Saturday, June 30, 2007
Maxgrace.com: FAA and cell phones
Over at Maxgrace.com, Bill Giovannetti complains about OPCPC--Other People's Cell Phone Calls--in relation to a coffee shop, which in turn is a part of OPC--Other People's Craziness. Bill found out that the FAA is contemplating allowing cell phone use while in flight and he is adamently opposed in to it in light of situations that are not dissimilar to his coffee shop one. Read his words on this issue, Cell Phones on Airplanes? God Help Us All!; it is actually quite entertaining.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Emerging Women and Jesus Creed
Based on a post from Emerging Women, Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed posted about the idea of Christians living in such a way for a reward from God; i.e., as I have said before in my recent post, Pondering About Daily Devotions, doing devotions every day so that one's day will be better than if devotions were not done. The warning is clear: do we push for a reward-based Christianity, as aforementioned in my example, but in so doing create a superficial faith?
Theology Evolved: Thursdays are for theology
Over at Theology Evolved, Zach Tanksley's blog, he said a very creative and picturesque statement regarding interpreting the Bible from one's own point of view rather than from God's. The post is here; be sure to check it out.
I agree with the intention of his statement--we miss the full meaning of the Bible when we look at it simply from our own perspective. Typically, looking at Scripture through our own understanding leads to Scripture twisting, which is altogether worse than missing the point of what God intended because it results in the perversion and not only the misunderstanding of His Word.
I agree with the intention of his statement--we miss the full meaning of the Bible when we look at it simply from our own perspective. Typically, looking at Scripture through our own understanding leads to Scripture twisting, which is altogether worse than missing the point of what God intended because it results in the perversion and not only the misunderstanding of His Word.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Revver vs. You Tube
Revver is quite lovely. I never heard of it until a close friend mentioned it to me last week. I am using it to host all my videos for my Virtual Drum Lessons (virtualdrumlessons.blogspot.com) blog. I thought about using You Tube since I was ignorant of Revver; however, Revver allows for the creator of the video and the person who shares the video to be paid due to adds that are tagged onto the end of the video. I thought that would be a good way to help get money for better equipment for that blog, so I went with Revver. It turns out that there are other advantages with Revver over You Tube.
Sharing video can be done in several different formats, either in flash or in Quicktime, and still others. Movies can be downloaded by any visitor at the Revver site onto the hard drive. Little things such as these make You Tube a bit archaic in my humble opinion.
The question is, "Does You Tube offer these things, and if so, why was I not made aware of it?" I am quite technologically savvy, so if I was unaware of these options on You Tube, how much more unaware would one be who is not technologically savvy and using You Tube?
Sharing video can be done in several different formats, either in flash or in Quicktime, and still others. Movies can be downloaded by any visitor at the Revver site onto the hard drive. Little things such as these make You Tube a bit archaic in my humble opinion.
The question is, "Does You Tube offer these things, and if so, why was I not made aware of it?" I am quite technologically savvy, so if I was unaware of these options on You Tube, how much more unaware would one be who is not technologically savvy and using You Tube?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Christian Authority: experience or Scripture?
Not a few times have I heard the following phrase followed by some sort of rebuttal to a theological argument: "Well, in my experience . . ." It is apparent that Christians form their theology on their experience. Allow me to label this kind of theology as "experiential theology." Experiential theology is shaped, molded, adapted and constructed by one's own individual or communal experiences. Whatever someone experiences in life, at school, at home, at church, or in another country on a long-term mission will determine that person's theology. This fact may even be true of non-Christians, but that is not the subject of this post. This post focuses on Christians. Furthermore, this post focuses on experiential theology. However, it also focuses on theology that is based on Scripture, which I am calling, "scriptural theology." And finally, this post focuses on Christian authority--which theology should be the foremost authority for Christians, experiential or scriptural? Although everybody (I include myself) bases their theology on their experiences, as Christians we should be forming our theology on Scripture first and foremost. Christians should be scriptural first and experiential second when it comes to matters of theology.
