The Exposing of Children to Alcohol

Christina responded to my blog, “Of Bad Words and Binks” and raised the question of exposing children or adolescence to things such as alcohol in order to prevent them from a potential problem later, such as binge drinking. While I believe Christina made a valid point, I have to admit that I disagree with her.

The most important reason why I disagree with her post about high school students drinking some in high school to expose themselves to the intoxicant so they might be able to learn their own tolerance is the simple fact that it is illegal. By endorsing the idea of experimenting to expose you are endorsing breaking the law. You might not agree with the law but that is not the point of this blog. While I do not think that a parent should tell their child never to drink alcohol I do think they should tell them that they should not until they are legal to do so. I also think that it is important to instill a respect for law in children or else they might disregard it later in life and end up in some legal trouble.

There are other reasons why I do not think that children should drink alcohol in their high school years. One of them being that the child/adolescent is not finished developing and one such aspect is the brain. It is during this time that the brain is finishing its developmental process and by consuming alcohol, it might hinder that process. It is also true that this particular age group is scientifically known for having the attitude of, that won’t happen to me. This attitude could lead to very drastic or fatal consequences, and this can be seen by looking at the rate of teenage drunk driving or alcohol poisoning. It is also well know that the younger you are when you start to drink, the more likely you are to become an alcoholic. By having people who are 16 drinking, even if it may not be a serious problem at the time, it could develop into one later on.

Another reason that I disagree with the notion that if someone drinks in high school, they might be less likely to overdo it later in college is the fact that there are many more opportunities in college to drink than there are in high school. Someone in high school might party on occasion, but they still have to go home to mom and dad and do not want to get caught. This limits the amount of drinking they will do based simply on the fact that they are still being monitored by an adult. In college many people have trouble adjusting to not having that adult influence. Their sleeping habits changes and suffers, diets decline, and mom and dad are no longer around to catch you when you get home at night completely wasted. I think a large portion of high school drinkers experience that period of alcoholic freedom (for lack of a better term) and might overdo it as well.

I think that the best method of exposing children to alcohol involves parents being open with their children yet having a firm hand as well. Make sure they know the laws and what those laws mean, especially when they are broken. Let them know that alcohol is not necessarily a bad thing but can quickly become one when used in access. Finally I don’t think that talking about alcohol should be a taboo at any age or in any home, it is curiosity that can kill not only the cat but an uninformed person as well.



Question: What is your opinion on this controversial topic?

Pleasureful Gluttony

The reading from the book, Themes in the Philosophy of Music, mentions the use of music as a tool in order to obtain pleasure. The reading also goes on to mention that this cannot be true for if music were only a tool then it could be replaced with some other tool. All of this got me to thinking about how gluttonous the country really is when it comes to tools for obtaining pleasure.
One of the main addictions in this country, in my opinion, is food. This is one of the fattest nations in the world with a large portion of the population being obese or at times even morbidly obese. Things such as portion sizes have gotten out of control due to our desire to obtain pleasure from the foods that we eat. What once used to be a normal sized drink for an adult is now referred to as child sized. With new 32oz drinks and bigger portions of almost every food we eat, it is not hard to see why our waistlines are expanding.
We also want this food given pleasure at our convenience and portable. With water bottles, go-gurt, and other snack items meant to be on the go it is hard to figure out why people need to eat all the time, can we not wait until we get home for that yogurt, and do we really need to have water with us all the time, are we fearful of dehydration?
We are also over consumptive in other areas as well. We thirst for the newest technology and little gadget. A couple of years ago when the new iPhone came out, people were lined up for hours if not days to get the new device. Those people also spent dearly for those as well. There is a large portion of society that seek to obtain pleasure from purchasing material goods, and this can be seen in the enormous amount of credit card debt that is increasing in this country.
It is my belief that we have succumbed to the sin of gluttony in this country. We want things bigger, better, and we want them now regardless of the cost that we might end up paying or even the cost that the environment and planet might pay as well. Cars are a great example; we wanted high performance cars, ones that could go from 0 to 60 in some ridiculously short time that the average person will never utilize. We wanted things to be impressive and grandiose and had little to no regard of the consequences. So while I think that there are completely valid and non destructive ways of obtaining pleasure, such as from music, I think that a large portion of our population is getting out of hand in their attempt to gain pleasure.


Question: Do you think that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing?

Martial Artistry

This is in response to Amy’s question, Should martial arts and other self-defense forms be considered art?


This question intrigued me to the point that I was actually trying to find a way in which things such as martial arts were not a form of art and I found that I was unable to form such an argument. When you break down the aspects of these physical attributes, it is not hard to define them as artistic.

One reason that I felt helped define martial arts as art is how similar it can be to dance, which is considered an art form. Dancers all around the world are revered for their artistic ability, which is mostly to do with the immense amount of control and power they hold over their own body, this control that many people would also like to have as well, so they admire and respect those that put the time and effort into fine tuning their own instrument (body). Those who practice martial arts and other forms of self defense have just as much if not more control over their body as those who practice dance.

The time and hard work that martial artists put into perfecting their instrument can be likened to an artist who might be learning how to play an instrument or a painter learning about techniques. The only difference is that in the case of a martial artist, the artist and the art are one in the same.

