Rabaelthazar
-
Content count
1,009 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Rabaelthazar
-
-
they have a thing saying 'used from 10'.
You're not talking about second-hand (or "used") items are you?
I would imagine so.
-
There should be a button saying "See all buying options". That will bring up a list of new and used items from other sellers, together with seller feedback and postage charges.
Thanks for the heads up about the Erowid thing.
-
-
Borrowed this link from a facebook feed. Perhaps not news, per se, but an interesting and relevant read nonetheless. Enjoy.
After the crash: the pauperisation of middle-class America
With the crisis now in its fifth year, it's plain that the rich and powerful have restructured society toward ever-greater inequality
The current global crisis of capitalism began with the severe contraction in the housing markets in mid 2007. Therefore, welcome to Year Five. This inventory of where things stand may begin with the good news: the major banks, the stock market and corporate profits have largely or completely "recovered" from the lows they reached early in 2009. The US dollar has fallen sharply against many currencies of countries with which the US trades, and that has enabled US exports to rebound from their crisis lows.
However, the bad news is what prevails notwithstanding the political and media hype about "recovery". The most widely cited unemployment rate remains at 9% for workers without jobs but looking. If instead, we use the more indicative U-6 unemployment statistic of the US labour department's bureau of labour statistics, then the rate is 15.9%. The latter rate counts also those who want full-time but can only find part-time work and those who want work but have given up looking. One in six members of the US labour force brings home little or no money, burdening family and friends, using up savings, cutting back on spending, etc.
At the same time, the housing market remains deeply depressed as 1.5-2m home foreclosures are scheduled for 2011, separating more millions from their homes. After a short upturn, housing prices nationally have resumed their fall: one of those feared "double dips" downward is thus already under way in the economically vital housing market.
The combination of high unemployment and high home foreclosures assures a deeply depressed economy. The mass of US citizens cannot work more hours – the US already is No 1 in the world in the average number of hours of paid labour done per year per worker. The mass of US citizens cannot borrow much more because of debt levels already teetering on the edge of unsustainability for most consumers. Real wages are going nowhere because of high unemployment enabling employers everywhere to refuse significant wage increases. Job-related benefits (pensions, medical insurance, holidays, etc) are being pared back.
There is thus no discernible basis for a substantial recovery for the mass of Americans. The US economy, like so many others, is caught in serious stagnation, a situation flowing partly from the economic crisis that began in 2007 and partly from the way in which most governments responded to that crisis. Thus US businesses and investors increasingly look elsewhere to make money.
Rapidly rising consumption is not foreseeable in the US, but it is already happening where production is booming: China, India, Brazil, Russia, parts of Europe (especially Germany). Growth-oriented activity is leaving the US economy, where it used to be so concentrated. The US was already becoming less important as a production centre as profit-driven major US corporations shifted manufacturing jobs to cheaper workers overseas, especially in China. In recent decades, those corporations' export of jobs expanded to include more and more white-collar and skilled work outsourced to India and elsewhere. Now, US corporations are also spending their money on office, advertising, legal, lobbying and other budgets increasingly where the expanding markets are – and not inside the US.
Republicans are now celebrating "American exceptionalism", the unique greatness of living conditions in the US. Yet again, their politics stress vanishing social conditions whose disappearance frightens Americans who counted on them. In reality, the US is fast becoming more and more like so many countries where a rich, cosmopolitan elite occupies major cities with a vast hinterland of people struggling to make ends meet. The vaunted US "middle class" – so celebrated after the second world war even as it slowly shrank – is now fast evaporating, as the economic crisis and the government's "austerity" response both favour the top 10% of the population at the expense of everyone else.
The US budget for fiscal year 2011 is scheduled to spend $ 3.5tn while taking in $2tn in taxes. It is borrowing the other $1.5tn – the deficit – and thereby adding to the US national debt (already over $14tn, roughly the same as the annual output, or GDP, of the US). Such massive borrowing is what got Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and other countries into their current massive crises. The "great budget debate" between Republicans and Democrats over the first few months of 2011 haggled over $60bn in cuts versus $30bn with the final compromise of $38bn. That $38bn cannot and will not make any significant difference to a 2011 deficit of $1,500bn (that is, $1.5tn).
Obviously, both Republicans and Democrats are agreed to do nothing more that quibble over insignificant margins of so huge a deficit. Meanwhile, they perform live political theatre about their "deep concern about deficits and debts" for a bemused, bored and ever-more alienated public.