For example, language recently came up in a discussion with another Christian. This other Christian based her understanding of language (meaning crude or filthy language) on her experience "in the real world." She knows what churches have to say, generally speaking, but she "lives in the real world." So, her conclusion to the question, "Can Christians use the word, crap?", was formed out of her experience and against the general teaching of many churches who make their claim that crude language, such as crap, is spoken against in the Bible. First of all, her argument fails to address the claim to Scripture. This method of refuting an argument is all too common. People refute biblical claims by appealing to their own experiences. Christians are not exempt from this practice, as is evident in my example. In order to properly refute the claim, this Christian should have checked the church's claim with exegesis and determine how correct the claim is. Therefore, her rebuttal is null because she did not take seriously the claims of the church. Second, which is the heart of the issue for this post, the example clearly demonstrates that we not only form our theology on our experiences rather than on Scripture, but we also place more authority in our experiences rather than on Scripture.
We refute a pastor's or a church's claims regarding various issues not with Scripture and exegesis but with our own experiences. However, Scripture, the Word of God, ought to be our final authority. Evangelical Christians claim that Scripture is their final authority, but I have yet to find someone, myself included, in the evangelical world who has not or does not allow their experience to determine their theology in some way, point, field, or argument. It is only natural, I would like to suggest, that we allow our theology to be determined by our experiences; however, I would also like to suggest that as Christians we have been required to develop our theology according to a higher canon--the Word of God.
The Word of God is our final authority, not our experience--or at least it should be. It tells us the message of the Gospel and what we are to believe and how we are to live as people of the Gospel. If we make a claim to be Christians, which is a claim made on a biblical concept, then we have to yield our right to experiential theology and we must yield to scriptural theology. Why? The answer is clear. To place one's experience before Scripture is to make God's words second to our own experiences, which goes against being a Christian. In order to be consistent with themselves and to remain true as disciples with God, Christians must place Scripture as their number one authority over their own experiences.
Is Scripture to be an idol? No, but it is our final authority because it has come forth from God. It takes precedence over our experiences for that reason. In the event that our theological paths cannot find resolution in Scripture, then we still do not turn directly to our experiences, or at least we should not, but rather to prayer so that the Spirit might speak the words of God to us. Scripture speaks God's written and tangible Word; the Spirit speaks God's vocal though spiritual Word. The two must always be in agreement since they come from the same source, but when one is silent the other will speak. So, when Scripture does not inform our theological inquiries, we ought to turn to prayer, that is, to the Spirit. Then, if those authoritative paths do not help, I believe it is acceptable to turn to our experiences.
For example, let's take the example of drinking. Scripture does not prohibit drinking, but rather drunkenness. If someone looks at Scripture, they cannot make a biblical claim that drinking is wrong and prohibited. They can seek the Spirit, but the Spirit cannot contradict Scripture nor Scripture contradict the Spirit. The only thing one could do is turn to their experiences. Perhaps one would say, "Even though I am not prohibited from drinking according to the Bible, I am going to not drink because I think it is a vile drink after seeing what it did to my dying uncle who has liver cancer, which is the result of an excessive intake of alcohol throughout his twenties and thirties." Note the importance here. If Scripture prohibits something, that prohibition is definitive; likewise, if it permits something, that permission is definitive. However, the individual can make changes in the area of permissions so as to prohibit one's self from such provisions, but such changes are not binding on anyone else. Scripture is the first or final authority to which our experiences submit.
In sum, Christian authority ought not to be placed in experience but in Scripture. Christians ought to be first scriptural theologians and second experiential theologians. There is a time for experiential theology. However, a Christian should never make God's Word subject to his or her own experiences when forming a theology. To do so would simply be bad theology.
