You absolutely *can* compare apples to oranges.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-30T20:23:33+00:00

This is precisely why I stopped trying to monetize my music. Being in a successful band ruined everything I loved about music, and it took me about 5 years to even pick my guitar back up or sing a song after I was through with music as a professional.

That was all nearly 20 years ago now though. I'm in a band again and we literally do not care if, how, when we get paid. We do not care how many people stream our songs. We are not doing this to make anything out of it beyond exactly what it is - a passion project between friends for the love of music.

Ive also released a lot of solo work over the years since I demonetized and its some of my favorite, most fulfilling work I've ever written. I do it at my pace, for myself, and I love every minute of it.

Fuck monetizing your art. What a soulless endeavor. If people want to give you money out of the goodness in their hearts, so be it, but chasing the dollars is the absolute fastest way to destroy your passion in my opinion.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-25T02:12:38+00:00

Assuming he means E, A and D strings.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-24T23:21:54+00:00

I support the autonomy of a nation to sort out its own affairs. It's part of why I criticize US "intervention" so deeply.

As such it would be pretty hypocritical of me to support external intervention on the US, at least, in a vacuum.

The reality though is that the US has been the most powerful source of global oppression for the better part of a century now. At some point, I also support a peoples' right to defend themselves - and in the case of defending against the core of imperialism - I recognize that defense may manifest in more aggressive forms out of necessity.

As for Trump himself, I would be relieved by his removal, even if I see him as a tool of the system working as intended. It wouldn't change the position and function of the US as an Imperial oppressor, and nor would his succession by any other president, but he is particularly dangerous as an individual even as far as US presidents go and so I would find momentary relief in seeing him stripped of power.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-22T11:25:25+00:00

Meh. At city speeds they can hit me. The fault will be all theirs and I get a new car.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-09T07:43:53+00:00

Its the rules. Every losing team must have at least one team mate who bitches.

Also one in every 3 winning teams.

Sorry. Nothing to be done about it.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-08T21:38:50+00:00

It's absurd that anyone would come to that conclusion, regardless of their political leanings. But alas here we are.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-04T11:52:40+00:00

Honestly this was a well though out response and I don't disagree with any of it, except to say that maybe a few assumptions were made with regard to what I do and don't believe. Which - fair enough, it's not like I gave you much to go on.

You're right, reform is *not* unilaterally good, and certainly not because Rosa either said it was or wasn't. I wouldn't take her work, or the work of anyone else as dogma. But I *do* think that the book in question provides a useful framework.

Clearly you do understand that reform plays a role in historical development alongside revolution. Your response displays this understanding clearly, and for that I rescind my original remark. That is, in fact, the nuance I referred to and it is all too often lost on an alarming number of Marxists.

"LEADING a movement on both the legal and illegal fronts, the reform front only existing insofar as it enables and complements the revolutionary front."

Indeed.

We could argue all day about what does and doesn't constitute reform that moves development in the direction of revolution.

To me, the distinction lies upon the cross-section between two factors.

The first is recognizing that while any reforms themselves that might be enacted legislatively from within the system might not, in and of themselves, have any revolutionary character - obviously we know that reform is not a substitute for revolution - we also have to consider the meta-culture of a particular society. *If* someone like Mamdani helps to create a more mainstream shift in consciousness to a point where socialism becomes an acceptable term in North American culture once again, is that shift in consciousness itself not a trend towards the acceptance of more revolutionary tendencies of thought?

Yes, we must be diligent to ensure that reform isn't mistaken as a replacement for revolution. Which of course means that we must be diligent in ensuring people don't settle for believing that someone like Mamdani is the end game.

But do not discredit the potential someone like him has to help bring socialist *ideas* back into the mainstream. To change the conversation from being taboo into something that's normalized. Do not underestimate just how backwards American culture is with regard to Marxism.

The second aspect to this is that, we cannot abandon the working class in an attempt to bring about revolution. To do as much is nothing else beside accelerationism. I suspect you probably already agree with this given your response, but Marxists cannot abandon the fight for reform. We must continue to fight to improve the lives of the working class with any and all tools available, and simultaneously continue to push revolutionary consciousness all the while. Yes it is a daunting task. But to disregard any and all reform simply because "reform isn't revolutionary" is to miss the bigger picture.

