Why is it that Christians feel the need to offer something that sounds exactly like the secular "something", except with Christian lyrics or "plot"? And why does it usually seem worse than the thing it is trying to imitate?
I think that for some reason or another Christians have got the idea that we can't show real emotions, and act sad when we're sad, and be normal human beings with real emotions. SO we must make music that is like that too.
I remember being so entranced by this guy that came to our Christian school when I was in about 6th or 7th grade (Before I listened to any music mind you), when he came in to give a speech about Christian music. He gave us a humongous list with about 50 different secular bands on the list with a Christian band that sounds similar right beside them. For a few years, I bought into his philosophy of just using "sanatized" christian stuff, until I really started listening to music. First of all, there is an absolutely wonderful world out there that the Christian is missing out on if he or she just listens to what is considered Christian music. Secondly, the Christian music that they are listening to may be made with less of a biblical perspective than the secular music that is just like it. There are sure some good motivitations going on with these Christian artists, but they are also neglecting the biblical idea of "singing a new song to the Lord". Like I said before, by limiting yourself to being copies of someone else's music, you are limiting your creativity. And by limiting yourself to just praise music, you are limiting yourself to one aspect of God's world, and leaving so much of the life he has given you untouched. As the years pass, I have less and less feelings of what I believe is false guilt for not writing or listening to straight up Christian music. I think I was told one thing for so long from Kindergarten through 8th Grade, that it is very hard to this day, to keep Romanowski's perspective on the arts, and especially Christian music, though I know it is the correct one.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Widespread misunderstanding of violence/language
I love this book. The chapter on violence, language and sex was wonderful.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
P2P's and the music industry Part 2
So I don't think Lars Ulrich was completely correct in speaking out against P2P's. But I also don't think it is right for record companies to be taking so much money from bands or artists either. If Lars would have said "I think that record companies should give a larger percentage of the profit of albums to the artist, because without the artist, the record company wouldn't be getting any money at all. And if the record companies decide to take my advice, and give a large portion of album sales back to the artist, I would highly discourage the use of P2P's because with this new system, you would be cheating the artist, and not giving them the respects they deserve for the hard work they have done that you are enjoying in your headphones."
A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.
Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.
A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.
Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.
Lars Ulrich, and the music industry
Lars Ulrich needs to stay away from the mic. Back in his Master of Puppets days, he really had some crazy chops going for him, and he's an overall pretty decent drummer. But I'm not sure how much good he really did anyone by coming out and bad mouthing P2P's. From what I understand in class, most of the people don't get hardly any money from their record sales because most of it goes back to their record company, except the really huge acts, and Metallica would be one of them. The band deserves a good amount of money. They were a great band from their thrash days up to their blues-metal days, and have some of the best riffs in the history of riffs, but I think there was a point where getting the fame they finally deserved (in this case, they were still teenagers, but I'm speaking of bands in general), and getting too much money made at least one member of the band a little too greedy. Lars Ulrich, making a huge amount of money from The Black album, which still sells a ton of copies from what I understand, finally made it. Once he gets there he decides that he thinks it is annoying that these people are listening to his music without paying for it. That's understandable to a certain degree, but there are still quite a bit of people paying for Metallica's albums, and hardly anyone paying for band A, who just put their stuff on Oink. After a while, people start to really dig band A, and they decide that they're so good that they are gonna go to Wal Mart, and actually pay for an album by them, and then attend one of their shows.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Another reason to stay intellectually engagd in popular culture
The previous blog explored one of the reasons why Christians should engage in more than just surface level discussions of film and music. Here are some more reasons.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
Eyes Wide Open-Old American Band Stand Standard
In Eyes Wide Open, Romanowski brings up the point, that like most people, Christians want to have media to relax to, and ease their mind, and most of them don't think a lot about the films that they watch, or the music that they consume. "'It has a good beat, and you can dance to it' suffices for determining musical quality".
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
More negatives
Another way conglomerates can control how people think is by stifling anything that they don't particularly care for. By owning so much, it is hard to keep their values in check. Since one conglomerate could potentially own about fifty percent of everything of what fifty percent of the population watches each day, who would report on the conglomerate doing anything ilegal, or unethical,? Since they own so much, they can easily stifle any negative information about themselves, leaving their greed unhindered.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Negatives of Conglomeration
Even though it has already been touched on somewhat in The Positives of Conglomeration blog, I will touch on the problems of media conglomeration in more depth.
Conglomerates have the option of controlling wayyyy to much. A very simple sentence, but there is no better way to say it. It is very easy for them to shape people's opinions, and way of life. MTV started out basically just showing music videos, and letting the music that they play dictate how Teens should live. But more and more, the music began to fade into the background, and talk shows and reality shows took over, which really let MTV's idea of the ideal guy or girl in their teens show through. With Tom Green, Jackass, along with the ever popular spring break shows, they showed some very impressionable teens what they should be doing in Highschool, and college.
What is scarier, as you have mentioned, is that Viacom, who owns MTV, also owns Nickelodian, which is for the younger kids, between about 4 and 11. When I was a kid, like most kids with Nickelodian, that was pretty much all I did if I wasn't doing anything with friends. I didn't really notice much wrong with it. I haven't really sat down and watched a show on Nickelodeon in the past 8 years, but even if they still are pretty wholesome, I don't think that really matters. The idea that they can bring a kid up, from childhood through their 20's or so, with shows for each different age group, in between is a bit scary. Even if the values that viacom is advocating are good ones, if a child nev thinking forer steps back, and takes a deep breath, and looks around, they might never fully grasp the concept of thinking for themselves.
Conglomerates have the option of controlling wayyyy to much. A very simple sentence, but there is no better way to say it. It is very easy for them to shape people's opinions, and way of life. MTV started out basically just showing music videos, and letting the music that they play dictate how Teens should live. But more and more, the music began to fade into the background, and talk shows and reality shows took over, which really let MTV's idea of the ideal guy or girl in their teens show through. With Tom Green, Jackass, along with the ever popular spring break shows, they showed some very impressionable teens what they should be doing in Highschool, and college.
What is scarier, as you have mentioned, is that Viacom, who owns MTV, also owns Nickelodian, which is for the younger kids, between about 4 and 11. When I was a kid, like most kids with Nickelodian, that was pretty much all I did if I wasn't doing anything with friends. I didn't really notice much wrong with it. I haven't really sat down and watched a show on Nickelodeon in the past 8 years, but even if they still are pretty wholesome, I don't think that really matters. The idea that they can bring a kid up, from childhood through their 20's or so, with shows for each different age group, in between is a bit scary. Even if the values that viacom is advocating are good ones, if a child nev thinking forer steps back, and takes a deep breath, and looks around, they might never fully grasp the concept of thinking for themselves.
