Wednesday, February 16, 2005Here Is The Garbage
This is an experiment with a site that will host audio files uploaded from my computer for free. It's not an original song, but I believe it's in the public domain. A friend described my interpretation of the song as a song for homosexual children. That description was not meant as a compliment. I took it as one.
You can go to http://www.purevolume.com/sbakken and listen to it in the "PUREPLAYER" on the right side. It's the song called "LondonB". You can't download it, nor should you, the option isn't working. You'll just have to listen to the stream. But it should sound a bit better than my usual over-the-phone posts.
Please keep in mind that I just mucked about with recording one night starting with a two part harmony that turned into four. Then I added one guitar part, then some vocals, then another guitar part with effects and finally a percussion track. It's not anything I'll probably ever use. I posted it because I remembered trying the site once when it wasn't working. It is now working so I wanted to throw something up and try it again.
Believe you me, I realize a couple of notes are a bit off. And I'm sure we'll have complaints about off-beat percussion. Don't let any of this explanation discourage you from criticizing it or telling me what you think about it in the comments.
I've decided not to post anything original that may go on my EP until it's complete. I'm currently grappling with my employer to get a few days off to finish it.
Enjoy! Have Fun!
posted by Samuel @ 2:18 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
That was great Sam! Post original songs. Is anybody really going to steal them? I want to hear em.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:27 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
another good song samwise. however, after listening to brian wilson's SMILE, I cant help but feel like its right in between songs 10 and 11 on that cd.
dave | 02.16.05 - 9:48 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe so on the Brian Wilson thing. I was just fooling around. No I'm not going to post anything until it's done because I don't need to hear that the drums are off or my singing is off when I already know those things about a piece.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 12:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mean, "Waa, waa, you guys criticized me." I just mean that I'd like more talk about the song itself. So I'll post something when it's complete and there aren't the types of distractions mentioned above for the listener.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 12:52 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes sense. I want to come over and play drums today.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 1:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I work until about 7:00. Let me know if you want to come over then. And I'm going to most more of my unfinished stuff (that I will not be putting on the EP) later tonight.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 1:23 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to work on stuff, we can do it tomorrow.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 1:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no. I have stuff on my computer already that I will be posting. I don't plan on working on it tonight.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 2:18 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the song just fine. In particular, Sam's voice comes through nice and strong, comfortable at its level of projection and tone.
I thought the comment about "homosexual children" was pretty funny. Presumably the "homosexual" part was what the speaker intended to be uncomplimentary (simply suggesting that "London Bridges" was meant for children wouldn't be much of a slam--it's a nursery rhyme...).
So the critic was saying that this version of the nursery rhyme song was one that only homosexual children, as opposed to children in general, could enjoy.
But, unless we assume that the critic holds a negative view of homosexuals (or at least of their taste in music, or AT LEAST of their taste in nursery rhymes), so far, that's not much of a swipe either. If there's nothing disagreeable about the taste of homosexuals, where's the implied criticism?
(Notice that I don't care, for purposes of this analysis, whether the critic is truly homophobic, or was just "affecting
steviepinhead | 02.16.05 - 4:28 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" the anti-homo thing for the purpose of this one attempt at humor. If you can't put any real snap in your jab, why make a fist in the first place?)
So presumbly our critic either holds, or is affecting to hold, a negative view of homosexuals. As is widely understood, however, if homosexuality is closer to an innate trait, as opposed to a lifestyle "choice," then the whole anti-homo stance is pretty much emasculated.
Now we see the problem: under which view of the origins of homosexuality are there likely to be such things as "homosexual" children?
So, from the outset, this "crack" had all the snap, crackle, and pop of a wet noodle. That's not to conclude that all homophobes are inept at the fine art of the insult. In this case, I rather expect the insult-impotence is inborn in this one individual. Of course, ideally, futher data would be nice to have: do this person's witticisms frequently fail to connect, or only the ones where homophobia is part of the set-up?
steviepinhead | 02.16.05 - 4:40 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was really only an off-hand comment. He's by no means a homo-phobe, he was just sick of hearing the song actually. And the description was made in reference to my version, not "London Bridge" itself. It was more of the annoyed tone he used when saying it, because as I said he was tired of me playing it over and over (as it's repetitive anyway).
I think he meant that he imagined more effeminate individuals, probably shirtless (and in shape), wearing rainbow hats and rainbow wings and dangling rainbow earrings singing it on a children's television show or something like that. Maybe a children's song written by Elton John. And then I suppose "a song for children written by a homosexual" would be more appropriate. And now that I think about it he may have said something more akin to "It's good if you want to write songs for gay children."
I don't think it's a choice and I don't think he does either (but if it is who cares? don't we in some ways choose to be heterosexua
SamB | 02.16.05 - 5:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIT! "...(but if it is who cares? don't some people in some ways choose to be heterosexual? Sartre would probably say yes.)
Anyway, as David Cross asked, much more eloquently and funny than this, "Why would the weird kid who gets beat up make a choice that would lead to more beatings?"
And anyway, this individual's witticisms do normally connect. Maybe this one didn't because of my retelling.
Blah, blah, blah.
Your point about "homosexual children" is very interesting to me. At what point in development does a child become sexually attracted to someone? I know newborns get erections, but when do kids start getting sexual urges? It appears it's latent between 5 and the beginning of puberty? So when you hit puberty you realize what you're attracted to?
SamB | 02.16.05 - 5:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we go...
SamB | 02.16.05 - 5:09 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hope those last few posts were just some smartass joke. i really hope that you werent trying to come off as some genius thinker stevie and i hope that your reply, sam, was just humoring stevie. otherwise you are both dumbfucks.
you guys are dumbasses | 02.16.05 - 7:50 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment on the comment was mainly meant to be tongue-in-cheek (and maybe a halfheated attempt to flush "The Hill" back out of the woodwork)...
I think the newborn thing is leftover hormones from the whole birthing process. The usual psychoanalytic approach is that pre-pubes start out as polyamorous or polymorphously perverse or something along those lines, then get caught up in their respective Elektra/Oedipus complexes or whatever and eventually figure out which door of the locker room to use.
Some of that seems a little sketchy to THIS pinhead. Anecdotal evidence (i.e., personal recollection) suggests that there is a stage of childhood that lasts from start of personal memory to about 7 or 8 where there may be a whole lot of gender-appropriate behavior, but nothing explicitly sexual or "romantic" seems to be going on. [How close am I to "1000"?]
Then there is a definite liminal or "run-up" stage to pubesence where interest in the opposite sex starts to coalesce (dirt
steviepinhead | 02.16.05 - 7:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(interest in "dirty" jokes and the anatomy of the opposite sex--naked games, playing doctor, crushes on teachers, getting into that "I hate [boys/girls]" mode instead of just being neutral). The pinhead remembers getting in trouble for playing naked with Becky Parrish, the girl from down the road, in about 4th or 5th grade, and then real girl-specific urges in 6th grade (kinda gross, but when Melinda Bullock raised her arm in Mrs. Campbell's class and the pinhead noticed there was a little fuzz in the armpit, well, that was a defining jolt, although NOT a fetish-establishing one!).
So if kids who are going to play for the other team go through anything similar, then I suppose there could be a similar older-kid, ramp-up version of "tweener" homosexuality. But there's no real overlap with the nursery rhyme stage of childhood in all of that.
steviepinhead | 02.16.05 - 8:01 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and hey there friendly Mr. Anonymous, does the name "steviepinhead' realistically suggest to your mentality that I'm EVER going to try to come off as some kind of "genius thinker"? Or are you still working our where to divide ste-vie-pin-he-ad up into morphemes?
steviepinhead | 02.16.05 - 8:05 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this comes down to there being a gay sensibility.Hence something sounding "gay".
