Trance Music, Philosophy and Politics. The official homepage of philosopher artist: Illusive Mind.
‘It’s a Fine Day’ was a hit when I was growing up and remains a trance classic to this day. It has been remixed by musical giants like AT, Ruff Driverz and recently by Leon Bolier. I humbly submit my rendition.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
The original vocals by Opus III are copyright
How do you start a song?
Many of my songs have come about through sudden flashes of inspiration that leave me glued to the computer until sunrise. Sometimes you are going for a specific idea and that’s always harder and sometimes you get lucky with a combination of the two.
For me a lot of the inspiration actually comes when I’m at work or somewhere where I can’t test it out. That’s because I’ll be listening to other people’s music it can be a song I love or maybe just an effect in the song I’d never thought about before and this will catalyze a whole series of ideas.
Sometimes a track or remix will start off really nicely and you just get stuck and it goes nowhere, I’ve got plenty of those, sometimes the best thing you can do is just save it and hope you can use it in the future.
I work pretty linearly so a song will never get going, even if I have the whole melody down unless I’m happy with how it starts. Then I export mp3s of the song as I’m building it even if it’s just a minute long and listen to it over and over again, parts of it sound like they should be erased or changed, and you start to hear additions and the song starts to write itself.
I’ve only done a few remixes but generally I don’t attempt one unless I have some idea of a way to improve the original or do something interesting with it.
If so you’ve really got only a couple of options to do an effective remix:
1. You’ve gotten permission from the artist and get the source samples/tracks for the song.
2. You’ve got an acapella and make a new/different instrumental
3. You’ve got an instrumental you can chop up or combine with new vocals.
Happy producing.
PS. Here the forum thread where I first wrote this, you might get some ideas from other producers.
Amateur musicians of the digital age probably know more about remixing and recreating content than anyone else. We know that taking samples of culture and giving them a new context, rearranging them in different ways does create new forms of art.
None of us get paid for it and yet the current stranglehold of copyright law would deem us criminals for consuming and creating culture. This inflexibility leads many of us to the extreme position that all copyright law be damned, I’ll pirate whatever I want.
There is another way, to find a balance where content creators such as ourselves are empowered by the law not criminalized by it.
In this video Stanford Law professor and founder of Creative Commons Larry Lessig talks about the law vs. creativity. (It’s a 20 minutes TED talk).
In this video Lessig talks about his book, “Free Culture” and the whole enterprise of making copyright law fair.
As content creators think about freeing your own contributions to culture. Allow your audience the pleasure of not only listening to your work but remixing it. If their remix turns out to be a hit you can go on negotiate a fair settlement of royalties.
As we expand a commons, an arena of free culture the copyright holders are forced to compete with a medium that offers their audience more.
Imagine if the works of Shakespeare were still own and monopolized by a single publishing company. Or Mozart or Beethoven…
By default all your works are fully copyright as soon as you make them. Just indicate otherwise by choosing which Creative Commons copyright you wish to use and add a link.
If you still don’t know what Creative Commons is, This video explains it all.
We want to spread the word about free remixes… by spreading the funk.
It is legal to download, sample and share all the music found on this website. We hand pick every remix, and like to think that our catalog represents the best in funky and free music. We dig quality, not just quantity.
Another website using the power of creative commons to spread free legal music and highlight remixes of some great tracks.
In an age where backroom deals and cash spread all over the place gets A grade filth clogging the airwaves and mega-corps suing their own customers. Why not listen to real music by people who really make it?
I’ve been a big fan of George Monbiot’s writing since reading his column for The Guardian newspaper and especially after reading his insightful book, The Age of Consent. I was reluctant about going to the trouble of buying and reading his latest book about climate change ‘Heat‘.
I didn’t need to be convinced that climate change was real, we were causing it and we had to act quickly and decisively to prevent a runaway global catastrophe. So what use was reading the dry detailed policy outlines going to be? I put my faith in Monbiot’s ability to surprise and shock my preconceptions and I was not disappointed.
