[Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand]

A little off topic, but did anyone else notice the extreme, constant, eye shifting by Ayn Rand? She almost looked nervous. What was up with that?

This alleged eye shifting was mentioned in posts #23, 24, and (my response in) 33. But I didn't notice anything unusual about her eye movements. Everyone's eyes move when they're thinking about something difficult on the spot like that--not only that, but it's not constant at all. There many extended periods where her eyes are locked right on Mike Wallaces eyes.

I think maybe, since her eyes are large and dark, people notice it more when she moves them, than they would with a normal person?

I do think it's possible that she was nervous though, since she so rarely gave interviews. But I didn't notice her as being unusually nervous.

[My Favorite Bible Stories]

Here's my personal favorite.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Yes, you read correctly. Some kids made fun of him for being bald, so he summoned bears that subsequently mauled 42 of them to death.

When I was in fifth or sixth grade, I was enrolled in a Christian video homeschool program (A Beka), in which the teachers' lectures had been taped from a Christian private school in Pensacola, and I got them in the mail and would do the work which was graded through a correspondence method.

Every day the first class was a Bible study class. I remember studying this story in particular, because the teacher made a comment that really bothered me.

He was discussing how the sentence, "Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths," doesn't necessarily specify that they were mauled to death--the word "maul" doesn't always describe fatal injuries. He mentioned that some Bible scholars contended that the bears must have only injured some of the children, and not killed them, because to think of killing them for poking fun at someone would be too severe and unjust an overreaction to attribute to a Loving God.

Then he made this comment (it's been a few years, but if this isn't an exact quote it's at least very close): "But I'd like to think that there were some empty seats at dinner at those youths' houses that night."

Even as a brainwashed young Christian, the thought of someone liking to think about children (possibly, ones around my age at the time!) being torn to pieces by bears because they offended the wrong guy was unconscionable to me. I did a lot of thinking about what type of premises and psychology could lead a person to say a thing like that, and I learned a lot about the naked truth and often hidden or premises of the Judeo-Christian religion along the way! [My conclusion: this religion in many instances embraces a gleeful rebellion against justice and reason in favor of the absurd (in this case, as in countless others, the morbidly absurd and ethically demented), in a hopeless and chronic psychological rebellion against reality].

[“Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand”]

I picked up this book the other day. I’m a quarter of the way through it, and the book’s thesis is still unclear to me. In particular, there is a piece by Camile Paglia, who is not only non-feminist, but has an embarrassingly poor understanding of Objectivism.

This book is actually part of a whole "Feminist Interpretations of..." series. There is a Feminist Interpretations of Kant, and Nietzsche, Plato, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Aristotle, etc.

Apparently, being a feminist or an expert in regards to the philosopher in question are not prerequisites to contributing to these books.. ::shrug::

Well, she and Peikoff both addressed this.

Reference?

[Re-reading the Fountainhead]

I understand what Wynand was saying to Dominique.

I reversed it because he brought up the quest for another self-concept and that if you are trying to reach it - obviously you are not there yet.

I never thought of self-concepts: self-respect, self-assurance, self-esteem as final and never lost ones achieved. I think of them more like psychological states which require continuous nurturing. I have to think about this some more.

I don't think Ayn Rand was trying to state, as a general principle, that self-concepts are final in this excerpt. I think she, and the character Wynand, were both trying to say something more specific about Dominique's character. In the context of the kind of person Dominique was, and the specific choices she was making, it was clear that she could never achieve self-contempt. Wynand--speaking somewhat ironically--compares her to the type of person who seeks self-respect and lacks it. I think that it's significant that Wynand didn't say that the meaning of a quest for self-respect implies that the person will never achieve it, but only that he lacks it; whereas, he doesn't say that Dominique merely lacks self-contempt (she says that), but that she'll never achieve it.

I think Ayn Rand is trying to show that Dominique's quest for self-contempt was *more hopeless* than a typical pathetically self-contemptuous person's quest for self-respect (which might be, but, I would assume, is not necessarily always futile).

[Ethical Speaking]

Not surprisingly, all of this is sprinkled with quotes from Kant.

Did they quote any other philosophers? ..Was the implication that Kant was in agreement with the Sophists? That would be kind of amusing.

