Jump to content

ChristianRock

Members
  • Posts

    9,082
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChristianRock

  1. I recommend Christina Branz's "Vocal Warmups and Exercises" - on Amazon.com for 6.99 digital download. Two full CDs worth of vocal exercises. I've had vocal lessons with good teachers and this is the kind of stuff they have you practice at your lessons. I also have and recommend Ariella Vaccarino's "Voice Lessons To Go - V.1 Vocalize & Breath". 8.99 for the digital download at Amazon. That's actually the one I've used most. Got it before Christina Branz and I still use it - but it's because it's just a half hour packed with power exercises. It'll get your voice in shape.
  2. I cant really say that N5EX is the board where you can rely on good hammond and rhodes patches...there are a few decent jazz organs and a nice distorted patch in prg bank and even extensive editing wont really get you too far because samples are nothing to write home about...from my perspective Id say those sounds are most dated and no FX can fix them. Isn't the whole purpose of having a Hammond sound, to sound dated? But I see your point. For EPs and organs, it is going to suck compared to a Motif or Electro, especially if you are playing solo. But in a mix along with other instruments, I think the EPs and organs actually sound fine. Maybe I am not that picky with those sounds.
  3. "From today's perspective" is the type of statement that implies that synth engines are getting better as the years go by. I find a lot of people who would disagree with that. While the Oasys/M3 engine is a very fine sounding engine, I prefer AI2 synths to Tritons - they just have a more "open sound" to me. Plus, a lot of people seem to prefer older Rolands to the newer Fantoms for "warmth", and the JD990 for example is renowed for giving you an extremely pristine, high quality sound that is as good as anything Roland has put out ever since, if not better. So I respectfully disagree with that statement (not to mention that 2 months ago you were singing the praises of AI2 while now you bash on Korg just because you got a different synth as your main synth. Fair weather fan?)
  4. I actually do like the EPs and Hammonds in the NS5R. Good sounding (to me) and playable. Part of it, to me, is the AI2 engine which seems to make everything sound better than it should...
  5. I have the NS5R (N5 rack) and have bought the N1R recently (same ROM content and presets as the N5EX), but haven't received it yet. But the difference between the two (and between the N5 and N5EX) is only that the expanded ROM contains a new piano sample (the same as the Trinity, I'm told) and some electric pianos. Everything else is the same. So unless you are looking to make this your main piano sound, just go with the regular N5. (to clarify why I bought the N1R - the two racks are very different. N1R has arpeggiator and more knobs for editing)
  6. Well, perhaps, but you'd probably have to do something other than trying to tune it, to accomplish that
  7. I've tuned my piano a few times, to the point that I got satisfactory results from it. But it's a free crappy one that was given to me for free. The first time I did it though, I got a broken string and it cost me 60 dollars to replace it. Then I had a guy come in replace it and tune it. But then I went back to it and did it ever since and didn't have any problems. The only two damages you can do are: tune it so badly it will need 2-3 visits from the technician to tune it back to stability, and you can break strings. I use a tuner for all of the middle range of the keyboard, about 35-40 keys, and I tune the rest by ear. It is easier to hire someone though, if you do have the means. I've just got very limited financial resources...
  8. Why picking on mytee? Anyone who has a modular and a fretless bass can't be a bad person!
  9. You know, they had the FBI investigate the McCain and Palin rallies and they listened to hundreds of hours of recordings and interviewed a ton of people. They concluded that the whole "kill him" controversy was created by the media. I'm not seeing hardly anyone complaining about the result of the election in a nasty, disrespectful way. Even pighood, as pissed as he is, made sure to let people know that race didn't have anything to do with his frustration. If the positive aspect of this election was that a black man was elected, the negative aspect, to me, is that the media in this country has gone below 3rd world country levels of trustworthiness. The media has been absolutely pathetic.
  10. Oh, not everyone - I'm generalizing by geography. Yes, you are picking the geographic regions that didn't vote for Obama, so my point is completely valid
  11. So I guess it's not enough that Obama won by a landslide. It had to happen that the people who won now want to characterize everybody who didn't vote for him as a bunch of racists. Some people will never be happy, I guess.
  12. it could be a cultural thing.. one of the great ironies of our culture is that people will drive around in a jacked up pick up truck made in mexico and vote someone into office that will ship blue collar jobs overseas while claiming to be the last bastion of american values. I thought it was great when Toyota came into NASCAR and their spokesperson said "It was about time an american made car made its way to NASCAR". Because Camry is being made in America, yet the Ford Focus was being made in Mexico, the Dodge Charger in Canada and whatever Chevy name was being used at the time, wasn't being made in the US either... Anyway, I believe the greatest plus in this election was to see how far the US has gone regarding coming together as people regardless of race or background. That's something awesome to see, and I don't think race was that much of a factor because the racist whites were pretty much counterbalanced by the racist African-Americans and so the race was decided pretty much by what the people wanted to see politically, not racially. So to put a racial spin on the way the south voted when they voted consistently conservative for decades, is completely unfair and frankly, it's unecessary, given how Obama actually won a lot of those states that were deemed racist not too long ago. I wish there was a thumbs down here for these comments I'm seeing. Maybe it's hard for some to believe there's still political conservatives in this country? Edit: I was writing this as you were writing your post, carbon, it's pretty cool we were thinking about the same thing (regarding electing a black president being a huge plus for this election, regardless of the political spectrum).