Positives of Conglomeration
I'll try to get to the positives of a conglomerate first, because I am less about them. One advantage of conglomeration is consistency. Because a certain conglomerate owns a bunch of different companies, it is easier for them to control the quality of each media text that they own. Therefore if something like Viacom releases great programming for kids (this is purely hypothetical), then one could be fairly assured that if they decide to release programming for teens, that it would probably be quality also. The conglomerate probably wouldn't allow something to pass through its grasp that they detest. Also, if a certain company is under a conglomerate, like Miramax, which is a company who tends to make fairly artsy films, they are more likely to get publicity. If Miramax wasn't under Disney, there would be a very small chance that many of the films by Miramax would get as much publicity as they have. As a result of being owned by Disney, in the last few years, a lot of Miramax films have been nominated, and even won for Best Picture, one being Shakespeare In Love.
For the distributors that are under a conglomerate, they can be more assured that if their product is good, they will get exposure. If one were to look at a film put out by Miramax, or a film by some independent company, and both films are of equal quality, the independent one would probably just be played at various art houses around the states, and people in the Akron/Canton area would have to go to The Palace Theater, which just might play the film. Miramax, on the other hand, would have the pleasure of seeings its film played at Tinsletown, and a bunch of local Cinemark theaters that everyone has easy access to.
For the distributors that are under a conglomerate, they can be more assured that if their product is good, they will get exposure. If one were to look at a film put out by Miramax, or a film by some independent company, and both films are of equal quality, the independent one would probably just be played at various art houses around the states, and people in the Akron/Canton area would have to go to The Palace Theater, which just might play the film. Miramax, on the other hand, would have the pleasure of seeings its film played at Tinsletown, and a bunch of local Cinemark theaters that everyone has easy access to.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
I am at a loss at how to properly be involved in worship music as a Christian. I have found what you mentioned in class to be true, but I'm not sure how then worship music can be a good thing. What pleasure is correct to gain out of it? And how are we to let the music affect us?
If we understand that certain chord progressions and certain melodies can easily bring about a great surge of emotion, regardless of what the lyrics are about, how are we to worship then? Once we understand that the music itself is making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside (sometimes, if it is good at least), are we suposed to resist that feeling, or is the fact that we understand what is going on beyond just the words and music make it ok to still get that warm and fuzzy feeling? I am dumbfounded at what constitutes the right way to worship but I could take a stab at it.
I believe that as Christians if we concentrate on what the words are, and understand how the music may be affecting us, I don't see it wrong to let our emotions come through a bit. If we make it a point to only let the music bring out in the words truths that make more sense emotionally, we can be aware of the temptation to simply mistake our emotions getting carried away by the music. We need to remain conscious of not mistaking a great chord progression, or vocalist, or guitar solo for a movement of the holy spirit.
If we understand that certain chord progressions and certain melodies can easily bring about a great surge of emotion, regardless of what the lyrics are about, how are we to worship then? Once we understand that the music itself is making us feel all warm and fuzzy inside (sometimes, if it is good at least), are we suposed to resist that feeling, or is the fact that we understand what is going on beyond just the words and music make it ok to still get that warm and fuzzy feeling? I am dumbfounded at what constitutes the right way to worship but I could take a stab at it.
I believe that as Christians if we concentrate on what the words are, and understand how the music may be affecting us, I don't see it wrong to let our emotions come through a bit. If we make it a point to only let the music bring out in the words truths that make more sense emotionally, we can be aware of the temptation to simply mistake our emotions getting carried away by the music. We need to remain conscious of not mistaking a great chord progression, or vocalist, or guitar solo for a movement of the holy spirit.
When expertise overshadows pleasure of a media text
Having expertise in a media is a great feeling. Why? First of all, I think everybody who loves something, and desires to become an expert on it, desires to know more than the next expert, and hopes that if he or she were asked a question about the particular media, that he could answer it. Having an expertise in a certain media text is fulfilling then not only because the media text itself is a source of enjoyment, but the knowledge of that particular media text is fulfilling in itself. Of course, it may be embarrassing to know certain facts, but deep down inside I think most of us still like the fact that we know them.
Being an expert can even go as far as researching a media text far more than enjoying the media text. You could watch films about the history of films and be obsessed with the history of film without actually consuming THAT much film. Of course, in the beginning, when your fascination with film history is sparked, it would have to be from watching a good amount of older films that span through different decades. But after the initial introduction, the expertise in the subject could outway the enjoyment of the subject. For some reason, I know (or at least did know a few years ago) what film got best picture from about 1962 -up. For some reason the dates in my Accademy Awards Handbook got cemented in my head obviously because I was fascinated with what got Best Picture when at a certain time in my life. I haven't seen all the movies for best picture from 1962-up but I know the dates for them, which might be somewhat of an example of what I'm talking about.
Being an expert can even go as far as researching a media text far more than enjoying the media text. You could watch films about the history of films and be obsessed with the history of film without actually consuming THAT much film. Of course, in the beginning, when your fascination with film history is sparked, it would have to be from watching a good amount of older films that span through different decades. But after the initial introduction, the expertise in the subject could outway the enjoyment of the subject. For some reason, I know (or at least did know a few years ago) what film got best picture from about 1962 -up. For some reason the dates in my Accademy Awards Handbook got cemented in my head obviously because I was fascinated with what got Best Picture when at a certain time in my life. I haven't seen all the movies for best picture from 1962-up but I know the dates for them, which might be somewhat of an example of what I'm talking about.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Motives for watching TV, and how it affects me
After slamming myself in the previous blog for being too willing to follow what opinion my Opinion Leaders take on something, I figured I can be a little kinder to myself in this blog.
There is a rarely a time I watch TV for purely entertainment reasons. Yes, I'll turn it on low when I take a nap but when I watch TV, it is usually to gain information. Regardless, the media still affects me. I may not agree with everything I see that I watch, but the main reason I watch the programs I do is because I do agree with the majority of the programs opinions. Giving up the plan I had not to let my political leanings come out, I tend to watch a lot of Glenn Beck, Anderson Cooper, and some O'Reilly. I definitely don't agree with everything that is put on on those shows, and I find myself arguing in my head with the host, or a guest on the show all the time. I have noticed my opinions on things change or drift farther in one direction from watching certain programs. For example, when someone mentions Illegal Immigration, my reaction to the word is much closer to Glenn Beck's now than it was a few months ago, because of his constant talk about the subject. His position SEEMS logical to me, though I think he gets a little too upset about it, so his constant jabber about the issue has really gotten into my head, especially, since, admitantly, I don't work very hard to get information from the other side about the issue.
I suppose I see the TV as a good way to form my opinions about things. Anderson Cooper is far more moderate than Glenn Beck (although not liberal), so I look at him as way of moderating my opinion so it doesn't become too mindlessly conservative. While some watch TV for Entertainment and aren't fully aware of the values they have that are changing, I watch it for information, but count on it shaping my opinion, which is a big difference...for better or worse, I don't know.