There are also forms of martial arts in which the artist hold positions for lengths of time, both as a form of meditation as well as strength endurance. Looking at them as an audience member might make them look as if they are a temporary statue, but instead of being made out of marble or some other form of material they are a living being. AS far as I know a work of art does not have to be something that is permanent in order for it to be considered art. If permanency were a necessary condition for artwork then nearly all forms of artwork that we look at as art would not meet that standard since canvas can be burned or torn and sculptures can be demolished.

Another reason that I believe that martial arts is art is the fact that it can elicit emotional from audience members or those who view it. A demonstration can create feelings of peace and serenity or of anxiety or anger. They are well choreographed and practiced which, like I said earlier, is similar to dance art. So it is my belief that martial arts and self defense should be considered as art.



Question: What conditions do you think are necessary to define something a as art?

Of Bad Words and Binks

This is in response to Amy’s question, “Is it the parents fault if a child starts using curse words? Or is it the media’s fault? Or is it both?


Parent’s responsibility for their children’s action is oddly enough a very heated debate. There are, in general, two camps that one could subscribe to. One of the camps feels that parents are responsible for all the actions of their children and the other feels that the media is so pervasive that parents cannot keep their children from it. Then you have those who feel that the answer is somewhere in the middle.

There are those who feel that parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children. It is true that parents are the first to help socialize young children. When a child misbehaves people will usually speculate about what the parent is doing wrong in the rearing of said child and this includes when a child uses profanity after all, they had to learn it somewhere. While parents cannot predetermine what or who their children will grow up to be, they do lay the ground work for future habits both good and bad. For this reason parents should take the responsibility of raising their children seriously.

On the other end of the spectrum you have those who feel that the media is so out of control and ingrained into every aspect of our life that children and merely lambs being lead to the slaughter. Music has profanity, TV shows are full of stereotypes and sexual content and even Hannah Montana’s concerts are a bit risqué for the younger audience members. Children also pick up violent tendencies from TV as well, doubters merely play with a four year old boy who watches power rangers and see him try to punch the bad guy and you will know what I mean. I don’t completely agree with this point even though I do agree that the media has become an even larger opponent for parents than in past generations.

People who believe that either the parents are 100% responsible or that the media is 100% responsible for children’s behavior and use of foul language are missing a key point. The fact is that both, in some ways are responsible. Yes parents should monitor what they do and do not listen to or watch, if they think that it’s inappropriate then turn it off. However parents are not with their children 24 hours a day and they will interact with other people and children. So it is my belief that the blame should be spread between the two for the majority of cases, even though there are instances in which parents swear and curse in front of their children I do not believe that this is the norm.



Question: At what age do you think children should be made aware of what curse words mean?

Response to Amy

This is in response to Amy’s question, “is it natural for animals to be able to respond to the human language?”

Animals responding to the human language, to me, seem to be very logical. I also believe that all types of animals, whether it is a feral or a domesticated creature, should and do respond to various noises, one of which being human voice.

When a wild animal, let’s say a rabbit, hears a human voice, it will undoubtedly become alert. This is the survival instinct that is kicking in for the animal. It hears something that is outside of the norm and it will respond, typically in a fight or flight manner. If you stumble upon a rabbit, it will instinctually run off in a flight manner, now if you were to encounter a mother bear with her cubs, the bear might react in a fight manner in response to your human voice. This is natural and it is how animals survive. They need to be able to adequately respond to things that have the potential to cause them harm.

As far as domesticated animals go, I think that they to respond to the human voice as a means of survival, however, I think that the fight or flight element that was present with the feral animal is absent in this aspect. Pets learn how to act in ways that will please the pet owner (this is if the owner knows how to properly train a pet however). The pet knows that if they act in a way that is appropriate, they will get rewarded in some way either by a treat or even just attention and praise. These animals also know that if they misbehave that they will receive a negative consequence.

It is my belief that animals, especially pets, learn to respond to human voices in ways that are similar to children. If you want to know if it is natural for an animal to respond to the human language then say something like want to go for a ride to a dog that loves going on them. I know my dog will hop up at the mention of a ride and get very excited, he has learned what that word means and wants in on the action. An animal, with enough training and exposure to the human language can learn to adequately respond to it in turn.

Question: Do you think that animals can only respond to simple human language or do you think that with enough time, practice, and exposure that they could learn more complex language?

Urinals and Broken Guitars

This is in response to Michelle’s question, “can playing a burning piano or even a submerged one be looked at as art/music? Do people destroy instruments because they want to be unique in their art making?”


The short answer to this question for me is yes. Things such as demolishing a piano or even smashing a guitar have been looked at as art as well as music. Art, just like music, is something that is very hard to define and it is even more difficult if not impossible to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered art or music. Though this might be a stumbling block, there have been cases when things mentioned in the above question were considered to be art or a musical piece.

It is difficult to define art, but it anyone was to go into an art museum, they would find much more than the Mona Lisa, or other paintings. Art can be made out of twisted metal, garbage, and almost anything you can think of under the sun. Since these objects are located in what we call an art museum, I am acquiescing to the art curator and trust their judgment that what is in the confines of the buildings is truly art. Though I have never seen an art exhibit that contained a demolished piano, I am sure that there is one out there somewhere. People make things like a submerged piano to be looked at as art, they are not merely trying to be destructive, but they are trying to convey something artistic, for lack of a better word.

