30.9.10
29.9.10
Getting with the times
So Jason and I have once again caught the fever, and Herod the Fink is running at full steam. We have two more recording sessions then lots of mixing and mastering for what will turn out to be a 8 or 9 song album. We are getting very excited to share these songs with the world.
We have also finally constructed a website and a blog. Jason posted on the website that we hope to "tour," which of course means playing a few street corners, coffee shops, and or living rooms in the next 3 months in hopes of sharing these songs with a few people besides our nearest and dearest.
He has ordered a pretty amazing percussion instrument all the way from Australia. It is a Rockbox brand cajon hand drum and it sounds amazing. Get the bongo sounds out of your head right now, because it is not at all what it sounds like. Think rock and roll drums. This box has a snare mechanism as well as a deep "kick" drum sound. Listen to one in action here. We are going to have a lot of fun playing these songs, and I can't wait to see how full we can make our little duo sound.
We have also finally constructed a website and a blog. Jason posted on the website that we hope to "tour," which of course means playing a few street corners, coffee shops, and or living rooms in the next 3 months in hopes of sharing these songs with a few people besides our nearest and dearest.
He has ordered a pretty amazing percussion instrument all the way from Australia. It is a Rockbox brand cajon hand drum and it sounds amazing. Get the bongo sounds out of your head right now, because it is not at all what it sounds like. Think rock and roll drums. This box has a snare mechanism as well as a deep "kick" drum sound. Listen to one in action here. We are going to have a lot of fun playing these songs, and I can't wait to see how full we can make our little duo sound.
23.9.10
Psyched Out of My Mind About
I really don't get to use that phrase enough. Lately, I have been way into Jeff Buckley's cover of this Leonard Cohen song so I thought I'd share.
17.9.10
That's What Friends Are For
My good friend and former band-mate brought to my attention the hypocrisy found in yesterday's post. I was on one hand trying to promote discussion while on the other hand I was taking jabs at a certain point of view.
I admit, that I was taken back a bit my Mr. Luhn's comment on my previous intelligent design post. It seemed weird to me that he was searching around the internet trying to find any reference to a movie that shows certain ideas are being suppressed in the scientific community. To me, his actions were only strengthening the points made in the "Expelled" movie.
Dusty, I stand corrected. I really appreciate your feedback, concern, and input. You are a good friend, and I'm glad you called me out about it. I should have held off actually publishing until I had a chance to really read through it again. I felt kind of uneasy about it all day yesterday worrying that my words would not come across as intended.
Reading back through my post, it kind of morphs from trying to promote discussion and being open minded to being argumentative and snarky. There was an attempt at humor thrown in there, but I don't think it came across as intended.
The term "believe in Science" is linked to the Nacho Libre scene on YouTube. I was trying to lighten the mood a little, but it definitely comes across as a jab. I don't know why I even write about stuff like this. I think I miss my philosophy classes.
I feel that all of these big ideas are not mutually exclusive, which is why it should make for great thought-provoking discussion. I apologize that my words were counter productive to their actual intent.
I really don't want to make this blog a place of argement. It should be a creative outlet with perhaps some thought provoking discussion here and there. It should also be funny when intended, and yesterday's attempt at humor failed because it was mixed in with an argumentative voice. I thought about going back and editing the post, but I think it is best left as a reminder to me of what this blog should not be.
I admit, that I was taken back a bit my Mr. Luhn's comment on my previous intelligent design post. It seemed weird to me that he was searching around the internet trying to find any reference to a movie that shows certain ideas are being suppressed in the scientific community. To me, his actions were only strengthening the points made in the "Expelled" movie.
Dusty, I stand corrected. I really appreciate your feedback, concern, and input. You are a good friend, and I'm glad you called me out about it. I should have held off actually publishing until I had a chance to really read through it again. I felt kind of uneasy about it all day yesterday worrying that my words would not come across as intended.
Reading back through my post, it kind of morphs from trying to promote discussion and being open minded to being argumentative and snarky. There was an attempt at humor thrown in there, but I don't think it came across as intended.
The term "believe in Science" is linked to the Nacho Libre scene on YouTube. I was trying to lighten the mood a little, but it definitely comes across as a jab. I don't know why I even write about stuff like this. I think I miss my philosophy classes.
I feel that all of these big ideas are not mutually exclusive, which is why it should make for great thought-provoking discussion. I apologize that my words were counter productive to their actual intent.
I really don't want to make this blog a place of argement. It should be a creative outlet with perhaps some thought provoking discussion here and there. It should also be funny when intended, and yesterday's attempt at humor failed because it was mixed in with an argumentative voice. I thought about going back and editing the post, but I think it is best left as a reminder to me of what this blog should not be.
16.9.10
Intelligent Design Part II
This is really great. Thanks for the interesting feedback on my previous post. I love hearing honest and open discussion about this stuff. Even Robert Luhn from the NCSE thought it was worth his time to post a comment on my highly influential blog with a world wide readership of 10. Robert, feel free to chime in more on this topic, I'm interested in what you personally have to say more than what the anti-Ben Stein documentary has to say.
Yeah, I guess my issue with it is that there seems to be all this heated opposition to the possibility that there was a designer to account for the design. Is it really so bad to say, "we don't have all of the answers. Something like this is a possibility."
Robert Luhn mentioned in his comment that "While there are some scientists who simply dismiss ID out of hand, there are many many many more scientists who can tell you precisely why creationism/ID don't hold water." Wow, THREE "many's," Robert must really really really believe in science. These things happened millions of years ago, can you really prove to me that there is no POSSIBILITY of a creator/designer? Lawyers couldn't prove to a jury that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, despite the fact that everybody on Earth was 99% sure he did.
It seems that either way it comes down to faith. On one side, you have faith that a creator, designer, or even "alien" if you want to call it that is responsible for known creation. On the other side, you have faith that known creation came about completely spontaneously.
You really can't prove either. One side certainly seems more logical to me. I could read a million books about how spontaneous creation occurred would not be convinced because, according to my logic, known creation would not currently function according to laws that were not followed during its inception.
As in all things in life, it is up to us what we put our faith in. We should think, study, discuss, form opinions, and make judgments for ourselves independently. We shouldn't be afraid to state our opinions. We also shouldn't repress other people's opinions.
Yeah, I guess my issue with it is that there seems to be all this heated opposition to the possibility that there was a designer to account for the design. Is it really so bad to say, "we don't have all of the answers. Something like this is a possibility."
Robert Luhn mentioned in his comment that "While there are some scientists who simply dismiss ID out of hand, there are many many many more scientists who can tell you precisely why creationism/ID don't hold water." Wow, THREE "many's," Robert must really really really believe in science. These things happened millions of years ago, can you really prove to me that there is no POSSIBILITY of a creator/designer? Lawyers couldn't prove to a jury that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, despite the fact that everybody on Earth was 99% sure he did.
It seems that either way it comes down to faith. On one side, you have faith that a creator, designer, or even "alien" if you want to call it that is responsible for known creation. On the other side, you have faith that known creation came about completely spontaneously.
You really can't prove either. One side certainly seems more logical to me. I could read a million books about how spontaneous creation occurred would not be convinced because, according to my logic, known creation would not currently function according to laws that were not followed during its inception.
As in all things in life, it is up to us what we put our faith in. We should think, study, discuss, form opinions, and make judgments for ourselves independently. We shouldn't be afraid to state our opinions. We also shouldn't repress other people's opinions.
1.9.10
Is It Really Too Much to Ask?
I thought it might be interesting to attach the song notes Jason and I put together for our next session. I don't think it gives too much away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)