There is a rarely a time I watch TV for purely entertainment reasons. Yes, I'll turn it on low when I take a nap but when I watch TV, it is usually to gain information. Regardless, the media still affects me. I may not agree with everything I see that I watch, but the main reason I watch the programs I do is because I do agree with the majority of the programs opinions. Giving up the plan I had not to let my political leanings come out, I tend to watch a lot of Glenn Beck, Anderson Cooper, and some O'Reilly. I definitely don't agree with everything that is put on on those shows, and I find myself arguing in my head with the host, or a guest on the show all the time. I have noticed my opinions on things change or drift farther in one direction from watching certain programs. For example, when someone mentions Illegal Immigration, my reaction to the word is much closer to Glenn Beck's now than it was a few months ago, because of his constant talk about the subject. His position SEEMS logical to me, though I think he gets a little too upset about it, so his constant jabber about the issue has really gotten into my head, especially, since, admitantly, I don't work very hard to get information from the other side about the issue.
I suppose I see the TV as a good way to form my opinions about things. Anderson Cooper is far more moderate than Glenn Beck (although not liberal), so I look at him as way of moderating my opinion so it doesn't become too mindlessly conservative. While some watch TV for Entertainment and aren't fully aware of the values they have that are changing, I watch it for information, but count on it shaping my opinion, which is a big difference...for better or worse, I don't know.
How Much Does My Oppinion Leader(s) Influence Me?
Just how much does my opinion leaders influence me?
I will readily admit that it is way too much. First of all, I must say that when we picked an opinion leader and rated ourself, I didn't pick just one. I don't really look up to one person more than other people, but I definitely have a certain group of people that I look up to more than anyone else. These people exist mostly within affinity groups of musicians, and theologians/philosophers.
With any given opinion leader, it is very likely that I might just say I believe the same thing they do about a certain thing if I don't much about it.
Take Mike Portnoy, the drummer for...well...you guessed it, Dream Theater. Not only do his opinions of music fall almost identically in line with mine. When I first went to his website, and looked around a bit, I expected to find a list of simply progressive rock and metal bands in his "favorite albums" list, but I was stunned to find out that The Beatles were his favorite band of all time, which I would have never expected from a Prog metal drummer. Other of his softer favorites (along with the harder stuff like Metallica, Slayer, and Pantera of course)included Elton John, Jellyfish, Peter Gabriel, U2, Radiohead, and even the Beachboys. His collection of favorite albums is still the closest to mine I think I've ever seen. What became even scarier when I clicked on his list of all time "favorite films" was that it was eerily closer to mine than anyone elses list I think I've ever seen. All this combined with the fact that he is a great drummer makes him a huge oppinion leader in my life. Way too much in fact. One of the biggest disadvantages to having this strange "link" to a celebrity is that I will make his opinions mine even before I've watched/listened to any of the media he loves. I have found myself answering people in response to questions like "What do you think of Public Enemy?" and telling them I thought they were awesome when I've never even listened to them just because "Fear of a Black Planet" is one of Portnoy's favorite albums of all time. If you want to look at his lists, feel free. Favorite films
Favorite Albums
The same thing applies for theologian/philosophers that I have a lot of respect for like William Lane Craig. Because I think he has defended the existence of God in such an articulate, balanced, yet sensitive manner, I find myself usually being much more comfortable with a position that I have on an issue just because he holds it. I feel like I have a good, balanced, and well thought out opinion, even if they only reason I hold it is because he does, which is of course completely wrong-headed. I would write more, but I have to blog some more.
I will readily admit that it is way too much. First of all, I must say that when we picked an opinion leader and rated ourself, I didn't pick just one. I don't really look up to one person more than other people, but I definitely have a certain group of people that I look up to more than anyone else. These people exist mostly within affinity groups of musicians, and theologians/philosophers.
With any given opinion leader, it is very likely that I might just say I believe the same thing they do about a certain thing if I don't much about it.
Take Mike Portnoy, the drummer for...well...you guessed it, Dream Theater. Not only do his opinions of music fall almost identically in line with mine. When I first went to his website, and looked around a bit, I expected to find a list of simply progressive rock and metal bands in his "favorite albums" list, but I was stunned to find out that The Beatles were his favorite band of all time, which I would have never expected from a Prog metal drummer. Other of his softer favorites (along with the harder stuff like Metallica, Slayer, and Pantera of course)included Elton John, Jellyfish, Peter Gabriel, U2, Radiohead, and even the Beachboys. His collection of favorite albums is still the closest to mine I think I've ever seen. What became even scarier when I clicked on his list of all time "favorite films" was that it was eerily closer to mine than anyone elses list I think I've ever seen. All this combined with the fact that he is a great drummer makes him a huge oppinion leader in my life. Way too much in fact. One of the biggest disadvantages to having this strange "link" to a celebrity is that I will make his opinions mine even before I've watched/listened to any of the media he loves. I have found myself answering people in response to questions like "What do you think of Public Enemy?" and telling them I thought they were awesome when I've never even listened to them just because "Fear of a Black Planet" is one of Portnoy's favorite albums of all time. If you want to look at his lists, feel free. Favorite films
Favorite Albums
The same thing applies for theologian/philosophers that I have a lot of respect for like William Lane Craig. Because I think he has defended the existence of God in such an articulate, balanced, yet sensitive manner, I find myself usually being much more comfortable with a position that I have on an issue just because he holds it. I feel like I have a good, balanced, and well thought out opinion, even if they only reason I hold it is because he does, which is of course completely wrong-headed. I would write more, but I have to blog some more.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
New TV Genres
I'm not a HUGE TV show watcher, but I will give this my best shot before 12:00. How about a fusion between a news show, and improvisational comedy (in the style of Whose Line is it Anyway?/Saturday Night Live)
Each segment of the show would consist of a few set pieces. In each segment, a group of about three people would be put on the set, which comes with some sort of very broad story line. Within the context of the story, the cast would need to improvise everything while including news of certain events that occurred that day (Except no tragedies would be reported, so the improv comedy wouldn't seem irreverent.
I think the show would be a huge success because Americans desire to get their news in an entertaining way (thus The Daily Show, Red Eye, Glenn Beck, and Stephen Colbert), and they also love comedy sketches, especially improv comedy (Whose Line is it Anyway). What is a more of a perfect marriage than comedy sketches with news? It would be original because although there have been shows making fun of the news, they were all set up like regular news shows. This would be set up like a regular comedy show, but be a news show.
The balance between invention and convention is fairly obvious. the convention is the news show, and the comedy sketch show. The invention is the combination of both of them which is something most people will have never seen before.
Each segment of the show would consist of a few set pieces. In each segment, a group of about three people would be put on the set, which comes with some sort of very broad story line. Within the context of the story, the cast would need to improvise everything while including news of certain events that occurred that day (Except no tragedies would be reported, so the improv comedy wouldn't seem irreverent.
I think the show would be a huge success because Americans desire to get their news in an entertaining way (thus The Daily Show, Red Eye, Glenn Beck, and Stephen Colbert), and they also love comedy sketches, especially improv comedy (Whose Line is it Anyway). What is a more of a perfect marriage than comedy sketches with news? It would be original because although there have been shows making fun of the news, they were all set up like regular news shows. This would be set up like a regular comedy show, but be a news show.
The balance between invention and convention is fairly obvious. the convention is the news show, and the comedy sketch show. The invention is the combination of both of them which is something most people will have never seen before.
Favorite Texts and the genres they come from?