[The Mystics of Muscle]

I've not had much training in philosophy aside from Objectivism (and Christian theology very early in my life). My studies are the sciences and engineering, so I must ask you what would make people think this way?

I think the most concise answer can be found in Ayn Rand's essay, "For the New Intellectual." For a much more detailed, and quite fascinating account, I recommend Dr. Leonard Peikoff's History of Western Philosophy lecture series (the latter is quite expensive, but if you are interested in starting a campus club for Objectivism, or joining one if there happens to be one at your school already, then you can have access to it for free).

I am pleased to meet you all.

Likewise. : )

[Indiana Jones 4]

Hermann Hesse?

Now Victor Hugo I agree with.. I don't think there's any question that Hugo is better than LOTR or HP. But Von Mises.. Did he ever even write any fiction? If not, you could hardly say his books had better plots than LOTR or HP.. They didn't have any plots at all, being non-fiction books.

[He's everywhere]

That's the point... Look at where it says "for example"

Ohh, okay.

[Indiana Jones 4]

Oh, I never read the books either. From what I've heard, there isn't much of interest in the storyline, namely due to the magic which predominates these stories. I take CGI to be the only value they have as movies, but it is essentially the magic that bothers me. So I've decided not to waste my time. Compare these books to Ludwig von Mises, Victor Hugo, Herman Hesse, and Sartre or movies like A Lion in Winter, Five Easy Pieces, etc. Even if these turn out to have poor content--which I doubt--they are such a part of the intellectual lexicon that I can hardly doubt that Harry Potter and LOTR could take priority.

...As someone who has read LOTR and Sartre, I can say that LOTR, as well at The Hobbit, are at least ten thousand, but possibly as much as several million times better than Nausea and anything else by Sartre, both from a literary standpoint, and in the quality of the ideas.

I don't even think LOTR is that great. But it does have a plot, and it's even slightly romantic. And I think the movie adaptation is pretty good, beyond just the special effects. But I don't think I've seen the other movies you mentioned. LOTR isn't the best movie ever, but both it and Harry Potter were fun (for their plots *and* the special effects, and other things including the music and the acting) and I think they were worth watching (i.e., I don't regret watching them). LOTR I like partly because I loved the books when I was a kid. Harry Potter I liked even though I haven't read it yet.

[He's everywhere]

Do you spot it?

http://www.shop.com/amos/cc/main/ccn_login/ccsyn/260

It's always nice to run into things like that

I'm not registered at shop.com. What is it?

[Indiana Jones 4]

I find it a tad ridiculous that you are accusing LotR of being "an empty husk of a movie" that "depends on wowing its audience with CGI" when you have admittedly not seen it.

I find it *extremely* ridiculous. Especially since you (Aleph) omit whether you think that the books are plotless, and the movies therefore plotless in turn, or whether you think that the books have good plots that the movies omit in favor of special effects.

By the way, are there any movies with CGI that you do like.. Or do you automatically assume every movie featuring CGI to be crap without seeing it?

[centennial edition books?]

That makes more sense, because my TF and WTL both say that.

Yeah, it's to commemorate AR's centenial.. They did a special printing of a lot of her books, and there were also a bunch of special lectures and parties and other events to celebrate it.

[My music available on Myspace.]

I knew it! I knew I had an attention disorder! I have the rest of the symptoms as well: inability to focus on homework assignments, inability to do boring tasks or to listen to something boring. I am a classic fit .

You might talk to a psychiatrist then.. There are some amazing drugs on the market for ADD.. Taking Ritalin, Adderall, or Concerta are the equivalent of putting on glasses for me, for my whole mind. They also make me much more alert than coffee, without the jittery side effects of caffeine (they're all amphetamines).

Definitely not objective, it is subjective, in the same way that your sensation of how much time passes by is subjective and may depend on the activity you're doing ("time flies by when you're having fun").

This perception of the "pace" of the "outside world" also changes with mood and external conditions such as weather/time of day. For me the day has a much faster pace than the night, and a sunny day has a faster pace than a rainy day.

Yeah, I think I understand what you're getting at..

What do you mean by that?

