i make that big home depot run) in the bedroom, living room and a few places in the hall around the kitchen. i want the shelving for books and cds and towels, but they could be used for anything. none of it will be attached to the wall or anything, it will all be free standing, but it's going to be measured and cut to fit the unit so it's going to more or less become a part of the unit. it will be easy enough to remove one day if you have to and/or you want to. but i would be unlikely to take these shelves with me (then again, i think i'm unlikely to move, too). regardless, if you want some influence on that, let me know. right now, i'm just thinking about very simple sealed and unpainted wood units...
5) lastly, i'm not sure if you're aware that the ontario energy board boosted gas prices by 40% on april 1 and that there's some expectation that this will happen a few more times in the next few years. gas is still waaaaaay cheaper than it was even five years ago, but you'd have to expect that's something the gas companies are out to equalize, and there might not be such a dramatic difference in price anymore four or five years from now. it's something to look into further before you switch the rest of the building over. it's a shame that solar is still so prohibitively expensive to install and upkeep, because it can actually generate electricity to *sell* and is the only way to really get off the grid.
j
yup. hole's getting patched. the logic i provided was entirely accepted.
very relieving. and he actually seems happy i pointed it out to save him headaches down the road.
i also received a verification that the unit is older than 1998, as it was here when he bought it in 1996.
that's useful to know.
Rules relating to rent
(2) Sections 104, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 126 to 133, 165 and 167 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,
(a) it was not occupied for any purpose before June 17, 1998;
section 120 is rent control, reducing rent increases to cpi. units built after 1998 are NOT subject to this legal restriction.
that's a helluva fucking loophole in the law. supposedly, it's to provide "incentives" to build new units which "provides jobs".
this is politician-speak for class warfare.
but i'm safe. was worried, as he mentioned this unit was an add-on...
i had a little talk with him, and i'm not really the problem unit. i mean, i'm not running a/c and so long as the unit is insulated it should hold summer heat deep into the fall.
i didn't have to turn the heat on down here until the polar vortex hit. presuming the winter is nowhere near as cold as last year, i should be the least of his problems.
it's actually the unit on the other side that is costing him.
he admitted to not thinking it through.
we may actually get some better insulation in out of the ordeal.
very relieving. and he actually seems happy i pointed it out to save him headaches down the road.
i also received a verification that the unit is older than 1998, as it was here when he bought it in 1996.
that's useful to know.
Rules relating to rent
(2) Sections 104, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 126 to 133, 165 and 167 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,
(a) it was not occupied for any purpose before June 17, 1998;
section 120 is rent control, reducing rent increases to cpi. units built after 1998 are NOT subject to this legal restriction.
that's a helluva fucking loophole in the law. supposedly, it's to provide "incentives" to build new units which "provides jobs".
this is politician-speak for class warfare.
but i'm safe. was worried, as he mentioned this unit was an add-on...
i had a little talk with him, and i'm not really the problem unit. i mean, i'm not running a/c and so long as the unit is insulated it should hold summer heat deep into the fall.
i didn't have to turn the heat on down here until the polar vortex hit. presuming the winter is nowhere near as cold as last year, i should be the least of his problems.
it's actually the unit on the other side that is costing him.
he admitted to not thinking it through.
we may actually get some better insulation in out of the ordeal.
yeah. i took the switch off and the connection had actually broken in half.
less than a year old.
i think they sell them at the dollar store across the street....
although i should point out it's made in china.
communist? yeah...
i need to relax, i'm really agitated.
the sound collage is coming along well, anyways.
it's supposed to sound like a time portal.
the conceptual basis of the piece was initially just some slowed down guitar chords, and it's turned into something more than it was meant to be, but, hey, do things to the most extreme possible...
less than a year old.
i think they sell them at the dollar store across the street....
although i should point out it's made in china.
communist? yeah...
i need to relax, i'm really agitated.
the sound collage is coming along well, anyways.
it's supposed to sound like a time portal.
the conceptual basis of the piece was initially just some slowed down guitar chords, and it's turned into something more than it was meant to be, but, hey, do things to the most extreme possible...
it's not that my $10 coffee machine refusing to work is catastrophic, it's that i am entirely cognizant of the reality that it was designed to break. if i had more time, i'd sue out of principle.
it's this idea of forced obsolescence. they actually teach graduate courses about it. it's fancy language for designing things in order to break, so they'll be repurchased. and, it's a central aspect of our throwaway, consumerist culture.
there's no use in boycotting because everybody does it. it's an industry standard in industry after industry. graduate level courses are usually for general application; it's getting the idea of making things badly across, so it can be applied on a general basis.
there's nothing in a coffee machine to break, so they design the switch badly on purpose. and, the way they did it is really dangerous. the burner comes on, but the pump doesn't.
result: a useless pile of plastic and metal, and another $0.50 of profit from me after taxes and payouts. ugh.
if we were to sit down and purposefully design the dumbest society possible, we really couldn't do much better than what we've already got.
and, of course there should be a law against it, but you've probably forgotten that regulating corporations is COMMUNISM.
COMMUNIST!!!
it's this idea of forced obsolescence. they actually teach graduate courses about it. it's fancy language for designing things in order to break, so they'll be repurchased. and, it's a central aspect of our throwaway, consumerist culture.
there's no use in boycotting because everybody does it. it's an industry standard in industry after industry. graduate level courses are usually for general application; it's getting the idea of making things badly across, so it can be applied on a general basis.
there's nothing in a coffee machine to break, so they design the switch badly on purpose. and, the way they did it is really dangerous. the burner comes on, but the pump doesn't.
result: a useless pile of plastic and metal, and another $0.50 of profit from me after taxes and payouts. ugh.
if we were to sit down and purposefully design the dumbest society possible, we really couldn't do much better than what we've already got.
and, of course there should be a law against it, but you've probably forgotten that regulating corporations is COMMUNISM.
COMMUNIST!!!
Sunday, July 13, 2014
i will say this, though: i'll be able to measure the real level of malice by any rent increases i get.
i know he can only raise rent by the cpi, which was very low last year, here. the max increase before january 1 is about $5, and that will lock him in for a year. the maximum increase for 2015 is about $10, but only a year after the previous one. that's of little use to him, and not going to affect me much.
the thing is i also know that he knows this, because i overheard it. so, we'll see about that.
he drew up the lease and set the price. i didn't haggle him. i didn't ask questions. again, i have little sympathy: if he's losing money, it's because he set the price too low. i can't afford to correct that error. if he signed a bad lease, it's something he'll have to deal with.
i know he can only raise rent by the cpi, which was very low last year, here. the max increase before january 1 is about $5, and that will lock him in for a year. the maximum increase for 2015 is about $10, but only a year after the previous one. that's of little use to him, and not going to affect me much.
the thing is i also know that he knows this, because i overheard it. so, we'll see about that.
he drew up the lease and set the price. i didn't haggle him. i didn't ask questions. again, i have little sympathy: if he's losing money, it's because he set the price too low. i can't afford to correct that error. if he signed a bad lease, it's something he'll have to deal with.
actually,
no. the air outside is noticeably cooler right now, so it makes sense
to keep them closed for at least a few hours. but, given that the air is
going to be trying to push the temperature down here lower than 20, i
suspect they'll be open by the end of the night.
or i could leave the windows closed and let the heat come on.
i mean, that's what would actually happen. lol....
not any real fear it's going to hit 10-15. the heat will come on. but that's preposterous.
it would be good for demonstration, though.
the heat is set to 19. if i get to worst case during this week's cold snap, that's where it'll be for demonstration purposes.
i guess that really shows the contradiction, though. in order for it to be 20 upstairs, it's going to need to be less than 19 down here. but that's where i (quite reasonably) have the heat turned DOWN to for the summer. meaning the desired temperature upstairs is quite literally impossible to achieve with that hole in the floor.
and, i'm not above setting it to 21 in august, either.
i mean, i'm legally entitled to it.
to be clear: we're really both entitled to set the temperature in our respective units. of course. i don't begrudge the guy. i wish he had better control, too.
what we're seeing is why holes in the floor are not permitted by law. that's the problem...
i mean, what's going to happen right now is he's going to overheat while i'm freezing. the heat goes up, the coolants go down: he's cooling me while i'm heating him. we both lose. i happen to have entropy on my side, but it's really not good for either of us.
i'm convinced the hole gets patched this week....
back to constructing this sound collage, now.
or i could leave the windows closed and let the heat come on.
i mean, that's what would actually happen. lol....
not any real fear it's going to hit 10-15. the heat will come on. but that's preposterous.
it would be good for demonstration, though.
the heat is set to 19. if i get to worst case during this week's cold snap, that's where it'll be for demonstration purposes.
i guess that really shows the contradiction, though. in order for it to be 20 upstairs, it's going to need to be less than 19 down here. but that's where i (quite reasonably) have the heat turned DOWN to for the summer. meaning the desired temperature upstairs is quite literally impossible to achieve with that hole in the floor.
and, i'm not above setting it to 21 in august, either.
i mean, i'm legally entitled to it.
to be clear: we're really both entitled to set the temperature in our respective units. of course. i don't begrudge the guy. i wish he had better control, too.
what we're seeing is why holes in the floor are not permitted by law. that's the problem...
i mean, what's going to happen right now is he's going to overheat while i'm freezing. the heat goes up, the coolants go down: he's cooling me while i'm heating him. we both lose. i happen to have entropy on my side, but it's really not good for either of us.
i'm convinced the hole gets patched this week....
back to constructing this sound collage, now.
and
they're now open again. it went down about a half a degree in an hour
with them closed, which is too fast for my liking. it's already gone
back up .2 in ten minutes since i've re-opened.
i was thinking 25 was a good back and forth, but now i'm thinking more like 22. and i have to keep humidity in mind.
i was thinking 25 was a good back and forth, but now i'm thinking more like 22. and i have to keep humidity in mind.
note:
i overheard some people talking about the temperature upstairs, but i
didn't get a conclusion on the thought process. he seems to be noticing,
already.
the air is set to 20 degrees upstairs, which is about what i thought, and which means if i don't maintain open windows down here the hole in the floor means i can expect an indoor temperature of 10-15 down here, which is not "liveable".
so, i've got massive leverage.
i mean, the hole in the floor isn't legal. i'll waive it on various conditions, which includes the open window. it's just not reasonable to push an open floor AND an air conditioner set that low. it's one or the other.
