Today, helped someone across the globe get a PC built for the 12yo nephew; feels good to have done a good action. I wonder if now i can call myself "computer hardare guru".
next week work interview for a full-time audio technician job, i sure hope Karma Kat will smile upon me :)
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Friday, 10 June 2011
Videogames
I want to review briefly a couple of games that i have played lately and that - since i always whine on about how bad games are - were pretty nice and worthy of their shelf price.
All these games can be either purchased from your local retailer, or downloaded illegally from any of a number of websites, the choice is yours; in the end, game companies must be rewarded when they put out a good product, and there is nothing wrong with paying for something you like.. honesty is its own reward.
The First Templar
This is a easy going third-person combat game, rather arcadeish, where you run around in a closed environment killing scripted encounters; it's easy, the combat is rather simplistic, and that's about it. Not a great game by any extent, but it's got some nice writing, and even though you have seen it all before, it's all done rather tastefully.
The graphics are delicious, even if the coding behind them seems pretty horrid since this game will try to murder you graphics card, but i love it, great atmosphere. TFT also tries to do away with classic hollywoodian scripts and even if the sidekick is a bit out of place, the main character is very well written, in person and historically. The story flows well, and keeps you interested; this is one of a very few games where i wasn't skipping the cutscenes at the first chance. The "costumes" being locked in chests which are quite hard to find is sux, but costumes are just a bonus, and you can whizz through the game and not miss out on anything. Truly recommended, and hating the fact that most reviewers have ripped on this game and called it shit.
On a sidenote, i'm playing The Witcher 2 and i'm hating it.
The Black Mirror (part 3)
I have not played parts 1 or 2, but part 3 is truly engrossing. This is a point&click adventure reminiscent of the olden days, with very good graphics and a rather nice and realistic story. Why i like TBM3 is because of two things: first, the puzzles - which are the core of these games - are REALISTIC, not some weird "use hat to move stone" combinations, along with the fact that item locations make sense; this helps with the gameflow and makes you feel like you really are solving the mystery. Second, the writing is really, really good. I mean it, the game directing is truly superior and the script is good, and the whole game design is absolutely fantastic, at times you feel like everything you see onscreen is real. These people really know how to write a P&C game.
I am also playing some games which are absolutely horrid, and therefore feel that i have to warn you;
Brink
Which has had a massive, nationwide publicity campaign, is tripe; "Revolutionary" if you have lived under a rock for the last twenty years, and nothing more than a ripoff of Team Fortress 2(and every other online FPS ever). It's shit.
The Witcher 2
Fantastic graphics, really eye-watering splendor, but truly horrid gameplay. Two things.. three things i hate about this game. The Combat, which is not that far from TFT, in being arcadeish, truly random, but also way too fucking hard; The Interface, which is the worst fucking interface i have ever seen in a game since i was born, and lastly, The Interface, which is so fucking bad it makes me want to open my blog and write up a post on how fucking bad it is.
Also, The Witcher 2's writing is dark, mature, blah blah blah, but horribly hollywood - same old shit, but with swear words.
Dungeons & Dragons, Daggerdale
Fuck me this is really shit. Would have been a great title on launch date for your PS2, thirteen years ago.
I'v been out of the loop for a while, but meh.
All these games can be either purchased from your local retailer, or downloaded illegally from any of a number of websites, the choice is yours; in the end, game companies must be rewarded when they put out a good product, and there is nothing wrong with paying for something you like.. honesty is its own reward.
The First Templar
This is a easy going third-person combat game, rather arcadeish, where you run around in a closed environment killing scripted encounters; it's easy, the combat is rather simplistic, and that's about it. Not a great game by any extent, but it's got some nice writing, and even though you have seen it all before, it's all done rather tastefully.
The graphics are delicious, even if the coding behind them seems pretty horrid since this game will try to murder you graphics card, but i love it, great atmosphere. TFT also tries to do away with classic hollywoodian scripts and even if the sidekick is a bit out of place, the main character is very well written, in person and historically. The story flows well, and keeps you interested; this is one of a very few games where i wasn't skipping the cutscenes at the first chance. The "costumes" being locked in chests which are quite hard to find is sux, but costumes are just a bonus, and you can whizz through the game and not miss out on anything. Truly recommended, and hating the fact that most reviewers have ripped on this game and called it shit.
On a sidenote, i'm playing The Witcher 2 and i'm hating it.