For example, language recently came up in a discussion with another Christian. This other Christian based her understanding of language (meaning crude or filthy language) on her experience "in the real world." She knows what churches have to say, generally speaking, but she "lives in the real world." So, her conclusion to the question, "Can Christians use the word, crap?", was formed out of her experience and against the general teaching of many churches who make their claim that crude language, such as crap, is spoken against in the Bible. First of all, her argument fails to address the claim to Scripture. This method of refuting an argument is all too common. People refute biblical claims by appealing to their own experiences. Christians are not exempt from this practice, as is evident in my example. In order to properly refute the claim, this Christian should have checked the church's claim with exegesis and determine how correct the claim is. Therefore, her rebuttal is null because she did not take seriously the claims of the church. Second, which is the heart of the issue for this post, the example clearly demonstrates that we not only form our theology on our experiences rather than on Scripture, but we also place more authority in our experiences rather than on Scripture.
We refute a pastor's or a church's claims regarding various issues not with Scripture and exegesis but with our own experiences. However, Scripture, the Word of God, ought to be our final authority. Evangelical Christians claim that Scripture is their final authority, but I have yet to find someone, myself included, in the evangelical world who has not or does not allow their experience to determine their theology in some way, point, field, or argument. It is only natural, I would like to suggest, that we allow our theology to be determined by our experiences; however, I would also like to suggest that as Christians we have been required to develop our theology according to a higher canon--the Word of God.
The Word of God is our final authority, not our experience--or at least it should be. It tells us the message of the Gospel and what we are to believe and how we are to live as people of the Gospel. If we make a claim to be Christians, which is a claim made on a biblical concept, then we have to yield our right to experiential theology and we must yield to scriptural theology. Why? The answer is clear. To place one's experience before Scripture is to make God's words second to our own experiences, which goes against being a Christian. In order to be consistent with themselves and to remain true as disciples with God, Christians must place Scripture as their number one authority over their own experiences.
Is Scripture to be an idol? No, but it is our final authority because it has come forth from God. It takes precedence over our experiences for that reason. In the event that our theological paths cannot find resolution in Scripture, then we still do not turn directly to our experiences, or at least we should not, but rather to prayer so that the Spirit might speak the words of God to us. Scripture speaks God's written and tangible Word; the Spirit speaks God's vocal though spiritual Word. The two must always be in agreement since they come from the same source, but when one is silent the other will speak. So, when Scripture does not inform our theological inquiries, we ought to turn to prayer, that is, to the Spirit. Then, if those authoritative paths do not help, I believe it is acceptable to turn to our experiences.
For example, let's take the example of drinking. Scripture does not prohibit drinking, but rather drunkenness. If someone looks at Scripture, they cannot make a biblical claim that drinking is wrong and prohibited. They can seek the Spirit, but the Spirit cannot contradict Scripture nor Scripture contradict the Spirit. The only thing one could do is turn to their experiences. Perhaps one would say, "Even though I am not prohibited from drinking according to the Bible, I am going to not drink because I think it is a vile drink after seeing what it did to my dying uncle who has liver cancer, which is the result of an excessive intake of alcohol throughout his twenties and thirties." Note the importance here. If Scripture prohibits something, that prohibition is definitive; likewise, if it permits something, that permission is definitive. However, the individual can make changes in the area of permissions so as to prohibit one's self from such provisions, but such changes are not binding on anyone else. Scripture is the first or final authority to which our experiences submit.
In sum, Christian authority ought not to be placed in experience but in Scripture. Christians ought to be first scriptural theologians and second experiential theologians. There is a time for experiential theology. However, a Christian should never make God's Word subject to his or her own experiences when forming a theology. To do so would simply be bad theology.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
New Blog for Drummers
I have started a new blog called Virtual Drum Lessons (virutaldrumlessons.blogspot.com) so that drummers of all kinds of experience can find a free source of what I believe is helpful information for studying the drums. It will be mostly video blogs, of which the videos will be hosted by Revver. Come check it out or send people over there if you think it will be helpful for them.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Duke, Davis or Princeton?