knowing what it's set to up there will also help me understand when it's time to close the window at night.
the air is set to 20 degrees upstairs, which is about what i thought, and which means if i don't maintain open windows down here the hole in the floor means i can expect an indoor temperature of 10-15 down here, which is not "liveable".
so, i've got massive leverage.
i mean, the hole in the floor isn't legal. i'll waive it on various conditions, which includes the open window. it's just not reasonable to push an open floor AND an air conditioner set that low. it's one or the other.
knowing what it's set to up there will also help me understand when it's time to close the window at night.
no. i'm going to wait until it starts falling and guess if it's heat escaping out or the air overpowering.
i want to stop it from escaping, but if the air is overpowering i want to keep the window open.
as stated, the consequence of the cooling system in an enclosed basement is a meat locker. the window must be open at least some of the time. i just want to see if i can get away with sucking the heat in during the day and then keeping it in overnight, then sucking more in during the day, etc - rather than just keeping it open all the time.
see, it's going to be pumping upstairs if i close the window, and outside if i don't.
so, it's a question of just how much energy i can pull in.
i want to stop it from escaping, but if the air is overpowering i want to keep the window open.
as stated, the consequence of the cooling system in an enclosed basement is a meat locker. the window must be open at least some of the time. i just want to see if i can get away with sucking the heat in during the day and then keeping it in overnight, then sucking more in during the day, etc - rather than just keeping it open all the time.
see, it's going to be pumping upstairs if i close the window, and outside if i don't.
so, it's a question of just how much energy i can pull in.
after a little thought, i've decided to keep them open overnight. it
will flush the hot air out, yes, but it will hopefully also turn the a/c
off. i don't mind if the temperature in here goes up and down with the
outside temperature, it's that frigid refrigerated air that i won't
tolerate. i'd rather the outside cools it down down here on it's own,
and keeps the coolants upstairs.
this is going to dramatically affect the tenant upstairs, but they drilled a hole in the floor so what else am i supposed to do...
what was happening this morning was that the coolants were sinking, as would be expected. if i do nothing, that will get worse and worse until the entire basement is a few degrees cooler than the upstairs.
i can only guess that what's happening upstairs right now is that the hot, humid air from the windows is rising up through the duct. and, the strength of this will depend on the heat outside.
it's cooling down a little this week....
....but it'll be warm again next week. a full week of 30 degree weather with the windows wide open like this could plausibly render his machine useless.
but, it's really sort of one or the other: i freeze or he sweats. and, i have entropy on my side.
this is going to dramatically affect the tenant upstairs, but they drilled a hole in the floor so what else am i supposed to do...
what was happening this morning was that the coolants were sinking, as would be expected. if i do nothing, that will get worse and worse until the entire basement is a few degrees cooler than the upstairs.
i can only guess that what's happening upstairs right now is that the hot, humid air from the windows is rising up through the duct. and, the strength of this will depend on the heat outside.
it's cooling down a little this week....
....but it'll be warm again next week. a full week of 30 degree weather with the windows wide open like this could plausibly render his machine useless.
but, it's really sort of one or the other: i freeze or he sweats. and, i have entropy on my side.
windows are open, and they will probably not close for the summer (unless the floor is fixed).
it's definitely weird to stand in front of the window like it's a heat source. it's actually blowing in a little. but, i need the windows open. otherwise, this place is going to be a meat locker. and keep in mind i like it closer to 30 than 20.
it's definitely weird to stand in front of the window like it's a heat source. it's actually blowing in a little. but, i need the windows open. otherwise, this place is going to be a meat locker. and keep in mind i like it closer to 30 than 20.
if you throw the liberal philosophy and rhetoric about property rights out the window (and this is especially necessary in canada, where property rights are only weakly recognized by common law, and have no standing whatsoever at a constitutional level, being explicitly rejected by parliament (perhaps for political reasons, but nonetheless) repeatedly), the way "buying" property works in reality is something that is basically still feudal in nature.
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
see, again: i'm not getting malice. he's legitimately interested in "getting it to code". and, the idea that recycling air between apartments is not a good one did make sense once i pointed it out: we're talking disease, smell, smoke, food, sound and anything and everything else going through the vents. he seemed to be most concerned about the value of the apartment given that change, and it alone might be enough to get him to patch the holes back up.
but, i'm still not sure he's getting the abstraction that this is an apartment and not a home. running through the fire code, it seemed to be that the regulations become increasingly strict depending on how many people are involved - which is itself just flat out stupid, but it reflects the (very stupid) dominant ideology in capitalism about risk and consequence.
if you own a detached house with one occupant (probably you), there are almost no rules about where to put the furnace. as a single occupant, you're allowed to take on as much risk as you'd want. risk to the neighbours doesn't seem to be factored in.
but, as the size of the apartment grows and the people that the landlord is taking risks *on behalf of* increases, the regulations increase. in other words, the legal reason he can't put a furnace in the kitchen is because he's not allowed to take that risk on my behalf (and the behalf of the other tenants).
but, i can't explain it like that because i'll be asked to waive the risk. it'll be viewed as negotiable. i don't own the risk, myself, it's collective in the building. i suppose the building could vote on it, but i'm more interested in what the fire code expert says about the nature of the risk.
he just kept going back to "normally, in a house..." and "the house code says..", despite repeatedly pointing out that these aren't the right codes.
but it's not malicious. he wants it done right, too.
but, i'm still not sure he's getting the abstraction that this is an apartment and not a home. running through the fire code, it seemed to be that the regulations become increasingly strict depending on how many people are involved - which is itself just flat out stupid, but it reflects the (very stupid) dominant ideology in capitalism about risk and consequence.
if you own a detached house with one occupant (probably you), there are almost no rules about where to put the furnace. as a single occupant, you're allowed to take on as much risk as you'd want. risk to the neighbours doesn't seem to be factored in.
but, as the size of the apartment grows and the people that the landlord is taking risks *on behalf of* increases, the regulations increase. in other words, the legal reason he can't put a furnace in the kitchen is because he's not allowed to take that risk on my behalf (and the behalf of the other tenants).
but, i can't explain it like that because i'll be asked to waive the risk. it'll be viewed as negotiable. i don't own the risk, myself, it's collective in the building. i suppose the building could vote on it, but i'm more interested in what the fire code expert says about the nature of the risk.
he just kept going back to "normally, in a house..." and "the house code says..", despite repeatedly pointing out that these aren't the right codes.
but it's not malicious. he wants it done right, too.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
well, the good news is that i had what i was working on saved before the power went out.
the bad news is that i lost all the undo information and am really stuck with the last save. this is one of the reasons i moved from cool edit to cubase, but the wave editor interface is just so sexy for collage work...
i think i'm ok, but i'm going to have to do some really microscopic listening for the next few hours to be sure.
the bad news is that i lost all the undo information and am really stuck with the last save. this is one of the reasons i moved from cool edit to cubase, but the wave editor interface is just so sexy for collage work...
i think i'm ok, but i'm going to have to do some really microscopic listening for the next few hours to be sure.
substantial fire across the street. seems to be contained, but it just reinforces my point that fires happen and we have fire regulations that are designed by experts in order to minimize the risk of them happening. ideally, people would follow those regulations out of good sense. but, we're strange animals. we all think we're special, and that bad things can't happen to us. so, sometimes we need the community to help us in ensuring those risks are being properly minimized.
i don't know what caused that fire.
it would be unfair of me to suggest somebody fell asleep with a cigarette. but stats are stubborn things, it's a place where people drink early into the morning and it's something that sometimes happens when you decide not to go asleep on a friday night of heavy drinking (and whatever other type of consumption).
that's one of the reasons i always smoke outside.
i don't know what caused that fire.
it would be unfair of me to suggest somebody fell asleep with a cigarette. but stats are stubborn things, it's a place where people drink early into the morning and it's something that sometimes happens when you decide not to go asleep on a friday night of heavy drinking (and whatever other type of consumption).
that's one of the reasons i always smoke outside.
it's not quite this epic, but this just might be the best psych you've never heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPm-1YMSyOM
(there's a section with cycling out motifs that's sort of a conceptual alpha, although the pieces sound incomparably different)
there's also a process/algorithm underlying the soundscape, but i won't code it out here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPm-1YMSyOM
(there's a section with cycling out motifs that's sort of a conceptual alpha, although the pieces sound incomparably different)
there's also a process/algorithm underlying the soundscape, but i won't code it out here.
uploading the time machine to the scratchpad
tonight's mix has the final cubase render, plus the beginning of the noise collage that follows it. i'm going to be pulling out a few more riffs of the song to loop around in circles, there will be an explosion of some sort and the reprise will follow from there.
the track has jumped from 3:10 to almost 7:00 and will be over ten minutes when it's done.
http://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
the track has jumped from 3:10 to almost 7:00 and will be over ten minutes when it's done.
http://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
Friday, July 11, 2014
i sent out an email, but i didn't make any of
these accusations. i pointed out 6.2.3.9 above, but suggested i didn't
care (in the end, i don't, really - it's not a big enough issue to get
pissy about). i also requested a fire inspection...
i'm trying to be non-confrontational and make it about safety. and it is. those laws are there for a reason, and, i mean, his brother is in there....
and, i don't want to kill the guy financially, but i find it very hard to believe that nobody thought to think that putting a gas furnace a few feet from a stove might not be a good idea. i kind of have to think that it was ignored on purpose. and, to that i have no response but "you should have done it rationally, if not legally, to begin with. sorry.".
i'm trying to be non-confrontational and make it about safety. and it is. those laws are there for a reason, and, i mean, his brother is in there....
and, i don't want to kill the guy financially, but i find it very hard to believe that nobody thought to think that putting a gas furnace a few feet from a stove might not be a good idea. i kind of have to think that it was ignored on purpose. and, to that i have no response but "you should have done it rationally, if not legally, to begin with. sorry.".
i'm
actually in a building that is somewhat of a hole in the building code,
although i'm assuming it's well over 400 m^2. well, a quick calculation
took it way over...
there's all kinds of rules about where you are and aren't supposed to put a furnace. it's supposed to be in a fire-separated room - ruling a kitchen out. unless it has "vertical separation" (which i doubt), in which case you can use a sprinkler. it's supposed to be a good distance away from bedrooms and living rooms, meaning where it is is no good. there's supposed to be separation in the flooring (which was just eliminated by cutting the holes through the floor).
there's all kinds of rules about where you are and aren't supposed to put a furnace. it's supposed to be in a fire-separated room - ruling a kitchen out. unless it has "vertical separation" (which i doubt), in which case you can use a sprinkler. it's supposed to be a good distance away from bedrooms and living rooms, meaning where it is is no good. there's supposed to be separation in the flooring (which was just eliminated by cutting the holes through the floor).
and, you know, i just took a look
through the building code act, and it's actually not even legal to
recycle air between apartments.
