i'm used to driving myself pretty hard to stay awake for long periods to accomplish things. coffee & nicotine are tools for this, and i'm admittedly not smoking right now. regardless, when i pass out early two nights in a row after mere 15 hour days, the truth is i'm subconsciously trying to avoid something...
i can't let that happen a third time. this call will be made tomorrow morning.
for today, i guess i can go back to digitizing files and do some laundry.
subconscious drivers and no nicotine aside, digitizing requires a lot of sitting around and waiting. and, when you sleep seldomly, your body learns to take advantage of down times, as well. if i can get the digitizing done quickly, chances of nodding off while i'm waiting for the channel to finish are minimized...
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
rap news 30
as for the vid, it's a long debate that goes around in circles. i don't think anybody that can think clearly about it really denies our own role (although maybe a vid like this helps in holding that mirror up), but trying to address it becomes recursive very quickly, breaking down into the obvious statement that we have to change ourselves but without a clear approach on how to actually do it.
there's this whole gramscian view that we uphold the system because we're taught to. from this perspective, it's impossible to do this "the revolution starts inside" bit until we're able to abolish the institutions that put the bit of the oppressor inside of us. but, we'd need to transcend the condition in the first place. and around in circles we go, tracing out an infinite series....
the only way to break this is to acknowledge a vanguard or what could be called an anti-vanguard. i think vanguard politics are discredited, myself. the anti-vanguard takes us into post-leftist thinking. temporary autonomous zones. but this assumes real revolution is impossible. that sounds defeatist, but is it merely realism?
the expanded pyramid you put up is worth dwelling upon. i think that, existing in the middle of the pyramid, we lack the ability to really change anything - largely because we can't adjust to a system that we neither have the right to tear down nor the right to reconstruct. the best we can really do is stand in solidarity with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in helping them reassert their autonomy, the meaning of which changes from situation to situation. it's only once we can start talking about labour rights in china or land-use rights in brazil that we can understand how we can adjust to a fairer globe.
in the mean time, it probably means that post-leftism is realism rather than defeatism. that's a level of humility that inhabitants of the heart of the empire are going to find difficult to adjust to. perhaps that humility is in truth the real necessary first step.
i mean, i think the expanded pyramid sort of obscures the controlling aspect. you see a pyramid like that and you think that each level is dominant over the next, but is it really so? there's little doubt that "debt slaves" in the advanced industrial world are heavily reliant on production outside of it, but it's worth pointing out that that's a situation that keeps them in place rather than one that empowers them. we're increasingly seeing a situation of structural high unemployment in the developed world that's a reaction to unionization and is directly caused by outsourcing the labour that would alleviate the unemployment; while the unemployed may end up consuming foreign products with what amounts to debt, that doesn't put them in a less dependent position, or in any kind of a position of control. the pyramid presentation is consequently somewhat inaccurate. but, it's inaccurate at the higher levels, as well - this absolutely ordered hierarchy is a gloss any way you look at it. we used to think of this the other way around - we used to think of colonial areas as places to dump goods, in order to enrich the colonizing powers. switching the relationship doesn't construct a power relationship so much as it exposes the underlying economic mechanism. that is, it's more accurate to think in terms of two ends of a market. in order to make money, you need to be able to produce goods cheaply and have a place to sell them. if you take either end point out, the whole thing collapses. it's not entirely fair to suggest that the consuming side of this is as well off as the producing side of it. but it is perhaps instructive to point out that the entire purpose of the new world order (if it's defined as advancing neo-liberalism in the post-soviet era) is to slowly place them on an equal footing. i'm going to agree that if you ask the factory worker in china what the nwo is, they'll tell you it's the consumer base in america. but, if you ask the mass of unemployed workers in spain, they'll tell you it's the absence of economic opportunity created by the globalization of labour. and, maybe they're both right. that takes away a lot of our own agency. and, again, i think that's even more frightening. but i think it's very true.
there's this whole gramscian view that we uphold the system because we're taught to. from this perspective, it's impossible to do this "the revolution starts inside" bit until we're able to abolish the institutions that put the bit of the oppressor inside of us. but, we'd need to transcend the condition in the first place. and around in circles we go, tracing out an infinite series....
the only way to break this is to acknowledge a vanguard or what could be called an anti-vanguard. i think vanguard politics are discredited, myself. the anti-vanguard takes us into post-leftist thinking. temporary autonomous zones. but this assumes real revolution is impossible. that sounds defeatist, but is it merely realism?
