Fell off the World Cup wagon for a week - have seen a few games, but I've been pretty distracted by real life. I will get back to it. Watching World Cup games, at the very least, makes me feel connected to the world at large, relieves me, at least momentarily, from my perpetual alienation, and I really need that feeling, especially now.

I quit one of my jobs recently. It was the one that was causing me the most unhappiness, the most stress, and the one that was distracting me during my free time. This job was also the one that provided me with the bulk of my income. 

Over the last few weeks, I've been through a lot mentally. I've been hyperactive, jubilant, relieved, relaxed, complacent, lazy, worried, and consumed by despair. This job took up a huge amount of space in my mind, and leaving it has unleashed a lot of emotion, both positive and negative.

The process of self-discovery is ultimately the process of figuring out what can be changed and what will always be the same. It's not easy. Because, theoretically, everything could be different, but so could nothing. To what extent are characteristics truly fixed, and when does one choose to try and change oneself versus changing external circumstances?

I may never know all of the answers, both generally, and specifically, but I am starting to feel sure of one thing: I am not one who can keep work and life separate. I have to do something I would do for free for money. Doing something I don't like to pay the bills... it's always the same: I am unhappy, I push myself harder and harder to be more disciplined, to stick with it, etc., and the harder I push, with more and more pressure, the more I retreat, the more I dissociate, the less I am "there". Towards the end of my time at my previous job, I was so vanished that I didn't even recognize people I knew when they would come in to the restaurant to say hello.

Ultimately, I am better off. But now I have to face the consequences of my actions. Between what was my second job and existing money in the bank, I can at least eat in perpetuity. I have at least another month of rent. I will find another job soon. There is no need to be concerned about me eating, about me facing homelessness, etc.

While I can merely survive, and will eventually thrive (relatively speaking - I'm still single, in a city I don't like, working in an industry that doesn't pay that well, far from making a living doing work that enriches my life, and far from most of the people, places and things that I care about), it will take me a long time to catch up to the damage I have done to my discretionary income by quitting a job without having another one (yes, an impulsive decision, but: see above, see the last year's worth of bitter, angry posts).

Now, "discretionary" is a hard word to define. Well, not really, but the size of a residence, the quality of food eaten, the amount expended on goods and services; the line between essential and indulgent is defined differently by different people.

This is all a preamble to the following: I have placed a donation button on this page. I could use some help right now, but the help I need is very specific and it might seem, depending on where you see the aforementioned line, that what I am asking for is too much or too little.

I have a very small bedroom music studio. I have some nice equipment, and some cheap equipment. To  some, it would be seen as an excessive amount of gear simply because it is possible to compose and record music without using all of the equipment I have. To others, it would seem to be a pitifully small studio. To me, it is almost exactly the amount of gear I need to make the music I want to make. 

Because I have never made that much money, virtually everything I own was purchased used. In some cases, it was because a certain piece of gear was the only one that would make or process sounds in the way I wanted. In other cases, it was because purchasing used would provide me access to gear that could perform at a high level without compelling me to spend at a high level. Finally, in other cases, it was simply because I didn't have the money to buy something better.

Virtually every single piece of gear I have has been in for repairs. Maintaining my studio has been like a game of whack-a-mole - as soon as something has come back from the shop, something else has needed to go back in. This process, of constant research, of bargain-hunting, of searching for parts, of endless trips to repair shops, has been emotionally draining to say the least, and I've been going through it for five years now. For the most part, I have skipped vacations, avoided nights out, etc., just to try and realize my dream of making the music I hear in my head, and this process has almost convinced me not to bother making music anymore. It's only because I am finally, mercifully, almost done, that I can even continue to hold on.

I have placed the donate button on this page to obtain assistance in finally completing my studio because completion is almost in sight. Sort of. Ultimately, I will never be finished. There will always be another cool pedal to try out, another synth to play with, etc., and yet the list of essentials, the things I simply need to be there when reached for, is almost complete.

So… what do I need?

Well, there are two things:
1. Realistically, I don't expect a lot of donations, but it would be nice if I could pull off getting the three pieces I have in for repair out of the shop. I have a synthesizer, a sampler, and a delay unit waiting for me eight miles away, and I don't have the cash to retrieve them. I also have another sampler (soon to be sold, see below) and another effects unit that need to go in. Total cost is around $450, not including the repair of the second set of devices (just the deposit).

