lol.
i've remarkably managed to remember the initial song. so, this doesn't have to be a reinterpretation...
it is going to need massive overdubs, though. i drastically reworked this for a reason. and i guess the drill guitars are more ministry than tool, but what the hey....
Friday, July 25, 2014
ok, so, as i've alluded to, i've reached a pause. there will be further jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj material to complete the one or two volume (not sure yet) cd (which will then comprise my fifth "proper record" in this sea of extended conceptual eps), but i really wanted to focus on going through sequentially so i'm going to go through sequentially. i've completed up to the end of june, 2001. the next jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj piece won't work it's way in until september, as a polished version of the first rabit is wolf track which had this weird sequencer part that freaked everybody out. so, i'll take that sequencer part out and blow it up into it's own thing. but that leaves a few months of stuff, which consists primarily of a rather detailed drum pattern that never found a home and an array of guitar parts that i didn't write and wouldn't claim as my own but would feel ok about raiding as a sample source in a creative, interpretive way.
i've been considering doing something with those riffs for a while, anyways. they're not the greatest on their own, but they had some potential - it's raw material that isn't really good, but is more than interesting enough to work with in warping it into something completely different. see, the project never created anything. that just doesn't sit with me. if i can get it all into a cohesive statement, it accomplishes a lot of things all at once.
the song this drum pattern was written for has a long, convoluted history. it was written as a short radio friendly five minute track (heavily tool influenced) over the summer of 2001 for inclusion into this radio rock project that spawned rabit is wolf, then became a rabit is wolf song, then went through several revisions before it became this sprawling 25 minute mess that i call my fourth symphony, the trepanation nation. this fourth symphony is probably going to need a double disc to house all of the versions. and i'm a little cautious about creating yet another one.
but the drum sequence was completely ignored in the process of the track changing from one nature to another, and i'm listening to it now and thinking i need to do something with it. it's complicated by the fact that i remember reordering the riffs, but don't remember the order they were in. i have a vague concept, but...
so, i'm going to reinterpret this somehow. how, i don't know yet. it's going to be something like the trepanation nation, but not quite. and i'm going to see what i can do about sampling those riffs in.
so, this is going to be a little different, and it could be a while before it works itself out.
to be clear: the intent with this thing was for it to be marketable. i've got spatterings of riffy stuff around, but it tends to get abstract. i'm going to try to avoid that with this. think soundgarden, tool....
i've been considering doing something with those riffs for a while, anyways. they're not the greatest on their own, but they had some potential - it's raw material that isn't really good, but is more than interesting enough to work with in warping it into something completely different. see, the project never created anything. that just doesn't sit with me. if i can get it all into a cohesive statement, it accomplishes a lot of things all at once.
the song this drum pattern was written for has a long, convoluted history. it was written as a short radio friendly five minute track (heavily tool influenced) over the summer of 2001 for inclusion into this radio rock project that spawned rabit is wolf, then became a rabit is wolf song, then went through several revisions before it became this sprawling 25 minute mess that i call my fourth symphony, the trepanation nation. this fourth symphony is probably going to need a double disc to house all of the versions. and i'm a little cautious about creating yet another one.
but the drum sequence was completely ignored in the process of the track changing from one nature to another, and i'm listening to it now and thinking i need to do something with it. it's complicated by the fact that i remember reordering the riffs, but don't remember the order they were in. i have a vague concept, but...
so, i'm going to reinterpret this somehow. how, i don't know yet. it's going to be something like the trepanation nation, but not quite. and i'm going to see what i can do about sampling those riffs in.
so, this is going to be a little different, and it could be a while before it works itself out.
to be clear: the intent with this thing was for it to be marketable. i've got spatterings of riffy stuff around, but it tends to get abstract. i'm going to try to avoid that with this. think soundgarden, tool....
just to keep you up to date on what i'm doing
i don't suppose you care, but i think i have a moral if not a legal responsibility to inform you of what i'm doing. the plan is pretty much set. it'll take a few weeks at least to complete what i've set out.
i've now run through the material for the first half of 2001. i think it's interesting, but it's not really related. you can explore the page if you want. it's arranged chronologically moving down, meaning the oldest stuff is at the bottom.
1) as far as cynicide material is concerned, i have an aborted drum sequence for the song that you know as "the day you saw me cry" and a bunch of rough demos from jon. i was considering raiding jon's guitar parts and cutting them up into samples, but i don't hear much of interest. i may still do this. but, i'm going to be completing that song the way it was initially written as a heavy radio rock tune that's somewhere between tool and white zombie. that will be here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/to-spin-inside-dull-aberrations
as far as the actual rabit material is concerned, i'm splitting it into five conceptual chunks.
1) the first few tracks all have a post-punk vibe. i'll be uploading this in the form of a single for "me, myself..." that will include multiple mixes of the track (including an instrumental one) and a completed version of the joy division cover (i'm going to go to town with some screwy drum overdubs, and some weird synth work. it'll sound weird. it has to.). i'm undecided on "we're gonna kill someone tonight".
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/me-myself
2) the next couple of tracks have a sort of goth undertone. that includes an instrumental version of clarity, a few takes of #9 and the short version of the wave with the vocals that i couldn't get my processor at the time to process (it's no problem, now). that will come up as a single for clarity:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/clarity
3) i'm going to upload the instrumental version of the wave. i've been referring to this lately as my third symphony.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-wave
4) the existing rabit demo, unaltered
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
5) a "live disc" containing the various acoustic versions that exist and were planned to be performed. me, myself. day. 9:46. psi. jumped up and down. i think there's a few more. obviously, i won't upload it unless it sounds "proper". there's a few things that i may redo the guitar parts on.
also,
a) i have many, many versions of the song you know as "day". they will be compiled into a comprehensive remix ep. the vocal mix will be included there.
b) a few of these tracks are going to end up on a double-lp chiptune project i'm putting together. like, the sequencer at the beginning of "me, myself" as well as a version of #9.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/thru
i believe that's comprehensive. 9:46, time and psi will not have instrumental versions, as they are pop tunes that require vocals.
if you have any questions, comments or concerns please bring them to me. in the end, my answer to these concerns is going to be to go fully instrumental on the tracks, if i have to. but i'm concerned about the integrity of the tracks first and foremost. and you know i'm very reasonable about shit.
j
i've now run through the material for the first half of 2001. i think it's interesting, but it's not really related. you can explore the page if you want. it's arranged chronologically moving down, meaning the oldest stuff is at the bottom.
1) as far as cynicide material is concerned, i have an aborted drum sequence for the song that you know as "the day you saw me cry" and a bunch of rough demos from jon. i was considering raiding jon's guitar parts and cutting them up into samples, but i don't hear much of interest. i may still do this. but, i'm going to be completing that song the way it was initially written as a heavy radio rock tune that's somewhere between tool and white zombie. that will be here:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/to-spin-inside-dull-aberrations
as far as the actual rabit material is concerned, i'm splitting it into five conceptual chunks.
1) the first few tracks all have a post-punk vibe. i'll be uploading this in the form of a single for "me, myself..." that will include multiple mixes of the track (including an instrumental one) and a completed version of the joy division cover (i'm going to go to town with some screwy drum overdubs, and some weird synth work. it'll sound weird. it has to.). i'm undecided on "we're gonna kill someone tonight".