The Black Mirror (part 3)
I have not played parts 1 or 2, but part 3 is truly engrossing. This is a point&click adventure reminiscent of the olden days, with very good graphics and a rather nice and realistic story. Why i like TBM3 is because of two things: first, the puzzles - which are the core of these games - are REALISTIC, not some weird "use hat to move stone" combinations, along with the fact that item locations make sense; this helps with the gameflow and makes you feel like you really are solving the mystery. Second, the writing is really, really good. I mean it, the game directing is truly superior and the script is good, and the whole game design is absolutely fantastic, at times you feel like everything you see onscreen is real. These people really know how to write a P&C game.
I am also playing some games which are absolutely horrid, and therefore feel that i have to warn you;
Brink
Which has had a massive, nationwide publicity campaign, is tripe; "Revolutionary" if you have lived under a rock for the last twenty years, and nothing more than a ripoff of Team Fortress 2(and every other online FPS ever). It's shit.
The Witcher 2
Fantastic graphics, really eye-watering splendor, but truly horrid gameplay. Two things.. three things i hate about this game. The Combat, which is not that far from TFT, in being arcadeish, truly random, but also way too fucking hard; The Interface, which is the worst fucking interface i have ever seen in a game since i was born, and lastly, The Interface, which is so fucking bad it makes me want to open my blog and write up a post on how fucking bad it is.
Also, The Witcher 2's writing is dark, mature, blah blah blah, but horribly hollywood - same old shit, but with swear words.
Dungeons & Dragons, Daggerdale
Fuck me this is really shit. Would have been a great title on launch date for your PS2, thirteen years ago.
I'v been out of the loop for a while, but meh.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Working in music p.1
Here is a short list of things people will need when trying for a career in performance - this is my opinion, so take it at "whatever" value.
I'm writing this piece because i'm surprised at how many very skilled young guitarists are out on youtube who yet don't know that they need these other elements to succeed.
(1)the Product.
music is a product you sell, but the sellable* product is made up of many factors - like many other businesses . .
I consider Rock to be the main venue in Music Business, because even if a Product is branded otherwise, the business elements which contribute to its creation are rooted in the businesses which came out of the Rock industry;
So, a group will need to have these, for point 1(please note that not all are fundamental, and there are ways to get around the lack of one of these, but these are the targets that everyone should have)
Technique
Looks
Awesomeness
Songwriting
Lyrics
Production
Business Mentality
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
explanation: technique is the ability to play instruments and sing; after all, it's music you sell, so being able to perform it is important; plus, when you perform live, this becomes more important than ever. Looks are a major selling point, not everyone has them and they have been proven over time to be the (second?) biggest selling factor of all - this element should be run parallel with PR, obviously. Awesomeness is a stupid word to encompass showmanship, charisma, PR stunts, stage setup, lighting, costumes, and everything else that is visual yet stricktly about the musicians - videos count too. Songwriting is different from techinque, extremely precious yet rarely necessary - and can easily be subcontracted, if a good budget is in. Lyrics help selling only when they are keyed to product placement - market niche image; it hardly pays to sing about romance in a grindcore band, does it? Production ought to be self explanatory, yet the burden falls on the business leader, so it's here instead of part 2. Business mentality is when a group has a business leader, an effective business plan, a solid model, and business discipline - thus producing more sellable product for the budget. A business mentality is also where the business leader seeks out and obtains the most "shelf space" (gigs) as a priority over anything - sell even if you suck.
(2) Image
this one is short.. if you can understand it:
Market Niche product placement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Selling" music is something which often escapes musicians altogether - you are creating a consumable product, and as all consumables, you need Location, Location, Location. The three "L" are what product you are selling, who you sell it to, and how you sell it to them - in catering, it would go like this : pasta, from a restaurant, in goodge street. trying to sell the right product to the wrong people will not cut it, nor selling it from a horrid venue; by extention, sale techniques, presentation, all make up LLL.
Music sells when it is well packaged, presented, and when it stimulates the appetite for its consumption, so chose your target audience, package it (and yourself - see point 1, many aspects of yourself make up the product, not just "the music") so it appeals to them, and make sure they can buy it.
(3) Business Enterprise Structure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When selling music, you will need to head a large structure, composed of bus drivers, hair stylists, photographers, managers, agents, promoters, and so on. Your choice is simple (or is it?) : the ones which provide you with the biggest cash flow. End of story - do not compromise you cash flow for artistic integrity .. even if most musicians do the opposite.
(4)Time and Money Budget
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working in music takes both, and trying without is doomed to failure - if you have no funds, don;t attempt a music business venture, for it will fail you.
That's it.
Not as complicated as it sounds, but subtle, here is a recipe for success that will never fail you (unless your band's name is Anvil);
Good luck, and To Futures Bright !!
*Blogspot's dictionary doesn't recognize this word :/
I'm writing this piece because i'm surprised at how many very skilled young guitarists are out on youtube who yet don't know that they need these other elements to succeed.