I've never really bought into the idea that a kid would never choose to be gay.
The general consensus seems to be that ( I just watched a doc. about Kinsey the other night)
sexuality is on a scale.Very few of us are either 100% gay or straight, we're somewhere in between. If a rebelious, angsty teenager can find some identity and community in being gay, I think he/she might do it. It's possible, no?
Especially now, what with there being a gay "culture" and it there being less stigma attached.In fact, there is some kind of cach'e involved with being a gay kid ( or thee gay kid).
Instant notoriety, and a group of people who all want to be friends with the gay kid will show up immediatley.Many wanted to be friends with the out gay kids in my suburban Midwestern high school..
There is also that righteous victim thing that is pretty attractive to a lot of people.Opressed minorities are b
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:22 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-minorities are better people, remember.
This being said, either major form of sexual identity can be promoted in the angsty teens' head.As long as it's a binary either/or, as long gay and straight are "cultures", they'll line up in opposition to eachother, with the minority forming it's identity based on the differences between it and the majority.In this way, the gay sensibilty is by definition perverse ( as in: Obstinately persisting in an error or fault; wrongly self-willed or stubborn.
Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.)
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:24 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I hate homos.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:25 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do tell "you guys are dumbasses". I think you're Dave Tran.
Instead of calling me a dipshit try explaining yourself. I looked over my comments and didn't see anything glaringly stupid.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 9:30 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you're right Luke, I don't know. And I'm not sure how I feel about Kinsey. It seems we'd have a lot more evidence of bi-sexual experimentation going on. But I don't know the actual statistics and really someone who considers themselves bi-sexual may have more reason to not tell the exact truth since they may fear reprisal from both established sexual orientation groups.
I don't think it's really a namby-pamby decision. It's a pretty big one that has a lot of repercussions. Of course we can never say we know what goes into it.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 9:36 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though Luke I do think I disagree with your statement that homosexuality is by definition perverse (and I get your meaning). Because it seems to presuppose that the gay culture is only defined by a reaction against the majority. I don't that's true. I think many men are genuinely attracted to men and many women genuinely atracted to men. No matter what the majority is.
And I'm rethinking my statement about Kinsey. I saw the movie, but that can hardly be considered even a survey of his thought. Anyway, I suppose people who are 3s or 4s on the scale still may choose to not actually experiment because of social mores. But then, how is one placed in the scale? How do I get my number? Is it just from his sexual histories? I don't know I'm asking.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 9:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "many women genuinely atracted to men" I meant "many women genuinely atracted to women".
SamB | 02.16.05 - 9:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course by "atracted" I mean "attracted" but fuck you, I've told you I refuse to edit comments.
SamB | 02.16.05 - 9:44 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. I'm only saying it's possible.Not in the 'you might get hit by a car tomorrow' way either, it's possible as in not unlikely.
i'm not sayingits an easy decision, but then again American teenagers are so fucked that they aren't really capable of making big decisions like that, but do anyway.I hitch-hiked while on four hits of acid when I was 15.Big, bad decision for sure.Didn't really worry about reprecusions.
Kinseys' science was flawed.He definitley had an agenda.
I wouldn't attribute the sliding-scale of sexuality solely to Kinsey however. Looking at historical records of sexuality confirms it as well. There still are tribal cultures were everybody has male and female partners.
( see the documentary "Keep the River to Your Right")
The Romans and Greeks speak for themselves ( with a big lisp, that is).
You get too hung up on particulars Sam. Sorry to say.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:50 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Perverse
I don't think there is anything inherently perverse in the act of homosexual sex or attraction.You could say it is biologically perverse, in that sexaulities primary function is reproduction. That isn't what I'm talking about ( clearly their is much more to sex than reproduction).
It's the artificial attributes of "gay culture" ; the sensibilty, the set of rules/signs that make up gay culture and being one of its members. It shows itself in behaiviors , attitudes and beliefs.