6.2.3.9. Interconnection of Systems
(1) In a residential occupancy, air from one suite shall not be circulated to any other suite or to a public corridor or public stairway
not to mention fire issues with putting a furnace in the kitchen, now that i think about it.
i think i should deal with this by getting a safety inspector in here and focusing on that part of it.
6.2.3.9. Interconnection of Systems
(1) In a residential occupancy, air from one suite shall not be circulated to any other suite or to a public corridor or public stairway
not to mention fire issues with putting a furnace in the kitchen, now that i think about it.
i think i should deal with this by getting a safety inspector in here and focusing on that part of it.
concerns regarding the furnace
hi.
i'm sorry to make this long, but i've been thinking about the furnace all day and i've got a number of fairly serious concerns. i wish i had brought these up to you before things got underway, but it wasn't clear to me exactly what was going on and i sort of assumed things would be done in a way that was up to certain regulations.
i want to state up front that i'm not going to go running to any kind of regulatory body. i mean, it's an option that exists, but i'm not one to bring the government in to deal with issues lightheartedly - that's an extreme step that i would consider an absolute last resort. i'd probably move out before i did that. i think that would ruin the tenant-landlord relationship, which i'd rather keep cordial and positive. but, there's a lot of things about this that aren't sitting right with me.
to begin with, i want to point out that the idea of running an air vent between units is prohibited by ontario law.
6.2.3.9. Interconnection of Systems
(1) In a residential occupancy, air from one suite shall not be circulated to any other suite or to a public corridor or public stairway.
that's pretty clear, and it's exactly what the return systems are doing.
now, i want to be clear that this does not bother me, personally, as a tenant. i think it may concern your brother due to noise and temperature issues, as i don't keep regular hours and i'm likely to keep the windows open if the air gets out of hand. but, as a practical matter, i don't really care.
further, i've pointed out repeatedly that i plan to inhabit this unit for many years moving forwards, conditions allowing.
but, flaunting the law on that point is going to make the unit unrentable in the future should something happen that will force me to move out. i think it's worth questioning the wisdom of carrying on that path, for that reason.
further, the aesthetic changes attached to running open ducts and condensation pipes through here are dramatic. this is really a very nice unit. is it really worth damaging it's aesthetic quality to such an extreme point to save costs on electricity? put another way, what's the use of reducing the costs in the unit if you make it unmarketable (or drastically reduce it's market value) in the process of doing so?
i suppose the pipes could be drywalled over. but, that return vent is a more serious issue.
as your existing tenant, something i'm more seriously concerned about is fire code issues. i don't know the specifics about what exists upstairs, so i don't want to jump to any conclusions, but i've reviewed the fire code and i'm EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL that what exists upstairs is permitted by law. i'm sure you expect your brother to inhabit the unit for many years as well, but that's another issue that i think requires some thought.
my one request is as follows: as a matter of practicality regarding my safety as a tenant, i would request that you have the situation inspected to ensure that all fire codes are met. i think that's well within my rights as a tenant, and i think it's a more than reasonable (and not at all confrontational) request.
j
i'm sorry to make this long, but i've been thinking about the furnace all day and i've got a number of fairly serious concerns. i wish i had brought these up to you before things got underway, but it wasn't clear to me exactly what was going on and i sort of assumed things would be done in a way that was up to certain regulations.
i want to state up front that i'm not going to go running to any kind of regulatory body. i mean, it's an option that exists, but i'm not one to bring the government in to deal with issues lightheartedly - that's an extreme step that i would consider an absolute last resort. i'd probably move out before i did that. i think that would ruin the tenant-landlord relationship, which i'd rather keep cordial and positive. but, there's a lot of things about this that aren't sitting right with me.
to begin with, i want to point out that the idea of running an air vent between units is prohibited by ontario law.
6.2.3.9. Interconnection of Systems
(1) In a residential occupancy, air from one suite shall not be circulated to any other suite or to a public corridor or public stairway.
that's pretty clear, and it's exactly what the return systems are doing.
now, i want to be clear that this does not bother me, personally, as a tenant. i think it may concern your brother due to noise and temperature issues, as i don't keep regular hours and i'm likely to keep the windows open if the air gets out of hand. but, as a practical matter, i don't really care.
further, i've pointed out repeatedly that i plan to inhabit this unit for many years moving forwards, conditions allowing.
but, flaunting the law on that point is going to make the unit unrentable in the future should something happen that will force me to move out. i think it's worth questioning the wisdom of carrying on that path, for that reason.
further, the aesthetic changes attached to running open ducts and condensation pipes through here are dramatic. this is really a very nice unit. is it really worth damaging it's aesthetic quality to such an extreme point to save costs on electricity? put another way, what's the use of reducing the costs in the unit if you make it unmarketable (or drastically reduce it's market value) in the process of doing so?
i suppose the pipes could be drywalled over. but, that return vent is a more serious issue.
as your existing tenant, something i'm more seriously concerned about is fire code issues. i don't know the specifics about what exists upstairs, so i don't want to jump to any conclusions, but i've reviewed the fire code and i'm EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL that what exists upstairs is permitted by law. i'm sure you expect your brother to inhabit the unit for many years as well, but that's another issue that i think requires some thought.
my one request is as follows: as a matter of practicality regarding my safety as a tenant, i would request that you have the situation inspected to ensure that all fire codes are met. i think that's well within my rights as a tenant, and i think it's a more than reasonable (and not at all confrontational) request.
j
actually, i should point out that i don't know where the thermostat
is. i'm assuming it's measuring the temperature at the cold air return
(you'd think modern furnaces are high tech about this, but i don't
know); if the thermostat is away from there (like in his living room,
for example) then it shouldn't have that kind of feedback problem.
given that the furnace is in his kitchen, though (yes, for real, there's a furnace in the kitchen - good luck renting that unit in the future, too), it seems likely to me that the thermostat is probably connected directly to it....
i mean, i wouldn't expect them to chop through the walls to place the thermostat five feet away in the other room. it's probably mounted right on it.
given that the furnace is in his kitchen, though (yes, for real, there's a furnace in the kitchen - good luck renting that unit in the future, too), it seems likely to me that the thermostat is probably connected directly to it....
i mean, i wouldn't expect them to chop through the walls to place the thermostat five feet away in the other room. it's probably mounted right on it.
so, installing the furnace meant putting in a cold air return that is basically an open hole in the floor.
1) noise. i'm a respectable tenant, i don't blast music or make any more noise than would be considered reasonable, but i'm often awake off hours and there's not any chance i'm going to modify that. that's a big part of what i consider to be freedom. so, he's going to hear me watching youtube or making spaghetti at 4:00 am. *shrug*. there wasn't a problem until they drilled a hole in the floor...
2) air conditioning. i like to acclimatize myself. he seems to like the air on full blast. i'm not going to freeze down here, i'm going to open the window and let the heat in. and, the hot air is going to rise, meaning his air isn't going to work the way he wants it to. *shrug*.
3) i don't have any plans to move anywhere, but if they get pissy about the noise or the windows? good luck renting this to somebody else with a hole in the floor and pipes moving out every which way. i don't care, myself, i'm interested in the amount of space down here and not what it looks like, but what they're doing is irreversibly aesthetically damaging to the property. this was a nice unit, but we're talking about open furnace ducts on the ceilings (like you'd see in an unfinished basement) and a condensation pipe running open through the bathroom and drilled through the tiles into the concrete. it's actually a good thing for them that i don't care, that i've lived in half-finished basements most of my life, because just about anybody else would immediately move out. it makes it more like i'm renting somebody's basement than living in an apartment complex, which i think is how the landlord is more or less interpreting the arrangement.
again: i don't have any plans to move anywhere. i'm just going to make the adjustments i need, and the other tenants will have to deal with it. this simply isn't likely to work out well for the tenant upstairs, who happens to be the landlord's brother. and i'm not sure what their next step is, or if they even have one. i mean, they can't curfew me or tell me to close the windows...
i should point out that the furnace came in as plan b. the initial plan was to put a heat pump in.
but, over a very long email exchange, i was eventually able to explain to him that heat pumps don't work in canadian winters - that, in canada, a heat pump is functionally an air conditioner with an electric coil attached to it, and he'd just be wasting thousands of dollars. but, if i wasn't vigilant about it...
on the one hand, he's a good landlord. he's attentive. and he gives a fuck.
but i'm slowly concluding that he's just not that sharp.
and, you know, i wish i had done some research on this, or they had run their plans by me, because, looking at it, i'm more or less convinced that the way they've got it installed is basically just going to send the hot air back up through the return. when you add the cost of gas to the cost of electricity, it's going to cost him more than it would have if he didn't do anything at all. and, that's plus the cost of installing the thing....
again: there's no malice. and the idea of trying to reduce cost is reasonable.
but everything about the way it's being done is flat out stupid.
i mean, the first obviously dumb thing about this is that they put the furnace at ground level. who does that? the (unstated but obvious) reason is he wanted his brother to control the thermostat. but it doesn't make any sense to think you can heat a basement from the floor above it. the cold air returns on the furnace are going to pick the hot air up, which is likely going to affect the thermostat reading - because it's going to think it's warmer upstairs than it actually is, due to all the hot air coming up. meanwhile, i'm going to continue using electric heat (because the hot air won't distribute well down here from the ceiling), and that's *also* going to heat the cold air return, further reducing the efficiency.
my best guess is that he'll probably react by turning it up higher, correctly realizing it doesn't work but thinking the solution is to set the thermostat to 30. but, it's not going to make a difference, because the hotter it blows out through the ceiling down here, the hotter it comes in to the return. turning it up is going to actually turn it OFF.
i'd like to laugh, but it's more sad than funny.
i took physics beyond grade 13, but it was only required up to grade 10. the only thermodynamics they bothered with was the conservation laws. they didn't even introduce newton's laws until grade 12 - an elective course. i don't know how i remember that....
i guess this is what happens when your education system sucks.
you want to put the returns as low as possible, ideally on the floor of the basement. if you must put the furnace on the second floor, and want to heat the basement, the last thing you want to do is cut a hole in the floor for a return. you want that heat pumping downwards to have as difficult a time as is possible getting back up. it would consequently make more sense to INSULATE the floor...
i can't imagine the guys that installed it don't know that. well, maybe they don't....because who puts a furnace at ground level?
but, i'm sort of wondering if the installers are maybe stabbing him in the back for some reason.
again: i'm not the one that's going to suffer. i should just get some popcorn and relax...