Norah Jones (I've really only heard her fist album, Come Away With Me, so I am basing my thoughts of it): It is very hard to say what her fans would call her. It depends on what type of music her fans like the most. The reason she is so successful is because of her very broad appeal to many different audience types. Basically the only group of people that don't have a chance at liking her would be the guys that are rock/distortion/heavy-esque purists. I suppose the majority of her fans would describe her as pop. Some of her fans may cringe at the word pop, and put her in the genre of jazz to avoid anyone's suspicions that they may like pop music. There is a good element of country in her songs also, and a lot of big country fans would see this element more than anything else, and say she is country. Much like John Mayer's fans, it is safe to say that Norah Jone's fans probably wouldn't get along with each other very well. On the way back from a Norah Jone's concert, one guy may drive away with Billie Holiday or Miles Davis blaring through the speakers, while another drives away with Brad Paisley, and yet another with Kelly Clarkson. When the guy with Billie Holiday on hears Brad Paisley, or Kelly Clarkson, he might be repulsed, and the other two guy's may react the same way to his music.
Critics, trying to remain unbiased toward any genres, would probably have the best shot at nailing her in a genre. But because of this, they might not put her in a certain genre at all, and instead, may say she is a fusion of jazz, and country.
Producers...well it is hard to say. She is signed with Blue Note, which is a jazz record label. So it may be that the producers might be trying to get the jazzers into the loop, while still trying to attract some fans of more main-stream music simply through Jone's fairly catchy melodies. If that was anything close to their strategy, it worked because Jone's has won a few grammy's.
Jone's balances convention and invention quite well. Her use of jazz piano, and jazz chord progressions in a lot of her songs is somewhat unusual within a more poppy style, but her unforgettably sweet voice is the standard mark of a good female pop singer.
Critics, trying to remain unbiased toward any genres, would probably have the best shot at nailing her in a genre. But because of this, they might not put her in a certain genre at all, and instead, may say she is a fusion of jazz, and country.
Producers...well it is hard to say. She is signed with Blue Note, which is a jazz record label. So it may be that the producers might be trying to get the jazzers into the loop, while still trying to attract some fans of more main-stream music simply through Jone's fairly catchy melodies. If that was anything close to their strategy, it worked because Jone's has won a few grammy's.
Jone's balances convention and invention quite well. Her use of jazz piano, and jazz chord progressions in a lot of her songs is somewhat unusual within a more poppy style, but her unforgettably sweet voice is the standard mark of a good female pop singer.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Apology if I have offended any reader thus far.
heyy...uhh...if someone else is reading these other than Rudd, I assume I am probably offending people by these, and I'm sorry if I am.
First of all, one can watch American Idol, and be entertained by it, and the good and bad performances of it without totally approving of the whole "being a star overnight" thing. I admit, I think it is pretty entertaining sometimes.
As far as the Christian version of the mook goes, I don't think anything is wrong with listening to Christian music, I LOVE some myself. If you just really like a certain Christian band's music, that's awesome, but if you like them because it is just what most Christians like, this is where I have the problem. Kinda the same deal with Christian apparel, although I do think some is kind of offensive.
Hope all is cleared up if anyone in my group or the universe was reading these.
First of all, one can watch American Idol, and be entertained by it, and the good and bad performances of it without totally approving of the whole "being a star overnight" thing. I admit, I think it is pretty entertaining sometimes.
As far as the Christian version of the mook goes, I don't think anything is wrong with listening to Christian music, I LOVE some myself. If you just really like a certain Christian band's music, that's awesome, but if you like them because it is just what most Christians like, this is where I have the problem. Kinda the same deal with Christian apparel, although I do think some is kind of offensive.
Hope all is cleared up if anyone in my group or the universe was reading these.
What's Changed since "Merchants of Cool"?
What has changed as the ideal mook or midriff in popular culture since the "Merchants of Cool" was aired? I think it is still pretty accurate but here are some updates.
wrestling doesn't seem to be THAT popular anymore, especially after all the scandals with steroids that have gone on.
American Idol seems to be a huge inspiration to many mooks and middriffs, which is somewhat of a step up from Brittany Spears. But the majority of the winners of the show, though incredible vocalists, sing songs written specifically for them, and get paid incredible amounts of money to tour and sing, which to me, seems like they are cheating the system a little bit. The media has made these people into stars overnight, where back in reality, millions of artists play at bars and other local places for hardly any cash for years and years, slowly building making a career. It seems a lot of its viewers now think that having a good voice is all that you need to get you famous. Of course, in the case of Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion, maybe that is the case, but for most people, there is much more than singing involved in becoming a star. This includes writing songs, and melodies, and lyrics, which most artists have to do in order to really go anywhere.
Other celebrities like paris hilton, and brittany spears seem to be so desparate for press that they want negative press rather than no press at all, which they weren't doing when the film was being made.
One of the greatest things that has happened to pop culture recently is Family Guy, which I hope will make some people realize how ridiculous some pop culture is in the first place since it makes fun of so much pop culture. Hopefully family guy will make a more literate America. What a strange sounding sentence. Well I have to post this because it is 12:00.
wrestling doesn't seem to be THAT popular anymore, especially after all the scandals with steroids that have gone on.
American Idol seems to be a huge inspiration to many mooks and middriffs, which is somewhat of a step up from Brittany Spears. But the majority of the winners of the show, though incredible vocalists, sing songs written specifically for them, and get paid incredible amounts of money to tour and sing, which to me, seems like they are cheating the system a little bit. The media has made these people into stars overnight, where back in reality, millions of artists play at bars and other local places for hardly any cash for years and years, slowly building making a career. It seems a lot of its viewers now think that having a good voice is all that you need to get you famous. Of course, in the case of Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion, maybe that is the case, but for most people, there is much more than singing involved in becoming a star. This includes writing songs, and melodies, and lyrics, which most artists have to do in order to really go anywhere.
Other celebrities like paris hilton, and brittany spears seem to be so desparate for press that they want negative press rather than no press at all, which they weren't doing when the film was being made.
One of the greatest things that has happened to pop culture recently is Family Guy, which I hope will make some people realize how ridiculous some pop culture is in the first place since it makes fun of so much pop culture. Hopefully family guy will make a more literate America. What a strange sounding sentence. Well I have to post this because it is 12:00.
The Mook-Malone's Version?
Going to Malone, there seems to me, to be somewhat a reversal of what the film, "Merchants of Cool" says the mook is. The party frat boys seem to be in the minority. As a christian college, that isn't too overpowering on rules, and regulations, many Christian guys at Malone have a sense of their intrinsic worth in Christ, and realize that they don't need to do anything that any form of media dictates as "cool". There appears to be ample room to think at Malone, and I think most students have taken advantage of that room. However, I think that the idea that the Christian community has of what it means to be a Christian guy (though much less of an issue than what it means to be an MTV-ified mook)seems to dictate to some students what they should listen to, wear, and watch. It seems some male students think that Christianity is about listening to Christian music, and wearing shirts that have a witty Christian saying on them. "Christian" media, more than anything else, appears to cut off unbelievers than bring anyone in. Christian marketing, just like secular in some respects, seems to be creating what they think the ideal male should look like, and some males buy into it. A shirt that says "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" wouldn't start up any dialogue between a believer and non-believer, but just frustration. Neither would a Christian rock song that is going for a cross-over hit mean anything to a non-believer if the song contains nothing more than a few references to Jesus in it among lyrics of no substance, and/or uninspired, run of the mill music.
