My Laziness is Profound

Posted March 20, 2013 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Admin, Uncategorized

Hey folks, I’m back. Yes, that was quite a long hiatus, but every now and then I need a break (don’t we all).

What has it been, two or three months? Sorry if any of you actually look forward to my postings, but I had some stuff going on and for the most part I really didn’t have much to say to the world. And if I don’t have anything to say then why force it, right? Right.

As always I have big plans for the future, but also as always not all of those plans will come to fruition. Certainly when I make these plans I hope to see them through, but life has a way of getting in the way or steering you away from your formerly desired path. Don’t fret, this time away hasn’t been completely wasted, and I will let you all in on what has been keeping me away from the ‘ol QWERTY keyboard in due time.

For now just know that I haven’t given up on the whole blogging thing and that I will be posting some great content in the near future.

Until then, all of the best to all of you,

Joe Fetz

Curious Inconsistencies of the Left

Posted November 28, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Political Philosophy, Race, Random Musings

Now, don’t go thinking that because I am picking on the left here that I am some sort of right-wing ideologue. No! I don’t like either the left or right of the American political spectrum (which, as Tom Woods likes to say, is about the width of about 2 inches, and one shouldn’t stray from this 2 inches lest you be a radical). However, I must admit that I often find a greater preponderance of inconsistencies from the left.

The idea of equality is often bandied about by those of the leftist persuasion as a noble goal, a highly sought end. Now, of course, I know that actual and real equality is an impossibility, and that if such a thing were to be a reality, that no progress would ever exist in the world (after all, progress is achieved by straying from the norm, by being unequal– this is especially true of economic matters). However, even with all of this talk about “equality”, those same people who praise this idea also like to talk a lot about diversity and such things as multi-culturalism.

So, which is it? Should we embrace equality or diversity? Apparently they haven’t quite thought this through with much rigor.

Also, here’s a bonus thought. Those that preach the virtues of equality also have a great fondness of democracy (a most horrid institution, if I do say so myself). If everybody was truly equal, then wouldn’t this pretty much make democracy a pointless exercise? Possibly democracy is viewed as the means to the end, but then the means is entirely antithetical to the ends, because democracy is all about having one’s individual “voice heard” (which implies differentiation and distinctness). There is also the case of democracy being inherently anti-minority, which implies that the majority is not only correct and just, but also that it is favored above (or superior to) that of the minority.

I’m just a fleshy sock puppet of an intellectual, but even I can see the gaping holes in this logic.

Bassaroo

Posted November 24, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Music, Music (original)

This is a song that I wrote entirely on the bass, which is why I called it ‘Bassaroo’. However, I also called it by that name because of what I was trying to do aesthetically to the overall sound. Essentially, I was trying to mimic the old smiley-face EQ of the 70s, but instead of the entire mix having that distinctive smiley-face shape to the EQ, I was instead doing it by mixing each instrument in a certain fashion to reap the same result. For instance, I wanted an extremely heavy bass, a really thin guitar, and the drums to be a mix between the two (depending on whether it was snare, kick or cymbals). I think I got pretty close, but it certainly isn’t what I expected.

In writing this tune I was essentially trying to come up with a very simple, but catchy tune. It’s very repetitive, but is arranged in the exact same fashion as many pop tunes, except that instead of just an intro or just a pre-chorus, I instead have a full intro and full chorus at the head. Intro-chorus-verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus-verse. I will admit that while I was trying to make the song catchy, I also wanted to make the intro as least catchy and most irritating as possible (I’m weird like that).

Now let’s get to the mix.

The intro is the only part of the song with a thicker guitar sound, that’s because I used my Gibson Les Paul Standard Plus to record it. But that is where the thick guitar sound stops, instead favoring a thin sound for the rest of the song to go along with what I was attempting to do with the entire aural picture of the mix.

In order to get the thinnest guitar sound possible, this required that I use a guitar that produces the thinnest sound possible (unfortunately, I didn’t have my Fender Telecaster back when I recorded this). My 1978 Electra Omega is essentially a Les Paul copy. However, it has many features that you don’t find on a Les Paul. I can switch each humbucker pickup to single coil, which goes a long way in thinning out the sound. However, the other feature of my Omega is that I can also have both pickups be paired together, but be out-of-phase with each other (that’s straight 70s funk, right there). This is the guitar sound that is present throughout, but it changes slightly during the chorus.