1) noise. i'm a respectable tenant, i don't blast music or make any more noise than would be considered reasonable, but i'm often awake off hours and there's not any chance i'm going to modify that. that's a big part of what i consider to be freedom. so, he's going to hear me watching youtube or making spaghetti at 4:00 am. *shrug*. there wasn't a problem until they drilled a hole in the floor...
2) air conditioning. i like to acclimatize myself. he seems to like the air on full blast. i'm not going to freeze down here, i'm going to open the window and let the heat in. and, the hot air is going to rise, meaning his air isn't going to work the way he wants it to. *shrug*.
3) i don't have any plans to move anywhere, but if they get pissy about the noise or the windows? good luck renting this to somebody else with a hole in the floor and pipes moving out every which way. i don't care, myself, i'm interested in the amount of space down here and not what it looks like, but what they're doing is irreversibly aesthetically damaging to the property. this was a nice unit, but we're talking about open furnace ducts on the ceilings (like you'd see in an unfinished basement) and a condensation pipe running open through the bathroom and drilled through the tiles into the concrete. it's actually a good thing for them that i don't care, that i've lived in half-finished basements most of my life, because just about anybody else would immediately move out. it makes it more like i'm renting somebody's basement than living in an apartment complex, which i think is how the landlord is more or less interpreting the arrangement.
again: i don't have any plans to move anywhere. i'm just going to make the adjustments i need, and the other tenants will have to deal with it. this simply isn't likely to work out well for the tenant upstairs, who happens to be the landlord's brother. and i'm not sure what their next step is, or if they even have one. i mean, they can't curfew me or tell me to close the windows...
i should point out that the furnace came in as plan b. the initial plan was to put a heat pump in.
but, over a very long email exchange, i was eventually able to explain to him that heat pumps don't work in canadian winters - that, in canada, a heat pump is functionally an air conditioner with an electric coil attached to it, and he'd just be wasting thousands of dollars. but, if i wasn't vigilant about it...
on the one hand, he's a good landlord. he's attentive. and he gives a fuck.
but i'm slowly concluding that he's just not that sharp.
and, you know, i wish i had done some research on this, or they had run their plans by me, because, looking at it, i'm more or less convinced that the way they've got it installed is basically just going to send the hot air back up through the return. when you add the cost of gas to the cost of electricity, it's going to cost him more than it would have if he didn't do anything at all. and, that's plus the cost of installing the thing....
again: there's no malice. and the idea of trying to reduce cost is reasonable.
but everything about the way it's being done is flat out stupid.
i mean, the first obviously dumb thing about this is that they put the furnace at ground level. who does that? the (unstated but obvious) reason is he wanted his brother to control the thermostat. but it doesn't make any sense to think you can heat a basement from the floor above it. the cold air returns on the furnace are going to pick the hot air up, which is likely going to affect the thermostat reading - because it's going to think it's warmer upstairs than it actually is, due to all the hot air coming up. meanwhile, i'm going to continue using electric heat (because the hot air won't distribute well down here from the ceiling), and that's *also* going to heat the cold air return, further reducing the efficiency.
my best guess is that he'll probably react by turning it up higher, correctly realizing it doesn't work but thinking the solution is to set the thermostat to 30. but, it's not going to make a difference, because the hotter it blows out through the ceiling down here, the hotter it comes in to the return. turning it up is going to actually turn it OFF.
i'd like to laugh, but it's more sad than funny.
i took physics beyond grade 13, but it was only required up to grade 10. the only thermodynamics they bothered with was the conservation laws. they didn't even introduce newton's laws until grade 12 - an elective course. i don't know how i remember that....
i guess this is what happens when your education system sucks.
you want to put the returns as low as possible, ideally on the floor of the basement. if you must put the furnace on the second floor, and want to heat the basement, the last thing you want to do is cut a hole in the floor for a return. you want that heat pumping downwards to have as difficult a time as is possible getting back up. it would consequently make more sense to INSULATE the floor...
i can't imagine the guys that installed it don't know that. well, maybe they don't....because who puts a furnace at ground level?
but, i'm sort of wondering if the installers are maybe stabbing him in the back for some reason.
again: i'm not the one that's going to suffer. i should just get some popcorn and relax...
deathtokoalas
well, this starts off a bit more interesting, although it falls into every-other-ambient-song-ever-made a little under halfway through.
see, i wouldn't argue lopatin is without potential. but i find he (and a lot of his contemporaries, as well) release such an incredible bulk of material that it's easy to see why so much of it is so lacklustre. maybe if they spent more time on their work it wouldn't all sound the same?
but, overall, this kind of reminds me of the time that keith emerson decided it was a good idea to redo a bunch of mussorgsky on primitive synths. it really wasn't a very good idea. that was probably prog rock's most openly pompous and pretentious (and least self-conscious) moment. this will have a similar fate in the annals of music history...
the only half decent attempt at reinterpreting classical music for synthesizers that i've heard is william orbit's "pieces in a modern style".
k l
blender rock
deathtokoalas
well, the existing genres are all tainted, and i needed a catch phrase....
it's psych, basically.
wholewurld
Listen to Isao Tomita's Pictures At An Exhibition
deathtokoalas
i really wish people would just listen to mussorgsky's pictures at an exhibition, and tell everybody that's trying to commodify it to fuck off.
VexeonX
... Fuck.
well, this starts off a bit more interesting, although it falls into every-other-ambient-song-ever-made a little under halfway through.
see, i wouldn't argue lopatin is without potential. but i find he (and a lot of his contemporaries, as well) release such an incredible bulk of material that it's easy to see why so much of it is so lacklustre. maybe if they spent more time on their work it wouldn't all sound the same?
but, overall, this kind of reminds me of the time that keith emerson decided it was a good idea to redo a bunch of mussorgsky on primitive synths. it really wasn't a very good idea. that was probably prog rock's most openly pompous and pretentious (and least self-conscious) moment. this will have a similar fate in the annals of music history...
the only half decent attempt at reinterpreting classical music for synthesizers that i've heard is william orbit's "pieces in a modern style".
k l
blender rock
deathtokoalas
well, the existing genres are all tainted, and i needed a catch phrase....
it's psych, basically.
wholewurld
Listen to Isao Tomita's Pictures At An Exhibition
deathtokoalas
i really wish people would just listen to mussorgsky's pictures at an exhibition, and tell everybody that's trying to commodify it to fuck off.
VexeonX
... Fuck.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
new category.
so much of what i do is guitar music, it makes sense to pull out the material that is basically an orchestrated guitar solo.
there's a few more hidden away that i may or not pull out, depending on if this generates traffic.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbsbhySkAbLvR2-KJtj8iolS
so much of what i do is guitar music, it makes sense to pull out the material that is basically an orchestrated guitar solo.
there's a few more hidden away that i may or not pull out, depending on if this generates traffic.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbsbhySkAbLvR2-KJtj8iolS
re: those skips i was fighting with....
it does seem to be a directory issue after all, and i'm not sure why what i did fixed it anymore. i just tried to move the entire project to a different directory, and the skips came back. undoing the process (through the menu) fixed it, thankfully. i have a hunch just copying it back wouldn't have.
after going through all the checks i did, i have to conclude it's a problem with the cubase software. this is an old version - sx 3, from late 2005. i couldn't imagine it not getting fixed. but i don't really know what it's doing that would cause this.
i've learned the lesson, though - don't change the directory.
of course, that's not at all feasible to actually hold to. i have to copy to create alternate mixes. i'm also going to want to back these files up when i'm done. i'll have to experiment with this to see what happens and ways to fix it other than re-rendering the freeze tracks.
it does seem to be a directory issue after all, and i'm not sure why what i did fixed it anymore. i just tried to move the entire project to a different directory, and the skips came back. undoing the process (through the menu) fixed it, thankfully. i have a hunch just copying it back wouldn't have.
after going through all the checks i did, i have to conclude it's a problem with the cubase software. this is an old version - sx 3, from late 2005. i couldn't imagine it not getting fixed. but i don't really know what it's doing that would cause this.
i've learned the lesson, though - don't change the directory.
of course, that's not at all feasible to actually hold to. i have to copy to create alternate mixes. i'm also going to want to back these files up when i'm done. i'll have to experiment with this to see what happens and ways to fix it other than re-rendering the freeze tracks.
uploading the time machine to the scratchpad
this isn't final, but i've added a few parts to the track. you probably won't notice most of it, except the descending line in the bridge.
there will be minimal processing on this. this is close to a final mix.
the next section is going to be done mostly in a wave editor, and will explode from the end of this. so this will only be up for a short amount of time.
https://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
there will be minimal processing on this. this is close to a final mix.
the next section is going to be done mostly in a wave editor, and will explode from the end of this. so this will only be up for a short amount of time.
https://googledrive.com/host/0B5JfVE9XTZikMS1zek9ER0xSU1E/scratchpad/
so, i'm cheating a little, but it sounds better and that's the primary focus. i mean, i'm producing a song, not practicing for the guitar olympics.
i decided it would sound better if i cut the phrases up and panned them a little. the piece is just a little dry that way it's written, with a zillion notes shooting out and no dynamics. i have this sequence doubled on piano, music box and synth guitar - i'm not really adding anything by playing over it, except a twang. but if i splice it, it will allow me to let some of the notes bleed over a little, and just give it a bit more pizazz.
it's cheating because that means i'm only playing in a few notes at a time, which is considerably easier. but, i'm not sacrificing a good sonic idea for some kind of bullshit guitar cred...
it'll be done soon.
what i will say is if i thought it sounded better in one piece, i'd force myself to do it until i got it right. but i don't.
