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?

Response to Kelsey

This is in response to Kelsey’s question, how do you organize your music? How do you determine what your favorite music is?
Since this question contains two questions, I will answer each question separately. When it comes to organizing my music, I have a variety of ways in which I organize it in terms of playlists on my iPod, as well as how I may organize physical CD’s both in my car and in my house.
My iPod, which was a gift from my fiancée for our fourth anniversary, has quite a few playlists on it that I have created. The largest playlist that I have is entitled Car, which is for when I am driving. This playlist contains over 300 songs from nearly all the artists on my iPod. There is no defined theme that encapsulates the playlist. This playlist is something that I can easily click on and not worry about getting bored. Since there are so many different songs and genres on that particular playlist, I do not have to worry about hearing too much from one artist, which can get boring when I drive long distances.
The next playlist that I have is my “angry” playlists of sorts yet has no title. This is what I listen to when I have a fight with a friend or maybe someone in my family. Listening to angry music, such as Sick of Life by Godsmack, is somewhat cathartic for me. While it might seem like this would only anger me further, it is as if I am working out my emotions by hearing someone else sing about similar issues. It is comforting to know that someone else out there is experiencing pain as well. It is as if we are forming a united front against our tormentors and the outside world that only wants to cause us more pain and it helps me release some of the anger I may have.
Playlists on my iPod are not the only way that I organize my music. Since the adaptor I use to play my iPod in my car is broken, I now have a collection of CD’s that I have in my car. In the visor on the driver side have my two favorite artists, Nirvana and Godsmack; and on the other side I have my other three favorite bands; Pink Floyd, Alice in Chains, and Led Zeppelin. They each have a specific slot and are in order of album release.
Now I will try to answer the second part of the question, which is how I determine my favorite music is. The truth is I do not think that I really determine that, or at least I do not directly determine it. One of the main sources that I obtain music from is my friends. They might mention a band they like or lend me a CD and if I like it, I listen to more of the material by the band. That is how I got interested in Linkin Park, Led Zeppelin, and Alice in Chains. However, many of the people who have suggested certain types of music have done so because they know what kind of music that I tend to listen to already.
I also feel that my own personal experiences and issues in my past have lead me to the type of music that I listen to. Now this is not necessarily true for everybody, but I do think that people who are angry tend to relate more to angry music, or happy people relate to happy music. Or at least that is how I experience music and my choices of genre and type.

Question – If we like some types of music because of an emotional connection, do we stop liking the music when we no longer have that strong emotion? For example if you like angry music because you are having a lot of issues with your family, will you like that same music when the issues are resolved?

Music and Lyrics

Our discussion in class on Wednesday about whether lyrics make the music or distract from the piece got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that there is are times when both occur as well as times when the lyrics, when creative enough can make the music pleasing as well as puzzling.
The example brought into class of Outkast’s song Hey Ya done both in the original version as well as an acoustic version are a great example of how lyrics can be interpreted differently when the music is changed. This point obviously shows that the music was distracting the listener from what the lyrics were actually about. The original was upbeat, annoying maybe, but it was uplifting. Then hearing the acoustic version, you actually hear the lyrics, listen to them, and mull them over in your mind for a bit. The lyrics take on a new somber meaning, a meaning that gets lost in the upbeat tempo of the original. By eliminate some of the extravagant music techniques in the original we are able to appreciate the meaning behind the lyrics more. Now whether or not that was the intention of the original artist may never be known, maybe they wanted the lyrics to be hidden. Maybe it was symbolic, like masking true feelings with a happier yet false image (perhaps I am reading too much into this one particular song). The fact remains that with the acoustic version it is the lyrics that is on display while in the original we are meant to be amazed by the actual instrumentation.
Whether or not music is more important that lyrics or the other way around is another point, a point in which I feel is relative to the particular piece of music. Since music is typically a way to convey a feeling or emotion, added to the fact that we are linguistic creatures, it is not surprising the adding lyrics to a musical composition can really drive a point that an artist is trying to make. Writing and adding the lyrics can even be therapeutic for the artist, a purging of emotions.
Sometimes adding lyrics to a song does not necessarily give the piece one definite meaning; sometimes the lyrics themselves can appear to be vague or even nonsensical. Being a fan of Nirvana and having an extensive knowledge of their work I know that even though all of their songs are lyrical, does not mean that the lyrics limit the possible interpretation of the song. For example one of their popular songs, Heart Shaped Box, has quite a few lines that seem to not make much if any sense and leave a wide berth for interpretation. The second verse of the song goes like this.


Meat-Eating orchids forgive no one just yet.
Cut myself on angel hair and baby's breath.
Broken hymen of your highness, I'm left black,
Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back...


The lyrics are open enough to leave room for interpretation and make the song capable of meaning more things to more people. IT allows people to decide the meaning for themselves which is that much more remarkable in my opinion.
Lyrics serve different functions for different pieces of music. They can be the main focus or an added bonus, but my point is that one cannot decide which one is more important because in some cases they make the song and in others they break the song. It is not a clear black and white situation but remains in the endless realm of gray.

