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.".
Friday, July 11, 2014
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)