I'd like to make more songs set to the pace of the outside world.. I know a lot of my songs as well as a lot of my mental habits are geared more towards introspection. I want to make more music for enjoying the world outside, too. A lot of 1920's music is like that for me.. I've been studying and trying to learn to play in that style for a while now. It's a lot of pretty complicated theory and difficult finger-work for guitar and piano, but I expect that when I finally master it, and integrate it with what I already know about tone and so forth, it will be way better than anything I've done so far.

lol!! I don't think so Bold... Was this intended to be a joke?

Maybe it is easier to engage in thoughts about the "inner world", but it is more difficult to have those thoughts in focus, conscious and organized than thoughts about things you perceive with your eyes.

Ha.. Sort of a joke.. But maybe there is something to it.

The ideal would be an ability to think of all your "inner world thoughts" in an organized, conscious manner when it is possible to analyze them.

I think it is more difficult to think clearly about the reasons for your emotions, than think clearly about the rout of the car which you see in the street before you. The first requires more effort I think, and the second is clear without a lot of effort, but automatically.

I think both can be automatized only with practice.

Two misunderstanding (and a question):

1) I wasn't talking about your songs, I was talking about The doors'.

Yeah, I know. Riders on the Storm has lots of reverb, as do my songs, and I think that might be what makes the atmosphere seem strange, detached, and indistinct to you.

2) I need to phrase what I said better: by "clear and sharp sounds" I was talking about the melody more than about the sounds: about the combination and not about each specific note.

Hmmm.. In that case, I'm not sure why you think the sounds are not clear and sharp.. The melody seems to me to be rather easy to distinguish.. It's something you can easily hum to yourself in your head, and it's a memorable melody, which I would think would be impossible unless it were clear and sharp. Melodies that I would consider unclear and unsharp would be, for instance, free form jazz, or some type of random avant-garde classical music, that defies tonality and even modality, and goes off in every direction without any distinguishable pattern.

The exact distinction between tonality and modality remains an elusive subject for me.. Every time I think I understand what is supposed to be the difference, I read another explanation or interpretation of it that makes it seem like I was wrong about their definitions and what makes a piece tonal vs modal. But I *think* that both that Doors song at least several of the songs I posted are modal.. Which might lead to less distinct melodies than tonal music. But... That's just kind of a semi-educated guess.

3) What is a reverb? is that like an echo?

Yes.. But it's an indistinct echo. It's not like, if you shouted from the mountains, "HELLO..hello...ello...llo....lo..." But more like the echo you hear when you're in the bathtub, or in a sports arena, where the sound just kind of keeps going, and fades off into a whisper-y kind of ambient remnant of the original sound.

Actually, one of my top favorite musicians and producers, Robin Guthrie of the band Cocteau Twins (the originators of a style of music that people sometimes refer to as "dream pop") says that he hates reverb. He says, if he ever wants to have an echo sound, he will use delay instead.

Delay is a more distinct type of echo.. More like shouting from the mountains. It was originally achieved by recording the sound onto a 1/4'' tape in real time, and looping it, so that the sound keeps repeating (the speed and duration of the repeats are adjustable). Now they can do this digitally, too. Today, I've been listening to Cocteau Twins with this in mind, and I think I might start using delay instead of reverb, too. Maybe my songs won't sound quite so escapist or surreal that way.

Holly cow, no!

I said "drugs can cause exactly this: to blure one's perception of reality and instead [make one] focused on some illusions or inner thoughts"

There is an "or" between illusions and inner thoughts.

Oh.. but there's also an "instead" between "reality" and "inner thoughts."

Fantasy art can be good if there is some idea which is clear and is centered in the painting.

I hope this doesn't offend you but to me Bonus sounds like it lacks that certain clear idea or motive in the core of it. I'll try listening to it again though and see if I missed something.

Hmmm.. maybe so. I'm going to put some more thought into the technical idea behind the melody and voice leading, and maybe I can think of some improvements to make it make more sense. The note "e" is very important, but it's not in the key of E major.. hmm, I think it's E Lydian, at least for the first part.. The truth is, if the melody is supposed to be the central idea, I haven't thought that out extremely well yet. It was kind of spur of the moment/improvised. Actually, I'd started out playing one of my other completed songs, and I messed up on part of it and that came to me. Still, there's something about it that really captures my imagination. (Oh, not offended, btw, I think you have a point.)

[My music available on Myspace.]

I like the music, Bold.