the expanded pyramid you put up is worth dwelling upon. i think that, existing in the middle of the pyramid, we lack the ability to really change anything - largely because we can't adjust to a system that we neither have the right to tear down nor the right to reconstruct. the best we can really do is stand in solidarity with the people at the bottom of the pyramid, in helping them reassert their autonomy, the meaning of which changes from situation to situation. it's only once we can start talking about labour rights in china or land-use rights in brazil that we can understand how we can adjust to a fairer globe.
in the mean time, it probably means that post-leftism is realism rather than defeatism. that's a level of humility that inhabitants of the heart of the empire are going to find difficult to adjust to. perhaps that humility is in truth the real necessary first step.
i mean, i think the expanded pyramid sort of obscures the controlling aspect. you see a pyramid like that and you think that each level is dominant over the next, but is it really so? there's little doubt that "debt slaves" in the advanced industrial world are heavily reliant on production outside of it, but it's worth pointing out that that's a situation that keeps them in place rather than one that empowers them. we're increasingly seeing a situation of structural high unemployment in the developed world that's a reaction to unionization and is directly caused by outsourcing the labour that would alleviate the unemployment; while the unemployed may end up consuming foreign products with what amounts to debt, that doesn't put them in a less dependent position, or in any kind of a position of control. the pyramid presentation is consequently somewhat inaccurate. but, it's inaccurate at the higher levels, as well - this absolutely ordered hierarchy is a gloss any way you look at it. we used to think of this the other way around - we used to think of colonial areas as places to dump goods, in order to enrich the colonizing powers. switching the relationship doesn't construct a power relationship so much as it exposes the underlying economic mechanism. that is, it's more accurate to think in terms of two ends of a market. in order to make money, you need to be able to produce goods cheaply and have a place to sell them. if you take either end point out, the whole thing collapses. it's not entirely fair to suggest that the consuming side of this is as well off as the producing side of it. but it is perhaps instructive to point out that the entire purpose of the new world order (if it's defined as advancing neo-liberalism in the post-soviet era) is to slowly place them on an equal footing. i'm going to agree that if you ask the factory worker in china what the nwo is, they'll tell you it's the consumer base in america. but, if you ask the mass of unemployed workers in spain, they'll tell you it's the absence of economic opportunity created by the globalization of labour. and, maybe they're both right. that takes away a lot of our own agency. and, again, i think that's even more frightening. but i think it's very true.
Monday, December 8, 2014
cat’s apocalypse (reclaimed instrumental and final mix)
this was a song about doing mean things to cats, with the intent of being aggravating, but who wants to listen to that? so, i've taken the vocals out, here.
the drum collage was created digitally out of samples and then dumped to a four-track where the guitar and bass were added. when i compiled my first record, i decided the guitars weren't worth the tape hiss and loss of definition that came with converting to analog and back to digital.
originally created in 1997. reconstructed from source on dec 8, 2014.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cats-apocalypse
the drum collage was created digitally out of samples and then dumped to a four-track where the guitar and bass were added. when i compiled my first record, i decided the guitars weren't worth the tape hiss and loss of definition that came with converting to analog and back to digital.
originally created in 1997. reconstructed from source on dec 8, 2014.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cats-apocalypse
i'm also going to put together parts of a sort of a chiptune compilation from 1997 that i kind of let get away from me...
i don't have a number for it, and i've shipped, so i need to be careful about relabeling. i might delete inri010. the first inricycled is necessary, but the second is increasingly feeling superfluous. i haven't made a decision yet, though. i'll want to get something sequenced first. it might make sense to just add it on to inri004.
i spent the second half of 1997 with my head in an ry30, which i had sequenced to a computer running as a sequencer. i'd play the two things as backup to my guitar parts. this formed the basis of the tracks i recorded over 1998.
i was going to move these ideas into the chiptune disc, but the reality is there's no room for them on it. hence, inrinterpreted - which is a better idea, anyways.
but i still kind of want to capture some of this as it existed at the time - which is the combination of ry30, sequencer and guitar. the culmination of several changes of approach have left this idea stranded, and without an obvious entry point.
i'll have to put some tracks aside and see how much of it is really worth it. but i think something or other is coming up...
i don't have a number for it, and i've shipped, so i need to be careful about relabeling. i might delete inri010. the first inricycled is necessary, but the second is increasingly feeling superfluous. i haven't made a decision yet, though. i'll want to get something sequenced first. it might make sense to just add it on to inri004.
i spent the second half of 1997 with my head in an ry30, which i had sequenced to a computer running as a sequencer. i'd play the two things as backup to my guitar parts. this formed the basis of the tracks i recorded over 1998.