The Christian version of the mook is much less harmful to society than the secular version of the mook, but the Christian version is still quite harmful nonetheless. He makes Christianity look like a large marketing gimmick, rather than a way of life that should be evident solely through one's actions, demeanor, and outlook on life (that doesn't need to be written on a shirt). A Christian doesn't need to listen solely to music that speaks about God, because "secular" music also contains many truths, untruths, and ideas that Christians need to understand, and chew on in order to be "in the world". If we live solely through the world of Christan marketing, it would be nearly impossible to relate at all to most of the amoral issues that concern an educated unbeliever.
The Christian version of the mook is much less harmful to society than the secular version of the mook, but the Christian version is still quite harmful nonetheless. He makes Christianity look like a large marketing gimmick, rather than a way of life that should be evident solely through one's actions, demeanor, and outlook on life (that doesn't need to be written on a shirt). A Christian doesn't need to listen solely to music that speaks about God, because "secular" music also contains many truths, untruths, and ideas that Christians need to understand, and chew on in order to be "in the world". If we live solely through the world of Christan marketing, it would be nearly impossible to relate at all to most of the amoral issues that concern an educated unbeliever.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
4 categories that are hard to fit myths into
The six myths that have been covered in class are so embedded into our culture, and even other cultures that it appears nearly impossible to find a media text that does not have any remnant whatsoever of any of these myths. What are the possibilities?
1. Blues music
2. Baroque Music
3. Instrumental Music
4. Commercials
1. What do Stevie Ray, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, and John Mayer have to say about these myths? There doesn't seem to be any direct connection between these myths and blues, but if one were to look deeper, there are hints of them. Blues lyrics are usually about trying to get a girl that has been lost, or not being able to reach the woman you love. The closest one could get to applying the myths to this media text would be to say that the blues lyricist is trying to recover a type of feeling that used to be present between the lyricist and the girl. The lyricist could also be waiting for their personal female messiah to save them from their misery.
2. Some classical music was definitely based on stories. Both Mozart, and Beethoven made operas. And romantic music surely had themes based around many of these myths, which can be drawn from the titles of various pieces, but some Baroque music might be free from all these myths. Handel's Messiah surely isn't free of the myth of the Eternal Return, or The Coming of the Messiah, but Bach's Toccata's, Fugues, and Suites seem to be without any mythical elements. His book, The Well Tempered Clavier, was more or less a book of incredibly gorgeous exercises, but exercises none the less.
3. Instrumental Music- Does Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, or other guitarists that make instrumental music incorporate any of the myths that have been talked about into their work? On Joe Satriani's album, Strange Beautiful Music, there are 3 songs in a row with titles that might suggest such a myth. The first one is called "The Journey", the second "The Traveler", and the third "You Saved My Life". Now one would have to be stretching it to say that they know that Satch was thinking of the various myths we have covered when he wrote these songs, but it is surely a possibility. Many titles on instrumental albums have mythic ideas built into them because they not only give the listener somewhat of a story to imagine while their listening to a song, but they also give the artist inspiration while they write the song.
4. I think most commercials that come from a less creative standpoint don’t really have many myths attached to them, but a lot of commercials are fairily creative. We’ve all heard something like this before…”You’ve waited, and waited and waited for a vacuum that could pick up dirt, get rid of stains, and massage your back all at once…it’s finally here!” Though a bit ridiculous for a commercial the idea is very common, and is the myth of the coming of the messiah. The old Japanese guy on the “Yellow Book” commercials is also a good example of the Wisdom of the Rustic.
It is a bit of stretch to include these myths in some of the categories, but most of the time, some type of myth does fit into a category in one form or another. The music of Bach is probably the category where it hardest to apply myths to.
My Dances With Wolves Blog for I forget which #BLOG, sorry!
Well how about Dances With Wolves?
The story would be about Lt. John Dunbar who is dropped off at Fort Sedgewick to find it a deserted post. After a while, he encounters a local Sioux tribe. He eventually falls in love with their way of life, as well as with a white woman that has lived with the tribe since she was very young. He is soon assimilated into their way of life, and even gets his own name (which is Dances With Wolves). All is good and well until a group of of Soldiers finds him and highly disapproves of his switch to "Injun". He is violently mistreated but eventually escapes. At the end of the film, we are left to think that he is going to start a new life somewhere else with the Sioux.
There are surely myths involved with this story, but many of them are turned around quite a bit. Most westerns up to this pointed painted Indians very much in a caricatured way. There was no doubt that the cowboys were the heroes, the messiahs, the saviors of society, while the Indians were just an evil and detrimental stumbling block put in our path. Here, the Savior should be Dunbar, but instead, it is the Indians. They open his eyes to a new way of life...something that was fresh, challenging, and exciting. They saved Dunbar from his life of seclusion, and probably from an eventual spiral into insanity.
One of the themes from other stories that does seem common in other stories as well is the sacrifice of one's culture because of a romantic interest with a person involved in a different culture. Granted, Dunbar did enjoy the Sioux culture, but Stands With a Fist (his romantic interest)played a large role in his assimilation into the culture. Themes of this nature are present in Romeo and Juliet, Aladdin, West Side Story (which is, of course a modernization of Romeo and Juliet), and countless other stories and films.
The story appeals to me because of how beautifully the Sioux culture is portrayed. The film's cinematography, is, of course, brilliant, and the buffalo hunt in the film is one of the most entertaining, rousing, and masterfully shot sequences ever to grace the screen. Kevin Costner, who directed the film, made the culture look so appealing that the audience deeply understood and even cheered on his assimilation into their culture.
The story would be about Lt. John Dunbar who is dropped off at Fort Sedgewick to find it a deserted post. After a while, he encounters a local Sioux tribe. He eventually falls in love with their way of life, as well as with a white woman that has lived with the tribe since she was very young. He is soon assimilated into their way of life, and even gets his own name (which is Dances With Wolves). All is good and well until a group of of Soldiers finds him and highly disapproves of his switch to "Injun". He is violently mistreated but eventually escapes. At the end of the film, we are left to think that he is going to start a new life somewhere else with the Sioux.
There are surely myths involved with this story, but many of them are turned around quite a bit. Most westerns up to this pointed painted Indians very much in a caricatured way. There was no doubt that the cowboys were the heroes, the messiahs, the saviors of society, while the Indians were just an evil and detrimental stumbling block put in our path. Here, the Savior should be Dunbar, but instead, it is the Indians. They open his eyes to a new way of life...something that was fresh, challenging, and exciting. They saved Dunbar from his life of seclusion, and probably from an eventual spiral into insanity.