Neither party can shake off its utter dependence now on corporate and rich citizens' monies for all their financial sustenance. Therefore, neither party imagines, let alone explores, alternatives to massive deficits and debts. After all, government deficits and debts mean: first, the government is not taxing corporations and the rich; and second, the government is, instead, borrowing from them and paying them interest. So, the two parties quibble over how much to cut which government jobs and public services.
Yet, the tax burdens of US corporations and the richest citizens (what they actually pay) are significantly lower than in most other advanced industrial economies. Indeed, they are far lower than they were inside the US a few years ago. In the mid 1940s, the corporate income tax brought Washington 50% more than the individual income tax. Today, the corporate income tax brings the federal government 25% of what is taken from individuals. In the 1950s and 1960s, the top individual income tax rate in the United States (the rate paid by the richest citizens on all their income over about $100,000) was 91%. Today, that rate is 35%, a staggering cut in the taxes on the richest Americans, far larger than the cuts in anyone else's tax rates. Half or more of today's federal deficits would be gone if we simply taxed the richest US citizens at the rates in effect in the 1950s and 1960s. If we also taxed corporations in relation to individuals as we did in the 1940s, the entire deficit would vanish.
In summary, shifting the burden of federal taxation from corporations to individuals and from the richest individuals to the rest of us contributed to massive deficits and debts. Instead of correcting and reversing that unjust shift, Republicans and Democrats plan, instead, to deal with deficits and debts by cutting Medicaid and Medicare and threatening social security.
A revealing historical incident can introduce our conclusion about the capitalist crisis as it enters Year Five. In May 2011, as gasoline prices rose to between $4 and $5 per gallon, a US Senate committee run by Democrats summoned the heads of major oil companies to testify. The senators asked why the federal government should continue to provide them with special tax loopholes and direct subsidies of $4bn per year when their companies were earning record high profits. The Democrats had offered a meek plan to merely cut those loopholes and subsidies from $4bn to $2bn per year. After the hearings, the US Senate voted not to cut the loopholes and subsidies at all.
The largest corporations and richest citizens long ago learned that if you want to sustain an extremely unequal distribution of wealth and income, you need an equally unequal distribution of political power. Those corporations use their profits to pay huge salaries and bonuses to their executives, to pay big dividends to their major shareholders, and to "contribute" to politics. The corporations, their top executives and the major shareholders whom they enrich all regularly finance the political campaigns and politicians that perform that sustaining function. An increasingly unequal capitalist economy pays for the increasingly undemocratic politics it needs.
Any serious effort to change the basic situation, functions and direction of government policy must change the answer our society now gives to this basic question: who gets and disposes of the profits of producing goods and services in the US economy? So long as the answer remains corporations' boards of directors and major shareholders (the status quo), current trends will continue until bigger economic collapses bring the system to self-destruction. Then we will have graduated from a crisis with banks "too big to fail" to a crisis that is itself "too big to overcome."
A changed system – perhaps called "economic democracy" – in which the workers themselves collectively operate their enterprises would immediately redirect enterprise profits in different ways, with very different social consequences. For example, according the bureau of labour statistics, during 2010, the pay for average workers rose 2% while the pay for CEOs rose 23%. Workers who collectively directed their own enterprises would distribute pay increases very differently and far less unequally. Likewise, to take another example, self-directing workers would allocate their enterprises' profits to the government (that is, pay taxes) but demand in return the sorts of mass-focused social programmes that the current CEOs and boards of directors want government to cut. Democratic enterprises would have to work out collaborations and agreements with democratically run residential units (cities, states, etc) where their decisions impact one another.
This short article is hardly the place to work out the details of so changed an economic system. That is, after all, the task of democratic economic and political institutions to do together, once the change has been discussed, adopted and set in motion.
Throughout the cold war decades, and even after the USSR dissolved in 1989, we remained, as a nation, afraid openly to discuss and debate a basic economic issue. Does our economic system, capitalism, serve our needs sufficiently; does it need basic changes; or might a change to another economic system be best? Instead of a debate over alternative answers to such questions, we permitted little beyond self-congratulatory cheerleading for capitalism. Seriously questioning capitalism, let alone challenging it, remained taboo, an activity to keep repressed. That repression encouraged an unquestioned and unchecked US capitalism to become ever more unequal, delivering more "bads" than "goods" to ever larger majorities of people. This unsustainable situation is being strained to breaking point by the crisis that now enters Year Five.
-
Awesome!! Nice work, Ronny.
-
always great to see the crew.such a lovely,warm bunch - interesting conversations ,yummy food
and what about that view of the sunset in the background eh!