i decided it would sound better if i cut the phrases up and panned them a little. the piece is just a little dry that way it's written, with a zillion notes shooting out and no dynamics. i have this sequence doubled on piano, music box and synth guitar - i'm not really adding anything by playing over it, except a twang. but if i splice it, it will allow me to let some of the notes bleed over a little, and just give it a bit more pizazz.
it's cheating because that means i'm only playing in a few notes at a time, which is considerably easier. but, i'm not sacrificing a good sonic idea for some kind of bullshit guitar cred...
it'll be done soon.
what i will say is if i thought it sounded better in one piece, i'd force myself to do it until i got it right. but i don't.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
actually, i take that back. merely hitting the pick harder eliminates the flub. user error.
the III is still the dominant sound i want, but i'm thinking i'll probably double track it with the stubby to get a thicker sound underneath...
it's actually likely to almost create an octaver effect. i mean, it's not an octaver effect. but the thinner pick seems to pushing higher harmonics in the distortion, while the thicker one is pushing lower ones, sort of getting the same thing.
it's going to be very delicate actually properly doubling this, though. well, tripling it. i'm going to leave the sequence in.
the III is still the dominant sound i want, but i'm thinking i'll probably double track it with the stubby to get a thicker sound underneath...
it's actually likely to almost create an octaver effect. i mean, it's not an octaver effect. but the thinner pick seems to pushing higher harmonics in the distortion, while the thicker one is pushing lower ones, sort of getting the same thing.
it's going to be very delicate actually properly doubling this, though. well, tripling it. i'm going to leave the sequence in.
nah.
the big stubbies are a nice size, but they're too thick (3.0 mm). even
the 208s, which is what i wanted, are only 2.5 (i think). i normally get
2.0 mm stubbies that are intermediate in size between the jazz IIIs and
the 208s. that extra thickness is fine when i'm moving string to
string, but i hit the same notes in succession here repeatedly and it's
flubbing the string. no good...
i'm also looking for more of a plucky, twangy, tele sound with this and the thickness of the pick is kind of dulling it. the jazz III just sounds better...
i'm not one to throw away a tool, so i'll hang on to these, but they're so thick that i can't see myself using them for much besides bass.
i can handle this with the jazz IIIs, i'm just going to have to do a few extra takes to get it.
but i'll take another walk down tomorrow, because it is also means i need some normal stubbies.
i'm also looking for more of a plucky, twangy, tele sound with this and the thickness of the pick is kind of dulling it. the jazz III just sounds better...
i'm not one to throw away a tool, so i'll hang on to these, but they're so thick that i can't see myself using them for much besides bass.
i can handle this with the jazz IIIs, i'm just going to have to do a few extra takes to get it.
but i'll take another walk down tomorrow, because it is also means i need some normal stubbies.
back.
they had 3 of the 4 types i use (stubbies, small jazz IIIs and 1.0 mm tortexes - all dunlops), so i stocked up. but it was the fourth i really wanted. i think a stubby should work for the piece.
i didn't bring one with me, but i also use dunlop 208s.
i use the tortexes for general overall use. i think they're generally thought of as blues picks. they're pretty versatile...good for bending and tremoloing...
...but they're not good for certain types of riffing because they're not thick enough. i don't riff like that often, but when i do i want to use something like those 208s, which i first started using as bass picks, actually. they're very good for that, too.
i normally use the small stubbies and the IIIs solely for faster playing because they're very pointy. i had some good threes, but i needed the bigger surface area for the song because there's a (very) short pseudo-sweep picking part and i just wasn't getting good grip. on the other hand, the smaller size of the threes is sometimes better for scale work. i jump back and forth, often without any real logic, depending on availability and what i've convinced myself sounds better. the stubbies also have better grip, of course.
but what i did here was accidentally get some big stubbies that are actually closer in size to (and a bit thicker than) the 208s, which is what i wanted in the first place.
due to a shift in supply, i may end up replacing the 208s and the small stubbies with the big ones. we'll see how that works out.
for now, i think i have what i need to finish the song.
they had 3 of the 4 types i use (stubbies, small jazz IIIs and 1.0 mm tortexes - all dunlops), so i stocked up. but it was the fourth i really wanted. i think a stubby should work for the piece.
i didn't bring one with me, but i also use dunlop 208s.
i use the tortexes for general overall use. i think they're generally thought of as blues picks. they're pretty versatile...good for bending and tremoloing...
...but they're not good for certain types of riffing because they're not thick enough. i don't riff like that often, but when i do i want to use something like those 208s, which i first started using as bass picks, actually. they're very good for that, too.
i normally use the small stubbies and the IIIs solely for faster playing because they're very pointy. i had some good threes, but i needed the bigger surface area for the song because there's a (very) short pseudo-sweep picking part and i just wasn't getting good grip. on the other hand, the smaller size of the threes is sometimes better for scale work. i jump back and forth, often without any real logic, depending on availability and what i've convinced myself sounds better. the stubbies also have better grip, of course.
but what i did here was accidentally get some big stubbies that are actually closer in size to (and a bit thicker than) the 208s, which is what i wanted in the first place.
due to a shift in supply, i may end up replacing the 208s and the small stubbies with the big ones. we'll see how that works out.
for now, i think i have what i need to finish the song.
something else i'm going to want to get around doing soon is buying
something on bandcamp to start following people. i think that's a good
marketing tool that i'm missing out on.
and, hey, i have exquisite taste...that's a list people want in on...
i just can't conceive of buying audio files. whatever it is i buy, it will be physical...
and, hey, i have exquisite taste...that's a list people want in on...
i just can't conceive of buying audio files. whatever it is i buy, it will be physical...
uploading schizoid to youtube
my front page track will switch tonight around midnight. this
one will only be up a week, but it's also the first track from the
second side of the first demo, so time is moving forward.
(of course, i'm featuring tracks in real time relative to when they were first written a little less than 19 years ago. so, i'll be continuing to cycle through these very early cassette demos for about the next year or so.)
well, sort of. this is the 1998 version, which i'm subbing in for the 1996 version for a variety of reasons. i'm just not going to upload the '96 version. that also means that this will cycle back in about two years from now.
i'll also be redoing this (and a few others) in instrumental form for the vst project in the upcoming weeks.
boogeyman did well, but is a bit short of what i was hoping for. it seemed a mild stretch for it to break 1000 hits over the month from the start, but it seemed like the curve was moving up so i thought "maybe". the curve did continue moving, but it distributed itself more evenly than i was expecting. as is, it should hit 900 shortly. it will still probably be the first to 1000, but that will likely take another month or so. it'll certainly break 1000 when it gets cycled back again over the 66 days that existed between the two cassette demos.
====
this is one of the creepy tracks where i'm exploring mental illness from the perspective of an isolated 15 year-old; the person in the song is dealing with satanic voices that are keying on traumatic childhood taunting and suggesting violent outbursts as a means of self-defense. this has induced a serious level of agoraphobia.
this is the second recording of the track (you can get to the first by clicking through the link). the initial 1996 recording was a big step up for me in terms of using the recording equipment. in hindsight, this 1998 version has a big upgrade in sound and a big downgrade in vocals. well, i guess the vocals work on a different level, but, comparing them back-to-back, what i'd like to have are the demo vocals with the rerecording's music...
this is the first serious example of any kind of keyboard sequencing that's more than just background sound. there's seriously a crude string section in this track. i hadn't really done that before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuYLWbu04vk&list=PL3JSjmqp0cbslW9qCBKT_nEcwUt1DY0aN
(of course, i'm featuring tracks in real time relative to when they were first written a little less than 19 years ago. so, i'll be continuing to cycle through these very early cassette demos for about the next year or so.)
well, sort of. this is the 1998 version, which i'm subbing in for the 1996 version for a variety of reasons. i'm just not going to upload the '96 version. that also means that this will cycle back in about two years from now.
i'll also be redoing this (and a few others) in instrumental form for the vst project in the upcoming weeks.
boogeyman did well, but is a bit short of what i was hoping for. it seemed a mild stretch for it to break 1000 hits over the month from the start, but it seemed like the curve was moving up so i thought "maybe". the curve did continue moving, but it distributed itself more evenly than i was expecting. as is, it should hit 900 shortly. it will still probably be the first to 1000, but that will likely take another month or so. it'll certainly break 1000 when it gets cycled back again over the 66 days that existed between the two cassette demos.
====
this is one of the creepy tracks where i'm exploring mental illness from the perspective of an isolated 15 year-old; the person in the song is dealing with satanic voices that are keying on traumatic childhood taunting and suggesting violent outbursts as a means of self-defense. this has induced a serious level of agoraphobia.
this is the second recording of the track (you can get to the first by clicking through the link). the initial 1996 recording was a big step up for me in terms of using the recording equipment. in hindsight, this 1998 version has a big upgrade in sound and a big downgrade in vocals. well, i guess the vocals work on a different level, but, comparing them back-to-back, what i'd like to have are the demo vocals with the rerecording's music...
this is the first serious example of any kind of keyboard sequencing that's more than just background sound. there's seriously a crude string section in this track. i hadn't really done that before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuYLWbu04vk&list=PL3JSjmqp0cbslW9qCBKT_nEcwUt1DY0aN
well, somebody's studied it.
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.
http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf
it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.
but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.
something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.
and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...
i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.
there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.
your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.
and it will continue changing for as long as you live.
on the difference between different models of roland’s juno style synthesizer
deathtokoalas
none of you could tell the difference in a double blind test. and, let's be honest - it's not hard to figure out that what roland did was more or less repackage the juno several times. it wasn't going to remodel everything, that costs money. it just made a few minor tweaks and sold 4x as many by changing the label four times. there's all kinds of psychological reasons people pick one brand name over the other, but it's not going to hold up to rigorous testing.
they all sound the same.
i've had a jx-8p for around 15 years, without the pg, which i'm never going to use. don't do the knob twiddling thing....think it sounds cheesy in the style i write in....just program a patch and let it sit for the track. but it's central to the synth work i've done (i'm more of a guitarist).
scroll the screen down so you can't see his fingers and tell me you can hear a difference.
you can't.
there isn't one.
thomashenrydavies
You could say the same thing about most analog synths playing similar basic patches on a Youtube demo.
deathtokoalas
to an extent, i think that's true, but it doesn't really negate the observation that junos, 3ps and 8ps are really the same synth.
if the "string patch" on two different synths follows precisely the same logic, they're going to sound almost identical, regardless of what the brand name is. and, for all we know, they may have been made with exactly the same parts - kind of like how dells and macs nowadays are actually made in the same factory, and only really differ by the cosmetic difference on the outside of the box.
but that's a big if. i mean, it's one thing to say two patches on two different synths sound almost identical, it's another to say that two synths are identical.
thomashenrydavies
I don't think it's true at all to say that the Junos/JX3P/JX8P are the same synths.