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/me-myself
2) the next couple of tracks have a sort of goth undertone. that includes an instrumental version of clarity, a few takes of #9 and the short version of the wave with the vocals that i couldn't get my processor at the time to process (it's no problem, now). that will come up as a single for clarity:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/clarity
3) i'm going to upload the instrumental version of the wave. i've been referring to this lately as my third symphony.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-wave
4) the existing rabit demo, unaltered
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf
5) a "live disc" containing the various acoustic versions that exist and were planned to be performed. me, myself. day. 9:46. psi. jumped up and down. i think there's a few more. obviously, i won't upload it unless it sounds "proper". there's a few things that i may redo the guitar parts on.
also,
a) i have many, many versions of the song you know as "day". they will be compiled into a comprehensive remix ep. the vocal mix will be included there.
b) a few of these tracks are going to end up on a double-lp chiptune project i'm putting together. like, the sequencer at the beginning of "me, myself" as well as a version of #9.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/thru
i believe that's comprehensive. 9:46, time and psi will not have instrumental versions, as they are pop tunes that require vocals.
if you have any questions, comments or concerns please bring them to me. in the end, my answer to these concerns is going to be to go fully instrumental on the tracks, if i have to. but i'm concerned about the integrity of the tracks first and foremost. and you know i'm very reasonable about shit.
j
publishing the intersection of two identical particles moving in completely opposite directions (inri047)
ok...
so, to understand this piece, it's necessary to go back to 1998.
i was working out primitive sequencer parts for the first inri demo and it just sort of crossed my mind that there was really nothing stopping me from composing symphonies except for a lot of music theory. well, if i could write electronic music without training, why couldn't i write symphonies without training? i mean, the score writing program exists in front of me. it was just a question of experimenting with it. i could do it myself...
...but i actually already had a pretty hefty disdain for music theory by the age of 17. i'd managed to come across a music history textbook that traced the deconstruction of western theory from beethoven through to schoenberg and this, combined with my experiences as a guitarist, was enough to prevent me from taking it seriously. the perception i had was of modern composers viewing music theory sort of like how biologists viewed creationism. i use that analogy fairly frequently. it just didn't strike me as relevant.
now, i've softened a bit over time to a view that music theory is best understood in terms of the underlying physics. this renders the theory useless, but upholds the basic relationships between tones as physical, mathematical realities. the thing is the next step of abstraction is understanding that these mathematical objects can be arranged and analyzed in any arbitrary way, and the conventional theory really *is* a fallacy akin to creationism. so, i still hold to the general thesis. this is actually the first serious example of me putting that disdain for the idea that music should have a theory into real action. i remain adamantly of the view that art is not a realm where theories should exist or be viewed with anything other than scorn. theories are rigid, formal things; art is informal, chaotic.
so, it's 1998. i have a scorewriter and a very basic soundcard and i want to bullshit a symphony out of it. i did this by composing a single brief melody by randomly mashing notes into a scorewriter. i then took that melody and pasted it over top of itself at differing speeds (64th, 32nd, 16th, 8th, quarter, half, whole notes). i then took that, cut it off near the end of the half notes and pasted it over itself, backwards.
that might sound like it's going to sound awful, but it actually sounds quite lovely. one could analyze it quite easily, but it's creation is beyond the realm of any rules of construction.
which is where art belongs.
...excepting the algorithm i used, of course. i suppose it's more reich than schoenberg, but kind of more xenakis than either.
the initial version ended up subsumed underneath a messy noise collage that i created independently and have lost the source material for. that messy noise collage was eliminated from the track for the 1999 version, which was reconstructed by reproducing the algorithm. these are tracks 19 and 20 on this systematic exploration of the theme.
in 2001, i ran the midi file through my soundblaster live!, which as primitive as it is, has a much nicer wavetable in it than the primitive soundcard i used in 1998 and 1999 (i don't remember what it was). this is track 21. i also slowed it down by about 20 bpm and allowed the full file to "intersect", which let it breathe more. i've previously not done anything with this mix other than append it to some mix cds. the guitars on the soundblaster are notoriously bad, so there wasn't a lot to do with it....
why? well, i was writing a lot with scorewriters at the time and was just experimenting with the old file, really. but i was also finishing up what would be the only year i would spend in the math-physics department, and thought it sounded like i would imagine intersecting particles *should* sound like. i was generally interested in finding ways to combine science with music then - an interest that is present in older tracks as well and that has stuck with me. i may explore these themes further in time. one of the ideas i really wanted to accomplish was a physical modelling of the universe, to actually simulate the music of the spheres, as pythagoras imagined it. i think i underestimated the complexity of such a task....
of course, i never expected the music of the spheres to be tonal. and i wouldn't expect the sound of particles intersecting to be musical, either. but, we can take some artistic license. if intersecting particles are to make a sound, it OUGHT to be something like this!
now, the place to work out the actual intersection is rather arbitrary. i had initially cut off the entire section of pure whole notes, back in '98. what i wanted to do in '01 was create a sequence where it's cut off incrementally, creating shorter and shorter pieces. i didn't actually do that then, but i have now.
as for the piece, i haven't changed it much. i've doubled the guitar with a pizzicato string section, and put it through a better guitar synthesizer (and amp simulator, and effects). the sound fonts are otherwise identical, just updated mildly to a better synthesizer.
i've included the midi files of the original composition, if you'd like to mess with it on your own.
written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. the renders here are from june 1998, june 1999, june 2001 and july 2014. as always, please headphones.
credits:
j - programming, digital effects & treatments, digital wave editing, composition.
the rendered electronic orchestras variously include piano, electric guitar, orchestra hit, synth pads, pizzicato strings and pc card.
released june 18, 2001
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-intersection-of-two-identical-particles-moving-in-completely-opposite-directions
so, to understand this piece, it's necessary to go back to 1998.
i was working out primitive sequencer parts for the first inri demo and it just sort of crossed my mind that there was really nothing stopping me from composing symphonies except for a lot of music theory. well, if i could write electronic music without training, why couldn't i write symphonies without training? i mean, the score writing program exists in front of me. it was just a question of experimenting with it. i could do it myself...
...but i actually already had a pretty hefty disdain for music theory by the age of 17. i'd managed to come across a music history textbook that traced the deconstruction of western theory from beethoven through to schoenberg and this, combined with my experiences as a guitarist, was enough to prevent me from taking it seriously. the perception i had was of modern composers viewing music theory sort of like how biologists viewed creationism. i use that analogy fairly frequently. it just didn't strike me as relevant.
now, i've softened a bit over time to a view that music theory is best understood in terms of the underlying physics. this renders the theory useless, but upholds the basic relationships between tones as physical, mathematical realities. the thing is the next step of abstraction is understanding that these mathematical objects can be arranged and analyzed in any arbitrary way, and the conventional theory really *is* a fallacy akin to creationism. so, i still hold to the general thesis. this is actually the first serious example of me putting that disdain for the idea that music should have a theory into real action. i remain adamantly of the view that art is not a realm where theories should exist or be viewed with anything other than scorn. theories are rigid, formal things; art is informal, chaotic.
so, it's 1998. i have a scorewriter and a very basic soundcard and i want to bullshit a symphony out of it. i did this by composing a single brief melody by randomly mashing notes into a scorewriter. i then took that melody and pasted it over top of itself at differing speeds (64th, 32nd, 16th, 8th, quarter, half, whole notes). i then took that, cut it off near the end of the half notes and pasted it over itself, backwards.
that might sound like it's going to sound awful, but it actually sounds quite lovely. one could analyze it quite easily, but it's creation is beyond the realm of any rules of construction.
which is where art belongs.