One of the themes from other stories that does seem common in other stories as well is the sacrifice of one's culture because of a romantic interest with a person involved in a different culture. Granted, Dunbar did enjoy the Sioux culture, but Stands With a Fist (his romantic interest)played a large role in his assimilation into the culture. Themes of this nature are present in Romeo and Juliet, Aladdin, West Side Story (which is, of course a modernization of Romeo and Juliet), and countless other stories and films.
The story appeals to me because of how beautifully the Sioux culture is portrayed. The film's cinematography, is, of course, brilliant, and the buffalo hunt in the film is one of the most entertaining, rousing, and masterfully shot sequences ever to grace the screen. Kevin Costner, who directed the film, made the culture look so appealing that the audience deeply understood and even cheered on his assimilation into their culture.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
A very long blog about what media has affected me! (BLOG 1)
Two main forms of media have drastically shaped my life. In fact, they have probably shaped more than they should have. Those forms would be film, and music
When I was in the sixth grade, I made some friends that watched a lot of movies. Some of them were excellent films, some of them were pretty awful, but they were nonetheless, films. In that year, a film came along called Gladiator. I loved it, and watched it more than a couple times. Then, for Christmas, I got the special edition DVD of Gladiator. When I got it, I didn't really think that much of it. It looked pretty cool, with some special features that might be kind of interesting. At one point,when I was in the audio options, I saw something called Commentary by Director Ridley Scott. So I hit it, and let it play. WOW!! From the moment that the commentary started, I sat absolutely immersed in everything the director, Ridley Scott, was saying. I never thought about all that went into making a film. The script, the cinematography, the acting, and direction... I listened to that commentary probably about five or six times. Gladiator was my gateway film. It catapulted me into an obsession with film up until my freshman year when music kind of took film's place. Every weekend, I would go see a film in the theater with some friends, but then I would also rent two films from blockbuster. I discovered the website Rottentomatoes.com, and lurked in the forums reading everything I could about classic films, and modern masterpieces. I searched for everything I could find that Ridley Scott directed, and fell in love with his visual style...it fascinated me how every shot in his films seemed to be filled with steam, or fog, or interesting lighting. I then moved onto Scorsese, and fell in love with practically everything the man directed (except Taxi driver surprisingly), and found that Goodfellas was probably my favorite film. I still have a lot of interest in film, and am currently trying to come up with a best-of list for 2006. Once I see a couple more films, and decide whether David Lynch's Inland Empire was brilliant, or a piece of crap, I should have a complete list.
My love of music started in my freshman year at Lake I believe. I remember coming back from a school trip, and sitting with my friend who was a film buff like me, but also a huge music connoisseur. I didn't really listen to any music at all. I tried. I tried to get into the Christian music that everyone at my old school, Lake Center Christian was into, and said I should listen to but nothing was clicking. Then my friend on that bus trip, let me listen to some of The Beatles #1 album. I always liked what I heard by them, but I never realized how consistently melodic, and catchy their songs were. Then he let me listen to some of Led Zeppelin IV, with Stairway to Heaven, Black Dog, and Rock and Roll on it. He explained to me a little bit the significance of Stairway to Heaven, and it was like my eyes were being opened to a whole new world that I never realized was there, just like my experience with Gladiator (now I find it hard to believe that that was my first time to hear Stairway, but I never listened to any classic rock radio station before). I kept borrowing albums from my friend, and finding stuff on my own also. One day, I ran across a band called YES, and thought I'd heard the best musicians in my life. From there on, I really got into bands like Genesis, Yes, and Rush. Rush, especially the drummer, Neil Peart gave me a real desire to practice drum set. I had always "played", but never really listened to much music, so I never knew what I was supposed to sound like. Neil Peart started me actually practicing drum set. When I learned the song Tom Sawyer, and made it all the way through, the feeling was indescribable, and a thousand times more fulfilling than beating an intense video game (at least in my experience). It is interesting now that I hardly ever listen to Rush, because I don't find the rest of the music other than the drumming THAT intriguing, although I still have a lot of respect for them, and enjoy them from time to time.
Then came Dream Theater. I remember being sick and home from school one day, and stumbling onto them. I just remember thinking, "Wow, that song was really long and complex". I liked it, but it was a little much for me at the moment. A couple months later, I came back to them, and was really impressed by how melodic yet complex the music was. As time went on, I really looked into their back-catalogue, and traced their evolution as a band. I was stunned by each musician in the band, and said to myself "These are like all the best musicians ever all in one band". After a while, I realized that was the general consensus of their fans also. One day, I sat down at my drum set, and tried to play through one of their songs. Of course, it was impossible, so this lead to about 3 hour practice sessions every day in the summer after my Sophomore year on drum-set, which made me into a decent drummer for my band. Over time, I've only come to appreciate Dream Theater more. When I first listened to them, I didn't appreciate how emotional their guitarist, John Petrucci could be at times, but now listening to his slow, emotionally drenched solos in The Spirit Carries On, Hollow Years, and Lines in the Sand, it's very hard to keep from getting goosebumps.
The good musicianship in Dream Theater has lead me to look for less complex modern music to balance with their complex music and I've found some great stuff like Norah Jones, Sarah McLachlan, John Mayer (mostly the new bluesy John Mayer), and some of Jason Mraz's stuff, along with some Country music like Allison Krauss and Union Station, and Brad Paisley, and Jazz like Dianna Krall, and Chick Corea.
The two bands that have had the biggest influence on me and are definitely my favorites are The Beatles, and Dream Theater. The Beatles for their innovation, melodies, and the sheer joy you can feel with their music, and Dream Theater for their ability to balance melody, and complexity so well.
When I was in the sixth grade, I made some friends that watched a lot of movies. Some of them were excellent films, some of them were pretty awful, but they were nonetheless, films. In that year, a film came along called Gladiator. I loved it, and watched it more than a couple times. Then, for Christmas, I got the special edition DVD of Gladiator. When I got it, I didn't really think that much of it. It looked pretty cool, with some special features that might be kind of interesting. At one point,when I was in the audio options, I saw something called Commentary by Director Ridley Scott. So I hit it, and let it play. WOW!! From the moment that the commentary started, I sat absolutely immersed in everything the director, Ridley Scott, was saying. I never thought about all that went into making a film. The script, the cinematography, the acting, and direction... I listened to that commentary probably about five or six times. Gladiator was my gateway film. It catapulted me into an obsession with film up until my freshman year when music kind of took film's place. Every weekend, I would go see a film in the theater with some friends, but then I would also rent two films from blockbuster. I discovered the website Rottentomatoes.com, and lurked in the forums reading everything I could about classic films, and modern masterpieces. I searched for everything I could find that Ridley Scott directed, and fell in love with his visual style...it fascinated me how every shot in his films seemed to be filled with steam, or fog, or interesting lighting. I then moved onto Scorsese, and fell in love with practically everything the man directed (except Taxi driver surprisingly), and found that Goodfellas was probably my favorite film. I still have a lot of interest in film, and am currently trying to come up with a best-of list for 2006. Once I see a couple more films, and decide whether David Lynch's Inland Empire was brilliant, or a piece of crap, I should have a complete list.