2. In the fantasy-land that exists in my head, a world in which I actually feel like I could matter to a lot of people, I imagine myself actually getting enough money to buy the drum machine I have my eye on. Drums have always been the weakest part of my studio, and, so far, none of the machines I have used have provided me with satisfactory results. My most recent solution was the purchase of a vintage sampler which has a great sound but, besides the fact that it is now broken, it is a hassle to use. If you ever find yourself romanticizing the days of floppy disks, well, don't. The drum machine I want will make sampling and the storing of samples much, much faster. It costs… wait for it… $1,550.

I don't expect to make $1,550. There are, also, many, many much-worthier causes out there. I guess I just mentioned option two out of ludicrous hope, and also the knowledge that at least a few people out there have gotten large amounts of money together with crowd-sourcing. I'd much rather get 100 donations of $15 than a small handful of large ones. The way my mind works, if someone were to actually give me $1,550, I would feel guilty. Towards that end, of conserving my sanity, and also because I can't promise that anyone will get anything in return at all beyond a thank-you email, I want to specifically request, on the off-chance that someone would actually consider making a larger donation, that no donation should exceed $77.50, or 5% of the larger total.

I feel weird even doing this, but I need to move forward with my life. It's unfortunate that that has meant leaving another job. I'd rather work and have the money. Beyond equipment, there's travel, there's clothing that fits, there's an apartment with enough space for a sofa, there's, well, the future, and it all has to wait.

As for the donation button, assuming everything works out for the best, well, it may stay up (there are always more books and records...), but I can't foresee ever asking for a large and specific donation again.

Thank you for your time.


WC2014 Days Three, Four & Five: Ghana vs. USA, etc.

Day 3 continued:
I didn't get a chance to see the Ivory Coast beat Japan, though the highlights seemed to suggest that either team could have won. Group C seems very open and possibly very weak - we'll see…

Day 4 (day off - no games watched):
France, perhaps more than any other "big" team, and regardless of who they were playing, needed a big win in their first match after the debacle of 2010, and they delivered. I don't necessarily regret not seeing this match, but I look forward to seeing them play further into the tournament, and am also excited to see the team they beat, Honduras, take on Ecuador. In my mind, second place is still very open in this group and, Switzerland's victory not withstanding, the aforementioned match will be the crucial one.

As for Argetina's victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina, well, no surprises there. It was B+H's first match in a World Cup final. They face what will probably be a tough match against Nigeria next, and it will be interesting to see who prevails in that one.

Day 5:
Iran and Nigeria played to the first draw of the tournament. I didn't see it.

Germany destroyed Portugal in another surprising blowout of a well-regarded team (perhaps everyone from the Iberian peninsula should get together for a drink and commiserate). Due to the marvels of technology, I was almost tempted to watch this one a few hours after the game actually ended but… eh.

I did, however, watch Ghana lose to the United States, and I am... ambivalent.

Clint Dempsey scored a very early goal against a defense still gearing up from a starting whistle that had blown less than a minute earlier. Not to take anything away from Dempsey, but, well, um, ok, you know?

If I had started the match rooting for Ghana, it would have been hard to keep up my enthusiasm. Ghana's countless attacks throughout the game always ended in mediocre-to-embarassing last touches that highlighted, alternately, inexperience on the part of younger players and over-ambition on the part of their elders. In a World Cup that has proven to be almost overloaded with goals, Ghana's inability to finish could spell disaster for them already.

As for the United States, they played, well, better than I would have expected. I liked the sense of control in the midfield, and I feel that the defense held up well against Ghana's repeated attacks. That being said, Ghana's lack of goals were more down to their own bad decisions, ultimately, and not the American players. The rigorous way in which America's lines were held would have provided even more opportunities for more creative attacking players, which, given how many shots Ghana took, is saying a lot. I felt in many cases that the US was a bit clumped - any team willing to spread the field against America will find the angles to beat them. All credit to Tim Howard for making some excellent saves (some of which he shouldn't have had to) and to Kyle Beckerman (grudgingly, given my prejudice against white guys with dreads). Beckerman's playing, which was physical without being meanly-so, calm, and intelligent, was perhaps the highlight of the game for me. From what I understand, he's become a regular only under the leadership of Juergen Klinsmann, and, well, more than most of the players, and the decisions they make on the field, I trust Juergen, at least so far.

Of all the reasons I don't cheer for team USA, neither knee-jerk hatred nor trendiness are on that list. I wish Jozy Altidore a speedy recovery. If I had a (nationalist) heart to break, watching Altidore clutching at his hamstring would have broken it...


WC2014 Day Three: Italy vs. England, etc.

Not much to say regarding Columbia's victory over Greece, nor Costa Rica's victory over Uruguay. Because of the latter result, Group D will be more interesting. That's the gist of anything else you'll read about that game.

As for the big one, well. The first half was good. I was excited about the energy coming from England's younger attacking players, especially Sturridge and Sterling, and Wayne Rooney's assist was especially elegant. That begin said, I didn't find it an especially involving match after the initial two goals, and the second half, for all the near-misses on the part of England… well, that's the thing… were they really all that near? I would have rather seen England forcing the opposing keeper to make a save, even an easy one, rather than the litany of shots well over or well wide of goal. Ultimately, it was a confident and patient match by two teams that expect to make it out of group, and who, by the end, seemed to just want to make it out of the heat even more.

WC2014 Interlude #2: OCD and ADD and, wait, what was I talking about?

What a difference a few years make. Faster internet connections, better video archiving, no-fuss VPNs - it all means I can watch every game of this World Cup, at any time I want. I can even pause the live HD stream and take a smoke break. It's amazing. It's daunting.

It's too much. It's just the group stage. I don't need to see all 64 games, do I? Do I? I don't. 

Calm down. Relax. Relax. Relax.


WC2014 Day 2: Spain vs. Netherlands, etc.

First off, I didn't see Game 2, during which, as you know, I'm sure, Mexico beat Cameroon 1-0. My impressions from the highlight reels are fairly straightforward. A few more controversial calls to be added to the list, two of which disallowed goals. It looks like Cameroon had a few good chances, but, ultimately, Mexico prevailed after one clean goal around halfway into the second half. I could read someone else's commentary and then comment on that, but there's no point. Ultimately, the highlights are just that, and it really takes watching a full game to understand what actually happened; the pace, the rhythm, the sense of control, or lack thereof, exhibited by both teams. Sometimes goals are aberrant in relation to the actual feel of the match, sometimes goals are logical outcomes.

The real story so far today is, of course, Game 3, which matched defending World Cup champions Spain against the team they beat in the finals back in 2010, the Netherlands.

At the risk of using up all my cliches early in the tournament, I'll just say it now: it was a tale of two halves. I doubt anyone could have imagined going into the second half, with the score tied 1-1, that Spain would receive the drubbing they did by the end. But let's not get too far ahead.

The first half was a masterpiece of tightly-played and unforgiving European football. Each time a pass, or even a touch, was done less that perfectly, possession seemed to change, yet it was hard to tell at times whether both teams were holding out for a draw or if both teams were simply playing patiently, waiting for their opportunities. The ball, the pace, the use of space throughout the pitch, all first-rate on the part of both teams, with the edge in terms of time of possession and self-posessedness going to the Spanish.

A few early fouls by the Dutch reminded me of why I found them so disappointing 2010:  even as they advanced all the way to the finals, I couldn't quite get over the brutish, hard-fouling way in which they did so. That year's final included nine bookings of Dutch players.

The tension of the first half was finally broken by yet another controversial call, as Costa's well-sold reaction to a tackle granted Spain a penalty kick and their first (and only) goal of the match.

At this point, the tone began to shift, albeit slightly. The Netherlands attacked more, but it was still the same two teams, playing the same game. That is until the Dutch broke free of Spain's seemingly-impenetrable midfield and Blind, racing down the field, heeded Van Persie's skyward-pointed finger and fed a beautiful ball to the head of the latter, resulting in one of the more perfectly-excuted goals likely to be seen this year.

Heading into the half, the score was 1-1, but all of the momentum was on the side of the Dutch.

During halftime, the commentators at the CBC wondered whether the two teams would play for a draw and noted that it would be a result both teams would be happy with. Of course this line of thought made sense, but, when one really thinks, not at all.

Simply put, the Netherlands: lost to Spain 1-0 in the final four years ago, totally fell apart at Euro 2012, knew they were facing Brazil in the round of 16 should they place second in their group, and had finally broken the rhythm of Spain's passing. If you were them, why not win?

And so the second half. I won't recount it all, or even any of it, really. Suffice it to say, the Netherlands came out of the locker room with the right sort of aggression and the Spanish fell apart. Towards the end, it was hard to tell the difference: were the Dutch trying to run up the score, or were the Spanish making it too easy on them?