i was going to move these ideas into the chiptune disc, but the reality is there's no room for them on it. hence, inrinterpreted - which is a better idea, anyways.
but i still kind of want to capture some of this as it existed at the time - which is the combination of ry30, sequencer and guitar. the culmination of several changes of approach have left this idea stranded, and without an obvious entry point.
i'll have to put some tracks aside and see how much of it is really worth it. but i think something or other is coming up...
as i'm digitizing this, i'm realizing there's a few things i thought were lost that i can drop directly into inrijected. these are cassettes from the 90s that house raw 4-track recordings of songs before they were digitally manipulated. i'm taking them in through the 4-track, channel by channel. i didn't do this before because, with few exceptions, they would have been unusable to recreate any of the inri releases with. i simply don't have the raw digital noises that i used to build the tracks up, so i couldn't recreate them as they were. further, it's not that i wanted to destroy the existing mixes as they were, i just wanted to balance them out a little...
the compromise i came to was to pencil in an "inrinterpreted" release for late 2015 or early 2016 (if i live that long). that way the initial releases could stand as they do, and i could do fresh mixes for the stuff i feel deserves it. there's just a handful of tracks that i'd like to take the vocals out of and maybe sauce up a little - some of them rather radically. as such, i'm going to consider these new constructions, and i want to wait until i get done the chronology that already exists.
but this is a good time to digitize this because i have a bunch of other inri related stuff i'd like to burn off the drive.
that being said, i would have taken a few of these off last year if i realized they were there. i thought i had everything i had digitized; i figured that what i couldn't find was lost. that's not the case. so, these two or three songs will be up in the next few days as well.
the compromise i came to was to pencil in an "inrinterpreted" release for late 2015 or early 2016 (if i live that long). that way the initial releases could stand as they do, and i could do fresh mixes for the stuff i feel deserves it. there's just a handful of tracks that i'd like to take the vocals out of and maybe sauce up a little - some of them rather radically. as such, i'm going to consider these new constructions, and i want to wait until i get done the chronology that already exists.
but this is a good time to digitize this because i have a bunch of other inri related stuff i'd like to burn off the drive.
that being said, i would have taken a few of these off last year if i realized they were there. i thought i had everything i had digitized; i figured that what i couldn't find was lost. that's not the case. so, these two or three songs will be up in the next few days as well.
prematurely publishing atom's / taught to twist the affected so low
on second thought, i need to squeeze an ep in to august, 2002. i believe the first track is done, but i need to spend some time with the second.
before i left for a backpacking cross-canada trip in mid 2003, i burned a handful of cds and formatted my pc. i didn't want anybody snooping around when i was gone. unfortunately, the burns picked up a weird setting that dated everything to the date of the burn. this issue affects almost everything that was left unfinished between 2001 and 2003, which is a lot of stuff. i was able to date the rabit stuff better because the discs had been burnt previously to this...
the summer of 2002 is pretty messy for me. i was very isolated, going through hormone therapy and on the brink of psychological collapse. so, my memory over those months is quite blurry.
but i've convinced myself that this ep belongs before the untitled piece in the chronology. the truth is it's not in exact order. i specifically remember that the second track was a kind of an excursion in the middle of recording the untitled piece, which i spent most of august and september doing. i put it aside for later completion, which never happened. and a process of deduction suggests to me that the first track must have been in august.
these tracks are both messy, conceptually. i've resisted publishing them up until this point. i'll have to write explanations over the next few days.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/atoms-taught-to-twist-the-affected-so-low
before i left for a backpacking cross-canada trip in mid 2003, i burned a handful of cds and formatted my pc. i didn't want anybody snooping around when i was gone. unfortunately, the burns picked up a weird setting that dated everything to the date of the burn. this issue affects almost everything that was left unfinished between 2001 and 2003, which is a lot of stuff. i was able to date the rabit stuff better because the discs had been burnt previously to this...
the summer of 2002 is pretty messy for me. i was very isolated, going through hormone therapy and on the brink of psychological collapse. so, my memory over those months is quite blurry.
but i've convinced myself that this ep belongs before the untitled piece in the chronology. the truth is it's not in exact order. i specifically remember that the second track was a kind of an excursion in the middle of recording the untitled piece, which i spent most of august and september doing. i put it aside for later completion, which never happened. and a process of deduction suggests to me that the first track must have been in august.
these tracks are both messy, conceptually. i've resisted publishing them up until this point. i'll have to write explanations over the next few days.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/atoms-taught-to-twist-the-affected-so-low
now, as for what i'm doing next....
this is an incomplete mix of the track. it's the last (or second last) track in the midi-oriented style that dominated my output over 2001. it's also very explicitly techno-oriented. so, i'm going to complete it in the same way that i completed the previous midi oriented tracks. the difference is that this track already has a lot of guitars recorded. it's actually quite angular from that perspective.
what i'm going to have to do is:
(1) properly notate it. most of it is written into the score. what's left to write into it is fairly minimal.