...excepting the algorithm i used, of course. i suppose it's more reich than schoenberg, but kind of more xenakis than either.
the initial version ended up subsumed underneath a messy noise collage that i created independently and have lost the source material for. that messy noise collage was eliminated from the track for the 1999 version, which was reconstructed by reproducing the algorithm. these are tracks 19 and 20 on this systematic exploration of the theme.
in 2001, i ran the midi file through my soundblaster live!, which as primitive as it is, has a much nicer wavetable in it than the primitive soundcard i used in 1998 and 1999 (i don't remember what it was). this is track 21. i also slowed it down by about 20 bpm and allowed the full file to "intersect", which let it breathe more. i've previously not done anything with this mix other than append it to some mix cds. the guitars on the soundblaster are notoriously bad, so there wasn't a lot to do with it....
why? well, i was writing a lot with scorewriters at the time and was just experimenting with the old file, really. but i was also finishing up what would be the only year i would spend in the math-physics department, and thought it sounded like i would imagine intersecting particles *should* sound like. i was generally interested in finding ways to combine science with music then - an interest that is present in older tracks as well and that has stuck with me. i may explore these themes further in time. one of the ideas i really wanted to accomplish was a physical modelling of the universe, to actually simulate the music of the spheres, as pythagoras imagined it. i think i underestimated the complexity of such a task....
of course, i never expected the music of the spheres to be tonal. and i wouldn't expect the sound of particles intersecting to be musical, either. but, we can take some artistic license. if intersecting particles are to make a sound, it OUGHT to be something like this!
now, the place to work out the actual intersection is rather arbitrary. i had initially cut off the entire section of pure whole notes, back in '98. what i wanted to do in '01 was create a sequence where it's cut off incrementally, creating shorter and shorter pieces. i didn't actually do that then, but i have now.
as for the piece, i haven't changed it much. i've doubled the guitar with a pizzicato string section, and put it through a better guitar synthesizer (and amp simulator, and effects). the sound fonts are otherwise identical, just updated mildly to a better synthesizer.
i've included the midi files of the original composition, if you'd like to mess with it on your own.
written june, 1998. reimagined june, 2001. slightly rearranged and re-rendered at the end of july, 2014. the renders here are from june 1998, june 1999, june 2001 and july 2014. as always, please headphones.
credits:
j - programming, digital effects & treatments, digital wave editing, composition.
the rendered electronic orchestras variously include piano, electric guitar, orchestra hit, synth pads, pizzicato strings and pc card.
released june 18, 2001
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-intersection-of-two-identical-particles-moving-in-completely-opposite-directions
the second phase is now entirely completed.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbtYmywctLw8KaXgXG3A2ZOF
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3JSjmqp0cbtYmywctLw8KaXgXG3A2ZOF
nexus card arrived in the mail today.
first show over will be the seminal kraut-noise act, oneida.
i'm learning that detroit has a show i'd spend $10 on pretty much every day. i don't have $10 to spend every day. if i were to somehow find a job, i'd not be able to go to a lot of the shows, so it's a catch-22. worse, it costs $9 (maybe $7, i'll find out) in tolls to get back and forth. that's going to mean i'm going to not buy very much beer when i'm over. going across 4 or 5 times a month (which is roughly the current plan) is going to add up to substantial border tolls, unfortunately. i mean, the cost of a $5 show is actually $15. that's a big difference. i can't resolve that, i just have to eat it.
so, that means i'm going to be picky. but, the flip side is that i have a huge array of options. as i'll be keeping a close eye on things, i'll also point out here shows that i nearly attended but didn't. unfortunately, these are probably going to be a lot of the up and coming acts i'd otherwise take a chance on. and i will miss some things in person.
for the next few months, i have an increased amount of disposable income. i will be over quite often.
oneida is a good first show. first update on the first of august.
first show over will be the seminal kraut-noise act, oneida.
i'm learning that detroit has a show i'd spend $10 on pretty much every day. i don't have $10 to spend every day. if i were to somehow find a job, i'd not be able to go to a lot of the shows, so it's a catch-22. worse, it costs $9 (maybe $7, i'll find out) in tolls to get back and forth. that's going to mean i'm going to not buy very much beer when i'm over. going across 4 or 5 times a month (which is roughly the current plan) is going to add up to substantial border tolls, unfortunately. i mean, the cost of a $5 show is actually $15. that's a big difference. i can't resolve that, i just have to eat it.
so, that means i'm going to be picky. but, the flip side is that i have a huge array of options. as i'll be keeping a close eye on things, i'll also point out here shows that i nearly attended but didn't. unfortunately, these are probably going to be a lot of the up and coming acts i'd otherwise take a chance on. and i will miss some things in person.
for the next few months, i have an increased amount of disposable income. i will be over quite often.
oneida is a good first show. first update on the first of august.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
trolling weird al
deathtokoalas
i refuse to follow the rules that exist in conventional english grammar regarding its/it's, as it demonstrates rather clearly how grammar is in fact a form of mind control. it clearly follows that weird al is an nwo pawn, btw.
but, let us analyze this carefully. we have three things to take into account.
1) contractions. it's can clearly be used as a contraction for "it is". no argument.
2) plural. generally, when used without an apostrophe, an s at the end of a word means that the idea expressed is one of plurality.
3) possessive. generally, we use apostrophes to indicate possessives.
it follows that, to be consistent across the language, its should mean plural and it's should be used for both the contraction and the possessive. yet, for absolutely no discernible reason other than the arbitrary dictate of some centralized grammar authority somewhere, this convention is shattered for it's/its. i don't know the history, but it almost certainly reduces to somebody's arbitrary opinion on the matter.
i reject all of this as inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, which demand that laws be on a firm, rational basis rather than at the arbitrary dictate of some authoritarian body. with enough push back, we can take back our language as a democratic, dynamic entity and have this changed to something more rational.
so, please join in me in ignoring the irrationality of this particular rule of modern english - and any others you may find.
Luke
What do you have against koalas?
deathtokoalas
it's the cuteness. puts me into a rage just thinking about it...
Mario
whether or not you're being a troll, you make a rather interesting claim. You must be the life of the party, too. Haha take care.
deathtokoalas
well, in some sense, i'm drawing from orwell. but, you don't really need to draw on fiction. you can look at the development of french. the history of repression that has gone into french is very deep and well documented. most people that today speak "proper french" previously spoke a different dialect of latin, such as occitan. these dialects have been viciously repressed through forced schooling in a manner that is every bit as heavy-handed as the forced anglicization of natives in australia and canada. the development of france as a nation-state is inherently connected to the standardization of french as a language.
if you analyze french, you'll immediately realize how ridiculously constructed it is. the gendering is really quite ridiculous, and consider how much deference it provides to authority (specifying between the tu and the vous seems entirely arbitrary, until you realize it's meant to enforce a hierarchy).
linguists will tell you that language is really at the core of how we think. how many philosophical debates reduce to the meaning of a term? and, there's good reason for this, as it's at the core of how we grasp concepts. if the centralized grammar authorities (dare i say grammar nazis) can get you to think in a way that upholds hierarchy and defers you to authority, they're a good ways towards getting you to behave in the way they want.
it's/its may be trivial in that context, and english is not nearly as controlled as french is. but, it's a good place to start in deconstructing the conditioning and questioning the ideas underlying the grammatical rules.
a better example in english is capitalization.
stop and think about what they teach kids in schools. whenever you capitalize a proper name, you're enforcing a hierarchical relationship between people. when a child writes "the president", it's marked as incorrect. it must be The President. for the rest of your life, you will write The President, The Prime Minister, The CEO, etc.
this is so engrained it's not even thought about. but it's a means of enforcing a social order.
Mario Venegas
holy shit. I wish I had that much time on my hands. Well, TIL. Thanks for that wall of awesome information. That's pretty rad stuff. What do you do for a living, if I may ask? You seem very knowledgeable. I apologize in advance, English isn't my first language.
deathtokoalas
let's just say i'm a musician. you can hear my music by clicking my name.
lsm234
You rage against the machine, bro!
deathtokoalas
i'd advise building parallel structures, instead. far more productive.