As far as things such as destroying instruments being considered music, I think that if you find the right group of people then yes it can be considered music. There are many bands that would destroy their instruments at the end of a performance, and many people considered the sounds that emanated from the battered instruments as musical. Some bands have even gone as far to put sounds such as feedback, or at times play with a damaged instrument to create a newer and different sound that is typically associated with that instrument.

Since it is so hard to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for art or music it is hard to either include or exclude certain things as artistic or musical. So some people might take a urinal, put it on display and declare it art, just like some guitar players might throw their guitar in the air let it crash to the ground and then proceed to play an impromptu and unique version of the star spangled banner (Kurt Cobain, Reading Festival 1992). To some people, these things are art and music.

Question: Do you think some declaring something a work of art is enough to make the object a work of art?

The Enculturation of Music

This is in response to Christina’s question, Do you truly believe that music without words, without human voice, necessarily contains no drama or narration, and even so, do you truly believe purely instrumental music lacks expressiveness and therefore the audience feels no emotions from it?

After reading the chapter and reading the question that Christina posed I began to think about whether or not instrumental music can express emotion and I came up with a few different reasons why I think that it is the person, receiver, and not the music itself that is generating the emotions that people feel when they listen to a particular piece.

First off in order for a musical piece to truly emanate an emotion purely of its own making, then the music itself should express that specific emotion universally to all that hear it. In our culture we typically think of songs played in mostly minor keys as being sad or mournful and songs in major keys as being happier and more upbeat. As we learned in class this is not something that is universally experienced around the world then it stands to reason that it is something that has evolved in our culture that experiences these minor pieces as sad. Since there is no universally sad or universally happy song or composition then how can it be that the music is generating the emotions?

As a species we learn through example and imitation. Even children from an early age learn by imitating the adults in the world around them. Things like laughing and smiling are done because the infant receives a positive reaction from the adult. When the child coos the adult smiles and gives it attention, so the child then does the same action hoping for more attention. This is also how children learn to walk and talk and how to interact with people in the outside world. This is also how children (future adults) learn what to expect from music. When we are having birthday party we listen to happy music and we associate that particular type of music with the feeling that we experienced when we first heard it. If they happened to play something similar to a funeral dirge from the beginning in place of the so called happier music then that would become the norm for the population. We as a society play certain types of music to go along with certain types of events and that is how we form associations with the so called emotions that are coming from the song. We create these connections from birth.

The last thought that I had about the subject is the fact that sometimes people find what we typically consider sad music to bring forth emotions of happiness. Now I know this particular song is lyrically based, but when I first met my Fiancée we were listening to a song that many would consider as sad and depressing, but since I now think of him when I hear that song, it makes me happy. It is because I created a pleasing memory with that song and it is that memory that creates the emotions, not the song. However, I do think that music is a powerful tool, one that can stir up emotions deep within us, though I do not think that the song itself is creating the emotions.


Questions: Do you think that our experiences from birth determine what music we find to be happy or sad?

An Undefined Line

This is in response to Emily Burke’s response to my blog.
In my original blog entry I talked about the destruction of musical instruments at the end of a performance committed by bands such as Nirvana, who at time did it to ensure that their manager could not force them into encores. Emily responded to the question that I posted and in her response criticized the band for this behavior and referred to it as selfish. This got me thinking about how celebrity is dealt with in our society and some of the expectations that are forced upon those who reach a certain level of fame, like Nirvana.
We cannot deny that this society is addicted to entertainment and that we tend to follow the lives of celebrities to an unhealthy level. With things such as Entertainment weekly, or shows like entertainment tonight, or channels like E (entertainment) it is not hard to see how this cultural phenomenon has invaded our everyday lives. This fact has lead me to the conclusion that not only does entertainment take up way too much of our day to day lives, but it also makes us feel some sort of entitlement to things such as the time and life of these people that we idolize for one reason or another.
There is an entire occupation that is devoted to following celebrities around every day of their life. Paparazzi are notorious for going the extra mile to get a photo or sound bite from those who we deem as newsworthy. What many people fail to realize how intrusive this can be to someone. I know I get frustrated when I feel like people are getting to involved in my life and they have an entire country wanting to know every detail about them . I think that this can be very trying and test the patience of celebrities, and I also think that they deserve some privacy just as much as we do.
This brings me to my next point which is a concert. The main act of a show, the one that most people go to see, is usually on stage for an hour or more. Being on stage and singing (for those who don’t lip sync) and playing music for 90 minutes can be exhausting, and they do it almost every night. One has to ask themselves if it is right for a band to play their set, go off stage just to have a manager say you have to go back out because they are cheering loud enough. Are the bands and musicians really their merely to bend and twist to our every demand. The general population is not subject to those standards why should those who have a gift be held to a different standard? Is having a gift a life sentence into servitude to their fans?

Question: How much does musician owe their fans? At one point does it cross the line into absurdity?