(2) a chiptune version will find it's way to thru. it's either the last or the second last component of the chiptune disc, depending on how this ostrich thing works itself out.
(3) i'll need to do a full vst version.
(4) i'll then need to combine that vst version with a proper mix of the existing version.
(5) there's also four existing mixes that need to be cleaned up, including a raw guitar version.
so i'm looking at quite a few versions of this. it's probably not going to take forever, though.
the first step needs to be actually listening to what i have and that's going to need to wait until probably thursday at the earliest.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/untitled
this is an incomplete mix of the track. it's the last (or second last) track in the midi-oriented style that dominated my output over 2001. it's also very explicitly techno-oriented. so, i'm going to complete it in the same way that i completed the previous midi oriented tracks. the difference is that this track already has a lot of guitars recorded. it's actually quite angular from that perspective.
what i'm going to have to do is:
(1) properly notate it. most of it is written into the score. what's left to write into it is fairly minimal.
(2) a chiptune version will find it's way to thru. it's either the last or the second last component of the chiptune disc, depending on how this ostrich thing works itself out.
(3) i'll need to do a full vst version.
(4) i'll then need to combine that vst version with a proper mix of the existing version.
(5) there's also four existing mixes that need to be cleaned up, including a raw guitar version.
so i'm looking at quite a few versions of this. it's probably not going to take forever, though.
the first step needs to be actually listening to what i have and that's going to need to wait until probably thursday at the earliest.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/untitled
i think the best way to understand my situation is to look at the results of the two tests i took when i applied for a cra job around 07 or 08 or something. it's a concise argument...
the first test they had me do was the general competency level test. there were actually two tests, but let's consider the second. this is basically an iq test. i had a score of 80/90. nobody scores that high. the stats i saw put that in the 95th percentile, but that was the highest percentile published, so it means it's at least the 95th percentile. that means i scored higher on this test than at least 95% of the people that take it. the minimum pass mark is 51/90. now, this is something that's consistent for me - i've repeatedly scored at elite levels on every iq-type test i've ever taken.
the second test they had me do was the situational judgement test, which tests workplace behaviour. i've actually failed this test three times. this is also consistent with my history of anti-social behaviour.
now, the government's perspective was that they couldn't hire me because i don't understand workplace behaviour. maybe that's actually a correct analysis. further, maybe these things are related. maybe i can't pass the behavioural test because my intelligence is too high. maybe the smart-person approach is inherently contradictory to a hierarchical organizing principle. maybe i'm just an anarchist. or maybe there's an underlying condition.
but, for employment purposes, it's the results of the second test that are more important. the challenge i have, now, is getting a health professional to put two and two together.
the first test they had me do was the general competency level test. there were actually two tests, but let's consider the second. this is basically an iq test. i had a score of 80/90. nobody scores that high. the stats i saw put that in the 95th percentile, but that was the highest percentile published, so it means it's at least the 95th percentile. that means i scored higher on this test than at least 95% of the people that take it. the minimum pass mark is 51/90. now, this is something that's consistent for me - i've repeatedly scored at elite levels on every iq-type test i've ever taken.
the second test they had me do was the situational judgement test, which tests workplace behaviour. i've actually failed this test three times. this is also consistent with my history of anti-social behaviour.
now, the government's perspective was that they couldn't hire me because i don't understand workplace behaviour. maybe that's actually a correct analysis. further, maybe these things are related. maybe i can't pass the behavioural test because my intelligence is too high. maybe the smart-person approach is inherently contradictory to a hierarchical organizing principle. maybe i'm just an anarchist. or maybe there's an underlying condition.
but, for employment purposes, it's the results of the second test that are more important. the challenge i have, now, is getting a health professional to put two and two together.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
commenting on an effects pedal video
deathtokoalas
that's a cool sound and all (i created something similar in guitar rig about 2007 and use it in the "first movement" track at my channel), but the problem with something like this is that as soon as you package it it instantly becomes a cliche. with all the versatile tools out there nowadays, it's hard to see why anybody would want to go for this...
keep the boxes for distortion, kids. you can make your own effects, nowadays.