During the chorus I was not happy with this thin guitar sound. It isn’t that it wasn’t thin enough, it is that it sounded far too much like a guitar. So I kept all of my guitar’s settings the same, except then I routed my guitar through a Whammy pedal set to one octave above standard. Then, I applied a few filters on specific frequencies in order to take out some of the “guitarish” tone. The result almost sounds like a synth, but not quite. Actually, it almost sounds like Poindexter’s violin from ‘Revenge of the Nerds’. In any case, I was very pleased with the result.

Also during the chorus is a guitar that is playing a single chord every 8 bars that is run on a really long tape delay (long tail, but short decay). I did this because it just sounded like something needed to go there.

As for the bass, it is recorded as is throughout the entire song. However, I have it set somewhat high in the mix during the chorus in order to give a punchier sound, and to dominate that particular part of the song. Also, during the chorus I was not entirely happy with a clean bass sound, so I wanted to distort it a bit. Instead of just putting a distortion effect on the bass, I copied the bass track so that there are two identical bass tracks. I kept one untouched, but with the other I bit-crushed it and added compression. Bit-crushing isn’t distortion, per se, rather it is decaying the resolution of the digital signal. Imagine running your iPod through an Atari or Nintendo system, that’s essentially what bit crushing is doing. Once I got one of the bass tracks bit-crushed to my liking, I then mixed them together (the bit-crushed and dry bass tracks) to produce that bass tone that you hear during the chorus. I think it turned out awesome, because it reminds me of how back in the late 70s, all of the funk bands would have a synth bass playing along with the electric bass (think Lakeside’s ‘Fantastic Voyage’).

The drums aren’t messed with much, other than to make the kick have more bottom, the snare a little more top, and the cymbals natural. I did, however, have to overdub a few cymbal splashes here and there, because some of the originals weren’t quite on time, and two of them accidentally got cut short of their natural decay during editing. Also, the drums during the intro and the bridge are actually AppleLoops. I tend to use AppleLoops during recording to help me keep good time. I rerecorded the chorus and verse drum parts using my Roland TD-9SX drum kit, but I left the other parts as they were.

As for reverb, I didn’t get too crazy. Just enough so that the instruments don’t sound dry. This is a departure from what was prevalent in 70s mixes, but then I was only trying to mimic the EQ curve of the 70s, not the dimensional aspects. Also, I mixed the drums in such a way that the layout of the drums follows the placement of the guitar. When the guitar is on the right channel, the drums are mixed with the HH on the right (as if there is a right-handed drummer playing), and when the guitar is on the left channel, the drums are mixed with the HH on the left (as if there is a left-handed drummer playing). The bass guitar and kick drum are always right down the center throughout the song.

A little word on the bridge: In case you haven’t noticed, it isn’t complete. First, the bass part for the bridge that is on this recording was done entirely off the cuff and improvised. I knew what chord changes I wanted, but I never wrote anything for it, so I just played whatever came to my mind when I hit “record”. I really need to rerecord it because it is not nearly tight enough for my liking. Also, I wanted to put a guitar solo in there, but alas, I am too lazy. I will eventually get to it, but it isn’t that important, so I’ll do it at a later date.

Anyhow, here’s what I have so far … Without further ado, here’s Bassaroo!

01 bassaroo

Thoughts on the Crusoe Model

Posted November 3, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Economics

Recently, I was involved in an economic discussion with a few coworkers, primarily dealing with where the source of economic prosperity lies (they think that spending is the key). Granted, none of them has studied economics, so it was very difficult for me to explain my position without straying from standard economic parlance. For instance, when I was speaking of capital and investment, they thought that spending (which is usually associated with consumption) accounted for all of this. Even harder was to explain how savings and investment are really the same thing (ex ante), and that additions to cash balances are not necessarily defined as savings (it ultimately depends on what those cash balances are used for). Basically, I had to bring out the ‘ol Crusoe Model in order to illustrate the differences between what consumption is and what savings/investment is, and how capital comes about through savings (deferred consumption) and investment (speculative action), not by way of consumption (spending).

Unfortunately, much of this was lost on my fellow coworkers, because while these concepts are relatively easy to understand, it can be hard to get one’s head around the idea if you are in a certain frame of mine. However, disregarding these questions of definitions, one of my coworkers brought up a good point. He essentially called me out on the fallacy of composition, even though I am certain that he is not aware of this particular logical fallacy. He said that the Crusoe Model is not representative of the current economic reality, and that due to this, it is unrealistic. He didn’t say it in quite this way, but that is the conclusion that can be drawn from his words, and it got me to thinking: Does the Crusoe Model fall victim to the fallacy of composition?