(1)the Product.
music is a product you sell, but the sellable* product is made up of many factors - like many other businesses . .
I consider Rock to be the main venue in Music Business, because even if a Product is branded otherwise, the business elements which contribute to its creation are rooted in the businesses which came out of the Rock industry;
So, a group will need to have these, for point 1(please note that not all are fundamental, and there are ways to get around the lack of one of these, but these are the targets that everyone should have)
Technique
Looks
Awesomeness
Songwriting
Lyrics
Production
Business Mentality
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
explanation: technique is the ability to play instruments and sing; after all, it's music you sell, so being able to perform it is important; plus, when you perform live, this becomes more important than ever. Looks are a major selling point, not everyone has them and they have been proven over time to be the (second?) biggest selling factor of all - this element should be run parallel with PR, obviously. Awesomeness is a stupid word to encompass showmanship, charisma, PR stunts, stage setup, lighting, costumes, and everything else that is visual yet stricktly about the musicians - videos count too. Songwriting is different from techinque, extremely precious yet rarely necessary - and can easily be subcontracted, if a good budget is in. Lyrics help selling only when they are keyed to product placement - market niche image; it hardly pays to sing about romance in a grindcore band, does it? Production ought to be self explanatory, yet the burden falls on the business leader, so it's here instead of part 2. Business mentality is when a group has a business leader, an effective business plan, a solid model, and business discipline - thus producing more sellable product for the budget. A business mentality is also where the business leader seeks out and obtains the most "shelf space" (gigs) as a priority over anything - sell even if you suck.
(2) Image
this one is short.. if you can understand it:
Market Niche product placement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Selling" music is something which often escapes musicians altogether - you are creating a consumable product, and as all consumables, you need Location, Location, Location. The three "L" are what product you are selling, who you sell it to, and how you sell it to them - in catering, it would go like this : pasta, from a restaurant, in goodge street. trying to sell the right product to the wrong people will not cut it, nor selling it from a horrid venue; by extention, sale techniques, presentation, all make up LLL.
Music sells when it is well packaged, presented, and when it stimulates the appetite for its consumption, so chose your target audience, package it (and yourself - see point 1, many aspects of yourself make up the product, not just "the music") so it appeals to them, and make sure they can buy it.
(3) Business Enterprise Structure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
When selling music, you will need to head a large structure, composed of bus drivers, hair stylists, photographers, managers, agents, promoters, and so on. Your choice is simple (or is it?) : the ones which provide you with the biggest cash flow. End of story - do not compromise you cash flow for artistic integrity .. even if most musicians do the opposite.
(4)Time and Money Budget
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working in music takes both, and trying without is doomed to failure - if you have no funds, don;t attempt a music business venture, for it will fail you.
That's it.
Not as complicated as it sounds, but subtle, here is a recipe for success that will never fail you (unless your band's name is Anvil);
Good luck, and To Futures Bright !!
*Blogspot's dictionary doesn't recognize this word :/
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Esther Ku
Today i got the giggles (i'm mildly in love) for Ester Ku
she's smart, funny and - in my eyes - incredibly beautiful. Also helps that she's a cool 10 years younger than me .. yummy.
Still working with barbells, trying to get to 3x3x30@ 12.5Kg
Maybe if i shape up really a lot, i can land a chick like that :p
Saturday, 7 May 2011
The Life of a Restaurant Manager
I'll try to make a long story short; Recently i'v been trying out for a position as "Team Leader", which is a fancy name for Assistant Manager, with a big company, Withbread to name names, and going through the job description with the Manager i had clouds of dark thoughts going through my head.. that can be summed up by the word "boring".
Yep, instead of thinking how hard the job is going to be, my head was already on the "oh this is going to be tedious".
If you have any experience in the restaurant business you will know that a manager's job is anything but relaxing - essentially, you are a waiter who also does a million other things, and generally speaking you are the onoly one who really gives a crap about the business, with everyone else interested in one of the following, instead : Tips, Not Working, and Getting Out.
Withbread instead have a structure in place where managers do the management, and staff does the work, which is .. nice, if you think it can work, but i have my doubts.. if only, for the fact that i believe in "lead by example", and after all, what a restaurant really needs is really good staff, if hey had that, management needs would be minimal.
So, Withbread's managers do exclusively the management work. And apparently, so do many other businesses, here and elsewhere.
In fact, i was watching once again an episode of Kitchen Nightmares USA, and Gordon walking in to be greeted by a formidable looking lady claiming "i am the manager"; my thoughts were "and so you take the blame for everything that's wrong in here". But apparently no, a manager doesn't actually manage the restaurant.