(evil laugh)
J.D.
Look out we have a rebel here! Mwahaha that was a fragment! that will show the establishment!
deathtokoalas
nonono, rebels necessarily acknowledge the existence of the state and flail hopelessly against it. post-leftists are trying not to do that any more, because there's a recognition that it's just a waste of time. it's a bit elitist, but it's really more realistic. one of the problems is that we don't breed in the first place, so this whole idea of building for future generations is really just empty liberal rhetoric. the focus needs to be on the now. and that's actually getting back to roots; it's a forgotten central aspect of marxism that workers can only live for the present if they stop living for the afterlife. so, the new anti-establishmentarianism rejects rebellion in favour of creative building. there's not much hope that it's going to create systemic change, but it at least allows us to get a feeling of freedom while we're actually still alive. leave the rebellion for the terrorists. gimme an art commune in the mountains, and put your guns away...
Amy
I think you lost 80% of your audience when you started using multi-syllabic words. Great diatribe, though :)
Chris
Have you heard of Weird Al's parody of "Royals" by Lorde called "Foil". He actually talks about the illuminati and consperacies and what not. Weird Al is not a mastermind of evil, he is a mastermind of parody. And I started to listen to your so called "music" before I had to turn in off because of the LITERAL irritaion it brings to my brain. If you want to become a successful muscian, try less scratching on the chalkboard and more actual musical instruments, like say a piano. I would abadon your music career and go into writing. You are obviusly a better writer than a muscian.
deathtokoalas
there's plenty of pianos in there, but i'm actually a guitarist. there's a few poems, too. i mean, there's 70 some songs up. try the "recent" playlist a few lines down.
that song i have up is a bit of a joke, but it's necessary for another week because i'm putting the songs up in the same order and length as i wrote them, meaning they'll consistently be staggered by about 18.5 years. i'll have you know i was 15 when i jammed that out in 1996. it was my first demo tape....
....and if you appreciate it for what it is, it pulls it off well. but it's not for everyone, admittedly.
Monotremata
the subterranean tremor that being currently engineered is language mash-up : spanglish, frenglish, sprench, germalian, bulgarese, etc. Cityspeak and Newspeak will merge with these into an 'idiomatic singularity' - the corridors of power speaking in code, separating the rulers from the ruled. Doubleplusgut! \m/
rejectfairytales
While I share your view that there is much in thoughtlessly spoken language that ought to be opposed I think you've made a poor choice in railing against non-use of the apostrophe in this case. If anything I think we should use apostrophes less. I agree with the trend toward using a lone s or es for plurals, eliminating nonstandard plurals eg: plural of squid should be squids not squid ; plural of octopus should be octopuses not octipodes. Just this would make English a lot simpler, which I think is important because as +jnrclerk points out, language is NOT the be all and end all. Meaning is so much more important so the more we can eliminate arbitrary rules the better.
In terms of improving society I think encouraging brevity would be the best cause. Just think of all the empty verbiage floating around especially in legislative documents, legal documents, and the procedural documents of many companies. I find that most people who use too many words have a similar thing to hide - they are talking bullshit! Of course that isn't always the case but it often is. Leave the koalas alone - I'm just sayin!
deathtokoalas
yeah, the meaning > procedure thing is really the crux of a lot of my grammar anti-authoritarianism. language is spoken first and foremost. writing is important, it's importance cannot be understated, but the purpose of writing something down is to get a meaning across.
i've put it down to focus purely on recording right now, but i've been reading a bit of archaic political literature lately by the likes of richard price and thomas hobbes (the aim is to get in between the historical debate over the french revolution that happened between thomas paine and edmund burke). it's impossible not to notice that the spelling and grammar used in texts before 1900, and especially before 1800, is dramatically different than spelling and grammar used today. yet, when i'm having trouble following something, it has more to do with attitudes that have changed than the difference in writing conventions. that's to say nothing of shakespeare or chaucer who were legitimately writing in a different language. yet, if you let a grammar authoritarian loose on these texts, the result would be ugly. with hobbes, it's just missing the point that language is constantly evolving; with shakespeare, it actually diminishes the artistic expression.
and, it's worthwhile to wonder what somebody will think of reading this very youtube comment in the year 2200, if youtube is still online that far into the future. i'd normally say something like "if we avoid blowing ourselves up", but i suspect that if we do blow ourselves up the internet will keep running without us for quite some time into the future. web pages written in archaic language could be an interesting phenomenon in the not so distant future.
somebody pointed out that this whole thread is sort of funny because my grammar is actually almost spotless. well, most of the rules make sense. i want to go back to the idea of reason being the guiding force, rather than convention. language will shift, but reason will stay mostly static. if we focus on reason rather than convention, we will provide future generations the ability to disassemble our archaic writing; if we focus on convention over reason, we run the risk of becoming incoherent to future audiences.
akkinex
It's is the conjugated form of both 'it is' and 'it has.' FYI
Oh, and this might help to explain why the apostrophe for the possessive 'its' was dropped a couple hundred years ago. From http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp
From what we understand, the possessive was also written it’s until a couple of hundred years ago. While we don’t know for certain, it is possible that the apostrophe was dropped in order to parallel possessive personal pronouns like hers, theirs, yours, ours, etc.”
deathtokoalas
hrmmmn. thanks for that.
i've deleted about a dozen posts explaining that the rule applies because "it" is a "personal pronoun". the people posting thought they were smart, but it's actually a really dumb response that i didn't want to get into. i didn't know that it's was an Officially Correct possessive in the past; in light of that information, your post has made me reconsider.
rather than focus on pronouns, let's look at a concept called a "possessive determiner". consider the following:
this is our house / the house is ours.
that is their house / the house is theirs.
this is your house / the house is yours.
that is her house / the house is hers.
this is it's house / the house is it's.
(it may be a cat, for example)
in each case, the first phrase is using what you may mistake as a pronoun as a "possessive determiner". the second phrase is the possessive pronoun. the s in each case is not due to possession, but due to it being a pronoun rather than an adjective.
wikipedia (i don't have time to go to the library, sorry) lists possessive determiners in english as:
1) my, your, his, her, its, our, their, whose
2) the saxon genitives formed from other nouns, pronouns and noun phrases (one's, everybody's, Mary's, a boy's, the man we saw yesterday's).
you can clearly see from this that its is used in exactly the same way as a general noun possessive is. yet, it inconceivably isn't written that way.
ok.
i had to triple check that and rewrote it a few times, not being somebody that cares a lot about grammar. the only reason my grammar doesn't suck is because i spent my entire childhood in my room reading and i picked it all up through intuition. it's just about what looks right.
but i'm done now. the personal pronoun thing is not correct. so, please stop posting it. i will block you!
John
The current iteration ofit's versus its has a very simple explanation to it: The form it's is always a replacement for either it is, or it has. Perhaps this is the whole point. If we used the apostrophe in possessive situations, wouldn't that remove the need for its to exist? That would also mean that it's would not always be a contraction of it is or it has. That could be the very reason for this rule, to keep the two meanings visually, and identifiably separate. For the record, I have no idea how many times I confused myself trying to write this comment. I sincerely hope that this is an acceptable means of emphasis, or at least acceptable in the absence of access to italics? Knowing my luck though, my grammatical discussion is grammatically incorrect somewhere. Blimey, I should have ceased this comment sooner.
Oh come on! Why did that have to be a short cut for strikethrough?! -_-
deathtokoalas
you can get italics by surrounding the word with _. you can bold by surrounding the word with *.