Thanks. : )

[My art]

Got something new to show off: Posing Naked

I really like this. Your newer stuff seems to have much better proportions than some of the older sketches on your site. That's an interesting pose, and a great facial expression. I like the shading on the breasts, too.

[My art]

I'm going to be practicing drawing nudes (women, of course).

Ah, I came to this thread to ask if this was intentional, and here you've said it.. But why do you only do nudes of women and not of men? Do you not find the naked male form to be beautiful, too?

[My music available on Myspace.]

Yep. Disobedient enough to not even think about what I expect .

Ohh, what did you expect me to think?

Found a perfect video clip to explain the similarity: Riders on the storm. This song has that strange atmosphere that I was talking about, and also that feeling of being very disconnected from "the outside world".

Well, that's interesting, because that is precisely the song that comes to my mind when I think of The Doors. In fact, it's been playing off and on repeatedly in my head since you told me you thought we were alike. I think that my songs and that song are alike, and strange, in the sense that they're not quite rock, pop, or blues--they're strange in the sense that they don't fit into a familiar genre or the familiar set of emotions those genres have trained people to relate to music. They're also both intense without being abrasive.

Amm, more like the first. I'll explain what I mean: Think of times when you find yourself dreaming of something or thinking about it, and you become so focused on it, that you forget where you are and what you are doing there... for example, it happens to me when I take the bus or train, I might get so caught up in my thoughts that the images outside pass me by and I don't notice them, and sometimes I would even almost forget to get off at my station because of it.

Yeah, that happens to me whenever I don't take my Adderall. They say it's ADD. : )

The "outside world", is the immediate reality that I am in: the stores and people outside, my goal (why I am on the bus, where I am heading to), and also the fact I have assignments to do for tomorrow, the details of getting out of the station and getting back home. The outside world has a rather fast pace, and it's perception is clear and sharp (as opposed to vague).

The outside world has a fast pace? How do you determine this? Is it the same tempo on a rainy day as a sunny day? Does it change with seasons, or on weekends, or at night? Is it objective, or does it depend on your state of mind? I'd like to write some more extrospective songs.

The perception of the inner world is (for me) more slow, less clear (because I can't use my vision to perceive it, but instead I need to use my imagination and memory), sometimes it involves some subconscious content which connects my more conscious thoughts together, so overall it is less "sharp".

Oh.. Maybe my extrospection is less clear because I need glasses. I've needed them for years, but I haven't had optical insurance. My perception of my inner world seems much more distinct by comparison--it doesn't require nearly as much concentration to bring it into focus.

So The doors song that I link has exactly that thing: that act of looking inside and getting lost in one's imagination and inner world. The pace is different: much more slow, the sounds are different, less sharp and clear...

The sounds in that song don't seem sharp or clear to you? You know what I think it is.. It's the reverb. I use lots of reverb in the songs I've posted (*especially* bonus), and so do they in this song. Reverb is an effect that simulates the type of echo you would hear in a concert hall or a cave, or even a small room, depending on the type used. Originally, reverb was generated by playing the sounds through a spring or a metal plate, but I use a digital reverb. Some distinction can be lost with a lot of reverb, in a certain sense, but other aspects of the tone can become more distinct.

I also find this specific song by them very interesting: it feels like looking at a riddle when I listen to it, as if the writer of the song thought of the meaning of life, and thought of something which I understand but cannot put into words.

I find the connection between music and the actual ideas behind it so very interesting. It is teasing, because as I listen to the music it makes me think of certain ideas which I am unable to fully put into words, and I feel compelled to solve the riddle in it.

Yeah, I think I know what you mean--although I've never listened to the lyrics, it does kind of sound like that.

First I'll explain why it made me think of drug use: take the song that I linked: the reason why it makes me think that whoever wrote it must have been taking drugs is because of how much it is remote from "the real world", and drugs can cause exactly this: to blure on'e perception of reality and instead focused on some illusions or inner thoughts.

The implication in this statement is that one's inner thoughts are not real. Is that what you meant?

Since a certain drug can cause the same "mood" or "sensation" for different people, the mood of the song might be affected by the drug greatly, thus causing songs by different artists, who took the same drug, to sound similar. But I still think that the style of art will always depend primarily on the artist's full "sense of life".

I think sense of life might even effect the moods and sensations of certain drugs.

Huh. Interesting that you would write the melody first and then the lyrics. It seems like the right order to create music to me, because I always thought that the "soul" of a song exists in it's melody more than in it's lyrics, in the same way that a person's character is more about the ideas they hold subconsciously and the emotions that come from them, than about their explicit, declared philosophy.

Yeah, maybe a more skilled lyricist and songwriter could write a fully integrated song by making up lyrics first and then the song (or by making a song inspired by an old poem, like Carmina Burana or something), but I'm not quite that talented yet. Eventually I'd like to try it!

It's not a nightmare, but it makes me feel lost.

Hmm.. But don't you like some elements of fantasy in art? Why does the creator of Lost in Jungle and Woman in a Dark Garden feel uncomfortably lost when she hears this song?

[The Money Masters]

An interesting thing that I recall even Alan Greenspan admitting, is that an economy based purely on paper can work, as it has been in America since 1963.

Could you provide a reference for this? What do you think he meant by saying it can "work"?

[Indiana Jones 4]

To speak to Moose's words on religiosity in the movie, I actually hate (n.b. hate) The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter for their mystical elements--as well as being largely CGI-drive, plotless, empty husks of movies. I can generally overlook a few off-handed remarks about religion, but as soon as it plays a palpable part in the metaphysical assumptions of a movie I begin to grow disintersted. When it dominates the movie, I couldn't care less about the film.

Do you feel the same way about the books, or do you think these movies exaggerate the mystical elements in the books?

[Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand]

That's a standard counter-reply to any free posting. Given a choice of paying $23 for the video, or watching it for free, what would you do? What would most people do? I think most people would take the free copy, and would see no reason to pay money for something that they can get for free -- wouldn't that be altruism?

There are several significant differences between owning a VHS copy of an interview and watching it on an online sight on which it is posted. For instance, you can watch the VHS on your TV, whereas you can only watch the online video on your computer (unless you have your computer linked to your TV, or have the Internet on your TV, which most people don't). Also, you know that you'll have the VHS forever or until it brakes, whereas the Youtube video could disappear at any time. Besides that, some people get selfish pleasure from owning an official copy of a commercially released, professionally mastered video, with a professionally designed case to display on their movie shelf; which is a significant reason why people buy VHS movies and DVD movies, rather than simply recording them on a blank tape or disk when they come on TV.

We're looking at default assumptions, not universal rules. Are you claiming that it is reasonable to assume that at least 50% of the commercially produced online content at YouTube is legal?

Hmm, I haven't honestly researched this or seen real evidence one way or the other.. My working assumption is that at least *some* of it is legal, rather than none. Frequently, when I've seen material that is clearly illegal show up (although I don't actively seek it out), it is gone and the user who posted it has his entire account suspended or deleted pretty quickly.

Am I the only one who is annoyed by the fact that she can't keep her eyes still?

Hmm, no.. Her eyes didn't annoy me at all. Actually, I really enjoyed watching her facial expressions. She revealed a lot of things one might not expect in a philosophical conversation of that sort--humor, kindness, and an almost childlike enthusiasm, for instance. She definitely seemed in a better mood than in the Donahue interview which was previously posted.

[Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand]

and the video is actively sold and recently licensed on VHS, so this undercuts the profits if the owner.

How do you know that in this particular case, the profits of sales of the interview are being undercut, and that the video's circulation on Youtube is not instead serving as free advertising that will increase sales of the VHS? I don't know one way or the other, but as I've heard of the latter scenario being the case for similar things, I just wonder how you know that it is as you say (i.e., is it based on actual evidence, or just an assumption).

On the contrary, I would assume that no commercial produced videos posted on YouTube are actually legal.

But that assumption would be false. There are commercially produced videos posted on YouTube that are legal, and sometimes even ones posted by the actual copyright or license holders.

[Indiana Jones 4]

They'll never have any real power again, but I don't think we'll ever be totally rid of the Nazis.

Why not, though? There are many other political ideologies which have risen to prominence in various parts of the globe and then vanished, at least for the most part if not entirely. Why wouldn't that happen to Nazism?

[Question about Endurance]

You can always go on Strike...

Can one person go on strike? I think that's just called quitting. It's only a strike, I believe, if a group of people withhold their services, as a demonstration of the necessity of their efforts.

I don't think a student can technically go on strike either.. That's just called dropping out.