The power of Monbiot’s book is that he cuts through so much of the obfuscation and hedging you hear in the political debate so that you get an unfiltered view of the scientific reality of climate change. Unless you flatly refuse to believe in climate change you cannot come away from reading this book without agreeing that climate change is the great moral crisis of our time.
What makes grassroots action so obviously important is that this is a fight against gluttonous consumption and therefore the interest of the uber-wealthy. Money can and is always found in the trillions to be invested in ways of destroying, people, cities and countries, war is a most profitable enterprise. But investing money in renewable energy while there is still ‘black stuff’ in the ground is incomprehensible to big business. And restraint is incomprehensible to the consumers of a first world economy that is based on greed and living beyond one’s means.
Heat is a must read for people who want to size up the promises from their leaders on climate change action and an effective way to galvanize personal responsibility and action. We cannot sit around waiting for an answer whilst we slouch towards calamity.
David Suzuki on our economy and environment, part 1 of 6
Renowned Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki speaks about the environment, the economy, climate change and our future. Speaking at a benefit event for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in Vancouver, BC.
Uppdate : It’s happened again!
Sydney radio announcer Steve Price told his audience that when questioning Peter Garrett about Labor’s ‘Me-Tooism’, Garrett replied, it wouldn’t be a problem because they would “change it all” when they got into power.
Garrett has come out and said:
“There is no doubt things would change under a Labor government.
“We would launch an education revolution, we would get rid of Work Choices, we would deliver a high speed broadband network across Australia, we will end the blame game on hospitals.
“There is nothing remarkable about that.”
This plays a little to neatly into Howard’s narrative of the sneaky Rudd story for my liking. And with the absence of source materials for the interview (which happened at an airport lounge) I’m sure his mob will use their imagination.
Let’s pray Kevin doesn’t release a clarifying statement.
Meanwhile, the spectre of death, Phillip Ruddock is suggesting bringing in any new people into government reduces our ability to react to a terrorist incident. This is why octogenarians such as Ruddock (perhaps a slight exaggeration) should immediately be sent to Iraq where their wealth of experience can be put to direct use.
Rudd needs to stop being so nervous about losing the election from the lead that he jumps down on his ministers merely when something they say might be construed as ammunition for the Coalition.
He did it with McClelland over his sensible remarks on the death penalty and he’s done it with Peter Garrett over his remarks about a post Kyoto agreement requiring (or not requiring) developed nations to cut emissions.
Read the transcript and /or listen to the audio for yourself.
Update: Apparently Garrett was explicit in an interview with the Australian Financial Review, if anyone has a copy of it, let me know.
Garrett was not suggesting we take part in binding agreements that would not include the US or China. He was emphasizing the fact that Australia should be a part of the process of getting those agreements made. This is in contrast to Howard’s position that unless a wonderful magical all-encompassing consensus emerges binding everybody, then fuck it.
But by being a bit slippery about the question, (if developed nations don’t sign on, then we won’t avert climate change will we?) Howard pounced on it. Rudd overreacted and in stead of standing by what his minister said, he issued a ‘clarifying statement’. Something a diplomat does, not a leader.
Now the government is spinning that in fact there is very little that differentiates Labor from the Coalition on climate change (a good reason to vote Green!). We have an opposition that wants you to believe it’s economics are identical to the government and a government who wants you to believe it’s environmental policy is identical to the opposition. Presumably because each is envious of the other’s poll numbers on the respective issues.
Check out The Big Switch to find out real points of difference amongst the parties and where your local candidate stands on the most important issue (in my view) of this election.
Show those in power and those who want power what this issue means to you by Walking Against Warming.
On Sunday November 11, join thousands of other Aussies at the Walk Against Warming near you to send a clear message to our political leaders – that the community wants bold and effective leadership on climate change!