Created in the Image of God

The discussion that we had in class on Monday about what constitutes a person got me thinking about both animal and human euthanasia. It was mentioned in class that persons include beings such as cats dogs, and other sentient beings and that the title is not merely designated for Homo sapiens. It was then discussed later that it is wrong to inflict harm or end the life of another person. I then brought the subject of euthanizing terminally ill pets in class and asked why it was ok to end their life but not the life of a terminally ill human. Since that class I have come up with some general ideas why.
One of the main reasons that I think there is a double standard between the two different types of person is the fact that human lives are valued more than the life of an animal. A majority of people seem to think a human life is worth more than an animal life, whether or not that is right or wrong is another question altogether. When a dog is diagnosed with cancer and is obvious pain and discomfort, many will choose to end their suffering, put them out of their misery, or some other cliché however, when a human is just as ill and is terminal as well the best we can do is to grant them a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR). They will not put the person out of their misery or they would be subject to a murder investigation.
Another reason that I think that people are leery about ending the life of a terminally ill patient has to do with the fact that religion still has a strong presence in our everyday lives. We are, after all, created in the image of God, how can we put such a creation to death merely because they are suffering and going to die? The bible tells those who chose to read it that we are a divine creation, made by god in his likeness, it is not hard to see why people would think that this makes them special, that it puts them on a pedestal of other lesser persons such as animals. The idea of euthanizing people who are deemed too ill or frail to live also conjures up an image of Nazi Germany and the horrors that so called undesirable people suffered at the hands of Hitler and his regime.
The final reason that I have come up with is the population as a whole is afraid of where to draw the line and who should and should not be allowed to have a physician to end their life. Can only people with illness that will kill them within six months, a year, or just a few days be allowed to choose this option? What do we do with people who are unable to choose for themselves, do we allow family members to chose, what if there is a conflict within the family members over the proper course of action? Should the person be terminal and have chronic and debilitating pain or do they just have to be terminal, and that begs that question over whether or not people who have chronic pain and severe illnesses that are not terminal such as sickle cell anemia be allowed to end their life? Then we have to worry about who decides whose life is worth living, should people with severe mental retardation be euthanized? What about people who are suicidal? I think that a lot of people have these fears and questions about how far this could go if euthanasia was legalized, the whole process becomes a very slippery slope.

Question: Do you think that someone who is terminal ill and in constant pain be allowed to choose to have a doctor euthanize them? Should their family be allowed to choose for them?

A show Stopping Event

The discussion in class on Wednesday in which we mentioned artists destroying their instruments at the end of the performance got me thinking about my favorite band, Nirvana. For those who are unaware of the stage antics of this particular grunge band, they were well known for destroying their instruments at the end of their shows. The class as a whole felt that the destruction of the instruments was a distasteful and disrespectful to the instruments in a way. This, in turn, got me thinking about why musicians, who are supposed to love their craft, would do such a thing to begin with.
I do know of a few bands, Nirvana in particular, who would use the method of destroying their instruments as a way of insuring that they would not have to play an encore. For a band that was just playing for about an hour and a half, an encore can seem a daunting task, what better way to make sure that both the audience and your manager cannot expect anymore of you than to damage the instruments that you played with? To me this seems to be logical, if not practical. Of course there were other ways to get around it, destroying a set is a bit dramatic, but it is my belief that they wanted the drama to begin with. It definitely is a show stopping event.
I also feel that deep inside of everyone, there is that destructive urge bubbling beneath the surface. We all experience those moments of extreme anger and frustration in which we want to punch a wall or destroy something. Artists, especially those who experience great success, can become very anxious and at times angered by the forced change in their own lifestyle. I always thought that at the moment those artists destroyed their instruments it was a way of releasing their anger that was in some ways created by their talents with the instrument. This was true for people like Kurt Cobain who did not like the media craze that surrounded his stardom and musical career. So I am not surprised that he often destroyed instruments at the end of his set, however, the instruments were not unusable afterwards.
A little known fact about the Nirvana front man was that he was a skilled guitar technician I guess you would call it. Generally after a show in which they would destroy the set, Kurt would work on and fix the guitars himself. He even said that many guitars would survive a few destructions before he could no longer fix them. So while the idea of an artist destroying their instrument might be disrespectful to many, he would fix the damage that he had done.
To be honest, I have no definite idea as to why musicians sometimes destroy their instruments, and since that I am not a musician myself, I do not experience the same abhorrence that a musician might when they see others commit this act. I do, however, think that this is a very interesting social phenomenon that deserves more in-depth analysis and thought.

Question: Is there any justification for a musician who destroys their own instrument?

