The Great Reset: Debunking
"You will own nothing, and you will be happy"
One of the key features of the great reset is the idea that you will rent everything, but you will actually own nothing. I can't think of a more nightmare scenario. I don't even like the idea of having to get music off the cloud without being able to download it to my computer, from Amazon or Spotify, or some other service like that. It even bothers me that when I buy a movie from Amazon, I don't actually own it. This is the direction that the world economic forum wants to take everybody in the near future. And by the near future I mean 2030.
The Davos Agenda is already underway. They are not hiding their ideas or their intentions, and they are having a webinar for the next few days. If you want to be involved in what's going on in our world, this is how you do it. Don't rely on the mainstream media to relay this information to you. Watch first hand as much as you possibly can, so that you can decide whether or not you believe these people. Because I'm going to be dismantling these ideas as best as I can, and I'm relying on free thinkers like you to do the same.
Don't let them take the world away from us it's not theirs. It's ours.
1. Is this something that we asked for? Is this something that we want? Are we voting for this? If something goes wrong how do we fix it what if they're wrong? Can we undo the Great reset? What if we don't want what they are offering? Will we be forced to comply? If not what does that say about the state of freedom for humanity, and its oppressors?
2. The dictates of the few will guide the many. This is utopian by nature and has a 100% failure rate. Every time this is tried, it is the technology of the day that it said that will make it different this time around. This is for your own good.
3. The philosophy behind the great reset is the exact same philosophy behind marxism. The idea that ownership is bad and that communal usage is the way of the future.
4. Freedom and property rights are inseparable. It was in fact the promise of ownership of intellectual property rights that made the innovations of the last few centuries possible. When men like Jefferson and Lincoln protected our intellectual property, people flocked from all over the planet to develop ideas here in America, because they knew that they would be able to profit from their own labor. Adversely, it was the labor of the people that made the wealthy elites rich throughout history but stifles innovation. This can be seen in today's communist China where all they seem to be able to do is reinvent the wheel. But you don't see innovations coming out of China because the intellectual property belongs to the government, thus stifling creativity and innovation.
5. The first thing that tyranny does throughout history is to remove property rights from the people.
6. The idea that no one will own anything is intrinsically false. Someone owns at all times. The truth is that the general masses will not own collectively, but there will be a smaller number of owners. The concentration of ownership is ultimately the concentration of power. the person who owns all of the property in all of the property rights ultimately owns all of the people as well.
7. Look at the social credit score of communist China. If you don't tow the line or you don't do exactly what the government wants you to do. They can revoke everything! Your bank accounts frozen, your social media frozen, your home, which does not belong to you, can be taken away and given to someone else. Think of everything that you own, your car, your home, everything is essentially the corner office of a corporation. You can be fired and they can move the next executive into that office by the end of the day.
8. Circular economies remove incentive from human nature. It removes the incentive for people to want to work because they will not have the goal of gain at the end of their labor. And when people don't work, the system fails. Then Force comes into play.
9. In a system in which no one owns anything, what happens to the things you already own. I have three laptops two computer monitors, two smart TVs, and a television in each of my kids' bedrooms. Not to mention my wife and I have a phone, and a tablet each. We also have a phone that doesn't work that plays music for my kids to enjoy. And that's just the screens in our house. Now apply that concept to things that you might own that have sentimental value, like your wedding ring or family heirlooms. What about gifts that your kids got you for Christmas. What about the things you got your kids for Christmas. There are no more surprises that you picked up for your wife on the way home, because if everybody can't have one, neither can she. Ownership is the thing of the past under this system. And in order for that system to come about, they will literally have to take everything that we own away from us and replace it with a new government issue version of what they think we need.
10. The need to be perpetually protected and taken care of is the worst of human nature. Derives from fear. A system in which the state takes care of all of our responsibilities, and gives us stuff, infantilizes society. This is adverse to human nature. We can see study after study of cases where people die shortly after they retire. People need a purpose, people need a reason to exist. If that purpose is taken away from them, all incentive is stripped away, and they simply cease to exist. Meaning, they will literally die without purpose. The base instinct of human nature is to explore, to build, to create, to take risks, and to seek adventure. the great resets concept of human society will strip away the base needs of human nature, causing mankind to remain perpetually infantilized, which will cause Mass mental retardation, and physical degradation. We might actually become zombies.