_ italic _ . without the spaces: italic.
i've always understood the difference as being an attempt to separate the meanings in the way you've provided. but, there's virtually no chance anybody is going to get confused. with all the homonyms out there, confusing the contraction with the possessive should be the least of anybody's concerns...
Unofficial winner
It makes us look professional.
deathtokoalas
please. most professionals can barely spell their own names.
it makes you look like a social outcast, or an english professor that can't find a real job.
i was in school a long time. math. physics. programming. law. music. a few other things. i'll admit it was very surprising to me the first time i realized the guy in front of me, who has a phd in an incredibly abstract topic and dozens of published papers, was not able to get his homophones straight. it was just like...
"did he just write there on the board when he meant their? i thought this was a university. give me my money back..."
....but it's so overwhelmingly common in the university classroom that you eventually get used to it.
professionals are interested in the thing(s) that they're studying. you'll run across the odd one that is particular about the grammar, but for the most part they simply don't care.
you've just been lied to by your high school teachers. the truth is nobody cares about your grammar or is going to judge you based on it.
it's not the only thing they lied to you about, either.
"i know she just built a usable prototype for a quantum computer, but she didn't capitalize her proper place names, so how can we hire her?"
it doesn't happen.
people will judge you on your work.
i refuse to follow the rules that exist in conventional english grammar regarding its/it's, as it demonstrates rather clearly how grammar is in fact a form of mind control. it clearly follows that weird al is an nwo pawn, btw.
but, let us analyze this carefully. we have three things to take into account.
1) contractions. it's can clearly be used as a contraction for "it is". no argument.
2) plural. generally, when used without an apostrophe, an s at the end of a word means that the idea expressed is one of plurality.
3) possessive. generally, we use apostrophes to indicate possessives.
it follows that, to be consistent across the language, its should mean plural and it's should be used for both the contraction and the possessive. yet, for absolutely no discernible reason other than the arbitrary dictate of some centralized grammar authority somewhere, this convention is shattered for it's/its. i don't know the history, but it almost certainly reduces to somebody's arbitrary opinion on the matter.
i reject all of this as inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, which demand that laws be on a firm, rational basis rather than at the arbitrary dictate of some authoritarian body. with enough push back, we can take back our language as a democratic, dynamic entity and have this changed to something more rational.
so, please join in me in ignoring the irrationality of this particular rule of modern english - and any others you may find.
Luke
What do you have against koalas?
deathtokoalas
it's the cuteness. puts me into a rage just thinking about it...
Mario
whether or not you're being a troll, you make a rather interesting claim. You must be the life of the party, too. Haha take care.
deathtokoalas
well, in some sense, i'm drawing from orwell. but, you don't really need to draw on fiction. you can look at the development of french. the history of repression that has gone into french is very deep and well documented. most people that today speak "proper french" previously spoke a different dialect of latin, such as occitan. these dialects have been viciously repressed through forced schooling in a manner that is every bit as heavy-handed as the forced anglicization of natives in australia and canada. the development of france as a nation-state is inherently connected to the standardization of french as a language.
if you analyze french, you'll immediately realize how ridiculously constructed it is. the gendering is really quite ridiculous, and consider how much deference it provides to authority (specifying between the tu and the vous seems entirely arbitrary, until you realize it's meant to enforce a hierarchy).
linguists will tell you that language is really at the core of how we think. how many philosophical debates reduce to the meaning of a term? and, there's good reason for this, as it's at the core of how we grasp concepts. if the centralized grammar authorities (dare i say grammar nazis) can get you to think in a way that upholds hierarchy and defers you to authority, they're a good ways towards getting you to behave in the way they want.
it's/its may be trivial in that context, and english is not nearly as controlled as french is. but, it's a good place to start in deconstructing the conditioning and questioning the ideas underlying the grammatical rules.
a better example in english is capitalization.
stop and think about what they teach kids in schools. whenever you capitalize a proper name, you're enforcing a hierarchical relationship between people. when a child writes "the president", it's marked as incorrect. it must be The President. for the rest of your life, you will write The President, The Prime Minister, The CEO, etc.
this is so engrained it's not even thought about. but it's a means of enforcing a social order.
Mario Venegas
holy shit. I wish I had that much time on my hands. Well, TIL. Thanks for that wall of awesome information. That's pretty rad stuff. What do you do for a living, if I may ask? You seem very knowledgeable. I apologize in advance, English isn't my first language.
deathtokoalas
let's just say i'm a musician. you can hear my music by clicking my name.
lsm234
You rage against the machine, bro!
deathtokoalas
i'd advise building parallel structures, instead. far more productive.
(evil laugh)
J.D.
Look out we have a rebel here! Mwahaha that was a fragment! that will show the establishment!
deathtokoalas
nonono, rebels necessarily acknowledge the existence of the state and flail hopelessly against it. post-leftists are trying not to do that any more, because there's a recognition that it's just a waste of time. it's a bit elitist, but it's really more realistic. one of the problems is that we don't breed in the first place, so this whole idea of building for future generations is really just empty liberal rhetoric. the focus needs to be on the now. and that's actually getting back to roots; it's a forgotten central aspect of marxism that workers can only live for the present if they stop living for the afterlife. so, the new anti-establishmentarianism rejects rebellion in favour of creative building. there's not much hope that it's going to create systemic change, but it at least allows us to get a feeling of freedom while we're actually still alive. leave the rebellion for the terrorists. gimme an art commune in the mountains, and put your guns away...
Amy
I think you lost 80% of your audience when you started using multi-syllabic words. Great diatribe, though :)
Chris
Have you heard of Weird Al's parody of "Royals" by Lorde called "Foil". He actually talks about the illuminati and consperacies and what not. Weird Al is not a mastermind of evil, he is a mastermind of parody. And I started to listen to your so called "music" before I had to turn in off because of the LITERAL irritaion it brings to my brain. If you want to become a successful muscian, try less scratching on the chalkboard and more actual musical instruments, like say a piano. I would abadon your music career and go into writing. You are obviusly a better writer than a muscian.
deathtokoalas
there's plenty of pianos in there, but i'm actually a guitarist. there's a few poems, too. i mean, there's 70 some songs up. try the "recent" playlist a few lines down.
that song i have up is a bit of a joke, but it's necessary for another week because i'm putting the songs up in the same order and length as i wrote them, meaning they'll consistently be staggered by about 18.5 years. i'll have you know i was 15 when i jammed that out in 1996. it was my first demo tape....
....and if you appreciate it for what it is, it pulls it off well. but it's not for everyone, admittedly.
Monotremata
the subterranean tremor that being currently engineered is language mash-up : spanglish, frenglish, sprench, germalian, bulgarese, etc. Cityspeak and Newspeak will merge with these into an 'idiomatic singularity' - the corridors of power speaking in code, separating the rulers from the ruled. Doubleplusgut! \m/
rejectfairytales
While I share your view that there is much in thoughtlessly spoken language that ought to be opposed I think you've made a poor choice in railing against non-use of the apostrophe in this case. If anything I think we should use apostrophes less. I agree with the trend toward using a lone s or es for plurals, eliminating nonstandard plurals eg: plural of squid should be squids not squid ; plural of octopus should be octopuses not octipodes. Just this would make English a lot simpler, which I think is important because as +jnrclerk points out, language is NOT the be all and end all. Meaning is so much more important so the more we can eliminate arbitrary rules the better.
