Or listen right now:

Download audio file (Jam 16.2..mp3)

Update! Here goes another one:

Download audio file (Jam 27.2..mp3)

Do you know this paradigma of describing art, especially in “scientific” branches like history of art ? It goes like this: First, you should objectively describe what you see (Yes, they think that it’s possible and that there is a sharp gap between objective and subjective description!), then you are expected to interpret the matter of your interest, what is thought to be the truly subjective side of your scientific description (but only scientific if carried out this way). For the picture above, the introduction of the “objective” part could be accomplished as follows:

This picture shows a herb, which is partly rotten and sere, and a couple of little insects, both placed on a irregularly, wooden surface.

So long, cowboy. But what about the following, isn’t this objective, too?:

The shown photography depicts a rotten, sere bunch of parsley and a row of firebugs walking along it, both on the surface of a press board plate.

The next one sounds as objective as the first:

The picture shows a green-brown plant and a couple of little animals, both placed on a patchy brown surface.

And this scheme can be varied ad infinitum. You see what the problem is: The paradigmatic division in objective and subjective description is not only difficult to implement, but completely impossible to carry out especially when used on something that could be called art. It’s just bullshit: What should be an objective description of a picture? Or a painting? Or a sculpture? When applied to the photography above, one must say that there can be – objectively – watched nothing more than pixels of different colors, and even that could easily be shown as being not objective enough.

- “I’m watching something.”
- “Really?“

Perhaps one would end up with that objective dialog.

But instead of trying to figure out what might be objective in a piece of something (call it art, if you want to), what could be the intended message of the artist and messing around with the predictable “What’s objective in this description” -debate there’s a better way of watching the article of interest: Just watch and enjoy it. Stupid theorizing about a whatever fucking message will always do nothing more than just corrode the first quality of perception, the as far as possible undisturbed and uninterrupted relation to the watching. I don’t think the commonly-called-art is made for being interpreted.

So watch out and feel convenient! And download the full size picture here: Full size (right click, → “Save as”).

• Groupable tracks! I missed this one so much! When you work with 20 to 30 tracks at a time while some of them should have the same effects or automation it can be really difficult to realize this without having the possibility to group them.
• New automated crossfading features. E.g. useful when given a short sample and needing a long one: The short sample must be overlapped and overfaded several times with itself in order to create the long version. This process will be way faster then before when using the new Live.
• Better MIDI-Editor which enhances the workflow of reediting MIDI recordings.
• Transients! I need them to create soft and subtle tempo variations.
• Much more wicked stuff! This is what i want! Especially the wickedness …

So long, cowboy. As you can see, I really like this software. Screenshots will be posted later in a seperate article.

As the title says, I’ve got a cam! About one and a half week ago I had birthday, got presents/money, and took everything to buy me a nice camera: A Canon EOS 400D. It’s rather not too professional, but fairly good enough for my purposes; I like running around and randomly taking pictures of everything stupid enough to show up in front of the lens. As you can guess from this, the results are … not too professional up to now. See the pictures, respectively a selection of them (better for you, better for me, I don’t wanna put every crap on the web, and you don’t wanna see it):

By the way: Where’s the music? Isn’t this the Grub Brother blog, intended to supply everybody with the freshest and best music on earth? Yes, it is. But producing good music takes much time (shooting good photographies can be a matter of seconds, can!), and while I stay as busy as I am at the moment, there can’t be any new publications. Perhaps grubbrother.com mutates into some sort of photoblog meanwhile.

There are many people in this world earning their money only by producing art, or at least what they call art. Best known among them is Damien Hirst who earned his present fame mostly by establishing the art of selling crap for unbelievably much money: Not the art makes the art, but selling it as it.

Considering this principle of the art market, it’s been obvious to us that we can also profit here if we just act audaciously enough and walk into some art gallery offering them … what can we offer them? Crap, as the principle says, it only must be offered bold enough, with sufficient conviction.

A first attempt in producing crap can be witnessed in the opening picture of this post: It’s just a try, and definitely not crappy enough to be sold to anybody. So stay tuned for the rest that is definitely to come … At least this blog must be financed in some way.

Have you ever heard of a “Firebug”? As far as Web 2.0 experiences go, it seems to be most likely that this is the newest Mozilla software to enhance your digital life – but there you’re mistaken! Firebugs are more or less an offline product and very suitable for entertainment.

Actually we’ve caught about 200 of them and have stuck them into a plastic bag. There they stew a little bit before they are made a birthday present of: A friend of mine will get them all, these scrambling, cuttling little ones! Oh, how I like them! There are so funny crawling around in their bag!

See them: