Re: Recording at home; Meals tax | Letters to the Editor | Indy Week
Pin It

Re: Recording at home; Meals tax 

Dissing professionals

I was surprised and disappointed after reading "Record at home: The Rosebuds and Annuals make it work" (cover stories, by Grayson Currin and Matt Saldaña, Oct. 1). These articles give the erroneous impression that Annuals made a major portion of their upcoming major-label CD, Such Fun, at their home studio. This is simply not true.

As a co-owner of Osceola Studios, and a producer/ engineer, I found that the tone of the articles slights every audio professional by implying that results of this caliber were obtained at a home studio. For the record, the major portions of this project were recorded at two very professional recording facilities: Osceola Studios in Raleigh and Echo Mountain in Asheville. In addition, a significant outlay of financial support from the record label made it possible for this project to meet the label's requirements of quality. The project was intensely shepherded by experienced professionals at both studios, and the final product was mixed by Grammy-nominated engineer Ian Schreier.

Recording in home environments (some are better than others) do provide positive attributes to a project. There are some advantages to being off the clock. Creative pre-production is always an added value. But by propagating the notion that this level of audio togetherness is obtainable by purchasing the latest gear, the writers have done a disservice to the years of work that professionals have put into separating themselves from the home-recording enthusiast.

There is a reason why Canvasback (Sony BMG) invested the kind of money it did with these audio professionals and these recording studios.

Dick Hodgin
Raleigh


Food tax not fair

Regarding Vernal Coleman's article about Durham's proposed prepared food tax ("Food fight," Oct. 8), I'd like to add a few points. 

I would like to see us do the things that this tax would pay for, but if it fails, we'll need a plan B. Fortunately, plan B—a bond referendum like those that have won with 60 percent to 80 percent margins for the last dozen years—would be less onerous for struggling families with children.

A primary reason to care about tax fairness is that a family under financial stress is the likeliest incubator for a child who drops out, gets pregnant, becomes an addict or joins the criminal economy. Since only a third of Durham households have children, average household figures unintentionally make most homes with children almost invisible. The average working- or middle-class home has about two and half people, so a couple with three kids could be paying twice as much. At bottom, the tax is based on how many mouths you have to feed. Most families with children will pay more than in a comparable tax increase.

Additionally, no metaphor is perfect, but if the feds wanted to shift the tax burden from corporations and onto working parents coming here from Canada and Mexico, would you vote for it? The prepared food tax shifts the burden from subsidized corporations in Treyburn and RTP onto working parents from Wake and Orange.

Finally, the advocates' example is based on the strange idea that an average household earning $36,000 owns a $200,000 house. That's not realistic.

For more realistic numbers, plug your own income and house value into a formula in my online comments on the article. And get ready for plan B.

Frank Hyman
Durham

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Letters to the Editor



Twitter Activity

Comments

Apparently "bro" is now considered a synonym for "any male who disagrees with us". You don't know me, my viewpoints, …

by Adam Douglas Wallace on Jordan Peterson’s Bro Minions Would Like a Word With Us (Letters to the Editor)

"While citing the fact that he's a professor and other so-called credentials"

The original article never mentioned his academic …

by Jonathan Gilman on One More Round of Jordan Peterson Comments, Plus Some People Defend Chris Brown (Letters to the Editor)

Most Recent Comments

Apparently "bro" is now considered a synonym for "any male who disagrees with us". You don't know me, my viewpoints, …

by Adam Douglas Wallace on Jordan Peterson’s Bro Minions Would Like a Word With Us (Letters to the Editor)

"While citing the fact that he's a professor and other so-called credentials"

The original article never mentioned his academic …

by Jonathan Gilman on One More Round of Jordan Peterson Comments, Plus Some People Defend Chris Brown (Letters to the Editor)

The articles about Peterson have been extremely intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate. Filled with unsubstantiated claims of racism, mysoginy, transphobia …

by Timothy Oswald on One More Round of Jordan Peterson Comments, Plus Some People Defend Chris Brown (Letters to the Editor)

So rather than admit your Journalist was factually wrong - a claim the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) also point …

by Niall O' Sullivan on One More Round of Jordan Peterson Comments, Plus Some People Defend Chris Brown (Letters to the Editor)

Outright referring to Peterson's defenders with epithets (one of them rather sexist) is a great way to bolster his message …

by linville_2112 on Jordan Peterson’s Bro Minions Would Like a Word With Us (Letters to the Editor)

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation