To The Steadfast

It recently occured to me that (a) I havn't been able to cohesively arrange my thoughts into a new blog post in quite some time (I'm trying to avoid the phrase "writers' block" [oops]) and (b) I havn't shared here about the new band that I'm playing guitar for, To The Steadfast. So for lack of any better ideas to write about, here is our internet-ghetto myspace page:

http://www.myspace.com/tothesteadfastmusic

We have 2 recorded originals. Check it out. See what you think.

Jesse

P.S.: Also, I'm now on twitter @jessevanderweid. Considering my former blog, you'd think I'd have done that a long time ago...

Private Parts

It's safe to say that our culture of online social networking is something that's here to stay. Since the Roman Empire, humans have been building roads and connecting with each other, and the world has since been getting smaller and smaller. And the internet is making this inter-human connection exponentialling greater every day via email, text messaging, blogs, and social networking sites.

Some will say that as the (metaphorical) world keeps getting smaller, the individual grows more and more lonely. We're losing face-to-face contact, they'll say, in exchange for mere 1's and 0's. And on top of that, the individual's privacy and people-skills are wrongfully compromised in exchange for instant access to anything and everything.

Connectivity, it seems, is the bad guy.

To this arguement, I present last Monday's episode of (...wait for it...) House. While treating a blogger who's spilled her entire personal life to her readers (including details of her marriage), House wonders why someone would purposefully give up their wealth of privacy in a modern, industrial, and privatized world where human connection (read: vulnerability) is only useful for self-service, thank you very much.

To this, Taub (a.ka. "the short one") and Chase respond, "It's for community and connectivity. Privacy is a modern invention. People used to know everything about everyone living in their village; now, the village is the whole world, and its people still want to be connected to each other." (Paraphrased.)

This got me thinking about the argument above that says as the world gets smaller, the individual gets more lonely.

I disagree. Privacy--at least to the extent to which Western culture values it--is the bad guy. This kind of privacy, where individuals only connect with people on a how-can-you-help-me basis, is an invention of modernity. (Yes, I read too much Brian McLaren. No, I didn't copy this from one of his books. Yes, you may make fun of me.) I used to, like House, wonder why people would blog about their thoughts, as if they think they're some kind of real journalist; or bug me with a Twitter feed about their latest workout routine, because obviously excercising is only effective if you tell somebody about it. But in an emerging postmodern world it seems that people (like myself) are rediscovering the value of that constant connectivity. They're craving it, and finding it on the internet.

As I've learned to embrace this thought myself, rather than taking on an attitude of "all I need is me (and God, of course, because I'm a good Christian... but really, just me)", I've found it very liberating:

• I don't need to be famous anymore. My friends and family love me more than those 10,000 people in the audience.
• What I do (i.e., my vocation) no longer defines me. I define what I do. And I define myself by what has been done for me. (See previous post, Blue-light Special on Grace.)
• Rugged individualism no longer holds any appeal to me. Western work-ethic is a good lesson, but all of its side effects--The nuclear household, the SUV, the shame in asking someone for help and the guilt of having to return their favor--are bullshit. I shouldn't have to avoid community in order to be myself.

I realize I'm mainly talking to myself here. And I realize that blogging about blogging might blow a hole straight through my point. But actually, maybe not... I mean, if I lived in a little village, I'd be sharing this with someone, albeit face-to-face, perhaps while stroking some udders or fetching water. Perhaps the visual que of face-to-face contact is less important than the contact. Really, I can look at someone and talk to them every day and never get to know them. Maybe as technology increases and our constant exposure to visual stimuli via media, urban-life, etc., becomes more overwhelming, we look for a deeper meaning of community beyond the skin-deep visual que.

Maybe 1's and 0's aren't as shallow as people think. And besides... The medium of community has never been a village, an udder, or the internet. You are the medium.

--jesse

Blue-light Special on Grace, isle 3.

First of all... Thanks to Karl of guitarforworship.com for giving me some love on his blog. (See the link on my blogroll to the right.) I have no idea how the guy who's blog I've been following for over a year found mine, but nonetheless I accept the gratitude.

Which brings me to today's topic (Uh oh): The word "accept" is very strange. We often talk about accepting gifts, compliments, etc., but is it really possible to not accept a gift? Well, yeah I guess it is. So, rather, does the rejection of a free gift make the gift non-existent? Of course not. So why do we do it so often? If someone give a child a toy and she doesn't like it, she'll throw it down and pretend to ignore it. But it's still there. It's still hers. The giver isn't going to take it back just because the child is, well, a child.

(On a side note--It's already the third paragraph of this blog entry and I've yet to bitch about Christians. I apologize for the delay. [Yay for "delay"! Ok Karl I hope you're reading this.] Hopefully paragraph 4 is soon enough for you. And by you, of course I mean me. Ok, back on track now.)