In terms of improving society I think encouraging brevity would be the best cause. Just think of all the empty verbiage floating around especially in legislative documents, legal documents, and the procedural documents of many companies. I find that most people who use too many words have a similar thing to hide - they are talking bullshit! Of course that isn't always the case but it often is. Leave the koalas alone - I'm just sayin!
deathtokoalas
yeah, the meaning > procedure thing is really the crux of a lot of my grammar anti-authoritarianism. language is spoken first and foremost. writing is important, it's importance cannot be understated, but the purpose of writing something down is to get a meaning across.
i've put it down to focus purely on recording right now, but i've been reading a bit of archaic political literature lately by the likes of richard price and thomas hobbes (the aim is to get in between the historical debate over the french revolution that happened between thomas paine and edmund burke). it's impossible not to notice that the spelling and grammar used in texts before 1900, and especially before 1800, is dramatically different than spelling and grammar used today. yet, when i'm having trouble following something, it has more to do with attitudes that have changed than the difference in writing conventions. that's to say nothing of shakespeare or chaucer who were legitimately writing in a different language. yet, if you let a grammar authoritarian loose on these texts, the result would be ugly. with hobbes, it's just missing the point that language is constantly evolving; with shakespeare, it actually diminishes the artistic expression.
and, it's worthwhile to wonder what somebody will think of reading this very youtube comment in the year 2200, if youtube is still online that far into the future. i'd normally say something like "if we avoid blowing ourselves up", but i suspect that if we do blow ourselves up the internet will keep running without us for quite some time into the future. web pages written in archaic language could be an interesting phenomenon in the not so distant future.
somebody pointed out that this whole thread is sort of funny because my grammar is actually almost spotless. well, most of the rules make sense. i want to go back to the idea of reason being the guiding force, rather than convention. language will shift, but reason will stay mostly static. if we focus on reason rather than convention, we will provide future generations the ability to disassemble our archaic writing; if we focus on convention over reason, we run the risk of becoming incoherent to future audiences.
akkinex
It's is the conjugated form of both 'it is' and 'it has.' FYI
Oh, and this might help to explain why the apostrophe for the possessive 'its' was dropped a couple hundred years ago. From http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp
From what we understand, the possessive was also written it’s until a couple of hundred years ago. While we don’t know for certain, it is possible that the apostrophe was dropped in order to parallel possessive personal pronouns like hers, theirs, yours, ours, etc.”
deathtokoalas
hrmmmn. thanks for that.
i've deleted about a dozen posts explaining that the rule applies because "it" is a "personal pronoun". the people posting thought they were smart, but it's actually a really dumb response that i didn't want to get into. i didn't know that it's was an Officially Correct possessive in the past; in light of that information, your post has made me reconsider.
rather than focus on pronouns, let's look at a concept called a "possessive determiner". consider the following:
this is our house / the house is ours.
that is their house / the house is theirs.
this is your house / the house is yours.
that is her house / the house is hers.
this is it's house / the house is it's.
(it may be a cat, for example)
in each case, the first phrase is using what you may mistake as a pronoun as a "possessive determiner". the second phrase is the possessive pronoun. the s in each case is not due to possession, but due to it being a pronoun rather than an adjective.
wikipedia (i don't have time to go to the library, sorry) lists possessive determiners in english as:
1) my, your, his, her, its, our, their, whose
2) the saxon genitives formed from other nouns, pronouns and noun phrases (one's, everybody's, Mary's, a boy's, the man we saw yesterday's).
you can clearly see from this that its is used in exactly the same way as a general noun possessive is. yet, it inconceivably isn't written that way.
ok.
i had to triple check that and rewrote it a few times, not being somebody that cares a lot about grammar. the only reason my grammar doesn't suck is because i spent my entire childhood in my room reading and i picked it all up through intuition. it's just about what looks right.
but i'm done now. the personal pronoun thing is not correct. so, please stop posting it. i will block you!
John
The current iteration of
Oh come on! Why did that have to be a short cut for strikethrough?! -_-
deathtokoalas
you can get italics by surrounding the word with _. you can bold by surrounding the word with *.
_ italic _ . without the spaces: italic.
i've always understood the difference as being an attempt to separate the meanings in the way you've provided. but, there's virtually no chance anybody is going to get confused. with all the homonyms out there, confusing the contraction with the possessive should be the least of anybody's concerns...
Unofficial winner
It makes us look professional.
deathtokoalas
please. most professionals can barely spell their own names.
it makes you look like a social outcast, or an english professor that can't find a real job.
i was in school a long time. math. physics. programming. law. music. a few other things. i'll admit it was very surprising to me the first time i realized the guy in front of me, who has a phd in an incredibly abstract topic and dozens of published papers, was not able to get his homophones straight. it was just like...
"did he just write there on the board when he meant their? i thought this was a university. give me my money back..."
....but it's so overwhelmingly common in the university classroom that you eventually get used to it.
professionals are interested in the thing(s) that they're studying. you'll run across the odd one that is particular about the grammar, but for the most part they simply don't care.
you've just been lied to by your high school teachers. the truth is nobody cares about your grammar or is going to judge you based on it.
it's not the only thing they lied to you about, either.
"i know she just built a usable prototype for a quantum computer, but she didn't capitalize her proper place names, so how can we hire her?"
it doesn't happen.
people will judge you on your work.
ok, i've got the shape of this done. i didn't do much besides update the guitar font and splice it with a pizzicato string patch, which actually creates a bit of a sitar-sounding effect. but, the sound font update overall is really much better.
i've got it rendered at 8 speeds and will have to pick one. i may upload them all together, which will produce the effect of a single 46 minute track, but i need to determine if this is actually interesting or just pointless. and, i'll do that after i get a few hours of sleep....
this will almost certainly be done for tomorrow.
i've got it rendered at 8 speeds and will have to pick one. i may upload them all together, which will produce the effect of a single 46 minute track, but i need to determine if this is actually interesting or just pointless. and, i'll do that after i get a few hours of sleep....
this will almost certainly be done for tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
publishing the symphony of psilocybin induced madness (inri046)
so, that means i need to record here that today is the day that inri027 was compiled as a four track ep.
==
the core of this was written in my parent's basement in the spring of 2001. planning on going to a rave that weekend, i had previously purchased a large amount of drugs; i was, however, forced to stay in due to having a calculus test that sunday (the rave was out of town). well, my parents were gone for the weekend, most of my friends were out of town and i had a massive stash of drugs...
it is quite literally a symphony of psilocybin induced madness and was written directly into an ancient, hacked score-writing program. while it has been labelled as a symphony of drunken confusion in certain contexts to get around certain social stigmas, this is inaccurate.
around 2006 or so, i took a course in electronic music design that had a recorded component and pulled the score off of my hard drive with the intent of finally recording it properly. the dx7 i had available to me greatly improved the synth patches, enough that i'm willing to let the track rest that way.
i've included midi files of the original composition, if you'd like to mess with it on your own.
i consider this my second symphony.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-symphony-of-psilocybin-induced-madness
==
the core of this was written in my parent's basement in the spring of 2001. planning on going to a rave that weekend, i had previously purchased a large amount of drugs; i was, however, forced to stay in due to having a calculus test that sunday (the rave was out of town). well, my parents were gone for the weekend, most of my friends were out of town and i had a massive stash of drugs...
it is quite literally a symphony of psilocybin induced madness and was written directly into an ancient, hacked score-writing program. while it has been labelled as a symphony of drunken confusion in certain contexts to get around certain social stigmas, this is inaccurate.
around 2006 or so, i took a course in electronic music design that had a recorded component and pulled the score off of my hard drive with the intent of finally recording it properly. the dx7 i had available to me greatly improved the synth patches, enough that i'm willing to let the track rest that way.