I had to miss it. Was my day to keep the 2 year old amused. Had the weather been good, I woulda come along but....
Did you guys get to witness that amazing double rainbow at about 4:30? Possibly the greatest rainbow I've ever seen in my life, a full arch primary rainbow with grey sky on the outside and golden sky on the inside. The double rose over the top of the primary rainbow and it nearly made me weep, al la hippy on a mountain.
Awesome.
-
Yes please. Very interested to check it out (just to confirm how evil it is, of course).
-
I'd definitely go a large hardwood. I can't imagine any life more satisfying than beginning as a seed, finding some water and sunshine, rising up over decades to be the tallest strongest piece of wood in the forest.
I'd just have to keep my branches crossed that no loggers would like the look of me.
-
Awesome, Ballzac. I love coffee, but don't put that sort of effort in at home. You're making me uber jealous.
I've never seen one of those Pressos before. Looks really good, Shall have to investigate.
-
Thought this one was appropriate to the thread.
-
Thanks, the Dude, for the B Dolan clip. Shall be checking him out further.
-
Kids under 15 are often already watching porn and have been sexually active for at least a year, I don't think this would go over their heads, and if it did, they would have to be a rareity amongst their peers. Songs/videos like this are contributors to 10 year old's losing their virginity to be "cool" and having issues with sexuality and relationships for the rest of their lives.
OK, fair point. I've got the age wrong there. But the point is still the same. Up until a certain age, the imagery will go over the kids' heads and after that point they are able to have it explained.
You're right, thinking back to watching "Girls on Film" on tv, I was well aware of the sexuality being presented. I liked it, even though I hadn't hit puberty yet. I also watched Monty Python as a kid which was chock full of sexual references, often including bestiality and adultery.
And yes, you're right, kids watch porn. I looked at stolen playboys and read erotic stories as a kid, some of which in hindsight were pretty damn inappropriate. Kids in the 1950s were looking at erotic comic strips. Same concept, different content.
You and Chnt are in your early 20s, right? I think that was mentioned in another thread. What's the deal? Why are you so uptight? Enjoy life a bit more, let go of your anger. You remind me of extreme left wing, middle aged fuddy duddies complaining about the state of affairs. I guess if that's how you want to be, then that's your choice. Personally, I'd rather have uncensored access to information and freedom of speech/thought and take the responsibilty to educate my kids so that they can use their own instincts to decide what is right and wrong.
When I was a kid, I (and most of my peers) had access to sexual material, played violent games, listened to racist comedy, watched violent movies. When I was an early teenager, I drank, I smoked, I took drugs, I had sex, I took risks. I've turned out fine. The majority of my peers have turned out fine. There are a few exceptions to that of course, as there would have been for my parents' generation and as there will be for my kids' generation.
Bottom line from my point of view is that we have a choice as to how teach and raise the next generation. Regardless of what's being portrayed in the media, morally upstanding and wise human beings can be developed with good parenting and support from other adults in the community.
Anyway... wasn't this thread originally about all the music sounding the same? Not that I mind this angle of conversation, but we've strayed a bit from the original post.
-
Yes, all horseshit.
He he, well at least you're not a hypocrite.
I'm glad I don't perceive the world in such a black and white manner, but to each their own.
-
Realistically, it would go over the heads of most kids under 15. They might think it was a bit weird, but they're not going to have any reference to sadomasochism in the real world.
To a kid, this film clip would be people dressed in costumes dancing to a song. If they took the time to analyse the lyrics (and how many kids do that - it's very common for kids to sing along to a song, get the lyrics wrong and completely miss the point) they'd maybe get a giggle about the word "sex".
Again, worst comes to worst and they are curious, I believe it's better for a parent to explain in a way appropriate to the age level what the song is about. There's nothing wrong with S&M when it's performed by consenting adults. Why should we be ashamed of something that is done for fun?
Personally, I don't like this song, only for the reason that I find it totally unbelievable. Listening to Rhianna sing it, you can tell that she's never actually gotten into the scene. Maybe she'd used fluffy handcuffs with a boyfriend, but she's never been to a real dungeon. Purely after shock value. Sell-out.... but that doesn't make me hate it, or her or the industry.
It is what it is.
-
Horoscopes are part of astrology. Both are horseshit.
In astrology, a horoscope is a chart or diagram representing the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, the astrological aspects, and sensitive angles at the time of an event, such as the moment of a person's birth.