Natural Sounding Music

This is in response to Sarah’s question; do you ever think we will incorporate early music (music of nature) with our newer "popular" music today?
I believe that there are a few answers to this question. If you want to know if popular music will utilize technology and imitate the sounds of nature then I think that the answer is yes. If you are questioning whether or not some artist, band or composer, is going to go out into the woods and record and use what he finds there, maybe. Do I think that nature and its sounds are going to start dominating the music scene today, not so much.
Technology is making things a lot easier for the lives of recording artists. With computerized music one does not need to say go out and get a sample recording of rain if they want to incorporate it into their music. They can simply go into the studio and make it with their technological devices. One band that did do such a thing was Godsmack on their song On Rainy Day off their fourth studio album. Like the title says, there is rain in the audio of the piece. However Sully Erna or Shannon Larkin did not go out and record these themselves. They used a previously created sound bite that was probably in some catalogue. So is this incorporating nature into popular music, well Godsmack is a popular band, and the rain can be found in nature but is it really a natural sound when it was created by man in a sound booth?
This also brings me to my next point, which is whether or not musicians will take the time to go out and record the sounds themselves. This I do think is possible. Musicians are by nature a creative being so it does not seem to be out of the realm of possibility that someone will want to actually get a recording of living birds to put into their piece. In the 60s Pink Floyd brought a dog into the studio and allowed the dog to bark and incorporated it into their album Meddle, so it is not an unheard of occurrence.
Even though there are occurrences of technology masquerading as nature or even actual nature popping up in music, I do not think that it will dominate the popular music in our society. Our culture is becoming more and more obsessed with technological advances and what can we do next that I do not see an immediate or complete return to the sounds of nature in our music of popular choice.

Question: Do you think creating nature sounds in a studio is the same as recording it from nature? Why or why not.

IPod's and Laziness

I am currently enrolled in a course entitled contemporary social issues through film in which we discuss many aspects of entertainment and its relationship to human lives. This course combined with the sheer number of IPod’s, cell phones, and other electronic devices that can be seen anywhere on campus. All of this made me think of how lazy, for lack of a better word, we have become with our desire to be entertained and to be entertained whenever we feel like it.
Not too long ago things such as IPod’s did not exist, and very few people had things such as Discman’s to listen to at their leisure. Music was something that if you wanted to listen to, you had to be in a car or near a radio. Now with the advent of portable music devices those days are a distant memory, and for younger people it is a time that simply did not exist. We can now listen to music whenever we want, in our own homes, in the car with our handy auxiliary converters, when walking down the street, or even sneaking it during a particularly boring class. Someone in our class once said that these devices are encouraging us to be antisocial in a way and I have to agree. The ease and convenience of these are causing us to become antisocial and even lazy to a dangerous degree.
One cannot deny that with the alarming increases in technology that our life is becoming easier but passed the point where it is beneficial. Things like cars might help make travel easier, but we now have a high number of obese individuals and we are polluting the environment at a rapid pace. Things are being marketed in ways that promote concepts of ease, comfort, and speed. Even things such as shopping, an activity that once required one to leave their home, can now be done on their computer.
I have to admit that I too have succumbed to the allure of easy living. I have my own IPod with a converter so that I can listen to it in my car, just the other night I bought a CD online rather than take the time to go to a store; I also research things for papers online than take the time to hunt it down in the library. Well there is my little rant after having a course with Ed Curtin, an amazing teacher I might add.


Question: What sorts of technology do you think do more harm than good for mankind, besides ones used for killing?

Response to Sarah

This is in response to Sarah’s question, do you feel like musical theatre and the movies have a lot in common?
As soon as I read this post and looked at the question I immediately thought of my professor and advisor, Ed Curtin, and his course on Contemporary Issues through Film. Among the many things we have done in that course, the idea of people watching things like movies, TV, and even theatrical production has been at the heart of the course. So with the knowledge that I have garnered from this course I feel confident in saying that yes, musical theatre, and other types of theatre, do have some key elements in common with each other.
One of the most common elements, even if it does seem rather simple, is the fact that people go to them for entertainment. We are a nation of people who want enjoyment and want people to provide it to us on a regular basis. The sheer number of movie theatres, video stores, online retail, and Broadway itself is a testament to this countries desire to be entertained for a few hours. There is an enormous industry in this country that prays on our desires, there is even a cable channel called E (for entertainment. So since both musical theatre and movies are among the more popular forms of entertainment, it is not hard to see the connection between the two spheres of the attempt to defeat boredom.
Another way that the two are similar can be found in the fact that many movies and made into a theatrical performance, and plays are at times made into movies. Look at movies such as Grease, or Sweeney Todd, both pieces of work were performed in both arenas and they were done so because of the fact that they can, with little difficulty, be adapted to the other form of media.
The final way in which I think that the two are similar lies in the fact that both mediums imitate real life. There is no play, musical, or movie that does not try to emulate real life in some way or another. The lives may be extreme, fantastic, or down right out of this world but the emotions, problems, and the feelings of the characters within the medium are dealing with everyday human issues that are basic and natural. When people go to see these imitations of life they have to suspend their disbelief for a period of time. To get the full entertainment value of any piece of work, one has to, at some level; believe that what is happening before them is not only possible but probable as well. The connection between the two is that people seek out these forms of entertainment to lose them self in a non-existent reality that is not their own. So I do think that these two forms are similar and are similar in many different ways.


Question: Do you think that entertainment has become more beneficial or more harmful to the lives of people in today's society?

Response to Kelsey

This is in response to Kelsey’s question, how does the vocabulary an artist uses in his song affect the general message of it?