My love of music started in my freshman year at Lake I believe. I remember coming back from a school trip, and sitting with my friend who was a film buff like me, but also a huge music connoisseur. I didn't really listen to any music at all. I tried. I tried to get into the Christian music that everyone at my old school, Lake Center Christian was into, and said I should listen to but nothing was clicking. Then my friend on that bus trip, let me listen to some of The Beatles #1 album. I always liked what I heard by them, but I never realized how consistently melodic, and catchy their songs were. Then he let me listen to some of Led Zeppelin IV, with Stairway to Heaven, Black Dog, and Rock and Roll on it. He explained to me a little bit the significance of Stairway to Heaven, and it was like my eyes were being opened to a whole new world that I never realized was there, just like my experience with Gladiator (now I find it hard to believe that that was my first time to hear Stairway, but I never listened to any classic rock radio station before). I kept borrowing albums from my friend, and finding stuff on my own also. One day, I ran across a band called YES, and thought I'd heard the best musicians in my life. From there on, I really got into bands like Genesis, Yes, and Rush. Rush, especially the drummer, Neil Peart gave me a real desire to practice drum set. I had always "played", but never really listened to much music, so I never knew what I was supposed to sound like. Neil Peart started me actually practicing drum set. When I learned the song Tom Sawyer, and made it all the way through, the feeling was indescribable, and a thousand times more fulfilling than beating an intense video game (at least in my experience). It is interesting now that I hardly ever listen to Rush, because I don't find the rest of the music other than the drumming THAT intriguing, although I still have a lot of respect for them, and enjoy them from time to time.
Then came Dream Theater. I remember being sick and home from school one day, and stumbling onto them. I just remember thinking, "Wow, that song was really long and complex". I liked it, but it was a little much for me at the moment. A couple months later, I came back to them, and was really impressed by how melodic yet complex the music was. As time went on, I really looked into their back-catalogue, and traced their evolution as a band. I was stunned by each musician in the band, and said to myself "These are like all the best musicians ever all in one band". After a while, I realized that was the general consensus of their fans also. One day, I sat down at my drum set, and tried to play through one of their songs. Of course, it was impossible, so this lead to about 3 hour practice sessions every day in the summer after my Sophomore year on drum-set, which made me into a decent drummer for my band. Over time, I've only come to appreciate Dream Theater more. When I first listened to them, I didn't appreciate how emotional their guitarist, John Petrucci could be at times, but now listening to his slow, emotionally drenched solos in The Spirit Carries On, Hollow Years, and Lines in the Sand, it's very hard to keep from getting goosebumps.
The good musicianship in Dream Theater has lead me to look for less complex modern music to balance with their complex music and I've found some great stuff like Norah Jones, Sarah McLachlan, John Mayer (mostly the new bluesy John Mayer), and some of Jason Mraz's stuff, along with some Country music like Allison Krauss and Union Station, and Brad Paisley, and Jazz like Dianna Krall, and Chick Corea.
The two bands that have had the biggest influence on me and are definitely my favorites are The Beatles, and Dream Theater. The Beatles for their innovation, melodies, and the sheer joy you can feel with their music, and Dream Theater for their ability to balance melody, and complexity so well.
Affinity Groups I am and am not a part of inside the Semiotic domain of musicians!
I would consider myself in the semiotic domain of musicians. I fit into some affinity groups in this semiotic domain, while I do not fit into others.
I think I fit into this particular semiotic domain because I play drum set, and a little guitar.
I know most of the lingo or what is technically labeled as design grammar associated with being a drummer like flams, ruffs, pataflaflas, and swiss triplets for snare, and different grooves like the nanigo, samba, merenge, mambo, cha-cha and others for drum set, along with understanding different time signatures like 9/8, 19/16, 7/8 and so on. So I could say I am part of the affinity group of snare drummers that know something about and can play rudiments, which include ruffs, and flams and so on. I could also say I am a part of another drummer's affinity group that know some afro-cuban grooves, and how to play them. I could also say I am part of the jazz drummers affinity group because I can play jazz a little bit also, and could speak with some knowledge about it. First and foremost, I would consider myself part of the progressive metal drummers affinity group, because I know and can perform most of the drumming ideas within this affinity group and talk about different aspects of the affinity group proficiently, and it is the style, other than pop, that I am most comfortable playing, and know the most about. With the previous affinity groups mentioned, I am somewhat of a newcomer, but still inside the affinity group because I know some of the design grammer, and I have experimented with the styles, and established norms of what I believe constitutes mastery of the styles. I've also discussed these norms with other drummers in these affinity groups. A drummer's affinity group that I don't fit in at the moment would be brush players, because I really don't know how to play with brushes, and I don't know what constitutes mastery of such a style, nor do I know any of the design grammar associated with playing with brushes.
For guitar, I am only part of one affinity group, but still not a very assimilated member into that affinity group. That group would be guitar players that know how to play chords and only chords. I fit in this affinity group with other guys like Damien Rice, Bob Dylan, the guys from Dashboard Confessional, and possibly Simon and Garfunklel, and the Everly Brothers. I could have a fairly animated conversation with these guys about chords, but when they start talking about how put the chords into a killer chord progression, and sing catchy melodies over the chords, I could barely join in. An affinity group that I have been trying to enter recently would be that of pentatonic lead players. I am not in the affinity group though because I can't play pentatonic leads...I can just try and not succeed. So if Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Mayer, B.B. King, or Buddy Guy tried to jam with me, and talk with me about playing the blues (i.e. pentatonic lead playing), and discuss how it took them years of experimenting before finding their tone, and being able to play emotionally, I would definitely be a fish out of water. An affinity group that I have no part of whatsoever, and haven't even tried to enter yet would be that of the what I would call 50 Trick Pony (as opposed to 1 trick pony) affinity group. Guys like Joe Satriani, John Petrucci, Phil Keaggy, Steve Morse, Neil Zaza, Richie Kotzen, Andy Timmons, Paul Gilbert, and others would be in this affinity group. They would be in this affinity group because they are proficient in just about every type of playing there is. If you were to ask them to play a blues jam like Stevie Ray, they could do it with ease, or write a great song in the vein of Bob Dylan, or Don Henley, they could. However they would also succeed at playing a Chopin etude on guitar with about 20 notes per second. If they were to sit down with me and talk about what constitutes mastery of sweep picking, and what notes involve a Bmaj7 arpeggio, I could politely nod, but that is about it. I don't know how I should even go about starting to play a Bmaj7 arpeggio on guitar...I've never experimented with it, so therefore, I haven't established any experiential knowledge of what constitutes mastery of such a crazy technique, or any of the other techniques that those guys can perform so well.
I think I fit into this particular semiotic domain because I play drum set, and a little guitar.
