The hills are alive – part 1

Debunking Making music – part 1

Things have been quiet here of late dear reader, partly because the author hasn’t posted but more because your correspondent has been rather busy with “real world” things and, as is the norm from time to time, found his interests drifting away from programming demos and towards games; we won’t be covering those here however, in part because the interest is currently in developing for Windows-based systems but mainly because dissecting game programming even at the theoretical level is a more complex topic that wouldn’t really suit the somewhat throw away nature of this blog.

So after skirting over what we will rather euphamistically refer to as the author’s “compositional skills” for reasons which are probably obvious to at least the majority of those who viewed the video, here we go once more dear reader!

I was also involved in political campaigns for the Mayor of London and Greater London Assembly (GLA), as well as the EU Referendum. I was devastated and sidetracked by the leave result, which means the abolition of the UK/Britain, serious isolationism for England and Wales and that I must leave the country ASAP.

As noted in passing previously, your correspondent wasn’t happy with the outcome of the EU referendum either, but plans to weather the storm as it were whilst hoping that a little sanity perhaps prevails in the long run… although that currently appears to be doubtful. And this is of course irrelevant to the author’s stated topic.

 Then, I got an email asking if I was alright and when I’d make another post. My answer to that was I was still alive, but basically that I didn’t know when I’d make another post. Now, after over three months without any new posts, I decided to do this post instead.

Your correspondent was inactive for a shorter period but has still already received multiple messages of a similar nature through various channels; perhaps the author’s writings simply aren’t as popular as he believes them to be…?

Making music was one of the reasons I bought a Commodore 64. It was one of the computers described in that lying buyers’ guide “The A-Z of Personal Computers” as containing a 3 channel synthesizer chip. This detail was true, but of course there was a catch.

So where exactly is the “lying” in that statement dear reader when the author immediately admits that said detail was correct? The presence of a three channel synthesizer isn’t negated merely on the grounds that the author personally was unable to use it regardless of how important he feels himself to be.

I was disgusted when I found out I could’ve bought a peripheral for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum which added such a chip.

Since said peripherals rarely have native BASIC support and must be programmed with the equivalent of POKE commands or handled via software in exactly the same way as the C64, where exactly is the advantage to going down that particular route for someone so irrationally opposed to said options such as the author?

The Commodore 64 seemed to have everything I needed, although I knew I didn’t really need 64K, because plenty of computers had less than that amount of RAM.

The author has commented previously about being “SHOCKED to find out that [he] couldn’t use anything like 64K in [his] BASIC programs” after buying a C64 and whined petulently and at length about how he erroneously believed it to be impossible to use all of the C64’s memory; why would anyone complain so vigorously about something they “didn’t really need” dear reader? And if the sentiment above were actually true, the authour wouldn’t have wanted to expand his Amstrad CPC664 to 128K or felt an urge to brag about how much RAM was present in his MSX2 either!

About two years after buying a C64, in early 1986, I bought a Yamaha CX5M Music Computer.

The majority of the post from this statement onwards both falls outside the author’s self-imposed 1984 to 1985 window and isn’t covering the supposed topic of “explaining why the Commodore 64’s BASIC V2 was crap and how some people managed to program the C64” so is, rather obviously, completely and utterly irrelevant!

The only things really worth noting from said pointless meandering through the author’s personal history as a musician are that he isn’t programming the Yamaha from BASIC in the video at the start of his post and that he spends some time berating someone else for not being “dedicated enough to learning” when that’s precisely the reason he didn’t learn the C64 – that dear reader is some quite frankly industrial grade hypocrisy right there!

I first learnt to play my first tune written by anyone else on just the sixth (i.e. the thickest) string before learning to play it using bar chords, meaning that the first finger is placed across all the strings, allowing guitarists to play the same chord shapes for Major, Minor, Seventh, Ninth, Minor Ninth, Diminished, etc chords at any fret, meaning root note, on the guitar.

This is merely the author just showing off as a know it all[1] dear reader!

That’s all for now! You can look forward to another post about making music, or about “The Machine Language Book of The Commodore 64” in the near future.

Didn’t the author say at the start of his post that it was a “very complicated subject” and that he “didn’t know how to finish” it…? That doesn’t bode particularly well, especially since the previous posts were already rather poorly written so we probably shouldn’t hold our collective breath for a masterpiece this time around either.

[1] The author has the ridiculous idea that demonstrating ability is “just showing off” having accused your correspondent of the same previously – ironically whilst showing off about his own, off-topic culinary skills – so this is merely your correspondent returning that particular “favour”.

This entry was posted in Debunking and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.