GetUp Meeting Spots in Capital Cities
In Melbourne:
Meet at Federation Square at the entrance to the Ian Potter gallery at 12:30pm.
Dale Dickins 0405 776 169 victoria@getup.org.au
One of my favourite jokes about irony:
Homer: It seems the cat has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him!
Skinner: How ironic
Another:
(Joe who is in a wheelchair finally catches the theif he has been after)
Peter: So what happend to the theif?
Joe: Ironically I severed his spine.
Peter: Looks like you have more competition at next years games.
Joe: No, he’s dead.
Is it ironic that both these jokes are acutally about a lack of irony? No, it’s not.
I mention it because I find it deliciously ironic (not the salty kind) that after selectively releasing chat transcripts in order to slander Dr. Mohammed Haneef’s reputation and credibility, Minister Kevin Andrews has had some unflattering transcripts of his own released.
CONFIDENTIAL emails between top AFP agents and a senior public servant advising Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews indicate that there was a secret plan to thwart a decision by a magistrate to release then terror suspect Mohamed Haneef on bail.
The emails show the AFP was aware of a weekend “contingency” plan to ensure the Indian doctor would remain behind bars by having Mr Andrews revoke his visa under the Migration Act in the event of bail being granted by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne on the following Monday.
The disclosure of the emails will be used against Mr Andrews, who has always insisted that he made his decision to revoke Dr Haneef’s visa under the Migration Act and that it was “unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane”.
A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews told The Australian last night that she was “shocked and a bit concerned” at the disclosure in the emails.
“That’s something, to be honest, I’m a bit lost for words on because it shocks me,” said Kate Walshe, adding that she would seek urgent advice from Mr Andrews.
“I had never heard of any contingency plan. The minister has never referred to one.”
After getting advice from Mr Andrews last night, Ms Walshe said the minister had “absolutely not” been involved in any “contingency” plan to thwart Ms Payne: “It’s not our email and it’s not something that we considered beforehand.
“My answer would be that the police can explain their correspondence to and from each other but there was absolutely no deal or arrangement or contingency instigated, approved, or discussed by the minister or any of his staff at all, ever.”
The emails, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by Dr Haneef’s lawyers, show that while the AFP was uncertain on Saturday, July 14, after an initial bail hearing whether Dr Haneef would be freed two days later by Ms Payne, the police had developed “contingencies”.
The first email, written by Brisbane-based counter-terrorism co-ordinator David Craig to commanders of the AFP’s counter-terrorism unit at 5.22pm on July 14, states: “Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today.”
Under the Migration Act, such a contingency necessarily needed to involve Mr Andrews.
This email was forwarded at 8.10am on Monday, July 16, by agent Luke Morrish, the AFP’s Canberra-based acting manager for domestic counter-terrorism, to top Immigration Department public servant Peter White.
Mr White, the department’s assistant secretary responsible for character assessment and war crimes screening, gave Mr Andrews comprehensive advice on his powers and his authority to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa and keep him in custody on the basis of secret evidence.
About three hours after Agent Morrish forwarded the email to Mr White on July 16, Ms Payne granted Dr Haneef bail over a terrorism-related charge.
One of the factors relied on by Ms Payne was the extraordinary weakness of the AFP’s case against Dr Haneef, who had repeatedly and strenuously asserted his innocence of any connection with terrorist acts carried out in Britain in June, which were linked to his mobile phone SIM card and his second cousins, brothers Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed. The Gold Coast Hospital registrar was kept behind bars after Mr Andrews made his controversial decision on July 16 to revoke the visa.
Defending his decision on the afternoon of July 16, Mr Andrews said: “This is unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane. This is a direct responsibility set out in the Migration Act. This is simply a matter of me looking at the responsibilities that I have under the migration legislation, acting upon the advice and information provided to me by the Australian Federal Police, and then making a decision both in light of my responsibility and that information and advice.”