I know most of the lingo or what is technically labeled as design grammar associated with being a drummer like flams, ruffs, pataflaflas, and swiss triplets for snare, and different grooves like the nanigo, samba, merenge, mambo, cha-cha and others for drum set, along with understanding different time signatures like 9/8, 19/16, 7/8 and so on. So I could say I am part of the affinity group of snare drummers that know something about and can play rudiments, which include ruffs, and flams and so on. I could also say I am a part of another drummer's affinity group that know some afro-cuban grooves, and how to play them. I could also say I am part of the jazz drummers affinity group because I can play jazz a little bit also, and could speak with some knowledge about it. First and foremost, I would consider myself part of the progressive metal drummers affinity group, because I know and can perform most of the drumming ideas within this affinity group and talk about different aspects of the affinity group proficiently, and it is the style, other than pop, that I am most comfortable playing, and know the most about. With the previous affinity groups mentioned, I am somewhat of a newcomer, but still inside the affinity group because I know some of the design grammer, and I have experimented with the styles, and established norms of what I believe constitutes mastery of the styles. I've also discussed these norms with other drummers in these affinity groups. A drummer's affinity group that I don't fit in at the moment would be brush players, because I really don't know how to play with brushes, and I don't know what constitutes mastery of such a style, nor do I know any of the design grammar associated with playing with brushes.
For guitar, I am only part of one affinity group, but still not a very assimilated member into that affinity group. That group would be guitar players that know how to play chords and only chords. I fit in this affinity group with other guys like Damien Rice, Bob Dylan, the guys from Dashboard Confessional, and possibly Simon and Garfunklel, and the Everly Brothers. I could have a fairly animated conversation with these guys about chords, but when they start talking about how put the chords into a killer chord progression, and sing catchy melodies over the chords, I could barely join in. An affinity group that I have been trying to enter recently would be that of pentatonic lead players. I am not in the affinity group though because I can't play pentatonic leads...I can just try and not succeed. So if Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Mayer, B.B. King, or Buddy Guy tried to jam with me, and talk with me about playing the blues (i.e. pentatonic lead playing), and discuss how it took them years of experimenting before finding their tone, and being able to play emotionally, I would definitely be a fish out of water. An affinity group that I have no part of whatsoever, and haven't even tried to enter yet would be that of the what I would call 50 Trick Pony (as opposed to 1 trick pony) affinity group. Guys like Joe Satriani, John Petrucci, Phil Keaggy, Steve Morse, Neil Zaza, Richie Kotzen, Andy Timmons, Paul Gilbert, and others would be in this affinity group. They would be in this affinity group because they are proficient in just about every type of playing there is. If you were to ask them to play a blues jam like Stevie Ray, they could do it with ease, or write a great song in the vein of Bob Dylan, or Don Henley, they could. However they would also succeed at playing a Chopin etude on guitar with about 20 notes per second. If they were to sit down with me and talk about what constitutes mastery of sweep picking, and what notes involve a Bmaj7 arpeggio, I could politely nod, but that is about it. I don't know how I should even go about starting to play a Bmaj7 arpeggio on guitar...I've never experimented with it, so therefore, I haven't established any experiential knowledge of what constitutes mastery of such a crazy technique, or any of the other techniques that those guys can perform so well.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Blog 4
Hello. Well...being someone that likes to pick things that are less mainstream, I tried as best as I could to avoid using Star Wars as a media text, but I couldn't resist.
Star Wars is basically a combination of a bunch of different myths and stories from different time periods all put together. It has been a while since I have seen the films, but Luke Skywalker, the main character at least for the first film (or 4th episode) grew up on a desert planet called Tatooine unaware of his importance in the big scheme of things. He eventually meets Ben Kenobi, which takes him to an academy. He eventually ends up destroying the Death Star, which was the evil Empire's planet sized base.
The myths I will be applying:
1. Wisdom of the Rustic-An older uneducated man, looked down on by society helps the hero overcome his or her biggest obstacle.
2. Coming of Messiah- A society hopes for the return of its messiah.
3. Eternal Return-A return to the way a community was before. A return to a community's prime.
The Wisdom of the Rustic fits into Star Wars wonderfully. In Episode 4, Ben Kenobi is the guy that no one trusts, and writes off as a loony. Luke is warned by his uncle about ever getting involved with Ben Kenobi. Kenobi is in fact called a hermit. But he ends up being the man that propels Luke into his role as a hero. Luke discovered the force through Kenobi, which helped Luke through almost every obstacle that he faced in the rest of the trilogy.
Luke Skywalker is looked upon as the Messiah in Star Wars. There are even prophecies that many characters in the film thought Luke fulfilled. Someone was supposed to rise up and bring balance to the force, and Luke was seen as this individual.
The members of the rebellion that are against the evil empire all hoped for an eternal return to the way things were before in the galaxy...before the rebellion, and before Annikan Skywalker became Darth Vader. They were hoping that someone like Luke could help restore what was lost years ago, and bring peace to the galaxy by getting rid of the members of the Empire and all that submit to Emperor Palpipatine.
Star Wars, is, of course, set in a Galaxy far far away, so the general idea of all these myths is changed somewhat from how they are usually perceived. But in another way, each myth mentioned is magnified. Ben Kenobi isn't from a hut out in the desert, he's from a hut-type home in a desert planet! Luke isn't supposed to save just a community, but the entire galaxy! And of course, the eternal return isn't supposed to make one small society or community turn back to its old ways, but lots and lots of planets return to their old ways!
Star Wars is basically a combination of a bunch of different myths and stories from different time periods all put together. It has been a while since I have seen the films, but Luke Skywalker, the main character at least for the first film (or 4th episode) grew up on a desert planet called Tatooine unaware of his importance in the big scheme of things. He eventually meets Ben Kenobi, which takes him to an academy. He eventually ends up destroying the Death Star, which was the evil Empire's planet sized base.
The myths I will be applying:
1. Wisdom of the Rustic-An older uneducated man, looked down on by society helps the hero overcome his or her biggest obstacle.
2. Coming of Messiah- A society hopes for the return of its messiah.
3. Eternal Return-A return to the way a community was before. A return to a community's prime.
The Wisdom of the Rustic fits into Star Wars wonderfully. In Episode 4, Ben Kenobi is the guy that no one trusts, and writes off as a loony. Luke is warned by his uncle about ever getting involved with Ben Kenobi. Kenobi is in fact called a hermit. But he ends up being the man that propels Luke into his role as a hero. Luke discovered the force through Kenobi, which helped Luke through almost every obstacle that he faced in the rest of the trilogy.
Luke Skywalker is looked upon as the Messiah in Star Wars. There are even prophecies that many characters in the film thought Luke fulfilled. Someone was supposed to rise up and bring balance to the force, and Luke was seen as this individual.
The members of the rebellion that are against the evil empire all hoped for an eternal return to the way things were before in the galaxy...before the rebellion, and before Annikan Skywalker became Darth Vader. They were hoping that someone like Luke could help restore what was lost years ago, and bring peace to the galaxy by getting rid of the members of the Empire and all that submit to Emperor Palpipatine.
Star Wars, is, of course, set in a Galaxy far far away, so the general idea of all these myths is changed somewhat from how they are usually perceived. But in another way, each myth mentioned is magnified. Ben Kenobi isn't from a hut out in the desert, he's from a hut-type home in a desert planet! Luke isn't supposed to save just a community, but the entire galaxy! And of course, the eternal return isn't supposed to make one small society or community turn back to its old ways, but lots and lots of planets return to their old ways!
Friday, August 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)