After I finish my master's degree, I would like to pursue a Ph. D. However, my first and second choices just are not going to be an option for me. I would like to go to Duke as my first choice and Princeton as my second. However, I can't afford to move across the states. However, if I could go to UC Davis, I could get an affordable degree. Tuition is cheaper and I would not have to move. The question is, can I pursue the same or a similar degree at Davis as what I would study at Duke or Princeton? The answer has not yet been found.
I am wanting to continue studies in the New Testament. Specifically, for my dissertation I would like to do a socio-rhetorical analysis of Ephesians with an emphasis in the role of women in marriage as seen in chapter 5. So, how do I go about a Ph. D. at Davis with this dissertation topic in mind? Do I do comparative literature, cultural studies, sociology, or something else?
Comparative literature came up because of its focus on classics. However, it emphasizes comparison of literature; since I don't plan on comparing Ephesians with other literatures, I don't think this doctorate program is the one for me.
Cultural studies came up because of its emphasis on Graeco-Roman history. However, it requires course work that is impractical for my dissertation. It does not seem like this is the right fit for me.
Sociology came up because of its emphasis in sociology and rhetoric, which is practically what I want to do in my dissertation. However, it is unclear if I will be able to tie the course work, which is focused on modern societies, not ancient, into my dissertation. I am unsure if this is the right program for me.
Is there a different program I should be looking at? Is it possible to create my own degree within one of these programs? If I am going to be spending money on courses and exams and two-three years of my life researching and writing, I had better be investing all of that in a program that I am 100% enthusiastic about. However, as it is, with everything clear as mud, the three programs that I mentioned just are not satisfying.
Needless to say, I am frustrated with this search. I found what I wanted at Duke, but I can't afford it, so the search continues. I had a professor that graduated from Davis with his Ph. D., but I don't know any more information than that. I would like to know what he studied, all the specific details of his program, and any other information he could give me so that I can start to apply and begin the admission process, because my time in the master's degree at Fuller is nearly half completed, which means I am running out of time.
Anyone know of any information or people I should talk to so that I can be steered in the right direction?
I am wanting to continue studies in the New Testament. Specifically, for my dissertation I would like to do a socio-rhetorical analysis of Ephesians with an emphasis in the role of women in marriage as seen in chapter 5. So, how do I go about a Ph. D. at Davis with this dissertation topic in mind? Do I do comparative literature, cultural studies, sociology, or something else?
Comparative literature came up because of its focus on classics. However, it emphasizes comparison of literature; since I don't plan on comparing Ephesians with other literatures, I don't think this doctorate program is the one for me.
Cultural studies came up because of its emphasis on Graeco-Roman history. However, it requires course work that is impractical for my dissertation. It does not seem like this is the right fit for me.
Sociology came up because of its emphasis in sociology and rhetoric, which is practically what I want to do in my dissertation. However, it is unclear if I will be able to tie the course work, which is focused on modern societies, not ancient, into my dissertation. I am unsure if this is the right program for me.
Is there a different program I should be looking at? Is it possible to create my own degree within one of these programs? If I am going to be spending money on courses and exams and two-three years of my life researching and writing, I had better be investing all of that in a program that I am 100% enthusiastic about. However, as it is, with everything clear as mud, the three programs that I mentioned just are not satisfying.
Needless to say, I am frustrated with this search. I found what I wanted at Duke, but I can't afford it, so the search continues. I had a professor that graduated from Davis with his Ph. D., but I don't know any more information than that. I would like to know what he studied, all the specific details of his program, and any other information he could give me so that I can start to apply and begin the admission process, because my time in the master's degree at Fuller is nearly half completed, which means I am running out of time.
Anyone know of any information or people I should talk to so that I can be steered in the right direction?
Pondering About Daily Devotions
I have been pondering about daily devotions in Christian practice and have been alarmed by at least two things. First, I have been alarmed by the misunderstanding of devotions. And second, I have been alarmed by the misunderstanding of one's devotion to Jesus.