The release of the emails, three months after the case against the exonerated Dr Haneef collapsed in disgrace amid disclosures in The Australian of serious errors by police and prosecutors from the Commonwealth DPP, comes amid continuing calls for a royal commission-style inquiry.
Mr Andrews, who has repeatedly maintained that Dr Haneef failed a “character test” arising from his connection to his second cousins, is instructing lawyers for the Crown to appeal against a Federal Court decision that Dr Haneef’s visa should be reinstated.
Dr Haneef’s solicitor, Peter Russo, in Melbourne last night for a speech, told The Australian: “I’m concerned about it. Obviously it’s apparent that there was communication about pulling his visa prior to the magistrate handing down her decision.”
Describing the emails as “a very significant piece in the jigsaw of information”, he called on AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, Mr Andrews and anyone else who knew of the secret contingency plan to “come clean and explain exactly what discussions did take place”.
Mr Russo said he wanted to say a lot more about the emails, “but I’m limited in what I can say because of a pending Federal Court appeal over Dr Haneef’s visa”.
The Saturday July 14 email written by Agent Craig states: “In my opinion, the magistrate did not appear weighted to either side’s argument and the outcome of her decision on Monday is not predictable.”
Agent Craig also reports that Ms Payne had disclosed to the court that she had worked a decade earlier for Dr Haneef’s solicitor, Mr Russo, and that she had asked if this would be an issue for the prosecution.
While the prosecution did not object to her hearing the matter, Agent Craig wrote to his superiors: “This is somewhat of a concern, in my opinion.”
A leading defence lawyer and close follower of the Haneef case, barrister Greg Barns, last night said the emails showed that “the AFP in conjunction with the Government were essentially completely undermining the judicial process”.
“They were ripping up the doctrine of the separation of powers,” Mr Barns said.
“What you are seeing here is the politicisation of an investigation and the AFP working hand-in-glove to formulate that.
“It shows there was a pre-judgment by Minister Andrews and the Government, prior to the magistrate’s decision being taken, and this decision was politically stage-managed rather than being done according to law.”
An AFP spokeswoman said last night she was getting advice and would provide more details as soon as possible.
Considering that the Haneef debacle was an issue Hedley Thomas gained some measure of credibility as a journalist (though he made some mistakes) I’m surprised his still has a job at The Australian.
According to the AFP, circumventing the authority of the Courts is “normal operational contingency planning” and Andrews has taken a break from his “I’ve got a secret dossier” character to the more common Government ‘Schultz’ line: “I know nothing!“.
From News.com.au
A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews said today he had no knowledge of the correspondence.
“He didn’t see the emails. He hasn’t seen the emails. Never heard of the police officer (mentioned),” the spokeswoman told AAP today.
She said Mr White could have received the email and failed to hand it on to the minister, but maintained the minister had a healthy relationship with the department.
“Absolutely, a relationship that any minister would have with his department.
“But there would be no reason for the minister to be seeing such (emails) because they are completely unrelated to his actual decision.”
“A relationship that any minister would have with his department”, well that sums it up doesn’t it? Also known as “plausible deniability”, and what was once known as ministerial responsibility. Just like the Australian Wheat Board scandal or Children Overboard or the entire cultural failure of the Immigration Department or WMD or Abu Ghraib, unless you actually catch the minister in the act -even if you have clear records implicating their department - the minister cannot be held responsible.
The problem is, it works. Fire a minister and you’ve admitted guilt and the public will hold you accountable for it (hopefully). Stick it out and the issue fades from the collective consciousness.
Of course you only get so many fuck up freebies before you’re too much of a liability to keep around. Kevin Andrews is certainly nearing the margin however short of finding a dead prostitute in his car I doubt Howard would sack a minister during an election campaign.
However, am I suffering from the same Confirmation Bias that seems to afflict so many governments around the world? The tendency to attempt to prove rather than disprove your theories?
Perhaps. The emails themselves aren’t really that damning, but I desperately want to see Andrews get what’s coming to him.
Recent Comments