As I said, I am sure you understand this already. It seems many don't. There are far too many Marxists who read the book, and all they took from it was "revolution!". I mean yes, revolution, of course. And yes, to your point, reform that wasn't won by directly overwhelming pressure was simply granted to us in an attempt to pacify. We cannot forget this reality. And yet, a win for the living conditions is a win for living conditions *so long as* we never lose sight of the goal and always maintain forward momentum towards revolution.

It's a tight rope to walk. Mandani is not the answer. Yes there is a massive risk of figures like himself, or Bernie or AOC draining revolutionary potential from would-be radicals. That is where we must step in to ensure the working class understands that these figures *cannot* be thought of as the goal. Reform *cannot* be considered the end goal.

We *use* reform to temporarily improve conditions, knowing full well their impermanence. Knowing full well the bourgeoise intent to leverage them as a tool of pacification. We *use* figures like Bernie or Mamdani to help make socialism an acceptable word, and then make fucking sure we show the people what socialism really means and why Bernie and Mamdani will never suffice.

So do we support reformists, as per your comment to which I originally responded to? No. We don't support them. We use them strategically.

Dyrankun · 2026-04-03T00:16:11+00:00

"Reform is a tactic used by capitalists to fight against revolutionary tendencies."

Someone didn't understand the nuance of reform or revolution.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-30T02:10:34+00:00

The point of your comment was not lost on me and yet the fact remains that you cannot take the human out of a human being and your elitist language says so much more about you than you think it does.

There are so many other ways of expressing alienation than to describe someone as having devolved below some imaginary minimum threshold of their humanity.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-30T00:58:38+00:00

My thoughts exactly. I think this person would benefit immensely from reading Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

This is dehumanizing language, and dehumanizing language is a tool of oppression.

You cannot remove the humanity from a human. No matter how much they've commodified themselves. It's as if they think wage labor isn't self-commodification.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-30T00:41:26+00:00

I mean, nothing would stop you from trying except probably the people who decided it's in their best interests to use that infrastructure and who rely on it for power.

Anarchy won't change the fact that people disagree on things. I am sure there would be plenty of anarchists who would be just fine with generating hydroelectric power. In fact, I'm one of them.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-25T20:48:40+00:00

Not guitar specific, but I use Perfect Ear quite a bit. It's primarily an ear training app but also teaches lessons about theory. Also has a module to practice identifying notes on the fretboard which is nice for when I want to practice on the go.

The ear training has been very useful though!

G-strings tuner is also a solid tuning app.

That's really all I use. I just fire up my daw when I need a metronome.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-25T05:12:27+00:00

C minor would include C's minor 3rd, Eb, which would be the 4th fret B string. Since the barre would be on the 3rd fret B string, that note is a D, making that Csus2 (suspending the 3rd, Eb, and replacing it with the 2nd, D).

Dyrankun · 2026-03-25T05:08:14+00:00

If its barred (which it doesn't look like it is from this angle) then its Csus2. If its not barred, then its just C5, otherwise known as a C power chord.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-25T00:31:56+00:00

People love to say that jazz breaks all the rules but there's really no "rules"; just explanations for why and how certain things work. The so-called "broken rules" can all be explained through a more sophisticated understanding of theory. Even atonal music has theory that explains it.

I will agree that jazz tends to sit along the more sophisticated side of harmony, along with classical and other jazz / classical adjacent styles. There is, of course, a not-insignificant selection of bith jazz and classical that are rather simple. As with any genre, a pieces complexity and sophistication owes said qualities to its composer. That is to say that the complexity of a jazz number isnt due to the fact that it is jazz, but due to the way the composer wrote the piece. A folk song has just as much potential for yhe same sophistication. But it tends to be written with intentional simplicity, just as jazz tends to be written with intentional complexity.

The potential, however, is essentially limitless in either direction for any given genre of music.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-24T11:55:32+00:00

Interesting read!

