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.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)