i've included midi files of the original composition, if you'd like to mess with it on your own.
i consider this my second symphony.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - electric guitars, programming, digital effects & treatments, composition, production.
the rendered electronic orchestras variously include synthesizers, clavinet, kalimba, nylon guitar, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass guitar, piano, banjo, electronic drums, pc card, violin, cello, bamboo flute, flute, viola, soprano saxophone, tuba, trumpet, organ and music box.
released may 15, 2001
the rendered electronic orchestras variously include synthesizers, clavinet, kalimba, nylon guitar, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass guitar, piano, banjo, electronic drums, pc card, violin, cello, bamboo flute, flute, viola, soprano saxophone, tuba, trumpet, organ and music box.
released may 15, 2001
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-symphony-of-psilocybin-induced-madness
on third thought, i'm probably going to eliminate thru. it hasn't worked out as substantially as i was thinking.
in which case, everything will end up on jjjjjjjjjj, the 2006 version remains authoritative and the long version exists only as cut.
about the only reason i can justify having thru right now is as a sort of a second side. i'll have to see how much material gets generated in the end.
in which case, everything will end up on jjjjjjjjjj, the 2006 version remains authoritative and the long version exists only as cut.
about the only reason i can justify having thru right now is as a sort of a second side. i'll have to see how much material gets generated in the end.
actually, i'm not going to do that, either.
the 5:31 "cut early mix" is about 20 minutes in it's full render. it's kind of unnecessary to have both the 20 and 5:30 version, and i actually like the 5:31 version better. what happens over that last 15 minutes is that the thing slowly unravels. the 5:31 cut-off is optimized to exclude empty space.
i'm going to wait to see how much space is left for thru, and if i have an extra 15 minutes i'll render it and fade it out. but i actually don't expect that. so, i'm going to stop inri027 right there. if i do the fade out for thru, it won't appear on the single.
hey, it's 48 minutes. that's a hefty ep as it is.
the 5:31 "cut early mix" is about 20 minutes in it's full render. it's kind of unnecessary to have both the 20 and 5:30 version, and i actually like the 5:31 version better. what happens over that last 15 minutes is that the thing slowly unravels. the 5:31 cut-off is optimized to exclude empty space.
i'm going to wait to see how much space is left for thru, and if i have an extra 15 minutes i'll render it and fade it out. but i actually don't expect that. so, i'm going to stop inri027 right there. if i do the fade out for thru, it won't appear on the single.
hey, it's 48 minutes. that's a hefty ep as it is.
yeah, you know, i can't improve on this, really.
the score is for a lot of guitars, a lot of synths, pc card percussion, pc card bass, very electronic sounding drums and something that could be called an orchestra. if i was to redo this, i'd be copying over the previously recorded guitar parts, dumping the percussion and bass out through the old soundblaster (as i did before) and mapping the orchestra to synth patches. so, the only difference would be in the patches, and the piece is saturated enough that nobody will tell the difference.
so, that would be a waste of time, that i'm not going to bother with.
2006 version stands.
i *am* going to create a long render of a very early mix that i found, and it won't take long to get that up.
and that will be the quick conclusion to inri027.
that means the symphony will not appear on thru, but i think i'm going to need the space anyways (because there's going to be an extra choral piece, and a weird punked-up beethoven thing). so that will likely work out.
or i might use the early mix instead. we'll see how that works out.
the score is for a lot of guitars, a lot of synths, pc card percussion, pc card bass, very electronic sounding drums and something that could be called an orchestra. if i was to redo this, i'd be copying over the previously recorded guitar parts, dumping the percussion and bass out through the old soundblaster (as i did before) and mapping the orchestra to synth patches. so, the only difference would be in the patches, and the piece is saturated enough that nobody will tell the difference.
so, that would be a waste of time, that i'm not going to bother with.
2006 version stands.
i *am* going to create a long render of a very early mix that i found, and it won't take long to get that up.
and that will be the quick conclusion to inri027.
that means the symphony will not appear on thru, but i think i'm going to need the space anyways (because there's going to be an extra choral piece, and a weird punked-up beethoven thing). so that will likely work out.
or i might use the early mix instead. we'll see how that works out.
so, i've already explored this composition in much more depth; i just pulled these four mixes off my hard drive - and that is the totality of inri027.
1) carleton mix, for music 3604 (2006). includes ambient guitar into/outro, entirely live guitars and the symphony partly played through a dx7 and partly through the soundblaster.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march. this version was finalized on march 30, 2006.
2) divine amoebas mix. in 2004, i lifted the piano part to form the end of an anti-war protest piece i was putting together. it's slowed down to half speed and combined with an 808 going haywire, beethoven samples and backwards guitars.
piano part written in early 2001. this construction is from january, 2004.
4) alt mix. this is also from 2001, but it's a bit mysterious. i don't have a date, just an mp3 from 2007. i'll have to briefly explain.
this is a process piece, like most of the things i worked out through 2001. i initially composed it to repeat in patterns of 9, where each pattern had an extra bar of silence at the end of it. this created a twenty minute piece that spiralled down into nothingness, and became rather sparse at the end. for the final, published version i ended up modifying the patterns of 9 to decrease as the length of the pattern increases. so, if the initial section that repeats in a pattern of 9 had 8 bars of rest then the next pattern with 12 bars of rest would repeat in patterns of 8, and so on down to 3. this had the effect of shortening up the piece by about 50%. beyond that, i then added a piano part and a ridiculous crescendo.
so, this early mix is the initial cycling of 9s across the score. i don't remember why i cut it to 5:30 back in 2007, but i do think it's the perfect cut off point and will stick to it.
written early 2001. this render is from july, 2007.
5) initial soundcard mix. as with all the pieces from 2001 that i'm finishing, this was written in a scorewriter and monitored using the ol' soundblaster. i've got these mixes up because it's interesting to hear what this actually sounded like as i was composing it.
written early 2001. this render is actually from may 13, 2001.
that's almost an hour of difficult listening. good luck...
3) is a forthcoming vst mix. i'm not sure if i'm going to try and reintegrate the guitars from the carleton mix into the new vst mix or leave it as is as the final render.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-symphony-of-psilocybin-induced-madness
1) carleton mix, for music 3604 (2006). includes ambient guitar into/outro, entirely live guitars and the symphony partly played through a dx7 and partly through the soundblaster.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march. this version was finalized on march 30, 2006.
2) divine amoebas mix. in 2004, i lifted the piano part to form the end of an anti-war protest piece i was putting together. it's slowed down to half speed and combined with an 808 going haywire, beethoven samples and backwards guitars.
piano part written in early 2001. this construction is from january, 2004.
4) alt mix. this is also from 2001, but it's a bit mysterious. i don't have a date, just an mp3 from 2007. i'll have to briefly explain.
this is a process piece, like most of the things i worked out through 2001. i initially composed it to repeat in patterns of 9, where each pattern had an extra bar of silence at the end of it. this created a twenty minute piece that spiralled down into nothingness, and became rather sparse at the end. for the final, published version i ended up modifying the patterns of 9 to decrease as the length of the pattern increases. so, if the initial section that repeats in a pattern of 9 had 8 bars of rest then the next pattern with 12 bars of rest would repeat in patterns of 8, and so on down to 3. this had the effect of shortening up the piece by about 50%. beyond that, i then added a piano part and a ridiculous crescendo.
so, this early mix is the initial cycling of 9s across the score. i don't remember why i cut it to 5:30 back in 2007, but i do think it's the perfect cut off point and will stick to it.
written early 2001. this render is from july, 2007.