ShadicoTheHedgehog
maybe somebody just wants to buy an effect and use it and not go through the trouble of creating one
deathtokoalas
maybe. but, then i'm going to slam their record when i hear it for using stale cliches. i think guitarists operating in this space have a real civic responsibility at this point to try and do something different, because the form has gotten repetitive and it's going to be lost, otherwise. you could claim it's been commodified by the effects industry, even, who have standardized these sounds that were previously just experiments. getting around that means taking full advantage of what you have in front of you.
the way this process ought to work is that you have the sound in your head and you're using the tools to create it, not that the tools give you a sound. this wasn't previously possible for musicians without an electronics background. but, it is now with the electronics that are available.
you can only listen to a combination of chorus/reverb effects for so many decades before it's time to move on.
MrSpreadem
i agree with you. For the $200 price point you might as well buy a multi effect for a bit more and get some weird sounds like this and way more. By the same token, I personally find it hard to get enough time to play so id prefer something simple that has "classic" tones.
But ya everyone who is serious about making a living in music, you really do need to innovate and you can't do that with sounds from the 60s/70s
that's a cool sound and all (i created something similar in guitar rig about 2007 and use it in the "first movement" track at my channel), but the problem with something like this is that as soon as you package it it instantly becomes a cliche. with all the versatile tools out there nowadays, it's hard to see why anybody would want to go for this...
keep the boxes for distortion, kids. you can make your own effects, nowadays.
ShadicoTheHedgehog
maybe somebody just wants to buy an effect and use it and not go through the trouble of creating one
deathtokoalas
maybe. but, then i'm going to slam their record when i hear it for using stale cliches. i think guitarists operating in this space have a real civic responsibility at this point to try and do something different, because the form has gotten repetitive and it's going to be lost, otherwise. you could claim it's been commodified by the effects industry, even, who have standardized these sounds that were previously just experiments. getting around that means taking full advantage of what you have in front of you.
the way this process ought to work is that you have the sound in your head and you're using the tools to create it, not that the tools give you a sound. this wasn't previously possible for musicians without an electronics background. but, it is now with the electronics that are available.
you can only listen to a combination of chorus/reverb effects for so many decades before it's time to move on.
MrSpreadem
i agree with you. For the $200 price point you might as well buy a multi effect for a bit more and get some weird sounds like this and way more. By the same token, I personally find it hard to get enough time to play so id prefer something simple that has "classic" tones.
But ya everyone who is serious about making a living in music, you really do need to innovate and you can't do that with sounds from the 60s/70s
i have some loose ends things to do today, but i'm probably going to lose at least a few days this week. my next project is digitizing a number of cassette tapes, in order to clear some things off my drive. i'm just recording, but it's time consuming. so, i'm thinking it will be at least a week before i start on the next track.
publishing trepanation nation (inri058)
there
are a few ideas in my discography that i've explored from multiple
angles, but nothing else at all like this track, which has been through
multiple complete rethinks involving multiple people over the course of
thirteen years. as the revisions are so diverse, i think that a
comprehensive collection of interpretations is a proper entry within my
discography.
in the end, this emerges as my fourth symphony.
the collection is to be arranged chronologically in two discs, with the first disc consisting of mixes that were meant for inclusion in band projects* and the second consisting of mixes that were created after the track was moved into my own various one-person projects. i've placed the second disc at the front of the sequence to stress the july, 2002 release date.
further discussions of the various incarnations of the tracks appear on the track pages, or are linked out from the track pages. please click through.
written over 2001 and rethought repeatedly over 2002, again in 2007, a third time in 2009 and one last time in late 2014. final mixes were completed over the last week of november and the first week of december, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
*the classical guitar version and quiet isolation mix are available for download only due to space limitations on the physical media
credits:
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral sequencing (10), drum manipulation, vocal manipulation, voice (8), live & digital effects processing, digital wave editing, loops, equalizers, soundscaping, sampling, composition, production, cover art
sean - vocals/lyrics (2,4,6), ring modulator (6,7,8)
greg - drum performance sample source (5,6,7,8)
the rendered electronic orchestra on track 10 includes tuba, saxophone, flute, clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and various full string sections.
numbers refer to the physical tracklisting, rather than the bandcamp ordering.
released july 4, 2002
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/trepanation-nation
1) it was around 2006 that i first decided to clear my discography of what had become irrelevant sample work - not irrelevant in the sense of the messaging being obsolete, but irrelevant in terms of listening value. i feel that listeners should be given the opportunity to choose. i've tried to keep instrumental mixes of conceptual tracks since that point.
