I've disappeared from the ether for far too long. While I don't have a lot of time in the current moment, I'd like to tell you about a couple fun things.
1. The Philles won the National League Championship last night, and I firmly believe that, future dynasty or not, the people of Philadelphia are in the midst of a truly amazing and special team. I hope that they are about to be successful in defending their World Series title against whichever team they wind up playing--part of me is hoping for a match-up with the Yankees, but only after losing a couple games to the Angels. Let's give the Phils a few days of rest.
2. The studio has started up a great website to help artists raise funds for their projects called Feed The Muse. Currently still in the early stages and with some cool changes on the way, the site has already helped people raise over $15,000 in our first three months. We're all really proud.
3. Speaking of great sites, I recommend you check out The 61. Seriously, go there now. If you love music, especially of the independent variety, go there NOW. It's a fantastic site, and I could go on and on about some of it's features here, but I think I will save that for its own dedicated post. If you decide to sign up, tell them pattae sent you. Let me know when/if you sign up, and I'll be your first subscriber!
4. It's October, and we've hit one of my favorite times of year. There isn't too much special about posting that--I just thought it needed to be said.
There's more where this came from. Seriously. I promise.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
How to be a bibliophile and still save money!
These days, it seems like it's not too hard to find a large chain bookstore within a short drive, with thousands of books sitting, waiting, asking for the taking. Coupled with low prices or reasonable discounts, it's pretty easy to see why people would flock to those stores. It's always better to get something on sale.
There's just one slight little issue that could creep up if you're not careful...
You might run out of space.
Looking around my apartment, I realize that I have a lot of books. Not tons, but a fair share. I also know that I don't have a large space to store things, and I certainly don't have enough space for the infinite number of books I'd get if money were no object. And with times being what they are, it's better to try to save money wherever you can.
But what's a girl to do when she wants to read something new but doesn't want to spend the money to buy the book?
It may be a revolutionary idea, I know, but I do have a suggestion.
Here it is.
Are you ready?
Okay.
My grand suggestion is...go to your local library.
This should really be an easy one to explain. First off, if you live in the municipality, libraries are generally free. Granted, it's a book loan, but that could even make the pot sweeter for you. You sign a book out, read it, and then just give it back when you're done, or your loan time is up, whichever comes first. And most libraries let you renew your book loan if you're not done with the book. Some library systems even have online reservation capabilities. Want to call dibs on a book when it gets returned? Hop online and reserve it--when it gets back to the library, it's your turn! Not sure if the library has a book and don't want to drive all the way there to find out? Chances are good that you'll be able to check from the comfort of your own home if and where a book is available. What's not to love about that?
A few weeks ago, I happened to pass my local library on the way to my sister's house. I'd been living in this town with the library within walking distance of where I live, work, and hang out for over 4 years, and I still didn't have a library card. So I walked in, filled out the information they needed, received a nice-sized packet explaining the township system, and walked away the newest resident with a library card. It felt good, and I plan on using my membership to the fullest extent. I hope some other people out there will join me.
There's just one slight little issue that could creep up if you're not careful...
You might run out of space.
Looking around my apartment, I realize that I have a lot of books. Not tons, but a fair share. I also know that I don't have a large space to store things, and I certainly don't have enough space for the infinite number of books I'd get if money were no object. And with times being what they are, it's better to try to save money wherever you can.
But what's a girl to do when she wants to read something new but doesn't want to spend the money to buy the book?
It may be a revolutionary idea, I know, but I do have a suggestion.
Here it is.
Are you ready?
Okay.
My grand suggestion is...go to your local library.
This should really be an easy one to explain. First off, if you live in the municipality, libraries are generally free. Granted, it's a book loan, but that could even make the pot sweeter for you. You sign a book out, read it, and then just give it back when you're done, or your loan time is up, whichever comes first. And most libraries let you renew your book loan if you're not done with the book. Some library systems even have online reservation capabilities. Want to call dibs on a book when it gets returned? Hop online and reserve it--when it gets back to the library, it's your turn! Not sure if the library has a book and don't want to drive all the way there to find out? Chances are good that you'll be able to check from the comfort of your own home if and where a book is available. What's not to love about that?