After giving it a little thought, I conclude that, “no, it does not fall victim to the fallacy of composition”. Why? Well, because the Crusoe Model is first and foremost a regression model. So, while it may use as an example a “smaller” economy to elaborate upon the truths of a “larger” or more integrated economy, at root its purpose is to regress to the source of economic phenomena. Its purpose is to identify from whence things came.

It goes without saying that everything has a root source, and that while things may change slightly due to increased complexity, that one cannot discount the ultimate source of the thing itself. The purpose of the Crusoe Model is to regress back in time to find the ultimate source of particular economic phenomena, and if we accept this as true, then there lies therein no logical fallacy, especially that of the fallacy of composition.

Hurricane Sandy: Cleveland Edition

Posted October 31, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: General

That may sound strange, but indeed, we here in Cleveland got quite a storm the other day. Trees, power lines, light poles, street signs, and many other things were taken out by this storm, and many things were blowing up and down the streets. A coworker and I took a trip to Edgewater Park on the lake to see 15-20 foot waves crashing over the breakwaters and splashing onto the windshield. It was pretty cool.

Unfortunately, the aftermath has left me with little power. I checked my outlets with a multimeter and I am getting a range of 7-15 volts (it’s supposed to read 115-120 volts). Luckily, my internet router works, but there isn’t enough power to charge my laptop, use my desktop, use my recording gear, use my stove, use my microwave, etc. Pretty much anything that requires more than about 10 volts isn’t working.

So, I probably won’t be blogging much until this problem gets fixed.

Why Do I Even Try?

Posted October 29, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Government, Random Musings

In case none of you are aware, I am dirt poor. I’ve done well in the past, but over the course of the past 5 years I have barely been able to earn $27,000 per year working. After taxes, this amounts to about $20,000 net income per year. Yep, that’s mighty poor.

A few days ago I became aware that the total welfare spending per household is roughly $60,000 per year, more than double my gross salary. Now, since I live in a small 300 sq. ft. efficiency apartment in the middle of the ghetto, I often get a good view of what it is like to live in government housing, and it is quite luxurious compared to my condition. Further, since I often shop in the same stores as those who are on the public dole, I also get a view of the expenditures of those on food stamps. I’ll just say that while I can only afford to buy a few items per week, those that I see using their food stamps typically have a cart (or carts) full of food.

It is so very depressing to risk your life day in and day out at work, busting your ass, and dealing with the detrimental effects of hard, laborous work, only to find that you’re being taxed to subsidize people so that they can live twice as well as you are. Even worse, they don’t even have to lift a finger to live twice as well as I do, other than filling out the paperwork.

One might suggest that I find another job. No shit! I’ve been trying to find something better for two years now, and nothing is doing. With my qualifications I could work for government or a government contractor, but why would I do that when I can make almost as much money to fill out some paperwork and sit on my ass? Further, if I did find a job that paid more, that would just piss me off more, because due to the progressive tax schedule, I would be subsidizing these people even more than I am now. It should go without saying that working for government and/or living on the government dole are equivalent in my opinion, and both are in direct violation of my personal code of ethics.

I guess that I’ll just have to accept the fact that my life will be spent serving the purpose of allowing others to live off of my labor, in a much better state of affairs than I.

Update: After a brief correspondence with Dr. Thomas Woods, it appears that I forgot to account for bureaucracy. So, let us assume that bureaucracy absorbs roughly 50% of the total figure (an assumption that I believe is too generous), so that only $30,000 is getting to these families to sit on their ass. That still means that they are essentially taking in more than me, yet I am the one subsidizing them. There is something really wrong here.

Elevendy-Hundred

Posted October 29, 2012 by Joseph A. Fetz
Categories: Random Musings

I was just thinking about my childhood and came upon a strange memory.

I was probably around 3 years old and my father was picking me up from pre-school. We were on our way home and he was teaching me how numbers work. At this point I could count from zero to one-hundred without a problem, but from there on I was pretty much clueless. Every time I would get to one-hundred I would stutter a bit.

No matter, my father told me, you just repeat everything from the beginning, only with one-hundred placed before it. OK, this makes sense. So I proceeded, “one-hundred and one, one-hundred and two, one-hundred and three …”. I was getting the knack of this. Easy, no problem. However, once I got to one-hundred and ten I simply could not fathom that the next number in the series was simply one-hundred and eleven. Instead, I created a new number: Elevendy-hundred.

How I came upon such an idea is beyond me, but that is what my young mind reasoned to be the answer. Funny how that works.

To this day, whenever I see the number 111, I still think in my mind “elevendy-hundred”. Perhaps this explains why math was never my strong suit: I am far too individual to stick to the established rules of mathematics, I just make up my own.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 126 other followers