Thursday, October 3, 2019
and, this is an example of some harsh noise that i've written.
note the presence of a process. melodies. harmonies. etc.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
note the presence of a process. melodies. harmonies. etc.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-crash
scientifically speaking, this is basically garbage. it comes out of some kind of post-puritanical philosophical space that is entirely devoid of any concept of empiricism. it's what happens when a religious worldview does away with god and seeks to compensate for it somehow, and i guess there's a commonality with lingua ignota on that point. i guess if you're still grappling with these questions - which most of western civilization dealt with in the fucking enlightenment - then this kind of thing might make some sense to you. but, if you're coming at this from a fully atheistic slant then it just comes off as idiotic.
there's not an evolutionary biologist on the planet that would endorse this kind of thinking, and i'll leave it at that other than to assert the point relatively strongly - if you want to understand "human nature", if you want to pretend such a thing even exists at all, then you need to stop asking philosophers and start asking biologists. these are empirical questions that belong in the realm of science, not in the realm of religion or philosophy.
humans are primates. that means we're fundamentally co-operative, and that we have to be in order to prevent predation; we have to rely on each other to avoid getting eaten. so, if we're destructive, it's not due to our "nature" but due to the economic system we exist within. she might accidentally get that right, but that doesn't mean you should take her seriously when she argues that humans are inherently destructive creatures, because the science is pretty clear that we really aren't. we are actually the only species descended from our evolutionary common ancestor that has developed a concept of morality, and while the final biological understanding of morality is likely going to be that that it is altruistic, and therefore self-serving, that doesn't uphold the thesis that we are destructive, but rather contradicts it. we are collaborative, and we seek to build things together to maximize our own survival rates in a universe that is cold and destructive and without morals, because we have to to survive within it.
if you're insistent that you're hard-wired to self-destruct and cannibalize and destroy yourself, then the proper way to make sense of that is to conclude that you actually have broken genes at some point - that you're a genetic mutant that should be removed from the genome. you should probably just kill yourself...
...but the truth is probably closer to the reality that you're just so fucked up from your religious upbringing that you can barely understand what's happening a foot in front of your face. you may just be suffering from permanent, irreversible psychological damage as a consequence of your exposure to religion as a child.
so, take this terrible understanding of humans and separate it from us, and project it into the universe. we might not survive, in the end, but, we're still the protagonists, here - it is the universe around us that is horrible, not us.
what about the sound, though?
it's aimless. i like noise, but it has to actually go somewhere, has to do actually do something. this is pretty pointless, and pretty boring. she needs to learn to anchor herself in some kind of process if she wants to convert this into something compelling...
https://pharmakon.bandcamp.com/
there's not an evolutionary biologist on the planet that would endorse this kind of thinking, and i'll leave it at that other than to assert the point relatively strongly - if you want to understand "human nature", if you want to pretend such a thing even exists at all, then you need to stop asking philosophers and start asking biologists. these are empirical questions that belong in the realm of science, not in the realm of religion or philosophy.
humans are primates. that means we're fundamentally co-operative, and that we have to be in order to prevent predation; we have to rely on each other to avoid getting eaten. so, if we're destructive, it's not due to our "nature" but due to the economic system we exist within. she might accidentally get that right, but that doesn't mean you should take her seriously when she argues that humans are inherently destructive creatures, because the science is pretty clear that we really aren't. we are actually the only species descended from our evolutionary common ancestor that has developed a concept of morality, and while the final biological understanding of morality is likely going to be that that it is altruistic, and therefore self-serving, that doesn't uphold the thesis that we are destructive, but rather contradicts it. we are collaborative, and we seek to build things together to maximize our own survival rates in a universe that is cold and destructive and without morals, because we have to to survive within it.
if you're insistent that you're hard-wired to self-destruct and cannibalize and destroy yourself, then the proper way to make sense of that is to conclude that you actually have broken genes at some point - that you're a genetic mutant that should be removed from the genome. you should probably just kill yourself...