A few weeks ago, I happened to pass my local library on the way to my sister's house. I'd been living in this town with the library within walking distance of where I live, work, and hang out for over 4 years, and I still didn't have a library card. So I walked in, filled out the information they needed, received a nice-sized packet explaining the township system, and walked away the newest resident with a library card. It felt good, and I plan on using my membership to the fullest extent. I hope some other people out there will join me.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Finger on the Pulse
If you like finding out about new music and what songs and artists people have been talking about on the internet, check out We Are Hunted. Seriously, go there now.
It's still in Beta, but I like the design of the site PLUS the fact that you can click on a song and listen to the whole thing. Clicking on an artist or group takes you to a page with updated articles on them, as well as related artists and "charted tunes", so you can listen to some more tracks that have made it on the site. You can look at what's popular by song or artist and for the day, week, and month. It gives you an idea of what people are really talking about vs. what people are kinda talking about, and if you felt so inclined, you could chart and see how things escalate or decline.
All in all, I think it's good stuff, and if you like hearing about new music or knowing what people are talking about--check it out!
Also, if you go, please please PLEASE check out The Kills "Cheap and Cheerful (SebastiAn Remix)"--it's delightfully delicious!
It's still in Beta, but I like the design of the site PLUS the fact that you can click on a song and listen to the whole thing. Clicking on an artist or group takes you to a page with updated articles on them, as well as related artists and "charted tunes", so you can listen to some more tracks that have made it on the site. You can look at what's popular by song or artist and for the day, week, and month. It gives you an idea of what people are really talking about vs. what people are kinda talking about, and if you felt so inclined, you could chart and see how things escalate or decline.
All in all, I think it's good stuff, and if you like hearing about new music or knowing what people are talking about--check it out!
Also, if you go, please please PLEASE check out The Kills "Cheap and Cheerful (SebastiAn Remix)"--it's delightfully delicious!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why you probably won't find me on Twitter
I've noticed that a number of my friends are absolutely raving about Twitter, and while I think the site can be useful to some people, I don't think it's for me.
The basic premise of Twitter is, "What are you doing?" And, you know what?--from time to time, I'll feel like I'm doing something interesting. But, often times, I don't think that my every thought is worth following. If you read this blog, you can see how often I do (or don't) post. I don't feel the need to let everyone know what I'm doing all the time. Most of it would likely wind up being filler with the occasional tidbit of useful information. I prefer to go with quality over quantity.
Also, Twitter mentions that with the service, you "can stay hyper-connected with friends." Great. I'll know everything my friends are up to so I'll never actually have to talk to them. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but sometimes I enjoy not knowing every single detail of my friends' lives. That way, I feel like I could e-mail, call, or hell, even see them in person and find out some new information on their lives that can't be searched for on the Internet--and with details!
That's the other thing about Twitter that bothers me: entries are limited to 140 characters. So yes, you'll know what your friends are up to, but briefly. To expound on what was said, they'll have to do another entry. If you have a question or a direct response, you do an @username with your "tweet". But still, it's only 140 characters. So, your response has to either be really concise or you have to bastardize the English language to get your whole thought across. Srsly? That's not 4 me, U know? But how does writing such short entries affect broader writing in general? Granted, I know Twitter was initially based off text messages, and texting's effect on grammar is one that is still being debated in different forums, but I'm going to put myself in the camp of thought that the brief and abbreviated communications put a strain or limitation on expanded thought. If you're constantly posting short entries about topics, would you ever be inclined to post something more in-depth?
I don't want to paint a picture that Twitter is all bad. In fact, I don't think that. It could be useful in telling a bunch of friends about a happening going on, or in quickly communicating about plans or a change thereof. And I know that there are some people out there who are using the medium to create "micro-fiction", stories essentially told line by line, and I admire the efforts. My good friend Matt Lydon has been working on such a story about a character called Matthew Tweet, and I suggest you check it out if you can. I always enjoy his writing and have been excited to see where his story goes, although I usually wait for an aggregation so I can read multiple posts at once and catch up on the story.
Still, as this post might seem to suggest, I think I'm doing my best work when I'm writing more than a few lines of text. Maybe it'll take me longer to get it out, but I know by the end it's quite likely that it's thought out pretty well (as I have a habit of going over my work several times before posting) and I know that I'm communicating the way that I want to. And maybe that's the biggest difference between me and the many Twitter users out there: they're happy to communicate in such a terse manner, and that's just not my thing. I like to write, and I don't want to be stifled by the character limitations. I don't need to let everyone know what's going on in my life all the time, and I don't need them to do the same. So while so many others out there in the ether tweet, I'm content to let that one part of Web 2.0 pass me by. I'm just fine and dandy with my blog--K thnx bi!