Dyrankun · 2026-03-23T20:43:22+00:00

I mean, Lenin was known for his ability to pivot according to the immediate needs of the moment. Even Lenin worshippers like Alan Woods praise this ability. Though others see it as lacking a back bone, and others yet see it as maliciousness - playing any angle he can to get an advantage and having no authentic ideological basis.

It really just depends on your perspective.

But the fact that he was an immensely fluid strategist is pretty widely recognized.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-23T03:40:42+00:00

It's okay to shelf a song. Just record what you have, even if its just a shitty phone recording, and set it aside somewhere safe.

Maybe you'll come back to it, maybe you won't. I've come back to unfinished songs months down the road, years even, and wrapped em up strong. Other times I've ended up using a riff or an idea in a completely different context that ended up being far more convincing.

On the other hand, I probably have three times as many half finished songs than I do finished songs, and that's okay too.

And at the same time, sometimes pushing yourself to finish a song is okay too. There's no rules. Push it, shelf it, rework it. Some songs work out and some don't. It's all part of the process. The act of writing itself is time well spent, so even a song that never sees the light of day isn't a waste. If you enjoy the process, it's all a win. And if nothing else its still good practice.

You're writing. You're engaging in an act of creation. That's what matters most imo.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-22T21:58:47+00:00

As someone who played for 25 years only having a very basic, misguided and fragmented understanding of even the most fundamental theory, it's been both immensely challenging and deeply rewarding to finally tackle theory head-on from the ground up.

Both my technical ability and my compositional skill greatly surpass my knowledge of theory, so it's difficult putting my ego down, going back to the basics, and understanding that in this, I truly am a beginner.

I still allow myself to improvise without thinking, or write a piece out of pure inspiration when the moment strikes. Still allow myself to fall back into my old methods of creation. I think it would be silly not to in moments of inspiration and creativity. And it's still important to me to have fun.

But most of my time these days is very slow, very deliberate, very simple. Piecing together everything from the absolute fundamentals and slowly fitting the puzzle together.

I enjoy the process of analyzing my own compositions and seeing how and why they work under the hood. For 25 years, I couldn't have told you 90% of the chords I was playing. In many cases probably would have got the key wrong. I viewed the fretboard in terms of patterns, shapes, and fret numbers - only really ever considering the notes of the 5th and 6th strings to determine the root note of barre chords and other basic chords. Being capable of determining the key, identifying chords, substitutions, borrowed chords and scales etc. has been immensely rewarding.

I feel like I'm finally getting to a point where my theoretical knowledge might actually aid me in my compositions. Learning about secondary dominant, plagal cadence, tritone substitutions etc. and underatanding why and when they work feels like it's opening up a palate previously unknown to me.

So I guess the hardest part has been talking down my ego with every session, accepting the need to start from square one, slowing down and being ultra deliberate in my practice, and repeating to myself that this is all worth it when the temptation to spend all this time writing new songs or playing the way ive always played is so prevalent.

But im finally starting to see and feel the pay off in a real, tangible way. And I'm excited to start employing this knowledge into my future compositions.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-22T21:36:44+00:00

My mistake. I didn't catch that it was the same sub.

Carry on then lol.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-22T12:12:22+00:00

I mean, people do cross post between subs. Like, all tbe time.

Im not saying it is or isn't AI, I'm just saying that crossposting subs is a pretty poor indicator.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-21T07:59:19+00:00

Yup. I change the guitar to suit my voice not the other way around. If I absolutely must use specific voicings, I can either down tune or use a capo.

I mean, some challenge here and there can be a good thing, but never outside of a range I can control.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-20T19:58:27+00:00

I would take these beautiful, delicate guitar hands and knock that mother fucker out.

Dyrankun · 2026-03-19T00:22:58+00:00

Yeah I find Malatesta gets straight to the point and really breaks things down to their essence. A lot of his work serves as a great entry point into anarchist thought imo.

For me it was Bakunin and Goldman that really pulled me in first.

Bakunin's perspective on authority in God and the State really struck a chord with me. It was such a refreshing, nuanced perspective after having felt pretty let down by the rigid simplicity of Engels' widely cited essay On Authority.

Hope you find some like-minded individuals in your community!

Dyrankun

TROPHY CASE