I've inferred from the in-game commentary, that the big concern for Spain, who have dominated international football for a few years now, is the advancing age of many of their players. It may be true, but I don't think that the flexibility and stamina missing from the Spanish side today was physical, but rather mental. The Netherlands broke the Spanish style, and the Spaniards never bothered to try and adapt. They kept playing their game, waiting for mistakes that never came, expecting that they'd get the ball back, and that they'd be able to keep it. They came off like a DJ with his head down, playing records to what was a packed dance floor, who hasn't noticed that everyone has left.

I've decided to do the posts by day rather than by game. More on that later.

Suffice it to say, I'm now watching the last minutes of Chile vs. Australia. I didn't watch the whole thing, and, to be honest, it's a bit much to watch every game. I don't have a lot of better things to do, just not nothing else.

Chile has just scored, making the game 3-1 in their favor, and the match is now over over.

Initially, Chile came out of the gate with such intensity and speed that I began to feel as if I didn't really know much about football, that if a team could play like that, well… I was amazed, almost inspired. Of course, I wasn't taking into account Australia's relative inexperience, and, eventually, when Chile slowed down, well, I realized that for all their training (and all the pizza and cigarettes I consume), our lungs are still the same organs on some level.

The match itself was well-played, though a bit frantic at times. The energy of young teams trying to prove themselves now burdened by the knowledge of the Dutch assault on Spain, and that, yes, this will be a tough group. It will be interesting to see Chile come into contact with a more deliberate style. Spain vs. Chile will be a good one to watch.


WC2014: Interlude

I didn't mention this earlier, but, yes, I am aware of what has been happening in Brazil, what goes on in FIFA, etc. I just don't know that my boycotting watching any of the games could actually accomplish anything. Have you considered it? What do you think?

WC2014 Day 1: Brazil vs. Croatia

Some teams must beat their opponents, others themselves.

Brazil, a strong contender at any international tournament, this year with the advantage of playing at home, must be considered the favorite for victory in the 2014 Word Cup. Given just how many stars are aligned to their benefit, but also given the tremendous pressure that the assumption of domination carries, it seemed somehow appropriate that the first score in their first match was an own goal. 

The match started with the typical jitters. First game, first day, and first World Cup for at least two of the players who proved to play a decisive role in Brazil's victory. The early minutes were indecisive to say the least, barely played at the typical level of either (or any world-class) team. Then, in the eleventh minute, the own goal, a deflection off the foot of Marcello, who was racing to defend against an excellent Croatian cross. Had Brazil become deflated after this event, any commentator could have been provided an easy symbol, the own goal standing for a collapse under the extreme pressure that the Brazilian team faces. But this was not to be. In fact, the goal seemed to have a calming effect. Finally, the game could start.

The initial stages of the first half were characterized by aggressive Brazilian attempts to even the score, and all credit is due, at least in this portion of the game, to the level-headedness of Croatian keeper Pletikosa, whose saves at crucial moments both helped to undermine the aforementioned Brazilian attack and provided the basis for the sporadic yet dangerous counter-attacks mounted by the Croatians. The next goal of the match, a well-placed shot to the corner by Brazlian star Neymar, evened the score, but did little to overcome the resolve of the Croatians, who continued to keep pace with the Brazilians even as their counter-attacking strategy left them without control of the ball for the majority of the match. 

Heading into the second half, it could have been, proverbially, anyone's game, and yet, in hindsight, it wasn't. Croatia's strategy was to attempt to make the most of a limited number of chances, while Brazil's was to maximize the number of chances in total, and the law of averages, at least this time, worked in Brazil's favor.

That's not to say the fight was over. After ten minutes of meandering play, the second half began in earnest, and the pace began to quicken as both sides sensed opportunity. Neither side could afford to let up; a draw was not in the cards. And it was, eventually, and forgive this segue, a card that would prove decisive as, in the 69th minute, contact between Croatian Lovren and Brazilian Fred resulted in a yellow card for Lovren and a penalty kick for Brazil. A controversial call to say the least, especially given the stakes. Regardless (or not), Neymar, with a near-save by Pletikosa notwithstanding, converted for Brazil and put his team ahead by one. It's here, in the 70th minute of the game, that I started to realize, and perhaps the Croatians began to sense it too, that, even though the score was 2-1, it was Brazil, in fact, who had scored all of the goals.

The last twenty minutes of the game were characterized by heavy attacking from the Croatians, and some agile counterattacking from the Brazilians, almost to the extent that one could describe the roles of the two teams being reversed from what they had been at the start of the match. The results, however, stayed the same. Croatia had a few close opportunities, including one involving another, well, arguable yet decisive call by the referee, but, ultimately, Brazil scored one more time, appropriately enough, or ironically enough, on a breakaway by Oscar, who took his shot at just the right moment, denying both the oncoming defenders behind him and the keeper in front of him the chance to make a play on the ball. That goal, in the 92nd minute, made the victory a decisive one instead of an ambiguous one.

Ultimately, the first match of the 2014 World Cup provided plenty of excitement and just a hint of controversy. While not quite playing with the absolute dominance demanded of them, Brazil showed at least that they do have the capacity to be the team everyone expects them to be, while the Croatian team, in their steadfast resilience, showed that they were capable of moving on from their group. While nobody will be surprised if Brazil wins it all, it may be that a few teams will find themselves at home, er, suprisingly prematurely if Croatia continues to play as they did today. It's going to be a good tournament.

WC2014: Preview

I had a lot of fun writing about the World Cup last time around and I plan on doing it again this tournament. As with the last time, I don't expect to see all the games, but I'll write what I can when I can.

My commentary, as before, will be from the perspective of someone who doesn't really follow soccer (football) outside of major tournaments, but who, hopefully, has a good sense of what is actually happening during a game. I don't know what to expect from individuals, or even national teams, outside of what can be learned from in-game commentary. But a good game is a good game, a bad one, well, bad. So I'll say my piece, and I'll have some fun.

I expect I will be watching most games at home. Without going into too much detail, even as I sit here in Providence, RI, my computer has, um, "somehow", found its way to London, so I'll be watching ITV's coverage online.

My thoughts on soccer haven't changed much over the years. Here are my prejudices, virtually unchanged from four years ago:

1. Screw The USA. Given my country's global dominance in so many facets of human existence, from war to blockbuster films to badly-roasted coffee, why bother longing for more? It's not a purely "Left" response on my part; putting aside drone strikes, it just seems more fun to watch other countries, especially smaller ones, get their chance, albeit within the restricted context of a soccer tournament, to have an outsized impact.

2. Brazil. It's always nice to think of the host winning, but I've always had an (ir)rational prejudice against this country's typical style of play. (EDIT: I know this seems silly but I have years of memories of games where the Brazilian strategy was basically "pass to the guy with one name". I know they've moved on a bit since then…)

3. Netherlands. Dissapointing show during Euro 2012 if I remember correctly. I've always enjoyed this country's typical style of play, the Total Football ideal, but this attitude seemed less prominent the last time around. We'll see…

4. Germany. What had been a stodgy team for years seemed to get a well-needed injection of youthful daring during Euro 2012. I'm curious.

5. England. In the same way that this country's music scene always seems to find a way to amaze me with its creativity, this country's soccer team always finds a way to amaze me with the creative ways in which they break the hearts of their fans. I know better than to get too attached emotionally now.

EDIT: 6. Belgium. A team off my radar, but after an evening of doing a lot more reading, well, I'm probably going to make a special effort to check them out this year. They're probably not off the radar of more committed spectators, but I'm getting the impression that they might yet still be somewhat of an unknown favorite, if that makes any sense.

That's all for now. Off for a quick lunch and then!


Taking A Break From Self-Pity

I'm more bored of it than you are, believe.

1) I've been thinking about Houllebecq again lately. Sadly, while most of the reviews I've read of him seem to mention his notoriety amongst the intelligentsia and the controversy he causes, well, nobody I've talked to in person in the last few years has actually read him, so. Yeah. I've been meaning to get my copy of Ben Jeffery's Zero book on him, but haven't yet (maybe I'll order along with Ghosts Of My Life when I have the cash). Until then, here's the best article I've come across so far. Mostly written for those who are familiar with the books, yet still comprehensible otherwise.

2) The article on Houllebecq mentions the quite-pertinent idea that no individual can live outside the historical circumstances in which he or she lives. It's important to keep this in mind when reading Richard Thomas on his idea of "No Concept Programming", which derides the post-ideological, catch-all nature of festival lineups. Perhaps the most important idea is that these varied lineups do reify capitalism's abstract concept of freedom-through-(consumer)-choice. So, in a sense, what seems to be post-idology is actually quite definable. It only seems different when the "products" are better.