however, i wasn't able to find the instrumental rabit is wolf copy that i knew existed so i tried to build the mix from scratch. i wasn't able to recreate large sections, or get the volume correct, so i put it aside until the the last few days of july, 2007 when i tried again. at this time, i was able to find an early instrumental remix from roughly april, 2002. this mix was only about half done. i added some of the remaining parts, but was still working in cool edit at the time and consequently had some difficulty syncing them well. i also added some extra production effects. however, i still wasn't really happy with the result and just put it aside.
i went back to school in the fall of 2008 with the aim of putting the music aside permanently. this didn't happen, and the truth is i never really thought it would. however, i wanted to compile a disc of symphonic shorts (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/symphonic-shorts) as a last release. some further modifications were made at this time, but it still didn't really feel right.
it wasn't until april 24, 2009 that i got a mix together that i felt ok about. while it doesn't include every piece of the track, it includes everything i could integrate well. that version has been in the symphony's final resting place (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa) ever since.
unfortunately, some of the sequencing on the 2009 mix is suspect, and i ran it through a transform at some point that made the mix sound tinny at points, while introducing some digital noise. this mix has now been discarded.
in line with my decision to comprehensively complete my discography, i've completely deconstructed and reconstructed the track in cubase by carefully lining up the files using clues provided by the waveform. i've also deconstructed parts of it using the technique of digital phase reversal. this has allowed me to remaster it properly and also to ensure that it's completely in sync. this process included liberal use of digital effects to make it finally sound how i always wanted it to sound.
this is the final and definitive version of the track. the song was completed in this form on july 1, 2002 but the manipulations in the mix also date to (1) july, 2007, (2) august, 2008, (3) april, 2009 and (4) nov/dec, 2014. final mix completed on dec 7, 2014. no new sound was recorded after july 1, 2002.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/07-trepanation-nation
in the end, this emerges as my fourth symphony.
the collection is to be arranged chronologically in two discs, with the first disc consisting of mixes that were meant for inclusion in band projects* and the second consisting of mixes that were created after the track was moved into my own various one-person projects. i've placed the second disc at the front of the sequence to stress the july, 2002 release date.
further discussions of the various incarnations of the tracks appear on the track pages, or are linked out from the track pages. please click through.
written over 2001 and rethought repeatedly over 2002, again in 2007, a third time in 2009 and one last time in late 2014. final mixes were completed over the last week of november and the first week of december, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
*the classical guitar version and quiet isolation mix are available for download only due to space limitations on the physical media
credits:
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), bass, synthesizers, drum programming, orchestral sequencing (10), drum manipulation, vocal manipulation, voice (8), live & digital effects processing, digital wave editing, loops, equalizers, soundscaping, sampling, composition, production, cover art
sean - vocals/lyrics (2,4,6), ring modulator (6,7,8)
greg - drum performance sample source (5,6,7,8)
the rendered electronic orchestra on track 10 includes tuba, saxophone, flute, clarinet, orchestra hit, piano, violin, viola, cello, contrabass and various full string sections.
numbers refer to the physical tracklisting, rather than the bandcamp ordering.
released july 4, 2002
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/trepanation-nation
1) it was around 2006 that i first decided to clear my discography of what had become irrelevant sample work - not irrelevant in the sense of the messaging being obsolete, but irrelevant in terms of listening value. i feel that listeners should be given the opportunity to choose. i've tried to keep instrumental mixes of conceptual tracks since that point.
however, i wasn't able to find the instrumental rabit is wolf copy that i knew existed so i tried to build the mix from scratch. i wasn't able to recreate large sections, or get the volume correct, so i put it aside until the the last few days of july, 2007 when i tried again. at this time, i was able to find an early instrumental remix from roughly april, 2002. this mix was only about half done. i added some of the remaining parts, but was still working in cool edit at the time and consequently had some difficulty syncing them well. i also added some extra production effects. however, i still wasn't really happy with the result and just put it aside.
i went back to school in the fall of 2008 with the aim of putting the music aside permanently. this didn't happen, and the truth is i never really thought it would. however, i wanted to compile a disc of symphonic shorts (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/symphonic-shorts) as a last release. some further modifications were made at this time, but it still didn't really feel right.
it wasn't until april 24, 2009 that i got a mix together that i felt ok about. while it doesn't include every piece of the track, it includes everything i could integrate well. that version has been in the symphony's final resting place (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa) ever since.
unfortunately, some of the sequencing on the 2009 mix is suspect, and i ran it through a transform at some point that made the mix sound tinny at points, while introducing some digital noise. this mix has now been discarded.