Firstly, the Junos only have one OSC per voice (plus a sub). The JX synths have 2, with cross modulation capability (hard sync, soft sync, FM). This gives them a much broader sonic palette.
The JX3P and JX8P are similar, but the 3P only has one envelope, and is not velocity sensitive. Plus, the filter is different.
deathtokoalas
relative to the complexity of the device, those are remarkably minor differences, none of which justify rebranding in and of itself. basically, it means the jxs are going to be a little thicker sounding for pads, but who hasn't pointed out that the juno sounds thin? that's just fixing a minor design flaw.
it's almost like roland sat down and tried to figure out what the bare minimum mod they could make to justify a different brand name was, then did nothing else besides change the design on the front. nowadays, that's really something like a minor firmware update to fix a product that was rushed to market before final testing.
in that sense? sure, the 8p is the final product. you can expect it'll sound best. but it's virtually imperceptible.
judging from how similar they sound, i'd guess the presets on the final models are really legitimately identical to the presets on the original models...
thomashenrydavies
I really have to disagree with you on that. In the realm of analog synthesizers, a 2 OSC synth with sync and cross mod is a big, big difference from a 1 OSC synth. Opens up whole new avenues of sound design.
deathtokoalas
it could, if you use it in a specific way, but this is an obscure issue that's really only meaningful in ambient music. anything else is just going to cut your carefully synthesized patch out of the mix. i'm not being cold, but it's the truth.
if you want to make the argument that the 8p can do everything the juno can plus a bit of extra sound synthesis? sure.
but on an a/b test of the patch across the two different synths, you won't hear a difference, because they're otherwise the same synth.
thomashenrydavies
As I said, if you set any two analog synths up with identical settings, they are going to sounds pretty much the same, especially on a youtube video. I've done it with a Moog Prodigy and a JX10 - are you telling me they are the same synth? If you want to make synths sound the same, you generally can.
A 2 OSC architecture with FM and cross mod allows you to create all sorts of metallic, bell and atonal sounds tthat are simply not possible with a 1 OSC synth.
deathtokoalas
no, i'm not disagreeing with you, so much as i'm pointing out that you're suggesting a comparison the video isn't making. technically, my statement is an oversimplification - what i should have said is there's no difference between the presets because they're identical across the different synths. and, to be complete what that means is that you can create any sound on a jx that you could create on a juno, but there are sounds you can create on a jx that you can't create on a juno.
that's outside of the realm of what's being compared, though. the video is comparing identical patches and then trying to determine if they sound differently, and you've got all kinds of people saying they can hear the difference. "the juno sounds better", etc. but, there isn't a difference because the presets are using identical logic. that would never pass a double blind, because there isn't actually a difference in sound because there isn't actually a difference in logic.
and, sure you could do that with other synths, too, but it's not what the video is attempting to determine. the video is attempting to determine if identical patches sound differently across the different synths. of course they don't...
but i wouldn't dispute that you can do more with a jx than a juno. whether you can really hear the extra oscillation or cross modulation in a mix that's saturated with guitars or horns in the same range is a more subtle question, but the different sounds are no doubt available, should they be utilized purposefully.
and of course you could always multitrack the juno, right...
but, sure: the jx-8p is the superior synth. that's why i bought one instead of a juno :).
you're just not going to hear the difference across identically programmed presets that don't utilize the extra functionality and claims that you can are purely psychological.
it's pretty common for people to claim the "pure analog" synth sounds better, due to various conditioning about the superior quality of analog synths. and there's certainly some truth to it. but comparing presets on a juno to presets on a jx isn't going to demonstrate that difference, no matter how much some people want to claim the pure analog technology is superior.
if you see what i was originally getting at....
i mean, head out to the idm mailing list or something and have this discussion. you'll get an overwhelming response that the less digital a synth is, the better it sounds, without much logic put into analyzing what the synth actually does. and you'll see that kind of mindset in the comments. it's undoubtedly the actual (psychological) reason people are pulling out the juno as sounding better.
thomashenrydavies
Even with identical settings, the sound is not going to be exactly the same: the filter in a JX8P is different to that in the Juno series. Ok, it's not going to be sufficiently different as to be discernible in a youtube video, but it won't be identical. I think the Juno series, the JX3P and JX8P are different enough to warrant existence :)
deathtokoalas
i think it's a semantic question as to whether the filter is a part of the synthesizer. i'd consider it more of an effect. i mean, most people are going to equalize the synth at some point between the time the notes get pressed and the time the song gets mastered, so it's going to come out in the wash. regardless, iirc, the filters are programmable. so, if there's a difference it'd have to be on the envelope or something. and, youtube compression or not, you'd really have to have remarkable ears to the tell the difference between a 30% fade and a 35% fade, or whatever it actually is, on what is otherwise exactly the same synth patch.
thomashenrydavies
To me, the filter in a subtractive synth is possibly THE most integral and important thing. It's the primary way you shape the timbre.
deathtokoalas
just to clarify: yes, subtractive synthesis is technically synthesis. but the filters in these devices are not those kinds of filters. they're high pass and low pass filters, and are essentially eqs.
Eman Mann
You can use filters in a fixed (EQ) sense or dynamic (sweeping) synthesizer way - but there's no rule that says the static 'eq' filter is not 'synthesizer'. The old Korg synths had a filter cutoff slider, where it was up to you to manually sweep, so even a 'fixed' filter can be manipulated to act in a more 'synth-like' fashion.
deathtokoalas
synthesis is about adding and subtracting waveforms, not about running sweep filters as oscillators.
Eman Mann
Additive/Subtractive...No point in arguing semantics - don't recall mentioning self oscillation. Synth's use both types of filters, fixed (formant type) and dynamic cutoff, is all I wanted to say and of course you don't need a filter to make a synthesizer, of course the JX's use both...
deathtokoalas
but, what i'm pointing out is that this is not actually synthesis and so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of a built-in effects unit.
synthesis happens when you do one of two things, perhaps repeatedly in a complex sequence:
1) you add two waveforms together.
2) you subtract one waveform from another.
this filtering is often called "subtractive synthesis" because you're "subtracting" through the hpf or lpf, but it's really a pretty egregious use of language.
sure: it can have a dramatic effect on the sound. but, it's an eq effect; sweeping or not, it's not synthesis.
i've never played with one, but it is possible to find synths on the market that will actually subtract out a generated waveform - a sine wave, or a sawtooth wave, for example.
sorry, just to be clear on how actual subtractive synthesis would work: what you would do is invert the additional waveform and then add it to the base waveform. this would have the effect of "subtracting" the forward phase of the additional waveform from the base waveform.
an example: suppose that i have a tone that i built on a sample of a church bell and then added an inverse sine wave to it. that would remove a sine wave from the sample and would be subtractive synthesis.
running the tone through an equalizer - whether it's an hpf or an lpf or connected to an oscillator or attached to an envelope - is important when it comes to shaping sounds, and does in some way remove information, and has even been referred to as "subtractive synthesis" by most synthesizer manufacturers for a very long time, but isn't technically synthesis. and, so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of the effects unit.
Eman Mann
Though I do appreciate what you are saying, I'm stuck in the more mundane conventions that 90% of us follow. Until something comes along to make the more technically 'correct' model/approach convenient and practical to the masses, we're going to continue to be talking about VCO/VCF/VCA as being the standard building blocks of synthesis, for sometime to come. Kawai gave it a big effort with their Additive synthesis, but even after many hardware releases, it never caught enough of attention as it was too complex - FM (& Casio Phase Distortion) didn't do much to crack the related barrier of VCO/VCF/VCA, though it did convince a fair number of people to cast away their Analog machines at the time. Now we all want them back, which brings us back to the related topic - which is better, the JX3P or 8P and why? ; )
deathtokoalas
well, i'm telling you that you can't hear the difference on a double blind :)
this comment was quite a while ago, but i can tell by what i wrote that i wasn't trying to make a big deal out of this point; i said it was semantic because i didn't want to get into the debate - it was a way to brush the question aside. i then didn't respond to the last point, and i only came back to it months later when i got a notification on it, and decided it was worth clarifying for people stumbling on the discussion. i suppose, at the time, i assumed what i meant would be quickly understood and it would just be glossed over.
Eman Mann
Couldn't agree more about the 'double blind' comment, they are so much alike that people are trying to leverage their opinion based on loudness etc. Tausend Augen certainly knows how to instigate a debate. ; ) (P.S. read my Venn Diagram comment above)
none of you could tell the difference in a double blind test. and, let's be honest - it's not hard to figure out that what roland did was more or less repackage the juno several times. it wasn't going to remodel everything, that costs money. it just made a few minor tweaks and sold 4x as many by changing the label four times. there's all kinds of psychological reasons people pick one brand name over the other, but it's not going to hold up to rigorous testing.
they all sound the same.
i've had a jx-8p for around 15 years, without the pg, which i'm never going to use. don't do the knob twiddling thing....think it sounds cheesy in the style i write in....just program a patch and let it sit for the track. but it's central to the synth work i've done (i'm more of a guitarist).
scroll the screen down so you can't see his fingers and tell me you can hear a difference.
you can't.
there isn't one.
thomashenrydavies
You could say the same thing about most analog synths playing similar basic patches on a Youtube demo.
deathtokoalas
to an extent, i think that's true, but it doesn't really negate the observation that junos, 3ps and 8ps are really the same synth.
if the "string patch" on two different synths follows precisely the same logic, they're going to sound almost identical, regardless of what the brand name is. and, for all we know, they may have been made with exactly the same parts - kind of like how dells and macs nowadays are actually made in the same factory, and only really differ by the cosmetic difference on the outside of the box.
but that's a big if. i mean, it's one thing to say two patches on two different synths sound almost identical, it's another to say that two synths are identical.
thomashenrydavies
I don't think it's true at all to say that the Junos/JX3P/JX8P are the same synths.