The stance it takes culturally is perverse.
btw, "perverse" doesn't mean "bad" either, especially if the dominant culture is full of shit.
I think were full of our own particular brands of bullshit, basically.
Wife Swap is on soon. Gotta go.
Luke P | 02.16.05 - 9:59 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know perverse doesn't mean bad, that's why I was sure to mention "(I get your meaning)".
And, I don't know what you mean that I get to hung up on particulars and that you're sorry to say it. Part of thinking about someone else's argument is breaking it down into understandable parts. What I think of as particulars. And if you're saying that I'm not getting your point maybe I'm not. And maybe that's my fault, but maybe it's yours as well.
And your statement "the sensibilty, the set of rules/signs that make up gay culture and being one of its members. It shows itself in behaiviors , attitudes and beliefs." Seems like quite a generalization to me. I can agree that maybe there are rules (one probably is that you only engage in sexual relations with same sex partners) but attributing behaviors, attitudes and beliefs to a large group of people is not only probably faulty, but also dangerous.
SamB | 02.17.05 - 12:59 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, I bought the "SHAUN OF THE DEAD" DVD tonight and the special features are quite funny.
And I'm still waiting "you guys are dumbasses".
Jesus, sometimes I hate this shit.
SamB | 02.17.05 - 1:04 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love "playing naked". And I think I know the shock you're talking about with the armpit fuzz (though it made me feel dirty reading it and typing it now). I remember in elementary school seeing a girl I had a crush on vomit during lunch. Probably not exactly the same, but a jolt I hadn't experienced before, though, as steve p. said, not a fetish-establishing one. I'm sure their must be a vomit-fetish website out there somewhere.
SamB | 02.17.05 - 3:46 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well , gay people aren't the Borg or anything ( Star Trek reference, yes!). Clearly , if their is a gay culture, it means membership in that culture requires adopting certain signs or attributes.
It doesn't mean there is no variation; from a guy guy/girl fully embracing gay culture to not participating at all.
What I mean by getting hung up on particulars:
1.Deciding that the notion of the scale of sexuality depended on what you thought of Kinsey, rather than what you thought of the concept.
I don't think my posts were hard to follow. In fact, I feel like I'm having to go back and break it down for you, which is very boring.
Luke P | 02.17.05 - 11:09 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shit, since I started the off-thread stuff--in a way, but in a way it was already there (not in the link to Sam's song itself, but in the 'separate text' in which it was 'embedded'--I guess I'll roll with it.
To the extent there was one, my original genius/dumbass point was intended as a critique of the jibe. A very tentative excursion in the direction of constructing an "art of the jibe" (insult, slam, swipe, what have you...), since IMHO what I see as at least one function of the comments on this blog being is a fun-but-occasionally-serious/useful 'deconstruction' of each text that one of you increasingly-daring zanies puts up here.
And for non-text contributors like LukeP and stevieP, the comments become our texts, eh?
Anyway, my underlying point didn't REALLY have much to do with gay/straight good/bad, so much as my view that a WELL-CONSTRUCTED jibe/jab/insult
steviepinhead | 02.17.05 - 6:41 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...1001, 1002...
should have a little more going on than just a simpleminded equation of "you/your text" with "marginalized-group/sterotyped view of quality of efforts of members of marginalized group."
So, while I could agree with LukeP that just because someone is or is not self- or societally-identified with such a group, that doesn't mean they are REALLY better or worse than anybody else. And I might even agree that there are some interesting--and self-perpetuating--dynamics and dialectics that can and do go on between the majority culture and its (various) "counter"-cultures. Much more interesting than good:bad, right:wrong.
It's kind of like what Levi-Strauss and the structuralists realized about neighboring cultures--they define themselves in relation and reaction to each other.
But none of that was my point, which was that the swipe taken at Sam's song was a lazy and poorly-constructed one.
steviepinhead | 02.17.05 - 6:50 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, my stuff had nothing to do with the initial topic. Mine was more f a reaction to Sam's David Cross quote.