5) initial soundcard mix. as with all the pieces from 2001 that i'm finishing, this was written in a scorewriter and monitored using the ol' soundblaster. i've got these mixes up because it's interesting to hear what this actually sounded like as i was composing it.
written early 2001. this render is actually from may 13, 2001.
that's almost an hour of difficult listening. good luck...
3) is a forthcoming vst mix. i'm not sure if i'm going to try and reintegrate the guitars from the carleton mix into the new vst mix or leave it as is as the final render.
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-symphony-of-psilocybin-induced-madness
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
the symphony of psilocybin induced madness (final mix)
the core of this was written in my parent's basement in the spring of
2001. planning on going to a rave that weekend, i had previously
purchased a large amount of drugs; i was, however, forced to stay in due
to having a calculus test that sunday (the rave was out of town). well,
my parents were gone for the weekend, most of my friends were out of
town and i had a massive stash of drugs...
it is quite literally a symphony of psilocybin induced madness and was written directly into an ancient, hacked score-writing program. while it has been labelled as a symphony of drunken confusion in certain contexts to get around certain social stigmas, this is inaccurate.
around 2006 or so, i took a course in electronic music design that had a recorded component and pulled the score off of my hard drive with the intent of finally recording it properly. the dx7 i had available to me greatly improved the synth patches.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march.
it is quite literally a symphony of psilocybin induced madness and was written directly into an ancient, hacked score-writing program. while it has been labelled as a symphony of drunken confusion in certain contexts to get around certain social stigmas, this is inaccurate.
around 2006 or so, i took a course in electronic music design that had a recorded component and pulled the score off of my hard drive with the intent of finally recording it properly. the dx7 i had available to me greatly improved the synth patches.
written early 2001. reconstructed in the first quarter of 2006, especially over march.
well, i'm not sure i hear the occitan or medieval influence in the tune, but i do like the idea of mixing renaissance music with techno.
i happen to have just completed a track that mixes (english) renaissance guitar (lute) music with warp records style drum 'n' bass:
maybe there's a trend developing there.
i happen to have just completed a track that mixes (english) renaissance guitar (lute) music with warp records style drum 'n' bass:
maybe there's a trend developing there.
Monday, July 21, 2014
publishing the time machine (inri044)
and there it is. inri025.
inri026 is the adventures in guitarland, already completed.
inri027 is my symphony of psilocybin induced madness and is actually finished in it's fully complete form with live guitars. i'm going to construct a vst mix out of it, which will make this a little different than the other tracks as the synths in the full section are from the dx7 in the closet in the music department at carleton university. but, i shouldn't have to actually play any parts, so it should be relatively fast to run through.
===
the various rendered electronic orchestras include acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizers, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-time-machine
inri026 is the adventures in guitarland, already completed.
inri027 is my symphony of psilocybin induced madness and is actually finished in it's fully complete form with live guitars. i'm going to construct a vst mix out of it, which will make this a little different than the other tracks as the synths in the full section are from the dx7 in the closet in the music department at carleton university. but, i shouldn't have to actually play any parts, so it should be relatively fast to run through.
===
regarding
this piece, my memory is blurry; yet, i have a vivid recollection of
playing parts of it for my guitar teacher on a sunny day, where there
was still snow on the ground. it's funny how we remember seemingly
irrelevant details, but i guess the atmosphere of the performance is
important because the performance is. that would date it to roughly
march, 2001.
i switched the piece from classical guitar to piano halfway through writing it, and vaguely remember thinking that an impossible interval had something to do with it (a specific c# cannot be hit on a standard classical). yet, that doesn't change the fact that it's guitar music. the counterpoint is very guitar.
to further complicate things, i've long wanted to turn the piece into a jazzy idm romp. it has a kind of a jingly feel to it that belongs in the warp records sphere.
so, what is this? a classical guitar piece? a jazzy piano piece? a techno tune? all of the above! as with other pieces from this period, this is presented here in multiple formats: several rendered midi tracks, live guitar versions, a vst version and a "full band" version.
i have included the original midi file (and sheet music in pdf) as a bonus item in the download, if you want to play with it on your own.
conceptually, the time machine aspect referred simply to the slowed down guitar chords at the beginning of the song. if you play it a certain way, it sounds like time is collapsing in on itself. or, so i thought, anyways. the various versions i have created here have made an attempt to take that idea to it's logical conclusion. it's a mix of the vision i had at the time and a bit of hindsight.
written early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. rendered, arranged and performed over june and july, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
i switched the piece from classical guitar to piano halfway through writing it, and vaguely remember thinking that an impossible interval had something to do with it (a specific c# cannot be hit on a standard classical). yet, that doesn't change the fact that it's guitar music. the counterpoint is very guitar.
to further complicate things, i've long wanted to turn the piece into a jazzy idm romp. it has a kind of a jingly feel to it that belongs in the warp records sphere.
so, what is this? a classical guitar piece? a jazzy piano piece? a techno tune? all of the above! as with other pieces from this period, this is presented here in multiple formats: several rendered midi tracks, live guitar versions, a vst version and a "full band" version.
i have included the original midi file (and sheet music in pdf) as a bonus item in the download, if you want to play with it on your own.
conceptually, the time machine aspect referred simply to the slowed down guitar chords at the beginning of the song. if you play it a certain way, it sounds like time is collapsing in on itself. or, so i thought, anyways. the various versions i have created here have made an attempt to take that idea to it's logical conclusion. it's a mix of the vision i had at the time and a bit of hindsight.
written early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. rendered, arranged and performed over june and july, 2014. as always, please use headphones.
credits:
j - electric guitar, programming, digital effects & treatments, digital wave editing, loops, production, composition.
the various rendered electronic orchestras include acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizers, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron.
released march 21, 2001
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-time-machine
the time machine (ambient mix)
this slowed down ambient version is the final piece of inri025, which is now complete.
written in early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. further remixed over july, 2014. this version of the track was completed on july 21, 2014.
written in early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. further remixed over july, 2014. this version of the track was completed on july 21, 2014.
the time machine (electric guitar mix)
the track was originally written for classical guitar, and then switched over to piano because there is a high c# that cannot be reached on very many classical guitars. however, the c# can be reached on an electric, so i've chosen to play it that way instead.
played straight through at a steady 180 bpm, the track is rather boring, so i've interpreted it a little differently for playing purposes. i suppose this is the final interpretation of the track as a solo piece.
written in early 2001. reinterpreted in july, 2014; this version of the track was completed on july 21st, 2014 and adjusted for volume on may 27th, 2015.
played straight through at a steady 180 bpm, the track is rather boring, so i've interpreted it a little differently for playing purposes. i suppose this is the final interpretation of the track as a solo piece.
written in early 2001. reinterpreted in july, 2014; this version of the track was completed on july 21st, 2014 and adjusted for volume on may 27th, 2015.
change of plans.
i'm not going to play this piece 6 times. the reason is that it's really not that interesting to listen to as a solo piece. played at 360, it's robotic (strike 2). i actually can't play it on a classical at all without ruining the best part of it (strike a third). and it's not interesting enough to film myself playing (strike two more).
i will interpret it as a live guitar piece once and only once, on solo electric, and move on to some more interesting interpretations. i do still want to fuck with the score rather considerably.
so, that will be up here soon.
i'm not going to play this piece 6 times. the reason is that it's really not that interesting to listen to as a solo piece. played at 360, it's robotic (strike 2). i actually can't play it on a classical at all without ruining the best part of it (strike a third). and it's not interesting enough to film myself playing (strike two more).
i will interpret it as a live guitar piece once and only once, on solo electric, and move on to some more interesting interpretations. i do still want to fuck with the score rather considerably.
so, that will be up here soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)