in line with my decision to comprehensively complete my discography, i've completely deconstructed and reconstructed the track in cubase by carefully lining up the files using clues provided by the waveform. i've also deconstructed parts of it using the technique of digital phase reversal. this has allowed me to remaster it properly and also to ensure that it's completely in sync. this process included liberal use of digital effects to make it finally sound how i always wanted it to sound.
this is the final and definitive version of the track. the song was completed in this form on july 1, 2002 but the manipulations in the mix also date to (1) july, 2007, (2) august, 2008, (3) april, 2009 and (4) nov/dec, 2014. final mix completed on dec 7, 2014. no new sound was recorded after july 1, 2002.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/07-trepanation-nation
Saturday, December 6, 2014
and, now, for whatever reason, it sounds right again - through multiple buffer rates.
i think maybe i was going through a sense of existential loss at the final completion of this track, which i am confident will not require another revision. i've been working on this off and on for thirteen years. but this is final. and maybe that schized me out.
i'm back to finishing final touches. if there's an issue with a final render, i think i'm better off trying to find a way to manipulate the render rather than continue to fuck with it in cubase.
that ethernet cable is remaining unplugged until i'm done, though.
i think maybe i was going through a sense of existential loss at the final completion of this track, which i am confident will not require another revision. i've been working on this off and on for thirteen years. but this is final. and maybe that schized me out.
i'm back to finishing final touches. if there's an issue with a final render, i think i'm better off trying to find a way to manipulate the render rather than continue to fuck with it in cubase.
that ethernet cable is remaining unplugged until i'm done, though.
i don't think disconnecting it helped.
following the logic i was working with, i changed the buffer size on the maudio card and got the effect i wanted...
i can't upload this with a note to change the buffer size to 1024. not for the least reason that i don't understand *why*. but it's consistent across two cards. i don't get the right warble at other buffer sizes.
i'm slowly coming to the conclusion that i must be taking advantage of something unusual. i mean, i thought i was just driving the bass a little into the red. it seems to be something more complex than that underlying the effect. it may be out of phase or something.
i need to do a little research. i can't let this into the wild until i'm sure it's going to be audible at more than one buffer size.
following the logic i was working with, i changed the buffer size on the maudio card and got the effect i wanted...
i can't upload this with a note to change the buffer size to 1024. not for the least reason that i don't understand *why*. but it's consistent across two cards. i don't get the right warble at other buffer sizes.
i'm slowly coming to the conclusion that i must be taking advantage of something unusual. i mean, i thought i was just driving the bass a little into the red. it seems to be something more complex than that underlying the effect. it may be out of phase or something.
i need to do a little research. i can't let this into the wild until i'm sure it's going to be audible at more than one buffer size.
i'm not able to make sense of this. it sounded "right" this morning through the mixer as a soundcard, now it's gone wonky on me...
i noticed that changing the buffer size when using the mixer as a sound card is modifying the bottom end, which doesn't make any sense to me. it's almost proof that i'm running through an external server, and it's put a limiting effect on everything i'm playing. that's about the only thing that explains this.
what the buffer size does is tell your operating system how often to look for the next piece of the stream. this is primarily going to make a difference when recording, because it introduces a delay. however, it can also make a difference in the way that plugins calculate the sound, which is why i can hear the difference when i'm monitoring the mix.
it really, really shouldn't make any difference at all when i'm simply streaming a song. nothing's being calculated. whether it takes 256 or 512 or 1048576 samples at a time, it's taking exactly the same thing one way or another.
the fact that it *is* making a difference indicates that something *is* being calculated. and, while i may be uncovering some hidden algorithm in foobar or a stealth effect on the unit, i don't think either of these things are true.
again: it sounds like a limiting effect. and it's fucking up the bottom end. and i don't really know what to do about it....
i'm considering just disconnecting that computer from the internet altogether.
there's no wireless card in it. i made sure of that.
waveforms on the bottom end are longer. so, if you're calculating something on the bottom end, you could conceivably erase it if you take chunks that are too small. conversely, a distortion effect on the low end could conceivably smooth itself out if you take chunks that are too big. so, it seems like i'm running into a contradiction: i want a smooth bass part and a jagged guitar part.
but none of that should happen when i'm playing an already calculated part.
i noticed that changing the buffer size when using the mixer as a sound card is modifying the bottom end, which doesn't make any sense to me. it's almost proof that i'm running through an external server, and it's put a limiting effect on everything i'm playing. that's about the only thing that explains this.
what the buffer size does is tell your operating system how often to look for the next piece of the stream. this is primarily going to make a difference when recording, because it introduces a delay. however, it can also make a difference in the way that plugins calculate the sound, which is why i can hear the difference when i'm monitoring the mix.