  13. Not according to the map. Looks to me like the Midwest and the South didn't want a n----- for a President. Surprise. That's completely unfair of you to say. As if race was the reason that conservative people might have had not to vote for Obama. You, too, can't seem to be gracious in victory.
  14. Drool, let me just say that for a joke, that was so below your humor standard, I didn't even recognize it as such Awwww come on, give me a hug, you big ol' liberal you.
  15. Does that come from Jesus, or are you speaking for yourself? Can't you even be gracious when victorious? It's obvious my congratulations was nothing but that, and that I'm not trying to stir up trouble.
  16. Actually, I think this has been the best political thread we've had. Lots of stuff was talked about, nobody had to shut down the thread.
  17. I guess we'll have to wait just a bit longer for teh name-calling...
  18. You know, I just have to say that I think that this is totally uncalled for. I see this over and over again with you - you claim to have this personal relationship with god, yet you are one of the meanest people on this forum. I see it more like a warning... the guy seems to be living in his own little world... Like I've said before, I have peace with God, but I don't claim to be better than anyone or to have ceased from making mistakes. My family and friends say I'm much less mean than I used to be. Whatever that means... If it was offensive, I apologize and take that back.
  19. no- I am saying that is says one thing in some places and contradicts that in others- often in the same book! especially in the Epistles which alternately talk about universal salvation in one breath and in the next condemn the Roman's men/women/children to the Pit of Abaddon so the ONLY factor that matters is HOW and WHAT parts of the bible mankind has promoted in history- and the ideals of alms giving and brotherhood of all men and clean-slate redemption in the new Covenant don't even appear outside of Gnostic cults in any meaningful way until after Luther- most christians in history would call the New Covenant antichrist heresy! Sorry, you are just completely wrong, especially that last sentence. But whatever I say won't be considered anyway, so I won't bother. You go read the letter to the Hebrews, which has always been accepted by the church and never been considered heretical, and then you draw your own conclusions. I mean, even the catholic theology has always considered the new covenant to be valid throughout the centuries, they just added stuff to it (works and means of grace such as the 7 sacraments, prayers to the saints, purgatory, etc). Rejection of the new covenant was never a problem with the catholic church, and it certainly wasn't something that Luther had to point out. That the new covenant was faith-only and not faith+works though, that was Luther's main point. Also, read about the Church Fathers of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, St Augustine and so many others, and you'll see the New Covenant throughout their writings. You are just so wrong and so far out I'm not even gonna argue anymore. You refuse to accept that we christians read the bible and believe it, apparently - hence you disconsidering all it says about new covenant, and trying to convince me it's irrelevant I suspect that's a constant thing with you, though. You're one of those guys that I'm afraid I'm gonna hear about in the news someday, and not for good reasons.
  20. No, actually I'm not. I just think you're not following his argument. I read all of those posts, just chose not to respond until now. -D His argument is that the bible doesn't say something that it actually says, or that it says it but it's not relevant. I'm saying it's relevant to quite a few millions of people because the dispensation of grace a.k.a. new covenant is preached all over the churches. If you don't like what is preached, that's another story. It might be irrelevant to you, but to the christians, it's not.
  21. He's saying their perspective now is irrelevant to what occurred historically. Ie. a belief that evolved over time is now very different from what was originally proposed, so this new covenant vs. old covenant thing is a false dichotomy. -D I think you are doing what we call in Brazil "catch the train in movement and wanting to seat in the driver's seat". Go back and read some posts to know where this is coming from. He's basically accusing my interpretation of christianity according to his own biased standards, and when I point out what I actually believe (and which has nothing to do with what I'm accused of), first he says it's irrelevant, then he changes the subject to the middle-ages catholic church, which I have NOTHING to do with. And please, don't tell me two billion christians don't believe in the new covenant when you're not even a Christian and you have no idea what is preached in a Christian church. I do. And I won't attempt to make up stuff about hinduism (which I wouldn't anyway). Deal?
  22. again- that is 2 billion MODERN christians who all have had their beliefs nurtured after the age of Luther! the modern view of God and Man in direct communion is TOTALLY ALIEN to the vast history of the Church You never admit you're wrong, do you? Whatever way you want to pull it, 2 billion people + many more others in 500 years of the post-Luther church, is hardly "irrelevant". You can't accuse christianity and then completely dismiss our literal interpretation of the bible, and judge our actions by your own standards. That's just not fair.
  23. why do you think that I don't? I studied the Bible- I did not follow it's primitive and highly inconsistent ideologies the 'New Covenant" is rather irrelevant historically considering that the WHOLE Bible is used throughout history as political tool- and almost always it is Old Testament ideas that are employed- not the socialist love-in of Shem Yehshua- even at the start of Christianity the ideals of the New Covenant where only mentioned when convenient- in one passage joyously offering salvation for all- and in the next giddily predicting the utter destruction of whole peoples- the new Covenant doesn't have much of a track record- for instance for several hundred years after the new Covenant salvation only took the shape of The Question: salvation after the Strappado!!! LOL "Irrelevant"? 2 billion Christians disagree. You're just bringing in more of your I'm-so-much-better-than-everybody, what-I-say-is-the-law-even-though-it's-just-stuff-I-make-up kind of talk.
×
×
  • Create New...