The basic premise of Twitter is, "What are you doing?" And, you know what?--from time to time, I'll feel like I'm doing something interesting. But, often times, I don't think that my every thought is worth following. If you read this blog, you can see how often I do (or don't) post. I don't feel the need to let everyone know what I'm doing all the time. Most of it would likely wind up being filler with the occasional tidbit of useful information. I prefer to go with quality over quantity.
Also, Twitter mentions that with the service, you "can stay hyper-connected with friends." Great. I'll know everything my friends are up to so I'll never actually have to talk to them. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but sometimes I enjoy not knowing every single detail of my friends' lives. That way, I feel like I could e-mail, call, or hell, even see them in person and find out some new information on their lives that can't be searched for on the Internet--and with details!
That's the other thing about Twitter that bothers me: entries are limited to 140 characters. So yes, you'll know what your friends are up to, but briefly. To expound on what was said, they'll have to do another entry. If you have a question or a direct response, you do an @username with your "tweet". But still, it's only 140 characters. So, your response has to either be really concise or you have to bastardize the English language to get your whole thought across. Srsly? That's not 4 me, U know? But how does writing such short entries affect broader writing in general? Granted, I know Twitter was initially based off text messages, and texting's effect on grammar is one that is still being debated in different forums, but I'm going to put myself in the camp of thought that the brief and abbreviated communications put a strain or limitation on expanded thought. If you're constantly posting short entries about topics, would you ever be inclined to post something more in-depth?
I don't want to paint a picture that Twitter is all bad. In fact, I don't think that. It could be useful in telling a bunch of friends about a happening going on, or in quickly communicating about plans or a change thereof. And I know that there are some people out there who are using the medium to create "micro-fiction", stories essentially told line by line, and I admire the efforts. My good friend Matt Lydon has been working on such a story about a character called Matthew Tweet, and I suggest you check it out if you can. I always enjoy his writing and have been excited to see where his story goes, although I usually wait for an aggregation so I can read multiple posts at once and catch up on the story.
Still, as this post might seem to suggest, I think I'm doing my best work when I'm writing more than a few lines of text. Maybe it'll take me longer to get it out, but I know by the end it's quite likely that it's thought out pretty well (as I have a habit of going over my work several times before posting) and I know that I'm communicating the way that I want to. And maybe that's the biggest difference between me and the many Twitter users out there: they're happy to communicate in such a terse manner, and that's just not my thing. I like to write, and I don't want to be stifled by the character limitations. I don't need to let everyone know what's going on in my life all the time, and I don't need them to do the same. So while so many others out there in the ether tweet, I'm content to let that one part of Web 2.0 pass me by. I'm just fine and dandy with my blog--K thnx bi!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Really? REALLY???
So, Scarlett Johansson covered "Last Goodbye" by Jeff Buckley, one of my favorite songs of all time.
WHO LET THIS HAPPEN??? WHO??? I WANT TO KNOW!!!! GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Okay, okay, I'm breathing, I'm calming down. I got a little out of control there, and I apologize. But, really, why? It's her vocals and a piano, the song length is almost cut in half, and it seems to have a rather lounge-y feel to it (which in that particular case, my favorite lounged-up version of a song is Ben Folds Five covering "She Don't Use Jelly" by The Flaming Lips, and I hold that as my high standard).
The original version of the song evoked so much emotion--it wouldn't be uncommon for me to well up a little bit when Buckley starts belting "Kiss me, please kiss me. Kiss me out of desire, babe, and not consolation." She barely emotes at all there. It's almost like she's yawning when she sings those lines. Oh, sure, she brings it up a notch or two in emotion with the following line, but it's unconvincing. Maybe she didn't even try with those lines because she doesn't quite have the vocal chops to carry it off without her voice cracking in an unflattering way. I'm only speculating, of course, but I heard a song or two when she tried covering Tom Waits, and it seems like, for all she's tried, she's either picking the wrong songs for her range, or, well, she just shouldn't be trying to record and sell music. However, if she tried to write and record some of her own material sometime, I'd probably give it a whirl, just to see what she could come up with.