Luke P | 02.17.05 - 7:25 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me? Dont bring me into your internet battle of wits.
dave | 02.17.05 - 7:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think "battle of wits" is the wrong term. Anyway, I don't think it's you any more since you aren't scared to both call me a dumbass and include your name and explain yourself.
I just seem to remember you using "dumbfuck" and I don't think I know many other people that do. SO anyway, i apologize for the mistake.
SamB | 02.17.05 - 7:35 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words,whenever he thinks of "dumbfuck" he can't help but think of Dave.
Luke P | 02.17.05 - 8:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dadd
adaa | 02.17.05 - 10:20 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think the comment about gay children has more to do with the singer/performer than the children. the interest isn't so much in who really might listen or the tenets of developed homosexuality at a young age, but how someone might direct toward (or away from) assumed audiences. would rufus wainright write a london b cover for gay kids? is that because he's gay or because his style of music is show-y, flamboyant? what if the commentator knows sam likes rufus?
lars | 02.18.05 - 1:58 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Rufus flamboyant because he's gay, or gay because he's flamboyant?
Where are the new songs Sam?
Luke P | 02.18.05 - 4:49 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a dumbfuck who can build the computer that you are using right now, fat bitches.
dave | 02.18.05 - 5:58 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows or will ever know? Does it matter? Does he just happen to be both flamboyant and gay? I know of some flamboyant men that aren't gay, and I know of some gay men that aren't flamboyant. But maybe I'm being too particular.
Re: New songs. I'm going to make some decisions over the weekend. There are some songs that teeter between inclusion on and exclusion from the EP.
SamB | 02.18.05 - 6:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait Dave, Luke's comment was made by Luke. I don't think you're a dumbfuck. I was merely commenting that you've used the term in the past. Not that you embody the term.
SamB | 02.18.05 - 6:02 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't either, it was a joke.Lighten up.
Nobody thinks you are a dumbfuck Dave.
Luke P | 02.18.05 - 6:56 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted a new song at the same link. "Tryin'_Lies". It won't be on the EP and there are plenty of mistakes in it.
SamB | 02.21.05 - 5:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like it, sorta. I think you are sometimes too eager to use every breath of singing into creating a vocal hook.It's like one hook per measure. I know you like those sugary melodic hooks, but it feels constricting to me, all those hooks stuffed into a verse, rather than letting it evolve over the course of the verse adn then letting the chorus hook the listener.
Sorry if that doesn't make sense.
Luke P | 02.21.05 - 8:14 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Luke P | 02.22.05 - 2:53 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not entirely sure what Luke is getting at, but I think part of the thing with the vocals is simply a result of the multi-tracking of the "same" voice... I kind of enjoyed the "effort" that Sam went to to make the harmony vocals sound different from the lead vocal, but maybe that same "effort" is what Luke means when he says that Sam is reaching for the hook.
I didn't hear it as a hook thing so much as I was just wishing that Sam would stumble upon the perfect vocal complement, the Don to his Phil, the Paul to his John, the Graham Parsons to "his" Emmylou...
steviepinhead | 02.22.05 - 4:32 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man do I hate the "..." comment. So, to prevent any more, first of all, I think in some ways you are right Luke. Your comment makes sense to me. This song just doesn't quite work. That's why it won't be on the EP. But I don't think I always try to make everything into a hook. Consciously at least. I try to write good melodies that match up with each other.
"I know you like those sugary melodic hooks, but it feels constricting to me, all those hooks stuffed into a verse, rather than letting it evolve over the course of the verse and then letting the chorus hook the listener." I guess first off I took this as a comment on all my songs, and my response would have been that I think you only notice it on this song because for whatever reason it doesn't quite work. But after reading it again it may only be about this song, so then you agree with me I think.
SamB | 02.22.05 - 4:42 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***
Luke P | 02.22.05 - 7:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a Comment
<< Home