Firstly, the Junos only have one OSC per voice (plus a sub). The JX synths have 2, with cross modulation capability (hard sync, soft sync, FM). This gives them a much broader sonic palette.
The JX3P and JX8P are similar, but the 3P only has one envelope, and is not velocity sensitive. Plus, the filter is different.
deathtokoalas
relative to the complexity of the device, those are remarkably minor differences, none of which justify rebranding in and of itself. basically, it means the jxs are going to be a little thicker sounding for pads, but who hasn't pointed out that the juno sounds thin? that's just fixing a minor design flaw.
it's almost like roland sat down and tried to figure out what the bare minimum mod they could make to justify a different brand name was, then did nothing else besides change the design on the front. nowadays, that's really something like a minor firmware update to fix a product that was rushed to market before final testing.
in that sense? sure, the 8p is the final product. you can expect it'll sound best. but it's virtually imperceptible.
judging from how similar they sound, i'd guess the presets on the final models are really legitimately identical to the presets on the original models...
thomashenrydavies
I really have to disagree with you on that. In the realm of analog synthesizers, a 2 OSC synth with sync and cross mod is a big, big difference from a 1 OSC synth. Opens up whole new avenues of sound design.
deathtokoalas
it could, if you use it in a specific way, but this is an obscure issue that's really only meaningful in ambient music. anything else is just going to cut your carefully synthesized patch out of the mix. i'm not being cold, but it's the truth.
if you want to make the argument that the 8p can do everything the juno can plus a bit of extra sound synthesis? sure.
but on an a/b test of the patch across the two different synths, you won't hear a difference, because they're otherwise the same synth.
thomashenrydavies
As I said, if you set any two analog synths up with identical settings, they are going to sounds pretty much the same, especially on a youtube video. I've done it with a Moog Prodigy and a JX10 - are you telling me they are the same synth? If you want to make synths sound the same, you generally can.
A 2 OSC architecture with FM and cross mod allows you to create all sorts of metallic, bell and atonal sounds tthat are simply not possible with a 1 OSC synth.
deathtokoalas
no, i'm not disagreeing with you, so much as i'm pointing out that you're suggesting a comparison the video isn't making. technically, my statement is an oversimplification - what i should have said is there's no difference between the presets because they're identical across the different synths. and, to be complete what that means is that you can create any sound on a jx that you could create on a juno, but there are sounds you can create on a jx that you can't create on a juno.
that's outside of the realm of what's being compared, though. the video is comparing identical patches and then trying to determine if they sound differently, and you've got all kinds of people saying they can hear the difference. "the juno sounds better", etc. but, there isn't a difference because the presets are using identical logic. that would never pass a double blind, because there isn't actually a difference in sound because there isn't actually a difference in logic.
and, sure you could do that with other synths, too, but it's not what the video is attempting to determine. the video is attempting to determine if identical patches sound differently across the different synths. of course they don't...
but i wouldn't dispute that you can do more with a jx than a juno. whether you can really hear the extra oscillation or cross modulation in a mix that's saturated with guitars or horns in the same range is a more subtle question, but the different sounds are no doubt available, should they be utilized purposefully.
and of course you could always multitrack the juno, right...
but, sure: the jx-8p is the superior synth. that's why i bought one instead of a juno :).
you're just not going to hear the difference across identically programmed presets that don't utilize the extra functionality and claims that you can are purely psychological.
it's pretty common for people to claim the "pure analog" synth sounds better, due to various conditioning about the superior quality of analog synths. and there's certainly some truth to it. but comparing presets on a juno to presets on a jx isn't going to demonstrate that difference, no matter how much some people want to claim the pure analog technology is superior.
if you see what i was originally getting at....
i mean, head out to the idm mailing list or something and have this discussion. you'll get an overwhelming response that the less digital a synth is, the better it sounds, without much logic put into analyzing what the synth actually does. and you'll see that kind of mindset in the comments. it's undoubtedly the actual (psychological) reason people are pulling out the juno as sounding better.
thomashenrydavies
Even with identical settings, the sound is not going to be exactly the same: the filter in a JX8P is different to that in the Juno series. Ok, it's not going to be sufficiently different as to be discernible in a youtube video, but it won't be identical. I think the Juno series, the JX3P and JX8P are different enough to warrant existence :)
deathtokoalas
i think it's a semantic question as to whether the filter is a part of the synthesizer. i'd consider it more of an effect. i mean, most people are going to equalize the synth at some point between the time the notes get pressed and the time the song gets mastered, so it's going to come out in the wash. regardless, iirc, the filters are programmable. so, if there's a difference it'd have to be on the envelope or something. and, youtube compression or not, you'd really have to have remarkable ears to the tell the difference between a 30% fade and a 35% fade, or whatever it actually is, on what is otherwise exactly the same synth patch.
thomashenrydavies
To me, the filter in a subtractive synth is possibly THE most integral and important thing. It's the primary way you shape the timbre.
deathtokoalas
just to clarify: yes, subtractive synthesis is technically synthesis. but the filters in these devices are not those kinds of filters. they're high pass and low pass filters, and are essentially eqs.
Eman Mann
You can use filters in a fixed (EQ) sense or dynamic (sweeping) synthesizer way - but there's no rule that says the static 'eq' filter is not 'synthesizer'. The old Korg synths had a filter cutoff slider, where it was up to you to manually sweep, so even a 'fixed' filter can be manipulated to act in a more 'synth-like' fashion.
deathtokoalas
synthesis is about adding and subtracting waveforms, not about running sweep filters as oscillators.
Eman Mann
Additive/Subtractive...No point in arguing semantics - don't recall mentioning self oscillation. Synth's use both types of filters, fixed (formant type) and dynamic cutoff, is all I wanted to say and of course you don't need a filter to make a synthesizer, of course the JX's use both...
deathtokoalas
but, what i'm pointing out is that this is not actually synthesis and so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of a built-in effects unit.
synthesis happens when you do one of two things, perhaps repeatedly in a complex sequence:
1) you add two waveforms together.
2) you subtract one waveform from another.
this filtering is often called "subtractive synthesis" because you're "subtracting" through the hpf or lpf, but it's really a pretty egregious use of language.
sure: it can have a dramatic effect on the sound. but, it's an eq effect; sweeping or not, it's not synthesis.
i've never played with one, but it is possible to find synths on the market that will actually subtract out a generated waveform - a sine wave, or a sawtooth wave, for example.
sorry, just to be clear on how actual subtractive synthesis would work: what you would do is invert the additional waveform and then add it to the base waveform. this would have the effect of "subtracting" the forward phase of the additional waveform from the base waveform.
an example: suppose that i have a tone that i built on a sample of a church bell and then added an inverse sine wave to it. that would remove a sine wave from the sample and would be subtractive synthesis.
running the tone through an equalizer - whether it's an hpf or an lpf or connected to an oscillator or attached to an envelope - is important when it comes to shaping sounds, and does in some way remove information, and has even been referred to as "subtractive synthesis" by most synthesizer manufacturers for a very long time, but isn't technically synthesis. and, so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of the effects unit.
Eman Mann
Though I do appreciate what you are saying, I'm stuck in the more mundane conventions that 90% of us follow. Until something comes along to make the more technically 'correct' model/approach convenient and practical to the masses, we're going to continue to be talking about VCO/VCF/VCA as being the standard building blocks of synthesis, for sometime to come. Kawai gave it a big effort with their Additive synthesis, but even after many hardware releases, it never caught enough of attention as it was too complex - FM (& Casio Phase Distortion) didn't do much to crack the related barrier of VCO/VCF/VCA, though it did convince a fair number of people to cast away their Analog machines at the time. Now we all want them back, which brings us back to the related topic - which is better, the JX3P or 8P and why? ; )
deathtokoalas
well, i'm telling you that you can't hear the difference on a double blind :)
this comment was quite a while ago, but i can tell by what i wrote that i wasn't trying to make a big deal out of this point; i said it was semantic because i didn't want to get into the debate - it was a way to brush the question aside. i then didn't respond to the last point, and i only came back to it months later when i got a notification on it, and decided it was worth clarifying for people stumbling on the discussion. i suppose, at the time, i assumed what i meant would be quickly understood and it would just be glossed over.
Eman Mann
Couldn't agree more about the 'double blind' comment, they are so much alike that people are trying to leverage their opinion based on loudness etc. Tausend Augen certainly knows how to instigate a debate. ; ) (P.S. read my Venn Diagram comment above)
i guess there's a mild similarity in the opening synth part, but the songs are not remotely similar in form or structure.
the actual dominant influence on the opening synth (originally, piano) line of "stuck in the middle of an alley closing in on all sides" is the ending piano section of "a perfect drug".
i should post links.
my song:
actual inspiration, being the piano part starting about 4:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QnnLudkQA
incorrect claim of influence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNJJ-QkZ8cM
my version is far superior due to the syncopation, which i suspect most people would miss due to the lack of percussion (besides the piano), but the notes are coming down off the beats in shifting ways; it's like 64th and 32nd note pauses off the count. you probably wouldn't know that without me telling you, but you might get the unsettling creepiness that it invokes.
like, if i put a big techno beat down over that it would sound really messy because it would be all out of sync with itself.
the actual dominant influence on the opening synth (originally, piano) line of "stuck in the middle of an alley closing in on all sides" is the ending piano section of "a perfect drug".
i should post links.
my song:
actual inspiration, being the piano part starting about 4:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QnnLudkQA
incorrect claim of influence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNJJ-QkZ8cM
my version is far superior due to the syncopation, which i suspect most people would miss due to the lack of percussion (besides the piano), but the notes are coming down off the beats in shifting ways; it's like 64th and 32nd note pauses off the count. you probably wouldn't know that without me telling you, but you might get the unsettling creepiness that it invokes.
like, if i put a big techno beat down over that it would sound really messy because it would be all out of sync with itself.
somebody tried to suggest one of my older tunes had a similarity to a pokemon song, which i can state with a high degree of certainty that i've never heard before.
you know, i don't even know what a pokemon is. is it similar to a pog? was it like dungeons and dragons, or something? some kind of card game?
i suspect my track is older, but i don't really know because i don't know what year pokemon came out around. i wrote the track in late 2000, early 2001.
and i suspect i'm a little too old for pokemon, but i wouldn't really know, either, because i wasn't into that kind of thing when i was the right age for it.
i preferred stuff like the smurfs and care bears that had a more positive message over violent video games and boring geek shit.
but i mostly stopped watching cartoons when i was something like six years old.
and i never had advanced cable....