So, Greencavefloat, do you also unequivocally declare that the concepts of god/synchronicity/plant spirits are horseshit? Just curious as to why you're so adamant about this one. As I've mentioned, I'm not convinced that astrology works, but I'm certainly not in a position to declare it 100% confirmed untrue. Is it not unknowable?
As an example, from the "Have humans evolved to believe in God?" thread, Bluntmuffin states:
So, how can you know that your belief of God is not a delusion? I simply don't think it can be done. Essentially, existence of God is unknowable.
yet in this thread, Bluntmuffin declared astrology "FAKE", in capital letters no less. I'm really curious as to why people are so adamant about this topic.
About the Carl Sagan video, Greencavefloat, my issue is that he's not actually providing any proof against the validity of astrology although he speaks as though he has provided proof. It's a very biased video, with a mocking tone of voice whenever he talks about what astrologers believe, a carefully chosen set of images to accentuate astronomy's scientific foundation and to illustrate astrology as an ancient superstition, and a straw man argument to "prove" that Astrology is unfounded.
Yes, as you pointed out, he does very briefly explain that a natal chart represents the positions of "the sun, moon, planets, the astrological aspects and sensitive angles at the time of an event" but then "proves" astrology fake by comparing two newspaper horoscopes.
This is like me saying: "DNA is a complex map of genetic information. A group of scientists have suggested that by manipulating a particular section of the DNA we are able to find a cure for cancer. Through practice we have discovered that their suggestion is unfounded. Therefore no possible cure for cancer can be found by manipulating DNA"
Not a logical conclusion, not a proof.
I'm totally open to anybody here proving that astrology is unfounded, but unless you have actual proof (which is highly unlikely), please don't declare your beliefs as indisputable fact.
-
This band is made up of the guy who produced one of Lily Allan's albums (Greg Kurstin) and a jazz singer (Inara George). Regardless of what you think of the music itself, there's no denying that the production is very well done with generous lashings of musical intelligence.
And this one is lyrically very powerful and a beautiful piece of music. John Mayer is doing the pop thing - but there's not a trace of Lady GaGa or Katy Perry in his music (thank the lord). -
This girl is full of musical talent and the lyrics are really meaningful. I saw this song on Rage and ended up buying the album on the basis of this tune. Has turned out to be a great cd.
This track isn't particularly amazing, but nice and groovy with a good clip too. -
i have to disagree with you there.
No sweat. I still think you're taking the matter too seriously, but that's your prerogative.
raising one of the many points on this issue, how old do you think children are when they start watching music video programs?
like morning rage on the weekends on abc, or how many families have foxtel and their children watch mtv or channel v?
Obviously, different kids start getting into it at different ages, but I'd guess an average of about ten years old. I was eight when I started watching Rage and I would have been among the first kids in my year level to get interested in music other than what I'd hear from my parents' record collection. Maybe he average has lowered since then, but somewhere around there.
have you seen pop music video clips?
do you know what themes are brought up in pop music lyrics and in their music videos?
Yes, I have. I have a two year old son and we watch Rage together fairly regularly. Not every week, but perhaps once every three weeks. We don't do a lot of tv at our house. We watch an hour of ABC for kids on weeknights and other than that, Rage is really the only other time the tv is turned on. Are you shocked that I allow such a young person to be subjected to the themes brought up in pop music and in their music videos?
do you think it's ok for imppessionable people under the age of say 18 to be influenced by these things?
These things exist in our world: sex, drugs, violence, discrimination, war, sickness, disability, abuse, etc... always have and probably always will. I don't have control over that, but I do have some level of control over how I help my children to understand those things and to learn the difference between right and wrong. Sheltering/hiding my children from the negative things in the world is not the way to help them learn the difference between right and wrong in my opinion.
Our children will come across these things that you seem so worried about from watching tv, from seeing a pair of strangers arguing in the street, from suffering negativity from a peer or an elder, from seeing a homeless man in the city, from being teased for being different in some way or other and from a whole heap of sources.
At the age of two, is my son going to be negatively affected by seeing Katy Perry dancing in a bikini? I don't believe so. As he grows older and does become more impressionable, is he going to be more influenced by the television or by the lessons I take the responsibility of teaching him? If I do my job correctly, then I believe it will be the latter. If I were too lazy to take the time to teach him how to develop his own moral compass then perhaps tv would be an issue, but I don't intend to be a lazy parent.
do you know what the norm is for young people?
getting drunk and going clubbing
As has been the norm for young people for for decades (the clubs change, but the alcohol (and drugs and sex and violence) stays the same.
what do these pop songs promote in the majority of what you hear?
how about 10 year old girls being subjected to rappers calling women bitches and seeing slutty chicks in almost no clothes dancing in an extremely sexual way?
how about their pop idols like katy perry and rihanna and ke$ha and britney spears who wear almost nothing and sing about drinking and having sex and dance slutty in minimal clothes in their clips?