...but the truth is probably closer to the reality that you're just so fucked up from your religious upbringing that you can barely understand what's happening a foot in front of your face. you may just be suffering from permanent, irreversible psychological damage as a consequence of your exposure to religion as a child.
so, take this terrible understanding of humans and separate it from us, and project it into the universe. we might not survive, in the end, but, we're still the protagonists, here - it is the universe around us that is horrible, not us.
what about the sound, though?
it's aimless. i like noise, but it has to actually go somewhere, has to do actually do something. this is pretty pointless, and pretty boring. she needs to learn to anchor herself in some kind of process if she wants to convert this into something compelling...
https://pharmakon.bandcamp.com/
it seems like a throwaway add-on to a metal show, but this sounds like fun. i'd check this out. i guess i still might, but tell them to play a punk show so i don't have to find something else to do for the rest of the night.....
http://citypleasure.bandcamp.com/
http://citypleasure.bandcamp.com/
but, this is the band opening for earthless and they're far more interesting to me.
hrmmn.
it's an early show. so, the way i'd do this is catch the opening band, stay for earthless until i get bored (or finish my beer) and then head back to windsor to catch a band from toronto called bike thiefs.
https://sacri-monti.bandcamp.com/
hrmmn.
it's an early show. so, the way i'd do this is catch the opening band, stay for earthless until i get bored (or finish my beer) and then head back to windsor to catch a band from toronto called bike thiefs.
https://sacri-monti.bandcamp.com/
i'm not going to take the time to listen to this carefully, but i can immediately hear what she's doing with the overtones, because i've done things like this myself, albeit more in a mathematical or additive synthesis context than in the context of trying to reconstruct sounds heard in a domed or otherwise reverberated space. to be clear: she seems to be trying to orchestrate the feedback by notating it. it's nerdy, but not disinteresting - or at least not disinteresting through headphones, at home.
this is the kind of show that i'd like to see places like trinosophes schedule a little earlier, especially on a friday, so that i could catch it before heading out somewhere else. 23:00 isn't super late or anything, and it might work as a pre-show for a dance party, but i'd rather hit a rock show before a dance party. you hit the culture, then the rock show and then the dance party. so, a 17:00-20:00 show actually makes more sense, allowing you to catch the rock show from 21:00-00:00 and then hit the dance party as late as you can find it.
and, from trinosophes' perspective, it makes more sense, too, because you can catch people right after eating - or even sell them something to eat.
i'm planning on staying in windsor on this night, so it doesn't fit my schedule. but, i kind of wish that it did.
there's not a lot here to actually listen to, but you're supposed to listen to it carefully, i take it. the idea is to listen to the notes rub against each other, both in ways that sound 'right' and in ways that sound 'wrong'. will you get much out of it beyond the curiosity of it? see, i have a bloc here in trying to explain this, because i have a math degree, and i compose in this style; chances are, neither of these things apply to you, and you're just going to hear some blurry slabs of ambient noise.
like i say - it's perhaps better listened to at home, or as a stop on the way to somewhere else, if you want to do it socially.
https://sarahdavachi.bandcamp.com/album/gave-in-rest
this is the kind of show that i'd like to see places like trinosophes schedule a little earlier, especially on a friday, so that i could catch it before heading out somewhere else. 23:00 isn't super late or anything, and it might work as a pre-show for a dance party, but i'd rather hit a rock show before a dance party. you hit the culture, then the rock show and then the dance party. so, a 17:00-20:00 show actually makes more sense, allowing you to catch the rock show from 21:00-00:00 and then hit the dance party as late as you can find it.
and, from trinosophes' perspective, it makes more sense, too, because you can catch people right after eating - or even sell them something to eat.
i'm planning on staying in windsor on this night, so it doesn't fit my schedule. but, i kind of wish that it did.
there's not a lot here to actually listen to, but you're supposed to listen to it carefully, i take it. the idea is to listen to the notes rub against each other, both in ways that sound 'right' and in ways that sound 'wrong'. will you get much out of it beyond the curiosity of it? see, i have a bloc here in trying to explain this, because i have a math degree, and i compose in this style; chances are, neither of these things apply to you, and you're just going to hear some blurry slabs of ambient noise.
like i say - it's perhaps better listened to at home, or as a stop on the way to somewhere else, if you want to do it socially.
https://sarahdavachi.bandcamp.com/album/gave-in-rest
i'm actually not familiar with this band; this is the first time i've ever heard of them.
bringing in the 70s aor vocal style, ala robin trower or eric clapton or something, is definitely not my cup of, err, tea. but, that's apparently not their normal style. they're normally instrumental, so i checked out the previous record...
this is just a collection of stale cliches strung together, with a bunch of bland, unimaginative guitar work pasted over top of it. i guess you'd have to call this grandpa rock at this point, because your dad probably wouldn't like it, either.
again: if you don't actually play guitar, you might be mightily impressed by all of the sound coming at you, but the reality is that it's exceedingly boxed in. there are rules to playing blues guitar that have to do with phrasing and notes, and the genius of the player comes out in how they break and bend and skirt around those rules. whether you're talking about a ridiculous, unserious player like hendrix or a stuffy, composer like robert fripp, it's always about the flair that comes with getting out of the box. this appears to make no attempt to do that - it's content to follow the rules to the letter, and more or less perfectly. the result is a record that sounds exactly the way it's supposed to sound, without creating any kind of musical tension, at all.