I have noticed that Christians widely have a misunderstanding of devotions. Devotions are a set of practices, typically involving the daily reading of a book commonly called a "devotional" that takes a verse from the Bible and applies it to daily life through some sort of story, generally speaking, to which a Christian devotes oneself to. However, most Christians fail to realize that devotions are a set of practices that they perform out of devotion to Christ. Instead, it becomes a chore for rewards. I hear the following words and others all too frequently: "If I do my devotions in the morning, my day is better than when I don't, so I make sure I have my devotions every morning." More likely than not, these words indicate that devotions are performed as a chore for payment--a better day than if one had not done the devotions--and the set of practices are no longer performed out of reverence and obedience to Christ as his disciple. It seems that American consumerism has crept in and caused devotions to be performed for something rather than for someone. I would like to argue that devotions need to be done, if at all, to reflect one's devotion to Christ.
I have noticed that Christians widely have a misunderstanding of devotion to Jesus. It seems as though devotion to Jesus is simply church attendance, tithing, and maybe even daily devotions. Being devoted to Jesus is much more involved than the aforementioned practices. Devotion to Jesus also involves studying the Bible and caring for the poor and the sick. Devotion to Jesus requires a devotion to love; it demands devotion to faith; it requires devotion to testimony. When people say that I have my devotions every morning, that alone does not truly qualify them as Christians--devoted disciples of Jesus Christ. In fact, devotions might not actually be biblical, so to say that a person performs devotions every morning does not equate to much in the end. Devotion to Jesus requires adherence to his teachings and to the Word of God, which means it involves detailed study of the Bible, not just a single verse each day by means of a devotional. Devotion to Jesus also involves prayer. Prayer should be completely saturated throughout one's day. Why? Jesus prayed quite a bit. He had his disciples pray a lot as well. Paul charged his readers to pray without ceasing. Prayer is important and ought to be one of the practices of a person who is devoted to Jesus. Such facets of devotion demonstrate one's reliance on and commitment to Jesus Christ because they help direct one's life and provide strength and encouragement to live in the manner Jesus called him or her to live.
Are devotions wrong? I am not saying that they are. However, I am questioning people's motives behind them. I am questioning why they exist. I am determining for myself what is truly expected. What I see is a selfish motive behind the practice of devotions. What I see is a large misunderstanding. I believe Evangelical Christianity in America needs to take a few notes from other Christian groups. Catholics and Lutherans have penance, for example. Penance is a way for people who are devoted to Christ to demonstrate their devotion to him by confessing their sins and being disciplined. Evangelical Christians always talk of morning devotions, but hardly at all of confession and discipline, which is another facet of discipleship or devotion to Christ. It seems that our understanding of devotions are too narrowly focused so that we are missing other integral facets of discipleship.
If you have morning devotions out of a book, please, continue doing so. But be aware that you should be doing such devotions out of obedience of Christ--to remain in his word--and be sure that you saturate yourself in prayer all throughout the day. Find the time to confess your sins before God; maybe go so far as to discipline yourself after you confess so that you can train yourself to not perform such sins again. Prepare your heart and your mind to be a steady witness. Love on the poor. Be Jesus to the world. Be a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ.
I have noticed that Christians widely have a misunderstanding of devotions. Devotions are a set of practices, typically involving the daily reading of a book commonly called a "devotional" that takes a verse from the Bible and applies it to daily life through some sort of story, generally speaking, to which a Christian devotes oneself to. However, most Christians fail to realize that devotions are a set of practices that they perform out of devotion to Christ. Instead, it becomes a chore for rewards. I hear the following words and others all too frequently: "If I do my devotions in the morning, my day is better than when I don't, so I make sure I have my devotions every morning." More likely than not, these words indicate that devotions are performed as a chore for payment--a better day than if one had not done the devotions--and the set of practices are no longer performed out of reverence and obedience to Christ as his disciple. It seems that American consumerism has crept in and caused devotions to be performed for something rather than for someone. I would like to argue that devotions need to be done, if at all, to reflect one's devotion to Christ.