The vast majority of songs are about sex and have been ever, even going back to classical musicians like Debussy, certainly in the early jazz medium, operas, rock and roll, you name it. People write songs about sex because people like sex. I like sex, I assume you like sex. You mum and dad liked sex, jeez, even your grandparents liked sex. It's genetically built into us. In some respects, you could say that it is our most important and most basic instinct. My two year old son will like sex one day. I don't feel the need to pretend to him that it doesn't exist.
Here are a couple of videos I remember from when I was younger. Despite the overtly sexual nature of these videos, my generation has turned out alright. I think the new generation will make it through Katy Perry's "Last Friday Night"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gudEttJlw3s
this is just one aspect of why this shit makes me so angry and why it should anger anyone with at least half a brain, i'm not trying to suggest you have half a brain or less and i'm not trying to insult you, i just feel like this is a really huge and important issue, and people shouldn't downplay it as simple pop music.
it's not ok.
I can understand why people with half a brain could get upset about the prevalence of sex in the media... thankfully I have a fully operational brain so can recognise that it's a pretty insignificant thing in terms of the bigger picture (that's not meant to be an insult to you, either, I'm talking more about the general "up in arms" section of the community). There's so much complaining about the inappropriateness of what's beamed into our heads but the thing is, we can choose how it affects us. We can educate our younger generation so that they can grow up choosing how it affects them as well.
On a final note, there's good and crap music in all genres. There's classic rock and there's terrible rock. There's amazing classical music and frightfully boring classical music. There's great jazz and then there's Kenny G.
I've reached my video limit in this post, so please see below for a few examples of pop gems from the last few years. There's plenty of decent stuff out there in amongst the crap. If you turn the radio off after 20 seconds, you could miss out on something you really like (you might just have to put up with a little Ke$ha on the way).
Peace.
-
Re: Carl Sagan vid
Nice and impartial. I particularly liked his vocal inflections and omissions of any depth on the opposing point of view.
Again, he's focussing on horoscopes. How many times do I have to point out that horoscopes are not the same thing as astrology?
FAIL.
-
i just feel like there's a lot to be angry about in this world, and i do have a lot of anger within me, but that's only one part of me, many parts make up my whole.
There's a lot to be happy about in this world as well.
If you do need to be angry at something, pop music seems a pretty insignificant dot on the surface of things wrong in the world.
Turn on PBS, or a community radio station if you want some different music.
One role of music is to help people connect and come together over a shared experience. While I don't particularly like Katy Perry's music, I'm sure there are some 9 year old girls bonding over it now who will relive the memory of today's pop music in 20 years time. When I was 9, I listened to Bananarama and Rick Astley (amongst other things - just trying to pinpoint the poppest), certainly no more intelligent than the music on Fox FM these days. I grew in my musical taste but the pop music I liked as a kid was a stepping stone on my musical journey.
I reckon relax, Chnt. Not worth getting upset about. Channel your anger into something that can improve the world.
Peace.
-
There are a lot of nay-sayers in this thread.
If you identify yourself as a hardcore atheist, then feel free to dismiss astrology as you do the concept of god. If you believe that there is nothing outside the physical world that you can observe, then feel free to dismiss it.
If, however, you entertain the possibility that there is something beyond the physical world, regardless of whether that's god, plant spirits, telepathy, life after death then how on earth can you be so black and white about astrology? I'm surprised by how dismissive people on this forum have been in this thread when there are multiple other threads in "Spirituality and Philosophy" about topics which are just as unprovable.
Jesus, if Mutant can consider the possibility anyone can!!
Also, from what I understand, the constellations were named after astrological signs, not the other way around. I mean, have a look at the constellations that are supposed to resemble the signs. The shapes made by the stars hardly resemble the entities they're meant to. Here's the Pisces constellation. Does it really look like a fish?
I believe (feel free to prove me wrong) that the constellations were more used as reference points to identify the sections of the zodiac. If this is in fact the case, all arguments against astrology on the basis of the constellations shifting are moot.