11. The tools that the world economic forum wants to use to bring about the great reset are the same tools that they're using to mitigate coronavirus which means lockdowns, Business closures, band public gatherings, isolation, curated media, censorship, and public welfare. Nutshell, the way to the future is to create people farms where we have no Identity or input on our own lives.
12. What will this do them to morality? What will it do to religion? Who's God's will be deemed acceptable and who's God's will be banished by the state?
13. Again, this cycles back to the first set of questions where I asked what will happen to dissidents?
Now if you've made it to the end of this and considered all of the thoughts and questions proposed here, then you can see just how nefarious this first prediction from the world economic forum really is. What other nefarious concepts do they plan to introduce into this agenda of theirs? I've seen what was reported to be a precursor for this concept, and if it's anything like what we are reading now, I can tell you it's going to get much much worse unless we start speaking up.
Those of us who are moral have already allowed the world to degrade to such a degree that the complete removal of responsibility seems appealing to your average American. But we still have a moral obligation to push back on social degradation by asserting the ideas of not only decency but a standard of Holiness that only God can provide. I believe that by steering ourselves away from God's holiness, we only fall deeper into degradation, foolishness, and sin. In other words, we are a society that has turned away from the truth. We should turn back to the truth, or face the strong delusion that leads us to destruction.
By Jashae Slaughter
I've been sitting on this idea for a song for a few years now, like 9 or 10 years, and I can never get it recorded with real musicians. The way that I write music, I try to create simple-sounding sections that will all fit together to create a big sound. While the parts tend to SOUND simple, they aren't. Because this song SOUNDS simple to play, whenever I try to run it past musicians I know, they immediately get lost. The other problem I have is that the song was written 10 years ago, and it sounds like it might be OLDER than that. I wrote it to sound like a 90's Smashing Pumpkins / Foo Fighters song, and I intend to keep it that way. Finally, I don't have a studio or a large practice space for music rehearsal. So it's hard to work directly with musicians on these kinds of
songs. Which brings me to my latest endeavor of hiring a drummer on Fiverr.
I want to break down all these problems, and how I've tried to solve them in the past.
1) The Song SOUNDS simple.
Like I said originally, one of the biggest problems with the way that I write, comes from the way that I've learned to compose. I write simple parts with minute variances that are easy to miss. If you're not paying attention, you won't learn the part. I'm not a talented musician, but I consider myself to be a proficient composer and producer. I've learned this skill by working on music software that allows me to program musical parts and then put them all together sort of like blocks or Legos. I think that this philosophy works with popular programs like FL Studio and Ableton.
I learned the methodology from working with the software, but also from watching studio sessions of musicians using looped packages of sounds. In the early years, I didn't know that you could get pre-recorded loops of riffs and other types of samples from instruments being played. This was really helpful for me to learn how to program my own loops. But even when I program my own loops, I've learned that when you're going for a live sound, if you can't get a live musician, you should at least get live loops pre-made by live musicians. I've also learned to listen to musical instruments individually when listening to songs. This was a skill that I picked up in choir and barbershop quartet, where you often have to listen to recordings of songs and focus on one part like Alto or tenor to better understand what I'm supposed to be singing. (Learning to listen to isolated parts and harmonies is an invaluable skill and I suggested to anyone looking to be a composer or producer.) I use this skill to listen to the drummers of my favorite bands and to try to learn how to program realistically. I wanted to understand where and how to put fills in drum beats.
To increase my knowledge of instrumental flow and philosophies, I would spend hours listening to specific drummers of specific bands until I understood how they played, and why they did what they did. In the early years, I listened to the drummer of The Smashing Pumpkins, of the Foo fighters, of Slipknot, and of a Japanese band called Girugamesh. I specifically listened to Linkin Park and pretty much anyone who was trying to imitate Linkin Park. when I first got started in music production this was one of my favorite bands, and I absolutely loved the idea of mixing hip hop, EDM, and rock to create modern sounds.
I also have paid pretty close attention to more modern bands like Paramore, who use more of a djent style of drumming but without overdoing it. The song that I've been working on has a weird offset timing similar to something that Disturbed would probably do. It seems to get lost whenever I try to explain it to live musicians. While I don't necessarily like the djent style, due to its tendency to switch rhythms and tempos, seemingly randomly, I do understand the amount of skill that is required to comprehend and to memorize songs of this nature. I thought that if anyone could understand the kind of off-time emphasis that I was putting on the rhythm of this particular song I'm working on, it would be a djent drummer.