This idea of acceptance gets me thinking about the modern Christian idea of "accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior", or accepting him into your heart, or whatever. I've always secretly struggled with this notion, even though I can point to the time in my own life at age 9 that I participated in this blue-light-special ritual. "It's by grace you've been saved," they'll say, "so you better accept Christ so you can go to Heaven. Also--We have your credit-card information, right? Right. Ok, good. Where was I? Oh yeah--Bow your heads and say this prayer with me so that you can be saved by grace through faith."

If the word grace actually means gift, then one shouldn't have to actively accept it, because the act of accepting it becomes the price you pay for receiving it. In other words, saying "the prayer" becomes a good work through which grace is accepted. So really, it becomes "by grace through good works." And if good works are involved, it's not grace, it's payment. Which means it's something we've earned. Which means God owes us grace for being so awesome. Which He doesn't. Hence, the need for grace.

So if acceptance doesn't have anything to do with it, I'm starting to wonder if the Calvinists are on to something. Lucky for me, Dietrich Bonhoeffer offers some insight, noting the difference between "cheap grace" and "costly grace":

Grace as the data for our calculations means grace at the cheapest price, but grace as the answer to the sum means costly grace. It is terrifying to realize what use can be made of a genuine evangelical doctrine. ..."Justification by faith alone" is a misuse of the formula that leads to the complete destruction of its very essence.

When you think of grace as a way to justify an inability to stop sinning, you're left with cheap grace, the grace of the institutionalized post-Constantine Christianity. But when grace answers the question, "How?", i.e., "How can I go on?" or "How did I get into this mess?" or "How can this ever be made right?" or, to paraphrase Bono, "How can such a fucked up world ever be saved?", there true grace is found: Costly grace.

So I'm still left with this question regarding grace: If acceptance isn't a factor, then why do some people not have it? And quite obvious those people are--You know, bad people who murder and steal and rape and otherwise plunder Creation. And not to mention all the people that are perhaps not bad, but just have ignored Christ's call to follow Him--The people stuck in the daily grind, trying to achieve the so-called American Dream, at the expense of being the revolutionary human God intended them to be. And then there's... Oh, wait... The next person in line is... me. A mere 3 sentences down the line from "bad people"; a person who daily misses the mark when it comes to responding to Jesus' call to be the most human I can be: A disciple.

And that brings me back to grace--costly grace--the means wherein the mere opportunity to be a disciple is offered, and the notion of "being saved" becomes nothing more than a product of cheap grace. Faith doesn't help me become a disciple, I just have to do it. Then, obedience will lead me to faith, which will lead to more obedience, and so on, until the Word is as flesh.

But really... Will that time ever come?

(insert grace here)

--jesse

In-Ear Moniter Mixing: Tips and Techniques

After several years of using Aviom in-ear montering systems at Hillcrest, I've grown very fond of them and can hardly imagine ever going back to ear-blasting wedge-moniters again. My fellow worship-team members, however, have given me some mixed reviews about them, and I hope to address the most common complaints (namely, "I can't hear myself") here.

Compared to traditional "wedge" moniters (live speakers on the stage), in-ears have many advantages. First and foremost is the advantage in FOH (front-of-house) audio mixing quality. Without the "sonic pollution" of on-stage wedge moniters, the FOH engineer is able to portray an uncluttered audio mix. Before our in-ear days at Hillcrest, the excess noise being thrown around by a stage full of wedgies was resulting in the FOH mix being compromised by this excess noise.

Another advantage to in-ear monitering is the ability to control one's own moniter mix. Gone are the days of shouting back to the sound tech, "I need more guitar... More... More... No, more...". With the Aviom mixers on stage, each band member can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not to mention do it in stereo.

The downside to all this flexibility is that it often leads to confusion. People want to hear themselves first and foremost, but if that's all you're hearing you're really missing out, and your performance may be suffering as well. The key to using in-ear moniters is getting a perfect mix. With wedge moniters, it's easy (and often necessary) to scrape by with a so-so mix. But in-ears are much less forgiving; however, when the right mix is achieved, they're worth the effort.

Achieving a perfect mix starts with the musician/singer. As with anything, if you're shy, unpracticed, or otherwise unprepared, no advice is going to save you. After that, its very important to get the right ear buds to fit your ears, and insert them so that they create a tight seal (you should hear your "head voice" when talking) and insert each bud into the corresponding ear (red=right, blue=left). Once you've got your buds in your ears and plugged into your mixer, you can start mixing.

First, here's a picture of our mixers and how they are labeled:






G=guitar and v= vocal. So, G2 is "Guitar #2," V2 is "Vocal #2," etc.

Here's a method I've found useful for getting a good mix:

1. Begin with the Master volume at about 1 o'clock, and the Treble/Bass controls and nominal level (12 o'clock).


2. Select your channel and bring its volume to about 50-75%.


3. Put all other instruments/vocals to roughly 50%, all "non-musical things" (pastor's mic, handheld mic, etc) to about 25%, and completely turn off all unused channels (to avoid excess noise).