For the time being, I'm going to pass judgment and say that her interpretation of this great song is far inferior to the original, and it makes me wonder why she made the attempt in the first place.
WHO LET THIS HAPPEN??? WHO??? I WANT TO KNOW!!!! GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Okay, okay, I'm breathing, I'm calming down. I got a little out of control there, and I apologize. But, really, why? It's her vocals and a piano, the song length is almost cut in half, and it seems to have a rather lounge-y feel to it (which in that particular case, my favorite lounged-up version of a song is Ben Folds Five covering "She Don't Use Jelly" by The Flaming Lips, and I hold that as my high standard).
The original version of the song evoked so much emotion--it wouldn't be uncommon for me to well up a little bit when Buckley starts belting "Kiss me, please kiss me. Kiss me out of desire, babe, and not consolation." She barely emotes at all there. It's almost like she's yawning when she sings those lines. Oh, sure, she brings it up a notch or two in emotion with the following line, but it's unconvincing. Maybe she didn't even try with those lines because she doesn't quite have the vocal chops to carry it off without her voice cracking in an unflattering way. I'm only speculating, of course, but I heard a song or two when she tried covering Tom Waits, and it seems like, for all she's tried, she's either picking the wrong songs for her range, or, well, she just shouldn't be trying to record and sell music. However, if she tried to write and record some of her own material sometime, I'd probably give it a whirl, just to see what she could come up with.
For the time being, I'm going to pass judgment and say that her interpretation of this great song is far inferior to the original, and it makes me wonder why she made the attempt in the first place.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
One thing I want to see out of my current technology
I got to wondering today...why hasn't Apple developed an iPod with an SD slot?
Let's think about this for a few seconds, shall we?
Yes, the iPod memory is flash technology, and SD cards are also flash-based--wouldn't that be like doubling up on the same technology in one device? Well, yeah, but what's so wrong about that?
Think about it in this sense: You purchase an album on an SD card (some people out there think that might be a good route to go), and you want to put it on your iPod without having to go through the middle man of your computer and iTunes. Well, right now, it doesn't seem like you'd be able to do it (I welcome comments from anyone telling me I can, and how to accomplish that without cracking open my iPod). How awesome would it be to take that SD card you just bought and put it right into your iPod to give the new songs a (metaphorical) spin? Yes, at some point, if you want to transfer the album to your iPod for good, you can go through your computer and have it now in two spots. It could also offer the opportunity to "share" the music with someone else and possibly avoid all the copyright infringing--much like lending a CD to a friend (and, you know, assuming they aren't borrowing it to rip it). The same would work for videos, and would allow a person the chance to pop a card in and watch a video on their iPod and not have to worry about taking up precious space usually reserved for music (I know I try to keep my iPod for mostly music, maybe I'm an anomaly in that sense--I just don't know).
All I'm saying is that I think that this is a missed opportunity right now, and if Apple put an SD slot on an iPod, it could make the machines even more versatile, and could very possibly make my life even a little easier.
What are your thoughts? And what would you like to seen done to the iPod?
Let's think about this for a few seconds, shall we?
Yes, the iPod memory is flash technology, and SD cards are also flash-based--wouldn't that be like doubling up on the same technology in one device? Well, yeah, but what's so wrong about that?
Think about it in this sense: You purchase an album on an SD card (some people out there think that might be a good route to go), and you want to put it on your iPod without having to go through the middle man of your computer and iTunes. Well, right now, it doesn't seem like you'd be able to do it (I welcome comments from anyone telling me I can, and how to accomplish that without cracking open my iPod). How awesome would it be to take that SD card you just bought and put it right into your iPod to give the new songs a (metaphorical) spin? Yes, at some point, if you want to transfer the album to your iPod for good, you can go through your computer and have it now in two spots. It could also offer the opportunity to "share" the music with someone else and possibly avoid all the copyright infringing--much like lending a CD to a friend (and, you know, assuming they aren't borrowing it to rip it). The same would work for videos, and would allow a person the chance to pop a card in and watch a video on their iPod and not have to worry about taking up precious space usually reserved for music (I know I try to keep my iPod for mostly music, maybe I'm an anomaly in that sense--I just don't know).
All I'm saying is that I think that this is a missed opportunity right now, and if Apple put an SD slot on an iPod, it could make the machines even more versatile, and could very possibly make my life even a little easier.
What are your thoughts? And what would you like to seen done to the iPod?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)