Now I understand that the bands I listed here aren't the greatest, most legendary bands around. to be honest I wasn't going for that period I was looking for something that made sense for my preferences but still sounded close enough to normal, vulgar music than all of the crazy trendy stuff that my friends were listening to at the time. keep in mind I like to write my music in a way that sounds simple so that when people hear it, they understand it. I wanted to feel nostalgic. I want them to think that they know the song even though it's the first time they've heard it. I can't do that if I'm all over the place with everything. I've learned that the hard way, and I'm trying to get better at it.
Maybe it's something that comes with maturity. But this is something amateur musicians rarely possess.
2. The Song Sounds Dated.
I don't know what it is with musicians needing to keep up with the trends, but this song was intentionally written to sound like it was made in the '90s. I was doing a take on someone else's style from that era, and I must remain true to the era of that sound.
interestingly enough, whenever I work with musicians, even though they can't learn these simple parts of the song, they immediately start trying to change it into something more modern. Again, this may be something that comes with maturity, but I think what they're actually trying to do is to change it to something that they can actually play. I've had this problem with every musician I've tried to work with. They say we should make the song harder, or add some screaming, or change the speed, or a bunch of other little details and suggestions that would make the song sound like something other than what it's supposed to be.
I think it's not only annoying, but kind of disrespectful when I spend a good five to ten minutes explaining the vision of the song, and what my goal is with the song, and then they immediately try to change it into something other than what I just spent time explaining. I know that the song could have different iterations if I wanted it to. The thing is, I don't want it to. I wanted to sound the way I wrote it. I want to bring my vision to life so that I can move on to something else. Maybe the next song will be harder, or faster, or have screaming. But that's not this song. This song is supposed to sound like a '90s Smashing Pumpkins Foo Fighters crossover. That's the original vision of the song.
3. The Rehearsal Space
In today's modern age, musicians pretty much have to work satellite. Nobody invests in a practice space anymore. because music software is ubiquitous people have home studios. I can pretty easily work with another musician from a different state or country as long as we share the same vision and understanding of the song, we can put our pieces together to make something fabulous. The problem is when the musician you're working with doesn't understand or share your vision of the song. It becomes a fight between two conflicting philosophies rather than a compromise.
See when you're in the same room, the same workspace, you can stop when things start to go off the path. You can correct the mistakes, and come up with a compromise if need be. Then you continue working on the song. But when you're working satellite, every musician wants to do it his way. he wants to see it through to the end his way so that he can convince you that his way is better. So you never end up working out where the vision split off into two different songs. You never get back on track.
Like the other problems I've had in the past, this is probably one of the easiest to deal with. Because there's generally a chance that you'll end up working with a musician who understands the vision of the song. Especially if you're dealing with rappers or vocalists period for some reason it seems to flow better with the. but when you're dealing with a guitarist or a drummer, it's like herding kittens. Both guitarists and drummers are all over the place, doing their own thing. they get bored easily. They keep changing the song and adding parts that don't belong. I think they forget that they're not the only instrument that's going to be playing during this part of the song and they feel like they need to fill the void.
I honestly don't understand why this is so prevalent with guitarists and drummers. but it's the biggest hurdle to overcome when you're trying to compose rock music, even if you're just trying to get supporting elements for a song already created.
4. That One AMAZING Drummer
So now that all the pieces are together, this is the experience that I've had with my latest endeavor in hiring a far superior drummer than what I needed for my project. Because I've had so many problems with musicians trying to change the song, getting bored, not being able to learn the parts, trailing off track, etc., I thought maybe it's about time that I just hire a professional to get the job done.
Because I'm skeptical of what I'll find on Fiverr I decided that I should not start with the lowest price points, but that I should look for specific qualities at a low enough price Port that I can afford and still feel comfortable. Eventually, I found a drummer that sounded like he did good work and reached out to him. He immediately reached back and was eager to work on the project.
I explained what the song was and what it was supposed to sound like, and why I was hiring a djent drummer. I also sent him MIDI files of the parts of the song so that he could understand what the vocals, guitar, and bass would be doing while he was recording. He accepted the files and said that he would be ready to work within a few days.