You see, a restaurant is - like many other businesses - a system : 1) money is used to buy food and to transform it into the sold product 2) the product is sold to the customers 3) the cycle repeats. Other subsystems include the cleaning of the premises (part of 2), the serving (also 2), the cooking (part of 1), keeping all the structure functional , i.e., bills paid, machines working, etc.. (part of both 1 and 2), customers booking and table orders (part of 1 & 2), and so on. In my short experience, the person who makes sure the system works is called a Manager; if the general consensus is that this isn't the Manager's job, ok then, i will admit i am wrong, but then i am curious as to who exactly does that.
Or perhaps people think that this role can be split amongst different people, but then it leads to problems that we see happening every time a new episode of Kitchen Nightmares airs.
To be fair, there are many problems a new food business can have, but when we look at Kitchen Nightmares, the problem is always the same - in Chef Gordon's own words, "the food is shit".
Now, customers are normal people - believe it or not - and they *will* put up with poor service; hey, there's even a famous restaurant back home where the waiters yell obscenities at the customers (properly called "The Insult"), and it's packed every day.
But if the food's bad, there is no way you will stay afloat - nope, you'r going under.
End of story, i have a really, really hard time understanding what keeps today's managers from successfully managing a food premise : you know what the system is, if the food is bad, where can you go to locate the problem ??
Right, the Chef.
And if the Chef is bad, what do you do ?
I have never had an instant of hesitation to fire an inefficient staff person - people would not put up with a mechanic, a doctor or a plumber not doing their job properly, but for some reason they are willing to put up with a chef that is incompetent and/or does not perform properly.
In the end, dear Gordon, it's not the Chef who deserves a bollocking, it's the Manager; their very job description is "take shit for everything that happens here", and if you are not able, or willing to do it, don't call yourself a restaurant manager. It's an insult to those of us who really do the work.
Cheers,
Bokken
Yep, instead of thinking how hard the job is going to be, my head was already on the "oh this is going to be tedious".
If you have any experience in the restaurant business you will know that a manager's job is anything but relaxing - essentially, you are a waiter who also does a million other things, and generally speaking you are the onoly one who really gives a crap about the business, with everyone else interested in one of the following, instead : Tips, Not Working, and Getting Out.
Withbread instead have a structure in place where managers do the management, and staff does the work, which is .. nice, if you think it can work, but i have my doubts.. if only, for the fact that i believe in "lead by example", and after all, what a restaurant really needs is really good staff, if hey had that, management needs would be minimal.
So, Withbread's managers do exclusively the management work. And apparently, so do many other businesses, here and elsewhere.
In fact, i was watching once again an episode of Kitchen Nightmares USA, and Gordon walking in to be greeted by a formidable looking lady claiming "i am the manager"; my thoughts were "and so you take the blame for everything that's wrong in here". But apparently no, a manager doesn't actually manage the restaurant.
You see, a restaurant is - like many other businesses - a system : 1) money is used to buy food and to transform it into the sold product 2) the product is sold to the customers 3) the cycle repeats. Other subsystems include the cleaning of the premises (part of 2), the serving (also 2), the cooking (part of 1), keeping all the structure functional , i.e., bills paid, machines working, etc.. (part of both 1 and 2), customers booking and table orders (part of 1 & 2), and so on. In my short experience, the person who makes sure the system works is called a Manager; if the general consensus is that this isn't the Manager's job, ok then, i will admit i am wrong, but then i am curious as to who exactly does that.
Or perhaps people think that this role can be split amongst different people, but then it leads to problems that we see happening every time a new episode of Kitchen Nightmares airs.
To be fair, there are many problems a new food business can have, but when we look at Kitchen Nightmares, the problem is always the same - in Chef Gordon's own words, "the food is shit".
Now, customers are normal people - believe it or not - and they *will* put up with poor service; hey, there's even a famous restaurant back home where the waiters yell obscenities at the customers (properly called "The Insult"), and it's packed every day.
But if the food's bad, there is no way you will stay afloat - nope, you'r going under.
End of story, i have a really, really hard time understanding what keeps today's managers from successfully managing a food premise : you know what the system is, if the food is bad, where can you go to locate the problem ??
Right, the Chef.
And if the Chef is bad, what do you do ?
I have never had an instant of hesitation to fire an inefficient staff person - people would not put up with a mechanic, a doctor or a plumber not doing their job properly, but for some reason they are willing to put up with a chef that is incompetent and/or does not perform properly.
In the end, dear Gordon, it's not the Chef who deserves a bollocking, it's the Manager; their very job description is "take shit for everything that happens here", and if you are not able, or willing to do it, don't call yourself a restaurant manager. It's an insult to those of us who really do the work.
Cheers,
Bokken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)