I have noticed that Christians widely have a misunderstanding of devotion to Jesus. It seems as though devotion to Jesus is simply church attendance, tithing, and maybe even daily devotions. Being devoted to Jesus is much more involved than the aforementioned practices. Devotion to Jesus also involves studying the Bible and caring for the poor and the sick. Devotion to Jesus requires a devotion to love; it demands devotion to faith; it requires devotion to testimony. When people say that I have my devotions every morning, that alone does not truly qualify them as Christians--devoted disciples of Jesus Christ. In fact, devotions might not actually be biblical, so to say that a person performs devotions every morning does not equate to much in the end. Devotion to Jesus requires adherence to his teachings and to the Word of God, which means it involves detailed study of the Bible, not just a single verse each day by means of a devotional. Devotion to Jesus also involves prayer. Prayer should be completely saturated throughout one's day. Why? Jesus prayed quite a bit. He had his disciples pray a lot as well. Paul charged his readers to pray without ceasing. Prayer is important and ought to be one of the practices of a person who is devoted to Jesus. Such facets of devotion demonstrate one's reliance on and commitment to Jesus Christ because they help direct one's life and provide strength and encouragement to live in the manner Jesus called him or her to live.
Are devotions wrong? I am not saying that they are. However, I am questioning people's motives behind them. I am questioning why they exist. I am determining for myself what is truly expected. What I see is a selfish motive behind the practice of devotions. What I see is a large misunderstanding. I believe Evangelical Christianity in America needs to take a few notes from other Christian groups. Catholics and Lutherans have penance, for example. Penance is a way for people who are devoted to Christ to demonstrate their devotion to him by confessing their sins and being disciplined. Evangelical Christians always talk of morning devotions, but hardly at all of confession and discipline, which is another facet of discipleship or devotion to Christ. It seems that our understanding of devotions are too narrowly focused so that we are missing other integral facets of discipleship.
If you have morning devotions out of a book, please, continue doing so. But be aware that you should be doing such devotions out of obedience of Christ--to remain in his word--and be sure that you saturate yourself in prayer all throughout the day. Find the time to confess your sins before God; maybe go so far as to discipline yourself after you confess so that you can train yourself to not perform such sins again. Prepare your heart and your mind to be a steady witness. Love on the poor. Be Jesus to the world. Be a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Mac OS X Leopard
Ten features of Apple's new operating software for the OS X line was previewed earlier this week (download the keynote presentation in Quicktime format by clicking here). Of the ten features--a new desktop, new Finder, addition of Quick Look, Time Machine and Spaces, changes to iChat, a modernized 64 bit setup, a built-in Boot Camp, an addition of Core Animation for developers, and more Dashboard functionality--I am most excited about the new desktop and Time Machine.
The new desktop is going to be sweet. All windows will look the same. The menu bar is going to be a little transparent so that the wallpaper can be seen beneath it. The "glass pane" that sits behind the dock is going to be three dimensional in Leopard so that the dock icons will sit on the "glass pane" instead of stand in front of it. The dock is going to have a new thing called "Stacks." Stacks will enable the desktop to have much less clutter and quick access to commonly used files and programs. Check out more information on the new desktop in Leopard by clicking here.
The program, Time Machine, will be most helpful. Right now, when I want to back up my computer, it is not exactly a fun and easy task. It also demands a little bit of time. However, with Time Machine, it will be automatic, nightly, hassle free and a peace of cake. It archives in such a way that no file, picture or song will ever be lost, and it won't create duplicates of the same files as it archives. What I plan on doing is purchase an Airport wireless router and connect my external hard drive to the router and then wirelessly back up all my computers using Time Machine on a nightly basis. Check out more information on Time Machine by clicking here.
