DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Most musicians will tell you there are good days for tracking and bad days for tracking. I remember, back in 1994 or so when JAR was in the studio, one of the engineers made a passing comment about “one-take Jake,” the mythical musician who could nail his part on the first pass, with all the energy, magic, and spontaneity that that implies. The concept became a sort of grail, although I’m not sure any of us achieved it. I remember starting one song three times; I couldn’t even nail the first downbeat.

Digital recording has done for music what digital cameras have done for photographers; tape, like film, is free. So the material cost of doing 30 takes is a lot lower, and even if the time consumed is just as long, at least we’re not paying $100/hr.

But still, if you play something 30 times in a row, you won’t want to hear it again. Ever. Nothing robs a melody of its subtlety and passion like playing it badly a bunch of times in a row.

I was thinking about this the other day, at about take #12. My main musical collaborator, Andrew the six-fingered bassist, had pitched me a song we’d recorded rhythm tracks for in 2000. He’d ordered a dulcimer line, momentarily mistaking me for a composer. Despite my relative inexperience, though, I came up with a cool line for the verse. Andrew liked it. I liked it. The only problem was I couldn’t actually play it.

It was a 16th-note pattern that required crossing one hand under the other to hit the low A, blind, about a foot away from the rest of the melody. My success rate was about 50%. The strings on this dulcimer are less than an inch apart; even the pros have to watch their hands.

This provided little consolation, though. I gave up for the day before deciding that the best way to cope with my progress would be by putting a foot through the dulcimer’s soundboard.

The ultimate solution came in two parts. First I swapped right for left, relearning the pattern with opposite hands. Next I realized that the top half of the melody could be played lower on the instrument, physically closer to that hard-to-reach A. With that, and a night off, I was able to track the final version quickly:

Domino, final dulcimer take (verse 2, prechorus, verse 3, prechorus) (Copyright © 2005 matthew mcglynn)

The ATA flight to Maui offered “snack service.” The snack turned out to be a shrinkwrapped box of name-brand junkfood, a six-course feast of chemically-enhanced salted fats. Not that that prevented us from decimating it, of course; I hadn’t managed to convince myself that paying $9.99 for a plate of reconstituted eggs at the airport cafe would provide anything resembling sustenance.

Here’s a breakdown of what ATA considers a suitable snack:

The snack service was followed up with another snack, in case anyone needed a little refreshment, a little pick-me-up after becoming torpid and logy following the artificially-colored and -flavored assault of the first round. But this snack was nearly as bad: a 2-pack of cookies (refined flour, sugar, butter) and a foil pouch of pretzels (refined flour, salt, partially hydrogenated heart stopper). To be fair, the second round was healthier than the first, but only because it was just one-third the size.

So, altogether, less toxic than the stonner, but still not something you’d want to make a habit of. I was beginning to have lustful thoughts for those powdered eggs.

I became a customer of PhotoAccess.com in January, 2003, based on numerous positive reviews of their photo print quality and their ability to print 4.5''x6'' photos.

(Most digital cameras create images with a 4:3 aspect ratio. 4x6'' prints can’t fit the full 4:3 digital image — you’d have to either shrink the image, leaving white borders along the short sides of the print, or crop the long sides off the image. Or, print the full frame on 4.5''x6'' paper.

Some photos can be painlessly cropped to 3:2, but in my experience nearly half the shots I take actually work best at 4:3. I relied on PhotoAccess’ “6D” print size — which measured 4.5''x6'' — to reproduce these images.)

In March of 2005, PhotoWorks bought/assimilated/wrecked PhotoAccess. Print prices came way down — from about 42 cents a print to 19 cents — but the new ordering interface was confusing and difficult to use. The UI wasn’t bad enough to make me leave the site, but it was a sad step backwards considering how well the PhotoAccess site had worked.

But, this week, PhotoWorks removed the 6D print size option. This means that most digital images (which have a 4:3 aspect ratio) will have to be cropped or shrunk. The print is compromised in both cases.

It’s sad to see this devolution. PhotoAccess seemed to be a high-quality outfit with somewhat exclusive pricing. In contrast, PhotoWorks seems to be going after the mass market, and they’re shedding features and quality to do it. If my experience is any indication, they’re shedding customers too — I was once a fan and advocate of PhotoAccess; now I’m writing bad reviews of PhotoWorks for the world to see.

Also I’m looking for a new digital photo print service. I’ve found the Printers and Printing forum at dpreview.com, which should lead to some new vendor recommendations.

If you have a favorite, let me know.

UPDATE, 2006-05-01: I went with MPIX.com.

No, I haven’t been around here much lately.

There’s something new and exciting in the works. Something involving both fish oil and noni, which, if combined in a metabolic reactor, generate a colossal — well, I can’t talk about it. But rest assured, it’s going to be great. Despite the smell.

What part of “do not bend” did you not understand?