again: if you just want somebody to play messy pentatonic notes relatively fast (not too fast,though), this should do it for you. but, there's nothing else really to it and, as an abstract guitarist, i will forgive you for finding it boring - because it largely is.
bringing in the 70s aor vocal style, ala robin trower or eric clapton or something, is definitely not my cup of, err, tea. but, that's apparently not their normal style. they're normally instrumental, so i checked out the previous record...
this is just a collection of stale cliches strung together, with a bunch of bland, unimaginative guitar work pasted over top of it. i guess you'd have to call this grandpa rock at this point, because your dad probably wouldn't like it, either.
again: if you don't actually play guitar, you might be mightily impressed by all of the sound coming at you, but the reality is that it's exceedingly boxed in. there are rules to playing blues guitar that have to do with phrasing and notes, and the genius of the player comes out in how they break and bend and skirt around those rules. whether you're talking about a ridiculous, unserious player like hendrix or a stuffy, composer like robert fripp, it's always about the flair that comes with getting out of the box. this appears to make no attempt to do that - it's content to follow the rules to the letter, and more or less perfectly. the result is a record that sounds exactly the way it's supposed to sound, without creating any kind of musical tension, at all.
again: if you just want somebody to play messy pentatonic notes relatively fast (not too fast,though), this should do it for you. but, there's nothing else really to it and, as an abstract guitarist, i will forgive you for finding it boring - because it largely is.
i like the manic energy in the recording, but it's a little flat otherwise, and hard to get to hamtramck for on a thursday. they need to go next level with this, or they're going to be doing the retro circuit into perpetuity.
https://slovenly.bandcamp.com/album/priors-new-pleasure-lp
https://slovenly.bandcamp.com/album/priors-new-pleasure-lp
and, yes, i do listen to and even create music that is similar to bluetech's.
my ambient works vol 2 (so start at disc two in this double disc set) is in the direct same genre.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ambient-works-vol-1-2
my ambient works vol 2 (so start at disc two in this double disc set) is in the direct same genre.
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ambient-works-vol-1-2
i've bumped into bluetech before and have never been very impressed by it. it reminds me a little bit of the fulber/leeb project, delerium, which released some strong records in the late 90s (specifically, semantic spaces), and had a few hits after that with sarah mclachlan singing on them, but it lacks the intensity and musical depth.
this album apparently made it to billboard, which is even harder to do now than it used to be, so he's doing something right, clearly. but, i've given it an honest listen and i'm getting the same feeling from it that i've always gotten from it - it's very "pretty" in a certain sense, but it lacks musical substance in the form of compelling harmonies or melodies. it just kinds of floats, without any actual purpose. now, i guess if you're just some e-tard that wants to look at the flashing lights, it might be good enough, but it doesn't hold up to actual musical scrutiny, and it never really has.
i don't know what he's really trying to do, here. is this supposed to be a jarre record? because it doesn't work well, on that level. is it supposed to be a deadmaus record? that's a little closer to the truth of it.
i'll take it over the mass of bland dubstep out there, don't get me wrong. but, i'm not sure the set's going to be much fun, unless you're on the kinds of drugs that i don't actually do.
so, i think he needs to focus a little less on the production and a little more on the writing. and, maybe he'll get there, in the end.
https://bluetech.bandcamp.com/album/sci-fi-lullabies
this album apparently made it to billboard, which is even harder to do now than it used to be, so he's doing something right, clearly. but, i've given it an honest listen and i'm getting the same feeling from it that i've always gotten from it - it's very "pretty" in a certain sense, but it lacks musical substance in the form of compelling harmonies or melodies. it just kinds of floats, without any actual purpose. now, i guess if you're just some e-tard that wants to look at the flashing lights, it might be good enough, but it doesn't hold up to actual musical scrutiny, and it never really has.
i don't know what he's really trying to do, here. is this supposed to be a jarre record? because it doesn't work well, on that level. is it supposed to be a deadmaus record? that's a little closer to the truth of it.
i'll take it over the mass of bland dubstep out there, don't get me wrong. but, i'm not sure the set's going to be much fun, unless you're on the kinds of drugs that i don't actually do.
so, i think he needs to focus a little less on the production and a little more on the writing. and, maybe he'll get there, in the end.
https://bluetech.bandcamp.com/album/sci-fi-lullabies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)