I do think artists should be held responsible for their silence, especially in the avant-garde community, a world of people who know better but whose ties to the outdated narrative of Western art trap them into old models of subversion that, handily, are ripe for sponsorship (can anything actually be subversive if it doesn't subvert? I think the only way to actually be subversive is to find a way out of the supermarket completely, not to be a more "gourmet" product within it). There is no escaping history, true, but a better assessment of what has actually happened is in order. As long as we keep telling ourselves the same myths about the past, we'll never have the ability to change the future.

(Let's try this: what if Bohemia won and what we have now is the "victory" inherent in the last fifty or sixty years of development in popular music, broadly conceived? The article on Houllebecq makes it clear that a more "inclusive" version of the same world would not be better. Likewise, can we really argue that any art failed because it wasn't popular enough?)

I can't help but feel that corporate and state sponsorship is somewhat inevitable, even if it still should be resisted. In the same way that the state must both support "free enterprise" through subsidies (public works that facilitate commerce, bailouts, etc.) AND mitigate some of the damage done by these subsidies and their recipients through other subsidies (welfare, food stamps, health insurance, etc.), corporations dependent on aesthetic production, who exploit aesthetic production, must re-invest just enough of that money back into the production process in order to ensure that it can continue. It's not only because artists simply wouldn't make enough money otherwise: the demands of capitalism on the leisure time of the average punter must also make these festivals more alluring for those short on time and money but long on curiosity. Festivals are capital's solution to capital's problem.

(I can't help but think that, pathetically, Red Bull has done more good for electronic music than any other institution that has existed in the last fifteen years. But why?)

3) Oh do I have more to say? The last decent idea I've had recently: let's make a movie set in Nazi Germany in which nothing happens. Has it already been made? What's the point? I don't know, but it sounds intriguing.


Back To That Empty Space

Life Lessons

First off, I feel like I have finally become certain about two facts:

1. DJing is fundamentally conservative. At THIS point in history. More: ok.
So back when electronic music was an emergent culture, DJing was playing "those" records, the "right" records, for "those people", the "right" people. It was about consolidating shards of metal into a sword. Ugh. And yet I can't consider a better metaphor right now. Suffice it to say, consolidating and activating a cultural idea. What is/was so exciting about it was the feeling that, on the one hand, the records that one was playing were challenging, both aesthetically, and, more importantly, culturally, socially, politically, and yet, people were dancing. The pleasure of one, a critique of another.

And yet now, when it's not culture, post-ideology, when music is good taste and not bad, there's only two possibilities: lose the floor or lose your soul.

I remember a decade ago. Walking into a nightclub in Washington DC. The DJ was playing banging, militant techno at 150bpm to an empty floor. Idiot. Yes. I mean, you know, build to it, right? Kiss first before fucking. But now I feel differently. Actually, I have for a while, but now I am damn sure. Because that idiot playing at 150bpm, who probably wasn't invited back next week, well, at least, at LEAST, he fucking believed. He believed. He did. And so he was able to, at least, say, yes, well, I'm playing the right records, it's just the people who are wrong. That's the attitude. Because. Well, I saw a friend play tonight. And he made the compromise, and it still failed.

He was building it, building all night long. NYC house classics. Good cuts, obvious cuts, yes, but good, and well-mixed. And then. He played an acid house record. A new one. Well, it came out last year. New enough. And it all went to hell. Not an especially abstract acid record. A banger. Cleared the floor. And he freaked out. Then Human League then Prince then De La Soul. And nothing worked. And he felt bad. And he shouldn't have. He set up that acid record perfectly. 99th percentile. First-class-ticket-to-Berlin-and-a-prime-slot-at-Berghain perfectly. And people walked. And so you have to say: fuck people. Seriously. The right record is the right record. It is. And if you don't get it, fuck you.

Acid house is almost thirty years old. THIRTY. You are out to hear a DJ spin house and you don't get it. It's on you. It's on you. Fuck it. Play that shit. I'll dance. Don't care if I'm the only one. Rather right and alone then wrong and surrounded.

2. I'm always just going to be the person who talks to "that person", not "that person". All the people I know who can DJ think I am a good DJ, but nobody else does. All the people I know who can write think I can too, but nobody else does. It's likely that I will be celibate for the remaining 40+ years of my life and graciously thanked by countless couples for my excellent relationship advice. And I have to learn how to not feel hurt. Because. The right record is the right record. It is. And if you don't get it, fuck you.



I Love You

I love you.

I love you. Because.

You remind me of:

The reflections of streetlights

upon the leaves
of trees

indifferent to our cause.