The first draft that I got of the song sounded more experimental than I was expecting. It sounded like he was looking for the flow of the song and trying out a few things to see what I liked and what I wouldn't like. But on the upside, he understood the timing issues that other musicians seemed to be lost on. So that was good, he understood. That was big progress from other sessions I've had in the past. So again, I tried to explain what I was looking for and that I understood it seemed simple, but that's what I was looking for.
The second draft was a lot closer than the first, but it was still way too busy and in the wrong ways. I was starting to think that maybe he wasn't listening to the midi drum session that I sent earlier and that he was just making it up as he went along. But the improv that he added to the song was phenomenal, even if it was misguided. I was starting to get frustrated, but I didn't want to lose the opportunity of working with a real drummer who had this much talent, and who understood the song timing. He was doing things in the fills that I was completely unable to program on my MPC.
5. The Pocket
The problem was that everything was fills and drum solos. And there was barely anything to work with in-between. What I really needed, was for him to stay in the pocket. This is a drumming term I watched from an instructional video, where this amazing funk drummer demonstrated all of the amazing things that he could do during a particular part of a song, and why he chose to play a simple drum beat instead. He called it the pocket. In essence, the pocket is the backbone of the song. It is steady, solid, and predictable. All these things are needed because if you ever get lost, the pocket brings you back to where you need to be. It's what gives the song its groove. It's what builds anticipation for those amazing fills that we all pay attention to. Without the pocket, drums are just random noise.
That was the problem I was facing. Here I had this amazing, fantastic drummer, who could do all of these amazing fills. But he didn't understand the pocket. So instead of going in for a third dive, I just paid for the session and cut up the recording into rearrangeable loops. There were a few instances where I was able to piece together a simple enough pocket to get a better base for the song. But it still wasn't enough.
6. The Vision, The Hire
As I said, there was absolutely no pocket to work with here. So I just had to go with what was most acceptable when I rearranged the parts. There was even a part in the song where he got lost, and because he didn't have a pocket to fall back on, I had to create one for him by rearranging that section of the song in post-production. What he, and other musicians like him, don't understand is that this is MY song. MY Vision. Not his. He was hired to help me bring that vision to life, but all he did was indulge himself in his own ability. He forgot the purpose of the song, and of drumming. I don't need the drums to outshine everything else in the song. I just need them to be drums. I need them to BUTTRESS the song's strengths. I need a pocket.
So he still hasn't heard the final version of what I did with the tracks that I bought from him. It's still unusable because of a licensing agreement that I wasn't aware of when we first started working. I thought that it would be inexpensive enough to experiment with, and if I didn't like the final product, then I just simply wouldn't buy a commercial license (also a gotcha), and that's where I'm at right now. I simply won't be buying a commercial license for this drum recording because it's unusable. While I was able to derive some semblance of the original vision of the song, if I'm going to work that hard at acceptably rearranging the pieces, I might as well start over from scratch.
I just hope this next time I'm able to find someone whose half as talented as this guy because he's able to do some amazing fills.
by J.K. Slaughter
Someone recently asked me what I thought of the term _“Politically Agnostic”. _Initially, I thought to myself, “I think I addressed that in Episode 50 of The Xero Hour Podcast.
There’s a bunch of people like that, running around pretending to be neutral because they’re still at their default-liberal settings. I know of one guy like that in particular. He’s got an opinion on everything, but he likes to pretend that his opinions are neutral. He wants to make you believe that his thoughts are well balanced and non-biased. But here’s what he’s not telling you. He knows what opinions are most expedient to pronounce, but he doesn’t seem to believe those opinions. He knows how to coerce you into changing your opinions. He’s a grifter.
Most people are default-liberals (Center-Left), and the things that he says are just going to reinforce an acceptable liberal perspective, with a thin veneer of spirituality just to make it more palatable (and I have to say spirituality because Christianity isn’t a marketable term). Now my friend, he’s savvy to all that stuff. He’s a salesperson. He’s an entertainer and a presenter. But one thing he’s not is politically neutral. Everyone has a political standing. Everyone. Every. Single. Person. But, that’s something I’ll address later.
Right now, we need to look at this phrase, “Politically Agnostic”. Politically Agnostic is a marketing phrase, meaning, it’s made up. It’s not a real set of words that are meant to go together, so it’s not a phrase that people use. Politically Agnostic is something that was likely engineered to appeal to ‘spiritual’ people, or for use in SEO results.