Overall, Leopard looks very promising. Tiger had 200 new features over Jaguar; Leopard has 300 new features over Tiger. Wow. This OS will be a purchase that I must make!
For more details on Leopard, click here.
The new desktop is going to be sweet. All windows will look the same. The menu bar is going to be a little transparent so that the wallpaper can be seen beneath it. The "glass pane" that sits behind the dock is going to be three dimensional in Leopard so that the dock icons will sit on the "glass pane" instead of stand in front of it. The dock is going to have a new thing called "Stacks." Stacks will enable the desktop to have much less clutter and quick access to commonly used files and programs. Check out more information on the new desktop in Leopard by clicking here.
The program, Time Machine, will be most helpful. Right now, when I want to back up my computer, it is not exactly a fun and easy task. It also demands a little bit of time. However, with Time Machine, it will be automatic, nightly, hassle free and a peace of cake. It archives in such a way that no file, picture or song will ever be lost, and it won't create duplicates of the same files as it archives. What I plan on doing is purchase an Airport wireless router and connect my external hard drive to the router and then wirelessly back up all my computers using Time Machine on a nightly basis. Check out more information on Time Machine by clicking here.
Overall, Leopard looks very promising. Tiger had 200 new features over Jaguar; Leopard has 300 new features over Tiger. Wow. This OS will be a purchase that I must make!
For more details on Leopard, click here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
New Drums Video
Here is what my new drums sound like. This song was from a band called "Consider the Following."
New Drums
New Drums
Safari: better than ever, now also for Windows
The new Safari browser that will be shipping with the latest version of OS X in October is quite nice. Tabs can be dragged around and re-ordered, and they can also be dragged out of the tab line to create new windows. Site downloads are quite quick. Spotlight works within Safari, which helps to find things within the web site much better than the old "Finder" pop-up window. What's most cool about it is that it is now available for Windows XP and Vista. Check out Safari 3 by clicking here.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Drums Are Up! Here's a Pic . . .
After a few hours of ripping through boxes, plastic and styrofoam, I managed to set up my new kit, tune them, and play them for a few minutes. Now I can practice away!
Just a few things to note. First, I have to learn how to use the double-bass pedal, which I am quite pleased with. I have to relearn using the bass drum really, because I am now using two feet instead of one foot to beat that large drum. Of course, it is to my advantage to use both feet, but it is going to take some work to learn.
Second, I love the rack design because it allows for more flexibility than with standard hardware stands; for instance, on my old kit I could not move the two rack toms to my left to make room for the ride cymbal, so I had to do one of two things (depending on the mood I was in at the time determined which method I chose to practice with)--remove the larger rack tom and replace it with the ride or keep both rack toms and place the ride above the floor tom--but now I can have both toms up and have the ride in the location where the larger rack tom would normally go, so I get the best of both worlds thanks to the rack set up. I also like the fact that I can add more cymbal hardware at a cheaper cost with the rack set up than I would pay for with stand hardware, which makes it more affordable to add on more cymbals, and it also allows for me to add more cymbals in a smaller amount of space in a relatively easy way. I must say that I am very impressed with this setup.
Third, the wood the shells are made of is amazing. Even though the heads provided by PDP are not good at all, the maple shells really help for this kit to sound great! Now I can't wait to put some good heads on!
Finally, the snare drum has got to go! I need a much better snare. The provided snare rings way too much and buzzes when I hit the toms. This snare will make a great effects snare with a dirty, raspy and ringy feel as an additional or secondary snare, but I need a primary one that is crisp and clean with no buzz. Unfortunately, good snares can cost as much as what I paid for this entire drum set! Maybe I should check Ebay, but this purchase won't happen for quite some time. Since I am not performing for anyone right now, the current snare will be just fine.
Well, I'll see if I can record a little bit of the kit soon with my PowerBook and/or Bluetooth headset, but I can't promise anything because the microphones on those two electronic pieces are not going to be that great for recording a kit that would normally require eight microphones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