I think that since most people try to listen to the lyrics of a song that is lyrical in form then the lyrics themselves greatly affect the message of the song. So artists are charged with a great task when creating lyrical songs, in order for them to convey the intended message that they are trying to create, they have to choose their words wisely.
I once had a professor who greatly valued our technical writing ability and place a large amount of emphasis, and our grade, on how well we write. After someone in the class mentioned that the course was not an English class and suggested that he might ease up a bit on the grammar, he responded with something that has stuck with me to this day. He said that whenever we put our thoughts onto paper (or in the lyrics in the song) we are asking others to judge us. The only tool we are giving them to assess who we are as people is in our words so why be so careless with them. By reading what we have created people will judge whether or not we are intelligent, serious, or if we could give a crap. I think that this rings true for lyrics as well. We categorize music and in a way stereotype those who are creating it. We hear a song and we can conjure up an image of who we think they are as a person.
I also feel like the vocabulary has to be appropriate, it is a song after all. What would be the point in singing a song that was either so complex in the vocabulary that the general audience did not understand it, or having a song that was so elementary that is quickly becomes boring and repetitive. One of my favorite songwriters had an interesting point when it come to word choice in a song, he felt that not only did the words themselves have to be well chosen and fit into the desired feel of the song, but the words, the very syntax behind it was more important. To him, it was ok, if at times the words themselves did not make clear sense as long as the feel of the vocal vibrations caused by the words fit the words around it.
We as people look for the meaning of the song within the lyrics, so f course the lyrics are going to influence the feeling and the message of the song. Whether or not we should judge music based on the lyrics is another question.

Question: How much do you think a well developed vocabulary is necessary in the creation of a good song?

Response to Amy

This is in response to Amy’s question, how much influence does family have over one’s life?

After reading this question, I reverted back to the fall semester of my freshmen year of college and Sue Birns. The course that I took with her, Families did a small unit on parental determinism and the effects that this determinism has on the child throughout its life span. Since I have a great deal of respect for Sue, and trust her judgment in terms of book choice for the class, I have to say that they so have some influence, yet they are not the only source, and are at times not the most compelling source either.
To say specifically that your parents or familial upbringing has resulted in say, your choice in musical genre is going to be a stretch and very difficult to prove. However it is not that difficult to say that certain characteristics of our upbringing do influence us in other ways. Those little customs that we never think about but follow us through our life, they can be things like favorite types of food, or even things like how we eat meals themselves that is a habit formed from our familial past.
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule when it comes to societal structure and people themselves. There will always be that one case where someone did deviate from the average or the norm. So while I say that family influence is minimal, there will be people in this very class who say that their family influenced them directly and in numerous aspects of their life. When considering things like personal preferences, I really think that the majority of them are influenced in a greater extent by our peers and those that we choose to spend our free time with.

Question: Have you ever felt judged based on your choice in music? Have you ever judged others based on what music they listen to?

My Soundtrack of my Life

This is in response to Amy’s question, “If you were soundtrack for your life, what songs would be on it and why?” After some much thought and consideration, I have come up with a quasi soundtrack of my life; with some songs being more genres’s or types of song.

Track 1: Anything you can do, I can do Better. Early on in my life I was very self centered and bratty, for lack of a better word. I was the youngest of six and also one of only two girls. Being the baby and a little girl almost predestined me for spoiled rotten behavior. It did not help that most of my siblings were considerably older that I was; the second youngest is nine years older than me with the oldest being 24 years older than me. I feel that this song, which is sung in a very girly and childlike voice, and being all around annoying in almost all aspects of musical composition, encapsulates the way that I behaved at that point in my life.
Track 2: Glory Days by Bruce Springsteen. This song is on my list for two reasons, one of the reasons being my second oldest brother Ron. His favorite artist in the late 80’s was The Boss and so I was introduced to this type of music early on. It also fits due to the very lyrical base of the song itself. Being that I grew up in a family lead by older parents with siblings already in adulthood, I grew up listening to stories of the good ol’ days. The lyrical base of the song is about reflecting on better times and that is what I experienced a lot in my youth, parents talking about their prime, and siblings reflecting on life before I came along.
Track 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7: The next stage does not have one particular song but rather the ideas behind the music are what are important. From the age of I would say 12 -15 I was a follower, at least a follower of what my friends listened to. All of my life I had listened to what other people in my life listened to and what they liked. Why else at the age of three would I be listening to Bruce Springsteen and Prince? SO when I started to care more about what my friends thought of me, then I started listening to what they liked. This is my, I shudder to admit this, Backstreet Boys, Christina Aguilera, and Britney Spears period. That is what my friends listened to so that is what I listened to as well.
Track 8: What Shall we Do Now? Pink Floyd. This next period is when I started to listen to things that I wanted to listen to. The very first band that I liked that none of my friends cared for was Pink Floyd. I used to hang out with a very innocent crowd who felt that Pink Floyd was something only druggie’s listened to Pink Floyd. Now many of the friends who looked at me oddly when I mentioned the band now listen to them as well, I guess for once I was ahead of the curve in my own little circle of friends.
Track 9: Angry Music Period: Early on in my college experience I had large amount of issues with both friends and family, and I was in a very angry place. At the time my most played CD’s were my Godsmack ones. Anyone who listens to Godsmack knows that they are a good band to go to when you are angry and need to listen to angry music. The music and lyrics on their albums create both a sad and pissed off about it feel to the music. With tracks like Stay Away, The Enemy, and I F%$king Hate You, it is not surprising that this is what music I associate with that period of my life.
Track 10: This last period, the one that I am currently in at this moment is what I call my grunge period, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden being the leading musical forces behind this period of my life. What is important about this music to me now is the amount of interpretation that the bands leave up to the audience. For a song with vague lyrics listen to anything by Nirvana, and that is what I like at this point in my life. The songs tend to be angry and sad at times but not in an in your face kind of way.

So that is my soundtrack of my life…so far.

Question: What are five songs that you do not like in anyway, what is it about them that you dislike so much?

Backtracking and Subliminal Messages

The idea of Pink Floyd’s, The Wall, syncing up with The Wizard of Oz made me think about the idea of backtracking and the colorful history that this phenomena has. The idea that artists are putting messages in reverse on their CD’s in order to get the listener to complete a desired action is debatable and a very heated argument to this day. No one denies that backtracking exists, the fact that some musicians have come out and said that they did put messages embedded within their music proves that it does exist, what makes me wonder if people can be “brainwashed” into doing things due to subliminal messages on a record.
An example of musicians being held culpable for the actions of others occurred in the 1990’s with the band Judas Priest. The band was charged and put on trial for the death of a young man supposedly suicidal from hidden messages within the music. One website had this to say about the trial and the proceedings, Judas Priest was a British heavy metal rock band-one of the first of that genre. Their popularity peaked in the mid-70s. The album in question (Stained Class) was produced in 1978; the shootings took place in December 1985. It was alleged that a particular subliminal phrase in one of their songs ("Better by You Better than me") on the album triggered a suicidal impulse.” http://www.csicop.org/si/9611/judas_priest.html .
Though the lawsuit was eventually dismissed, the question remains as to whether or not someone’s actions can be influenced by subliminal messages hidden within pieces of music. I personally feel that they do not, though I am not denying that some artists do backtrack I feel that they reasoning behind the act is not as sinister as the plaintiffs at the Vance V. Judas Priest trial believed them to be. If such things were true, and people could be so easily influenced by hidden messages that more fans of Judas Priest would have done it, whatever it is.
We live in a society that needs to find someone to blame, it is to heartbreaking for those parents of the boy who killed himself to believe that he did it of his own free will. It is much easier to place the blame on the shoulders of someone else. For example, Weird Al did his own backtracking on a song in which he says that Satan loves cheese, or something along those lines. After hearing the song repeatedly (before knowing of the backtracking) I had no idea of Lucifer’s chose in dairy products, for all I knew he could have been lactose intolerant. My point is that I think backtracking is merely something fun for musicians to do, yet does not act as a tool of mass mind control. Now that being said I am going to go and listen to Judas Priest and try not to “do it” whatever it might be.

Question: Do you think subliminal messages embedded within a musical composition can influence them to do some specific action, like kill themselves?

Response to Amy

This is in response to Amy’s question, is categorizing important in today’s society.

I think that the world that we live in revolves around and thrives off from the categorization of both things and people. This attribute, whether good or bad, is something that is engrained within us from infancy or earlier. We categorize everything from music and entertainment, and even to people themselves.
I truly feel that the need to categorize is instilled into us from an early age and with the most general of categories as well. Look at any infant, we group them into a group of masculine or feminine (not male or female, that is their physical gender). I feel that by placing more feminine attributes on girls and masculine characteristics on boys engenders the idea that both people and things must be either this or that and to deter from that path is to challenge the status quo. I challenge anyone to find a parent who buys a dress for their newborn son or to find someone who bought a baseball cap for a daughter. From this early age we are teaching people to separate themselves and to categorize.
We also tend to categorize entertainment as well. Anyone who has gone to FYE or Blockbuster knows that the items are separated by genre. Rock albums go with other rock albums and comedy movies go with comedy. In this situation categorizing things makes logical sense, it just makes it easier to find what you are looking for and keeps things neat and orderly, something that many people in our society crave desperately.
Like I mentioned earlier, we also categorize people. Any high school student will be able to give you a laundry list of all of the various clicks that exist in school, and the hierarchy of those clicks, and how desperate most people are to be a member of one. There are so many ways in which our society chooses to categorize people, by race, gender, socio economic standing (who has not heard someone say “oh they are welfare people”). It may not be right, in fact I do not think that it is, but we as a society categorize everything and that’s including people.
I feel that if tomorrow suddenly everything was not categorized, then we would be in a worse situation than many realize. Categories are hardwired into us; they help us make since of the world and help us keep our current world orderly and manageable. Though some categories need to be changed, it is going to have to take time; we are addicted to them after all.

Question: What categories of music do you like/ dislike and why.

Response to Abby

This is in response to Abby’s question: Is it preferable to have music or no music during a crucial scene in a film? If music is more desirable - is it better for the music to be internal or external to the film?