I felt like my original assessment of the term politically agnostic was underdeveloped, and so I did a little bit of research just to see if my instincts were correct. I pulled up a few search results that date back quite a few years, but not much from recent times. After I read up on it a bit, I still feel like the phrase is something that was picked out of obscurity, because it would be good for marketing. However, the phrase should have a meaning. Words have meaning. And, with closer inspection, we can see that this is an odd combination of words indeed.
According to Merriam Webster (which has been recently exposed for changing the definitions of words arbitrarily, see “sexual preference”) the word agnostic means :
Definition of AGNOSTIC (noun)
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> Here’s the thing I can’t wrap my head around.
The second definition of agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something. People are always trying to sell us on this idea when it comes to politics. It’s as if they are somehow “above it all” by remaining uninvolved. But in this case, inaction is the action. Agnosticism is a choice. Not to be confused with Indifference which is
_ “the lack of difference or distinction between two or more things”_
, or in other words “ignorance”. There is a BIG distinction to be made between one’s Agnosticism and one’s Indifference.
When people are too fearful or too foolish to make the necessary sacrifices to commit; or are unwilling to change their true values and beliefs, then it becomes expedient for them to try and take the third approach. One that says they’re just not going to engage, as if that’s a wiser decision. It’s much easier to dismiss a political issue entirely than to face the cognitive dissonance of forming an opinion that disagrees with your actions. Why take the risk of offending some of your friends by taking a hard stance on some political issue when you can just pretend that it doesn’t matter. I mean, isn’t that what Jesus did? Well, no. I don’t think the Bible teaches anything like that sort of thinking or ideology.
Jesus never claimed to be politically indifferent or agnostic. When he was pressed on political issues, he exposed the categorical differences between his positioning and the positions that they were trying to impose on him. There’s a big difference between favoring one concept to the expense of another, and just pretending that the other concept doesn’t exist entirely.
So, when they asked “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (an issue of affection and allegiance), Christ answered, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” In this, He highlighted the categorical difference between spiritual affection and political duty. When they tried to provoke Jesus to anger by reporting that Pilate had killed some of the Galileans during their sacrificial worship (and probably sacrificing those men as well), he responded
_ “Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”_
This was neither agnosticism nor indifference. Christ was quite committed to the message that he preached and I think that we ought to follow suit. The Bible doesn’t espouse political indifference, but quite the contrary:
_Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. _
Therefore, the phrase agnostic reeks of ignorance and cowardice, in my opinion. If you’re ignorant then you should be willing to learn. You only refuse knowledge out of fear or foolishness. If you’re unwilling to learn, then we have to assume that you’re a either a fool or a coward. That covers both definitions of the word agnostic. Let’s move on to politics.
Definition of politics
1a: the art or science of government
b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3a: political affairs or business
especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)
b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession
c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person Because neither I, nor most people that I know, are not directly involved with or employed in politics on a governmental level, including Church politics, we have to understand that the only definition that applies to us directly would be the fifth definition.
5a: the total complex of relations between people living in society
_b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view _
This means that politics has more to do with relationships, personal experiences, and community. It’s how we deal with the issues that arise from within. Our political ideologies may be deeply factored into those relationships, and the ‘total complex of relations’, but at its root, it is the ideology that drives our actions. That’s why it’s important to understand where your thoughts come from, and where they lead.
Whether or not sexual predators should be allowed within a certain distance of a playground, or whether or not the government should allow churches to remain open during a Covid-19 pandemic, or whether or not an activist group should be able to compel a baker to participate in their festivities, against his religion, are all examples of politics. Not every conflict has to be adjudicated on a governmental level. This is why the Bible tells us to judge among ourselves, problems within the Church. But, I think it is the willingness among people to remain milquetoast about civil issues, that requires the government to intervene. Before the concept of MAGA, no one had an opinion about whether or not people should wear red hats (unless they really, really hated Limp Bizkit). Now, it’s a social issue. In many social conflicts, we ought to have thought out and set precedent, way before these things get to a governmental level.
The third and final part of this analysis is the perception of value that’s attached to the concept of Political Agnosticism. At its root, I think it’s probably closer to postmodernism. In the sense that things lose meaning or have no meaning at all. If something cannot be deemed important, then there’s no reason to form an opinion on it. I think this absolves one of his responsibility to engage in the world in a meaningful fashion. It absolves one all responsibility toward his brothers and sisters on a personal day-to-day level but elevates selfishness. Because we are born into families, and those families make up communities, I believe that man is meant to be a communal creature. Therefore politics is essential to our social makeup. You can’t have any hard perspectives or opinions on social matters without acknowledging that, the root of all social matters are, in nature, political.
What the left has done in today’s culture has been to change the meaning of politics to something that it doesn’t, while changing the meaning of the word social and applying the original meanings of_ politics and ethics_. When words change in such a drastic and swift manner, they lose meaning. So on its face, political agnosticism is a word salad that truly has no real meaning. It would be better for one to be honest about their understanding, or lack thereof; to be honest about their interest, or lack thereof, without using this misnomer. You have an opinion, even if you don’t have all the facts. Just be honest.
As I said at the beginning of this essay, everyone has a political standing. It may simply be that you don’t know what that is or how to find out. It is very important and helpful to have a personal understanding of your thoughts and instincts on all matters social or political because they affect how you perceive and navigate the world. If you’re interested in finding out where you stand in general, try taking The Political Compass Test. You can find out where your own thoughts lie, and what major historical figures shared your point of view. You’ll even be able to print out a certificate of completion when you’re done (to share with all your friends). https://www.politicalcompass.org/
Earlier this week,a friend of mine put me up on this Lo-fi Hip Hop playlist on Spotify. I thought it was a'ight, but I kept finding weird similarities in all the songs to the point that it was like there was a meme, and I just found out about the joke.
Basically, all the songs sound like ideas for songs that weren't quite finished, and then somebody found out about the genre called Lo-Fi and just put their unfinished beats out with Distortion and wobbly effects or whatever. Another thing that I noticed is that there's a lot of anime elements to these videos on YouTube. A lot of songs have looped anime clips that are about 5 seconds long, or just a looped anime gif. I'm cool with that part, as it has nothing to do with the recording. But the part that makes me laugh is when it's clearly a sample taken from an anime movie. A lot of the samples are that really cheesy jazz music that you hear on 80's and 90's anime movies, taken during one of the peaceful scenes when the character goes back home for a day or something like that.
But for my mind, it's not good enough to just have a rudimentary, drive-by understanding of a genre. All of the modern Lo-Fi beats that I've listened to in the last few days are simplistic MPC style drum beats over Funk bass lines and Jazzy chord progressions, usually a sample from a old jazz song that's been looped and distorted. That seems to be the paint-by-numbers formula for most of these playlists. This takes me back to the days of emo, when I was trying to find out exactly what "Emo" meant. To this day, it's more of an aesthetic than anything with real meaning. It was never explained to me, but rather revealed as a bunch of pretentious and cynical hipsters making esoteric references to one another and pretending that everything is an offensive joke, to the point of Campiness (in the original use of the word).
So I did what any other person would do when they discover a new idea. I created a ignorant Meme and took to Facebook to see what kind of response is I would get. And boy did that work.
After the few brief conversations I had with friends, I realized that I was going to have to do some research myself. Thankfully, I didn't have to do a whole lot of research. I read about four or five articles talking about Lo-Fi , mostly articles that transitioned into promotion of their favorite Lo-Fi artists. I also read the Wikipedia page and all of the examples that it gave. I walked away from that bit of research with a better understanding of what I think we're dealing with.
The Lo-Fi craze seems to be split in three different directions. It's most current iteration is the Lo-Fi hip hop which is a combination of artificially Lo-Fi recordings mixed with jazz and chilled hip hop beats. The other iteration is ambient or chill music with similar qualities. Neither of these iterations are what have interested me the most. Although, I must confess I do enjoy some of the chill hip hop beats, but that doesn't necessarily make them Lo-Fi.
The thing about Lo-Fi is that it's a philosophy, and a mentality that you bring to production. It's the rebel opinion that you don't need to have the best of the best when it comes to equipment and gear. It's the rebel mentality that says you're going to do this project come hell or high water. It doesn't matter if you fully understand how to use your recording gear, any more than it matters whether or not it's thunder storming or there's a dog outside barking. You're just going to use what you have, and you're going to roll with the punches.
Lo-Fi recordings are generally done on low budget equipment, or unorthodox equipment that isn't necessarily intended for professional audio recordings. You might get some sounds on a handheld tape recorder and hold it up to your microphone, hiss and all. Your mics might pick up the squeak on your chair or from the floorboards. You might get you breathing. You may accidentally hit the mic stand. It might be raining outside. You might have someone running around upstairs chasing after a toddler. These are all things that could show up in your recording.