From wiki
It is important to distinguish the zodiacal signs from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes but also because the physical constellations by nature of their varying shapes and forms take up varying widths of the ecliptic. Thus, Virgo takes up fully five times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius. The zodiacal signs, on the other hand, are an abstraction from the physical constellations designed to represent exactly one twelfth of the full circle each, or the longitude traversed by the Sun in about 30.4 days.[12]
Once upon a time, Astrology and Astronomy were the same discipline. It's only in fairly recent times (say the last 500 years) that the two fields have split. Astrology is something that has held many cultures' faith for millennia. That's not to say it's valid, but jeez, don't dismiss it without actually looking into the history of it. A lot of the nay-sayer arguments on here are based on newspaper horoscopes which, as I've outlined in a previous post, are quite different from in depth astrology and undoubtedly a load of crap.
-
2
-
-
From my experience, being questioned for a crime you had nothing to do with doesn't have any lasting issues.
I was a "suspect" in the Gary Silk/Rod Miller murders in the late nineties because I'd had an accident in my car which left me with a big spiderweb crack that I couldn't afford to fix. Some helpful neighbour called the police and advised that there was a man with a bullet hole in his windscreen living in their street and the next thing I know, I'm entertaining two detectives in my living room being asked a bunch of questions about a double cop murder.
It was pretty obvious that I had nothing to do with the crime (had plenty of evidence explaining why my windscreen was cracked) and the detectives were really good about the whole thing, but my statement would have been kept on record.
That incident has not once been brought up in an interaction with the police since nor have I been treated unfairly in any way.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, thed00dabides. Your mohawk is more likely to get you hassled.
-
1
-
-
I've seen these works before. Absolutely awesome. Thanks for posting.
-
OK
Horoscopes = complete and utter bullshit
A Proper Astrological Natal Chart = not sure
I got really interested in Astrology in my last year of high school. I was dating a girl who used to buy these little horoscope scrolls and ended up reading a couple of books which prompted me to study it one evening a week, which I kept up for two years. My conclusion at the end of the 2 years? This could have something to it and then again it might not. (Sorry, I'm the eternal sceptic).
On one hand, there was a lot of stuff (once you delved deeper) that really felt right and seemed accurate a lot of the time. On the other hand, sometimes it wasn't accurate at all. There certainly seemed to be a lot more cases of accuracy than pure coincidence would allow but you can't rule that out. I am completely sympathetic with anybody who calls bullshit on the entire practice but most people call bullshit without learning more about Astrology than what they see in the Herald Sun or Woman's Day. To reiterate, horoscopes are complete bullshit. Sometimes they are written by Astrologers, but more often than not they are written by a journalist who makes up something that sounds kinda spiritual. Even when written by an Astrologer, they can't pigeon hole every person in to one of 12 categories.
.
.
Just to clarify a couple of things: What people call a starsign (for instance, I'm an Aquarius) is just what part of the sky the sun was in (as viewed from the earth) at the time you were born. In a full astrological natal chart, you will also map the positions of the other planets, the moon, the horizon. Different planets represent different aspects of your personality and the part of the sky they fall in are said to influence the way that part of your personality operates. In addition to that, where everything falls in relation to the horizon is extremely important from an astrological point of view. The placement of different planets in relation to each other is another factor. This birth map is called a Natal Chart and an Astrologer (when they do a reading) will compare your natal chart with the current position of the planets. A natal chart of a person right now will be quite different from the natal chart of a person born in twelve hours time.
I only occasionally look at Astrology these days, but I learned so much about myself, about other people and about the way the brain works from the two years I spent studying it. I don't necessarily believe in the validity of the "science" but I truly believe that it is a valuable tool in self exploration.
Unfinished songs
in Creativity, Spirituality & Philosophy
Posted
Hi guys,
After 6 months of dealing with new baby stuff, I've finally found a little bit of time on my hands and so I've set myself a project to actually finish up a few of the many hundred unfinished tunes on my computer.
I've just created a Sound Cloud account and uploaded about 20 tracks that I kinda dig. I haven't touched the DAW in a half year, so it was interesting to listen with fresh ears. Some of what I thought were decent at the time have turned out to be absolutely bog. Anyway, I'd really appreciate some feedback on some of the tracks. Here are links to a few.... if you like, there's plenty more on the Sound Cloud account.
Most of the tunes are in various states of disrepair - either the vocal is a first take with no editing, or I've just used a single drum pattern the whole way through with no variation - you get the idea. Some are more complete than others. None have been properly mixed/mastered.
Basically, I'm hoping for some honest feedback on which tracks you think could be developed into something worthwhile.
Cheers - here are the links
Thanks guys, for any feedback.