...so i mostly had absolutely no idea what the other kids were talking about. it's actually probably had a substantial influence on my social skills. i mean, the only thing that existed in their brains was cartoons that i had no interest in or understanding of, so there was a difficulty in communicating and interacting. the window, or the wall (or sometimes a book) generally seemed more interesting to me than repeating quotes from episodes of shows i wasn't able to watch and probably wouldn't have liked if i was able to watch them......
but i still don't know if pokemon was or wasn't one of those shows. i don't remember when or where i first heard of it. at all. and i don't care enough to look it up....
you know, i don't even know what a pokemon is. is it similar to a pog? was it like dungeons and dragons, or something? some kind of card game?
i suspect my track is older, but i don't really know because i don't know what year pokemon came out around. i wrote the track in late 2000, early 2001.
and i suspect i'm a little too old for pokemon, but i wouldn't really know, either, because i wasn't into that kind of thing when i was the right age for it.
i preferred stuff like the smurfs and care bears that had a more positive message over violent video games and boring geek shit.
but i mostly stopped watching cartoons when i was something like six years old.
and i never had advanced cable....
...so i mostly had absolutely no idea what the other kids were talking about. it's actually probably had a substantial influence on my social skills. i mean, the only thing that existed in their brains was cartoons that i had no interest in or understanding of, so there was a difficulty in communicating and interacting. the window, or the wall (or sometimes a book) generally seemed more interesting to me than repeating quotes from episodes of shows i wasn't able to watch and probably wouldn't have liked if i was able to watch them......
but i still don't know if pokemon was or wasn't one of those shows. i don't remember when or where i first heard of it. at all. and i don't care enough to look it up....
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
a very odd structure has appeared on my front lawn.
it appears to be an electronic, flashing traffic sign asking drivers to slow down because it's a residential area. but, i've never seen anybody speeding through there. in fact, i'd say i see a car drive up marion and through that intersection about once a week. the cross street at cataraqui gets much more traffic, but there's basically nowhere to go down marion unless you live there, and there's actually only one house facing that way (marion is just full of a lot of large backyards that are parallel to it) so nobody even lives there. it's like placing a stop sign in a dead-end.
i suspect it's a camera. but, i'm not sure why they're being so low tech about it.
maybe they're frustrated by my rejection of mobile devices.
the reality is that they're not going to pick up anything interesting.
it appears to be an electronic, flashing traffic sign asking drivers to slow down because it's a residential area. but, i've never seen anybody speeding through there. in fact, i'd say i see a car drive up marion and through that intersection about once a week. the cross street at cataraqui gets much more traffic, but there's basically nowhere to go down marion unless you live there, and there's actually only one house facing that way (marion is just full of a lot of large backyards that are parallel to it) so nobody even lives there. it's like placing a stop sign in a dead-end.
i suspect it's a camera. but, i'm not sure why they're being so low tech about it.
maybe they're frustrated by my rejection of mobile devices.
the reality is that they're not going to pick up anything interesting.
i seem to have cut my finger without noticing, and now there's blood
everywhere. i don't think i've ever done that before. like, i spent five
minutes trying to figure out where the blood was coming from, and it
just kept coming. i thought it was my nose. i thought i was going crazy,
or having some kind of stigmata event or something.
i must have cut it when i was making lunch. i washed some strawberries and let them dry in the sink. then i made a smoothie and a tomato sandwich, and went and watched the beginning of greenwald v. dershowitz while i was eating. i then put the dishes in the other side of the sink and picked up the paper towels from the top of the fridge to rip two sheets off to dry the strawberries. i find they keep best if you get the excess moisture off of them and then transfer them to tupperware, so i lightly dry them in the paper towel. i then did the dishes, and went back to get another paper towel sheet to wipe a sneeze off the floor and noticed the roll was full of blood. it looked downright grizzly, soaked in through a few sheets. i thought it must be something other than blood, but hadn't yet decided on if it was most likely to be tomato juice or hot sauce or strawberry juice...i mean, i *knew* it was blood, but it didn't make sense that it was blood, so it must have been something else, and it would be determined in time.
so, i went into the bathroom to get some toilet paper to blow my nose and there's blood on the toilet paper roll, too. now, i'm freaking out. checked my nose. no. was there somebody in here? is it just spontaneously appearing? did i get bit by something? am i seriously hurt, but in shock and can't tell? getting paranoid...
....but then i realized it was my finger, after checking over my hand several times.
i couldn't feel it at all. bizarre.
BUT
that also means my guitar calluses are back where they belong. which is good news.
i don't think it was deep. it only took a minute to clot with pressure applied, and there isn't even a scab. but, that was an unsettling experience, to say the least.
i must have been bleeding for a good ten-twenty minutes, but i can't find a trail, either, oddly.
i must have cut it when i was making lunch. i washed some strawberries and let them dry in the sink. then i made a smoothie and a tomato sandwich, and went and watched the beginning of greenwald v. dershowitz while i was eating. i then put the dishes in the other side of the sink and picked up the paper towels from the top of the fridge to rip two sheets off to dry the strawberries. i find they keep best if you get the excess moisture off of them and then transfer them to tupperware, so i lightly dry them in the paper towel. i then did the dishes, and went back to get another paper towel sheet to wipe a sneeze off the floor and noticed the roll was full of blood. it looked downright grizzly, soaked in through a few sheets. i thought it must be something other than blood, but hadn't yet decided on if it was most likely to be tomato juice or hot sauce or strawberry juice...i mean, i *knew* it was blood, but it didn't make sense that it was blood, so it must have been something else, and it would be determined in time.
so, i went into the bathroom to get some toilet paper to blow my nose and there's blood on the toilet paper roll, too. now, i'm freaking out. checked my nose. no. was there somebody in here? is it just spontaneously appearing? did i get bit by something? am i seriously hurt, but in shock and can't tell? getting paranoid...
....but then i realized it was my finger, after checking over my hand several times.
i couldn't feel it at all. bizarre.
BUT
that also means my guitar calluses are back where they belong. which is good news.
i don't think it was deep. it only took a minute to clot with pressure applied, and there isn't even a scab. but, that was an unsettling experience, to say the least.
i must have been bleeding for a good ten-twenty minutes, but i can't find a trail, either, oddly.
so, the landlord is putting a furnace in here. apparently, the electric coils are expensive, and he's concerned electricity is going to go through the roof. which it no doubt will. we made a huge error in privatizing the grid to market rates, and it's leading to this sort of backwardsness.
i mean, i guess natural gas isn't as bad as oil, but a smart green policy would be encouraging people to move away from fossil fuels, not towards them as a less expensive option. from an environmental standpoint, hydro powered coils ought to be what's being strived for. and, there's not any good reason for these electricity spikes other than greed resulting from private ownership. hydro isn't expensive to operate, it just runs. it should be way cheaper than gas.
so, this is a step backwards, and is the direct result of state policy. whether we're talking of renationalizing the grid, or putting caps on prices, or whatever else, the guy *at the least* shouldn't be being pushed in the wrong direction due to costs. the state *should* be incentivizing him towards the greener choice, but at the least shouldn't be pushing him towards the less green option.
see, i can't and won't argue with the guy. i know the price difference. he's not running this for profit, he's just trying to take care of his family. he's doing what he's got to do. i blame the state for forcing him to do it to break even.
it's almost like the market has set itself up to provide cleaner, hydro energy as a higher end option. if you want to be responsible and reduce emissions, you'll have to pay for it! they've turned it into a fucking product; it's a price pyramid, instead of a social policy. but how could we expect different? and how can we expect a different future without addressing the economic screw-up?
it's just absolutely backwards.
i mean, i guess natural gas isn't as bad as oil, but a smart green policy would be encouraging people to move away from fossil fuels, not towards them as a less expensive option. from an environmental standpoint, hydro powered coils ought to be what's being strived for. and, there's not any good reason for these electricity spikes other than greed resulting from private ownership. hydro isn't expensive to operate, it just runs. it should be way cheaper than gas.
so, this is a step backwards, and is the direct result of state policy. whether we're talking of renationalizing the grid, or putting caps on prices, or whatever else, the guy *at the least* shouldn't be being pushed in the wrong direction due to costs. the state *should* be incentivizing him towards the greener choice, but at the least shouldn't be pushing him towards the less green option.
see, i can't and won't argue with the guy. i know the price difference. he's not running this for profit, he's just trying to take care of his family. he's doing what he's got to do. i blame the state for forcing him to do it to break even.
it's almost like the market has set itself up to provide cleaner, hydro energy as a higher end option. if you want to be responsible and reduce emissions, you'll have to pay for it! they've turned it into a fucking product; it's a price pyramid, instead of a social policy. but how could we expect different? and how can we expect a different future without addressing the economic screw-up?
it's just absolutely backwards.
directions for pedestrians wishing to cross the ambassador bridge
To: contact@cbsa.gc.ca
hi.
i have a nexus interview scheduled on july 17, and i've been having a hard time contacting somebody to ask for pedestrian directions over the ambassador bridge. i have never crossed the bridge before, but i'm aware that they do not allow people to cross by foot. the only information available in the directions is by car, so i don't know how i'm going to get across to the enrolment centre.
i do not own a vehicle, or even have a driver's license.
is there a place on the canadian side i can meet somebody at? if so, where? will i be allowed to cross under the tunnel (which is where i would normally cross, via shuttle) and walk along the river to the enrollment centre?
will i be forced to take a taxi? will i even be allowed to take a taxi?
j
hi.
i have a nexus interview scheduled on july 17, and i've been having a hard time contacting somebody to ask for pedestrian directions over the ambassador bridge. i have never crossed the bridge before, but i'm aware that they do not allow people to cross by foot. the only information available in the directions is by car, so i don't know how i'm going to get across to the enrolment centre.
i do not own a vehicle, or even have a driver's license.
is there a place on the canadian side i can meet somebody at? if so, where? will i be allowed to cross under the tunnel (which is where i would normally cross, via shuttle) and walk along the river to the enrollment centre?
will i be forced to take a taxi? will i even be allowed to take a taxi?
j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)