In my opinion, Lo-Fi is the punk rock equivalent to high-quality recording. And I think that's a good thing. The only thing that makes a Lo-Fi recording good is the musicianship and the composition that goes into the recording. Everything else is flawed and full of imperfections. Imagine if you recorded a whole song using nothing but the First Take. This is the mentality were talking about when we get into Lo-Fi territory.
It's understanding of Lo-Fi gives me a big relief because I've done things like this in the past, especially on my first album. When I first started recording music my first album was terribly recorded with a microphone that I found Under the Staircase at my grandmother's house while I was cleaning her basement. I use that microphone for the entire album, and there is all kind of hissing and pops and clicks and background noise and a bunch of other crap. But what was important to me was that I get these ideas out of my head and on to the recording.
Now that I understand this as a Lo-Fi mentality, I'm much more proud of my earlier works and I may actually post it on Choon or something like that. Lo-Fi isn't perfect, and it shouldn't sound clean. So, the next time you hear me making fun of chill hip hop beats for claiming to be Lo-Fi, maybe you'll have a better understanding of what I'm teasing.
The other day I had a fight with my wife. In that fight there was something said that struck a nerve. I was wrestling with some problems in the area of success, and self-acceptance. The problem is, once those doors were open, I couldn't close them, and the Darkness grew louder. Even though the fight was resolved, I wasn't able to resolve the existential crisis Within Me Oh, and I was beginning to have trouble justifying my own existence.
I recently found the answers to the demons I've been wrestling with through the recognition of a very common misconception, and the unveiling of a very complex form of thought.
The First Concept:
This first concept started by recognizing a misconception at its very premise. We're often told that if you work hard you will be successful . But that's not always true, and when that isn't true , because we believe it's so firmly and so deeply , it breaks reality. The truth is , while performance drives success, performance does not equate success. they are not equal in nature, and they are not equally quantifiable. Performance is measured by mastery and magnitude. Success is measured by recognition and reward. So while performance may determine the quality of a product in stores, it is the success of community that attributes success to those efforts.
PERFORMANCE is the driving force behind QUALITY, but SUCCESS is a result of appreciation by the COMMUNITY, not the performer. Therefore:
P (does not equal) S
I forgot to add that this formula only really applies when the metrics can't be used in a traditional sense, so for people like artists and musicians.
The Second Concept:
I've been trying to think of a simple way to word the more complex idea that has helped me dramatically in the last 12 hours, and it was explained to me through podcast. I had other working variables and I was coming close to a conclusion, but I realized that I had started with the wrong premise.
I understand that you cannot be your own Master, therefore you cannot command yourself into specific disciplines (or the outcome of those disciplines). It is better to revere yourself as a servant to a master who is greater than you. This flows well with my Christian faith, but one of the concepts that I was missing, is the moral obligation to treat yourself as if you are responsible for taking care of a patient. (Jordan Peterson)
In effect, you have a moral obligation to look after yourself (As a patient).You cannot neglect the needs or safety of your patient, and you have to have your patient's best interest in mind. You have to treat yourself as a patient. In part, you are protecting the fragility of your patient, but you also have an obligation to uphold the spark of divinity, the breath of life that God has breathed into every human, including you.
It is because you bear the image of God, that you are morally obligated to protect that spark of divinity. If you are prone to abuse yourself, as I often am, you fail at upholding this Duty, and fall into torment that I am very familiar with: torment.
So, rather than appreciating you own incremental successes (with Grace), there is a constant nagging in your head that you are not as good as you can be, and that you're not doing enough. This constant nagging will never allow you to recognize your own growth, because it will never be enough. And it will only increase the suffering and self-loathing that you already have.
But when you recognize yourself as an image Bearer, you will begin to treat yourself appropriately, as well as others in your life. Men are created in the image of God, and therefore that image is to be treated appropriately in all respects. You will not denigrate the image of God, nor will you allow it to wallow in self-pity and shame. But, you will always seek to elevate the person, even if only because that person Bears the image of God.
Anyway, those are my thoughts and these are the concepts that help me to pull out of a near-fatal descent into existential crisis. I hope this post helps others.
Podcast host for The Xero Hour Podcast | Founder of Tentmaker Music | Musician | Family Man | Christian | Conservative | Not in that order