I think that it is very important to have not only music at crucial points in the film, but it is also important to have the right music at the right time. We, as people, connect music to emotion and use it as a vehicle to convey emotions to others and this is why music is such an important aspect of a movie production. However, music also acts as a form of foreshadowing for the viewer as well.
If you have ever watched a low budget independent film that has little to know musical backdrop, it may feel like it is missing something important, or is just not complete. This might be due to the fact that we have become so accustomed to having the musical backdrop but nonetheless the desire for music is there. The musical score is important to help get across the meaning of the film.
This may sound like an odd reference, but the 1978 film, Halloween, by John Carpenter is a good example of a musical score helping convey emotions in a song. Being a horror film fan, I obtained a copy of the 25th edition a few years ago that had quite extensive list of special features, one of them including a lengthy behind the scenes piece. While watching this special feature, the creator and director John Carpenter mentioned the first time he showed the film to a producer. He was told that the film was simply not that scary, the film, at this point, was also lacking a musical score. At this point they showed a rather famous clip of the movie without the musical addition, and it really wasn’t that scary. After this disappointing meeting, John Carpenter enlisted the aid of a composer, and with a limited knowledge of music himself, they created the famous and ominous score that has become the Halloween theme. This is the only change that Carpenter, and now the film was significantly scarier than before, and has gone down in history as a horror film classic. What made the difference for this movie, as well as others, was the addition of the music. It made the film complete, a whole package.
Adding music to a film also helps create anticipation within the movie, much like chord progressions can do in a song. The music picks up during action scenes, and is slow and melancholic during more depressing scenes. A simple piece of music can change a scene from a sad one to an uplifting one full of potential and hope. The same thing goes for scary movies, which are notorious for building up anticipation and suspense with music to increase the scare factor of the scene. All of these things would be impossible if the creators of the film did not take the time and effort to make sure that the movie not only has a musical score but also the right score.

Question: Which genre of film do you think best utilizes musical composition to increase the feeling of a movie?

The Dark Side of Oz

The other night I was trying to pick out a movie to watch with my boyfriend when I saw a copy of the Wizard of Oz. I knew that Colin would not want to watch it; it was not his type of movie. As I kept looking I saw my poster of the Dark Side of the Moon, by Pink Floyd hanging on my wall and we decided to watch the movie on mute while playing the Dark Side of the Moon. The conspiracy behind the album and the movie is famous, the fact that if you synchronize it up just right, the music becomes almost a soundtrack and fits in with the feel of the movie. After we watched the movie with the CD playing many thoughts came to my mind; if Pink Floyd really made an album that went along with the movie, why would they do it? Then I wondered who discovered that there were similarities between the two to begin with, and finally are the similarities there because we are trying to make the connections or do they really exist beyond our desire to make them so?
First, I feel compelled to describe some of the similarities between the movie and the CD; after all, there is quite a large fan base of supporters who have studied the pair almost to a point of obsession. With each song on the album there are connections made with the movie. A line from the first song, balanced on the biggest wave, occurs as Dorothy is balancing on a fence. Money starts nearly as soon as the movie changes to color and Dorothy is in Oz. Adding color to a movie must have cost a considerable amount of money and the flashy colors could have symbolized wealth, which fits with the idea of money. The scarecrow sings about his longing for a brain and this just so happens to coincide with the song Brain Damage. The end of the CD occurs as Dorothy meets the Tin Man, as she tries to listen for his heartbeat, the CD fades out and we hear a distinct heartbeat coming from the CD.
The websites that are devoted to these phenomena are many, but the question that I have is why would the artists do something like this, and whether or not it is even possible? The idea of backtracking and making subliminal messages in songs were popular around the time of this album creation, but the idea of a band painstakingly making sure lyrics lined up, songs started at the correct time, and the idea of simply creating an entire album to fit something else seems slightly farfetched to me. In addition, there is the issue with remastered versions of the movie. The speed at which those movies are played should be enough to through off the entire synchronization of the two. However, most of the movies that are played in conjunction with the album are newer remastered copies that were not out at the release of the album.
There is of course a concession in this argument. The fact remains that there are many similarities between the two that make it almost impossible to be blamed merely on coincidence. Is it so hard to believe that four men, who had obviously undertaken elaborate album ideas in the past, would not watch a childhood favorite and decide to make a rock album that could serve the dual role of an album but also a soundtrack to a classic film? Both ideas seem both probable and improbable at the same time.
The next question that I pondered while watching the movie with the album serving as the soundtrack was who discovered these coincidences to begin with. Was it some movie aficionado? Some one who happened to by multitasking? On the other hand, maybe it was someone on some sort of acid trip and decided to pair the two separate creations together and see what came from the union. There is always the possibility that if it was intentional, and the Dark Side of the Moon was made to go along with the Wizard of Oz and a member of production team behind Pink Floyd leaked it to individuals. The possibilities are endless.
The last question that I had was are these connections really there, or are our brains simply trying to find ways in which the two separate entities are similar and we are making the connections exist purely from our own desire that they should. Many of the connections that are displayed on websites are far fetched, connections that involve quite a bit of interpretation and insight. While some of the similarities are a bit more obvious and make sense, such as the heartbeat on the CD playing while Dorothy listens for the Tin Man’s heartbeat, while others are a bit more vague, such as increasing the tempo of the music during more action packed scenes.
While there are many questions about the Dark Side of Oz as it has been labeled, watching the movie with the album playing as the soundtrack is entertaining at least and a fun little experiment to do when your bored, or just in the mood for some low key fun.

Question – Do you think a band would purposely try to make an album match up with a film and go through the hassle of making things line up, or do you think that the whole thing is just a creation in the minds of listeners and viewers?