Question - Is your favorite song lyrical or instrumental? If it is a lyrical song, would it mean the same to you if the lyrics did not exist? Why or why not?

Response to Amy

This is in response to Amy’s question, what makes a song special.
I think that what makes the song special is not necessarily what comprises the song itself but rather how the audience member perceives the piece. The song means something to them and that is what makes the song special. It is almost like food, one can rant on and on about the qualities of chocolate that make it the best edible item known to man but there are still people who do not like it, and find it very dissatisfying. Music is the same, what is special to me might not be special to you or anyone else.
Songs do many things for a person, they can remind them of an event, maybe a song that you and your best friend used to sing in the car will remind you of that friend ten years later and all the fun you had together. Some songs might just be able to put you in a better mood, something that appears to be inherently uplifting. However just because I used to sing Sk8ter boi by Avril Lavigne with my friend Bridgette and now the song brings back fond memories does not make the song itself special. What is special about it is the experience that occurred around that song. Yes the music may have facilitated the fun times but it was not the sole cause nor is it what I remember fondly.
I think it is our ability to make meaning about of the music that makes it so special. We are the ones who are creating the emotional bonds connected to the music. I can sit here and cry while listening to a song like “Sappy” while someone like my mother calls it jungle music. We have different opinions of music so what is important to me is not important to her and vice versa. It is my experience of the music that makes it special.

Question - Pick your absolute favorite song, one that has some sort of significance to you. If you listened to it over and over again for the next 5 years, would the song still hold the same meaning that it once had or will the significance have faded with the repetition.

Response to Emily Burke (A Sensational Experience)

This is in response to Emily Burke’s question, what is the difference between hearing a recorded live performance and actually being there to hear it? There is a major difference, in my opinion, between hearing a live recording and actually being at a concert. When you are listening to a live recording, you are still only being stimulated in an auditory way, when you are at the event; all of your senses are stimulated making it truly a sensory event.

Live music on a recording does have its qualities that cannot be found when listening to a studio version of the song. You hear all the potential mistakes that the performer makes, all the variations that they incorporate into the music, and you can hear the audience. Many times I prefer to listen to a live CD as opposed to a studio version, however, nothing can top seeing a band or artist live.

When you see a band live, many things are occurring that will enhance the overall experience for the listener. All five of your senses are being stimulated that increase at least my enjoyment of the performance.

The first sense that is obviously being stimulated is your sense of hearing. Not only do you hear the band play but you also hear the fans that are around you, the feedback from some of the equipment when they are first setting up, you might even hear the sound of food cooking if there is a concession stand nearby. My favorite part, besides the music itself, is hearing the fans. We live in a very judgmental world, a world where people judge everything about you, and that includes what music you listen to. When you are at a concert, you know that other people who like the same artist you like, why else would they be at the show? People with a common interest surround you and for a few hours, you are all on a team, a united front.

The next sense that is stimulated is your sense of sight. You can see the band, they are right there in the very same room that you are. Some concerts will even have pyrotechnics, which create a very nice visual stimulation, and are an auditory stimulation. Even looking at the massive amount of people that are in the audience can be shocking, seeing thousands or even tens of thousands of other people around you is definitely a visual stimulation.

Another sense that is stimulated is that of smell. This sense might not be as pleasing as the other senses at times but none-the-less, it is stimulated at a live show that you cannot experience with a live recording. Unfortunately, you might smell some body odor, especially if it is an outdoor event on a summer day. You can smell the food, maybe grass, the smoke from the pyrotechnics. In addition, the fact that a certain smell might trigger a memory later on, maybe you went to a festival and the next time you smell freshly mown grass you remember the festival, how much fun you had, and how you felt that day, that is something that you cannot get with a live recording.

The sense of taste is a little trickier than the other four senses, but anyone who has bought a four-dollar hotdog or a five-dollar bottle of water at a show remembers how it tastes. Food at a show, while ridiculously over priced, seems to taste a bit better. It might be because you just spent 20 dollars on something that would normally cost five, but in that moment, it is worth it.

The final sense that is stimulated is that of touch and feeling. First off, you are in an area that is packed with many people, you might bump into each other and touch others. If you are one of the luck ones near the front, you might even get to touch a band member or performer; there is no chance of this with a live recording. The most important feeling that you can get while at a concert is actually feeling the music. Many shows that are put on use huge speakers and amplifiers, which cause pulses of vibration through the audience. You can, at times, feel your heartbeat appear to synchronize itself with the pulses from the speakers truly connecting you to the music that you are listening to.

I really think that the fact that seeing a live show incorporates all your senses as opposed to only one with a recording makes seeing the show live that much better. It is something that is unique, even from concert to concert, and something that cannot be contained on a disk.

Question – Of all the senses that are stimulated during a live performance, which one do you think is most important besides the sense of hearing.