4. Stereo panning is the key! Generally, you're going to want yourself in the center, along with bass and drums in the center because they're the rhythmic/chordal foundation of the music. Everything else--acoustic guitar, electric guitar, keyboard, voilin, other vocals, etc--should be panned incrementally and equally to either side to create a "stereo image" of the whole band. (See my example below.) What this does is keep all the sonic elements uncluttered in your head. Details below...


5. Raise/lower the various channels to your liking. Remember, it's better to subtract than to add. For example, if you can't hear yourself, try subtracting things you have too much of. If necessary, adjust the panning of the channels if one side of your head feels "heavier" than the other.


6. Save your mix. This is done by holding down both Recall and Group buttons, and pressing a channel number. Your mix can later be recalled by pressing Recall and then selecting the channel number you used previously. (Changes to your mix are not automatically saved; you must re-save it after making changes in order for those changes to be recalled later.) When saving your mix at rehearsal, you can call it up Sunday morning and spare yourself a BIG hassle.

What is panning? Panning simply refers to creating a stereo image (left/right). If everything is in the center, all the sonic elements are going to be competing for your brain's attention. For example, acoustic guitar and piano generally occupy the same frequency range, therefore your brain has a hard time distinguishing between them. But, when one of them is in your left ear, and the other in your right, they become distinct and clear. Also, you'll need less volume on each of their channels to hear them, freeing up "space" for other sonic elements.

Here's an example of a typical mix I might use when playing electric guitar. (I'm in channel 10, labeled G2.)

As you can see, I'm using almost no background vocals. I don't NEED them as a guitar player, so they just create sonic clutter for me. I'll usually pick one background vocal (in this case, V2) to give myself a little feeling for the songs' vocals, but the other 2 are very quiet and panned hard left/right. Keyboard and acoustic guitar (labeled "ben guitar") are partially and equally left and right, and lead vocal ("ben vocal") is a touch to one side--just enough to make it more clear. Crowd mics are hard left/right.

This brings me to one last point. As a worship team member you may have noticed in the last few weeks that there are now channels on the Aviom mixers labeled CL ("crowd left") and CR ("crowd right"). The channels correspond to the microphones we've set up on the stage facing the audience. These microphones do exactly what their name implies: Pick up the sound of our fellow worshipers in the congregation plus a little ambient noise. I've found this extremely helpful in overcoming the common isolation-anxiety associated with in-ear moniters. They allow us to hear the crowd's response and hear them singing and clapping along which enhances the experience greatly.

I hope this helps you get a better mix in your in-ear moniters. The better the mix, the less distracted you'll be, and the better leader/performer you'll be on stage.


--Jesse

Don't credit the music

Music gets way too much credit as a form of God-worship. I believe that music (and any other art, Christian or otherwise) is always worship, but worship can be many other things than music. So why do we do it so regularly? What is its value spiritually? Why is it that only in church we find ourselves singing with a bunch of strangers? It's quite queer, really.

Perhaps it is because music is always “just and good” (Psalm 33:5), even in the midst of imperfect singers and musicians. I think God created music as a sort of gift that allows humans to create something out of nothing. Think about it--songwriting is essentially creating something out of thin air--not from compiling other pre-existing parts and pieces (sans cookie-cutter pop music), but something that only exists because its wholeness exists.

When we get together and sing as a church, it is our time to worship God with each other. It's not "my time" to worship God. Rob Bell said something about the significance of submission in corporate worship--Submitting to each other (singing together) for the greater good of the wholeness of the song and its rhythms and melodies. What a great metaphor for the work of the people: The congregation is held in submission to each other by the song's melody, tempo, and key. And the band members are held accountable to the music by each having their own role in creating the music, and therefore "leading" (although I don't like that word).

If somebody deserts their role for the sake of glorifying themselves, the song (the good work) ceases to exist.

--Jesse

Drops like stars

A quick note... I'm about to leave for Minneapolis to catch Rob Bell's "Drops Like Stars" tour in support of his new book. Being one of my favorite speakers/authors/pastors/persons, this will surely inspire a new blog entry in the coming days (hopefully).

Also, I'm taking the motorcycle which tends to exacerbate the spirtual element of the obiquitous roadtrip experience. But now I'm just creating expectations, so I better shut up.

Oh I almost forgot... Better do a quick checklist of post-modern-emergent-church-function sterotypes:

• Flannel shirt: Check.
• Nerdy glasses: Check.
• Coffee cup glued to hand: Check.
• Permission granted to self to be the first to scream "hell yes" instead of "amen" during the seminar because I need to show everyone that I'm sooo beyond modernity: Check.
• Preference of Macs to PC's: Check.

Splendid. I'm good to go.

--Jesse

You wanna know what really grinds my gears? When people use the word "ironic" when they really mean "highly coincidental".

Yeah, that really grinds my gears.

Back to you, Tom.

--Jesse