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?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, March 13, 2009
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)