it really, really shouldn't make any difference at all when i'm simply streaming a song. nothing's being calculated. whether it takes 256 or 512 or 1048576 samples at a time, it's taking exactly the same thing one way or another.
the fact that it *is* making a difference indicates that something *is* being calculated. and, while i may be uncovering some hidden algorithm in foobar or a stealth effect on the unit, i don't think either of these things are true.
again: it sounds like a limiting effect. and it's fucking up the bottom end. and i don't really know what to do about it....
i'm considering just disconnecting that computer from the internet altogether.
there's no wireless card in it. i made sure of that.
waveforms on the bottom end are longer. so, if you're calculating something on the bottom end, you could conceivably erase it if you take chunks that are too small. conversely, a distortion effect on the low end could conceivably smooth itself out if you take chunks that are too big. so, it seems like i'm running into a contradiction: i want a smooth bass part and a jagged guitar part.
but none of that should happen when i'm playing an already calculated part.
ok, no. this is a sound card issue. when i play the rendered file through the mixer as a sound card, it sounds "right".
no two sound cards are going to sound identical. the fact that i can tell the difference here is just a function of my meticulousness.
but, it's a general point that is accurate. if you want to hear it exactly the way i'm making it, you need to use exactly the same equipment. that's true of everybody that makes music.
it's an alesis 16-track multimix that connects via firewire. i use an m-audio "audiophile" card that's designed to connect to old fashioned stereo systems for general playback. normally, the difference in the render is minimal, but because the effects here are so subtle it makes the difference in that bit of bass distortion....
i guess that means that some people aren't going to hear the mix properly. i already knew that. but i guess the upside is that the distortion is more likely to disappear than overpower, which is probably preferable.
i still need to do things, and it's still going to need to wait until i come back, but i'm not going to have to take anything apart....
everything sounds good except that last acoustic...
no two sound cards are going to sound identical. the fact that i can tell the difference here is just a function of my meticulousness.
but, it's a general point that is accurate. if you want to hear it exactly the way i'm making it, you need to use exactly the same equipment. that's true of everybody that makes music.
it's an alesis 16-track multimix that connects via firewire. i use an m-audio "audiophile" card that's designed to connect to old fashioned stereo systems for general playback. normally, the difference in the render is minimal, but because the effects here are so subtle it makes the difference in that bit of bass distortion....
i guess that means that some people aren't going to hear the mix properly. i already knew that. but i guess the upside is that the distortion is more likely to disappear than overpower, which is probably preferable.
i still need to do things, and it's still going to need to wait until i come back, but i'm not going to have to take anything apart....
everything sounds good except that last acoustic...
yeah. it's nulling across
latency levels, so if the output is different on the monitor (and i
think it is), it isn't on the render. that's psychological.
and the bottom end simply does not appear to be there. unfortunately.
i think they overlap about 736, but i need to be playing back about 4096 with the current array of plugins..
i have to go the drugstore and get groceries. i'm going to wait until i come back before i play with anything.
but if somebody is doing this purposefully, they're really just wasting my time.
i mean, latency shouldn't matter when you're just playing back wave files. but it does seem to have an effect on the monitor out in real time when effects are being calculated, which is of course what i want recreated in the render. if i have to monitor the plugins at 4096 to prevent crackling, i'm going to get a different output. it's the kind of thing that 95% of musicians won't notice. but what i do is very intimately tied into the sound production. it's not the two note power chord riff that's of value here, it's the eight guitars i've got playing it through different effects paths.
the key thing is monitoring it at the same level it renders at, so i get what i'm hearing. i mean, there was one song a few years ago that i actually recorded out with analog instead of rendering because of the mismatch.
and the bottom end simply does not appear to be there. unfortunately.
i think they overlap about 736, but i need to be playing back about 4096 with the current array of plugins..
i have to go the drugstore and get groceries. i'm going to wait until i come back before i play with anything.
but if somebody is doing this purposefully, they're really just wasting my time.
i mean, latency shouldn't matter when you're just playing back wave files. but it does seem to have an effect on the monitor out in real time when effects are being calculated, which is of course what i want recreated in the render. if i have to monitor the plugins at 4096 to prevent crackling, i'm going to get a different output. it's the kind of thing that 95% of musicians won't notice. but what i do is very intimately tied into the sound production. it's not the two note power chord riff that's of value here, it's the eight guitars i've got playing it through different effects paths.
the key thing is monitoring it at the same level it renders at, so i get what i'm hearing. i mean, there was one song a few years ago that i actually recorded out with analog instead of rendering because of the mismatch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)