[The Money Masters]

For those interested in economics, this two-part discussion on the Federal Reserve and the dangers it poses to the American economy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...86947&hl=en

Ok, I watched the first five minutes. What is this? Based on what I saw, it seems to be headed in the direction of a Marxist criticism of the Fed as being too private, of all things. Who are these people, and what position are they arguing from, and why do you think this video is worth watching for those interested in economics?

[My music available on Myspace.]

Now don't laugh, but it's the same sort of strangeness of The doors, which makes me think that whoever did this music (which is you in this case) must have been taking drugs... (But I know you don't).

Lol, now how could expect me not to laugh? But then, you would probably expect me to be disobedient anway. : P

The Doors comparison is interesting, because I don't listen to them very often (or any other 60's music really) but I do like some of their songs. Hm, I wonder what similarities between my music and The Doors you are picking up on. For now, I'll just assume it's the "singer as sex icon" thing and move on. ; )

Do you think that taking a drug of a certain type necessarily causes different people to make the same type of art? Why would this happen?

All three songs have a certain tranquility to them, which I like. It seems like the music is about a personal experience which is very remote from the "outside world", if you know what I mean.

Hmm.. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Does "outside world" mean the way other people perceive the world, or the way the world really is? If it's the former, then I think you really appreciate what I'm trying to do. If it's the latter, although my music is (or tries to be) an idealized version of the way I experience things, I do my best to be honest, and not to get to a place that escapes or avoids the point. (I don't know if that made any sense; if not maybe I can restate what I meant better later).

I don't like the other two songs: Bonus and Souvenir. They make me feel like I'm lost in some strange world (or dream), and I can't see my way out of that place, and nothing is real anymore or tangible.

Hm, yeah, I think I agree with you about Souvenir. There is something wrong with it.. Actually, quite a few things I'm aware of; but also something more fundamental that I need to fix that I haven't quite figured out.. I like that you said "tangible," I think it needs something to make it more like that.. (Actually, I think the lyric "Stone statues on the ground" was a half-attempt at groping for that; but it's a problem in the song itself, not just the lyrics--the lyrics, like all of my songs, were inspired by the music).

I don't completely agree about Bonus though. There are some problems, and some work I still need to do on it; but I really like the basic idea, and I think the execution of it that comes across in that recording is decent. It is a dream, but I don't think it's a nightmare. I think it is at least approaching one of those dreams that's more vivid than waking life--one of the dreams in which your subconscious finally grasps or begins to grasp some interesting and deeply rooted issues that have been brewing beneath the surface for some time, and then it presents it to you in a manner which is so intense, that when you wake up, you feel inspired, and spend the rest of the day trying to understand the deeper implications of the dream, and trying to recapture that urgent, ecstatic emotion that encapsulated you when you first woke up. That's what I want it to be, anyway--because I love that feeling, and I'd love to be able to make other people experience something like that by listening to my song.. I at least want to make a song that can make me feel that way, when I listen to it. Another thing I like about Bonus is that I think the guitar sound which is playing the melody is pretty interesting--to me, it sound almost like a cello or violin. Could be better, though.. Especially the part at the end when it gets louder--that could be done much, much better. I like the chord progression on that part, but the melody is a little weak and maybe a little too "smooth jazz," or something (I was actually making this song up on the spot as I was recording it, so the melodies I chose weren't always the most intelligent, because of limitations in my performance as well as some of the theory).. I want to add some other instruments for that part too, but I haven't decided what yet.

I also thought that "Just burns" was a bit too repetitive: not a lot of change in the melody during the song.

Yeah, this version of it did come out that way.. I've been thinking the same thing when I listen to it. I have other melodies I do sometimes, but also the recording, arrangement, and the sounds I'm using have a lot to do with why it sounds so repetitive. Not to mention, my performance was a little half-assed; that's because this was actually my very first attempt at recording on my new multitrack, so I was in such a hurry to just get something down and see how it would sound, I think I was a little sloppy. Also, this song could really use some bass--I don't have a bass at my house right now, so I haven't been able to record one yet. I guess I could do it on a keyboard.. Hm.

Well, thanks for the criticisms, Ifat. It's interesting and very refreshing to get the reaction of an unusually intelligent as well as artistic and honest person to my music.

Looking forward to hear new stuff.

Good, me too! : D