This posts is something I am writing outside of class. So those who are interested in my blog pertaining to Engl243, please look at the blog below.
I have great respect for Derrida, and I don't mean to undermine him in anyway (for all you hardcore Derrida fans). But Jacques Derrida made a comment about the usage of the word 'animal' that I disagree with. I have a video of Derrida's discourse posted below.
Derrida's discourse on the word 'animal' seems to be an attack on categorization. Derrida says that the use of the word 'animal' is theoretically ridiculous and a stupid gesture because the different species of animals is so vast. To put monkeys and ants in the same category doesn't make sense because they are obviously different. The act of categorizing is a violent gesture, which influences the cruelty humans exercise towards other living creatures.
I would agree to some extent, that the misuse of the word 'animal' can invite or turn a blind eye to cruel treatment towards living creatures. Any misuse of language can invite hostile treatment. However, Derrida goes on to say that he tries not to use the word 'animal' in general, which is explained by his arguments in the above paragraph. Rather than saying animal, he would say "this type of animal," or "such and such an animal."
By this logic, saying "this type of animal" like an ant can be categorical since there are different species of ants. Therefore, you would have to point out the specific species of ant. But that can be categorical too, so we have to point out a specific ant. By this logic, saying 'human' is a misuse of language as well, since we do not distinguish between male or female, different races, and different ages. We cannot even refer to a race, since there are different individuals among the race.
My point is that categorizing is practical. That doesn't justify any cruelty exercised on animals , but to say that categorizing IS a 'violent act' is something I disagree with. Yes, categorizing CAN be a 'violent act,' as any misuse of language can invite cruel treatment. The word 'animal' refers to all living organisms with voluntary movement, which includes humans. Using the word 'animal' is practical (without hostile intent) if a subject wants to refer to a general idea of living organisms with voluntary movement. Referring to the Chinese race is practical (without hostile intent) if someone is talking about homosapiens who are from 'this' part of the world and adapt 'this' kind of culture.
Categories are how we identify ourselves and things. We begin to categorize things when we are infants, as it is a natural process of thinking about things. We can identify ourselves through categories. I am aware that I am not under the category of lions, nor Africans, nor White. The misuse of these categories can lead to violence, but in a general context it is a part of identity. Therefore, saying 'animal' in general is not a stupid gesture, but the misuse of the word is a stupid gesture.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
BAY! BAY!
The Jonas Brothers are a new Pop sensation, consisting of three brothers: Kevin, Joe, and Nick. I am not interested in the Jonas brothers themselves, (and if you are, excuse me) but their purity rings are something to take interest in. With a minister for a father, the Jonas brothers have put on purity rings as a promise to stay pure until marraige. The Jonas brothers agree not to fornicate, do drugs, drink alcohol, or mutilate cats (the last one I made up). I would say, "good for them!" but I think we should take time to think about this.
First, let's look at the binary oppositions. What seems to be the center of this ring situation is being pure. The binary oppositions would be what's pure and what's not pure. What seems to be associated with pure (in a Jonas Brothers, Christian sense) is: no fornication, drug free, alcohol free, no partying, no swearing, and so on. So what's considered not pure is: fornicating, using drugs, drinking alcohol, partying hard, and swearing non-stop.
Like a lot of bubble-gum boy bands before them (i.e. The Beatles, The New Kids On The Block, Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 Degrees, etc), there are sexual elements about these boy bands that earn them their popularity. A core part of Pop music is the selling of sex. Of course these boy bands don't admit it, but rather, they try and fight the accusations of selling sex. They do so by promoting their 'faith,' or by wearing purity rings. The Jonas Brothers' gesture of wearing purity rings is contradictory in itself, because the Jonas Brohers are a pop group.
I am aware that the purity rings are promises to not have premarraidal sex, and someone can argue that if they are not having premarraidal sex then they are doing fine. However, by suggesting the Jonas brothers are pure, suggests that they live up to all the other connotations of being pure: being humble, selfless, kind, innocent, etc. (Of course, these connotations of purity are influenced culturally by Western life, but the Jonas Brothers are from a Western upbringing). Again, the contradiction lies in what they are, a pop group. Pop music sells sex, boosts egos, and is anything but selfless. It is pop music's goal to sell, sell, sell, because it's a business. Therefore, the Jonas Brothers can be distributed with all the aspects of Pop music (sex, sex, sex), and still be accepted by parents because of their purity rings.
"The Boy Band Next Door." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105564. Newsweek
Check this video of the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings...it's, well...see for yourself:
First, let's look at the binary oppositions. What seems to be the center of this ring situation is being pure. The binary oppositions would be what's pure and what's not pure. What seems to be associated with pure (in a Jonas Brothers, Christian sense) is: no fornication, drug free, alcohol free, no partying, no swearing, and so on. So what's considered not pure is: fornicating, using drugs, drinking alcohol, partying hard, and swearing non-stop.
Like a lot of bubble-gum boy bands before them (i.e. The Beatles, The New Kids On The Block, Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 Degrees, etc), there are sexual elements about these boy bands that earn them their popularity. A core part of Pop music is the selling of sex. Of course these boy bands don't admit it, but rather, they try and fight the accusations of selling sex. They do so by promoting their 'faith,' or by wearing purity rings. The Jonas Brothers' gesture of wearing purity rings is contradictory in itself, because the Jonas Brohers are a pop group.
I am aware that the purity rings are promises to not have premarraidal sex, and someone can argue that if they are not having premarraidal sex then they are doing fine. However, by suggesting the Jonas brothers are pure, suggests that they live up to all the other connotations of being pure: being humble, selfless, kind, innocent, etc. (Of course, these connotations of purity are influenced culturally by Western life, but the Jonas Brothers are from a Western upbringing). Again, the contradiction lies in what they are, a pop group. Pop music sells sex, boosts egos, and is anything but selfless. It is pop music's goal to sell, sell, sell, because it's a business. Therefore, the Jonas Brothers can be distributed with all the aspects of Pop music (sex, sex, sex), and still be accepted by parents because of their purity rings.
"The Boy Band Next Door." http://www.newsweek.com/id/105564. Newsweek
Check this video of the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings...it's, well...see for yourself:
Monday, March 9, 2009
Metonymy and Metaphor
Metonymy:
The way metonymy works is displacement by contiguity (association). For example, the phrase “to fish for pearls” derives from the idea of fishing, or taking from the ocean. It doesn’t literally mean fishing, because we know that fishing involves fishing rods and bait. The contiguity from “fishing fish” and “fishing pearls” comes from the associations with the ocean and boats. Instead of saying, “taking pearls from the ocean,” it is rephrased as “fishing for pearls” by displacing “take” with “fishing” through contiguity (association). No new definition has been created; we have displaced “take” with “fishing,” but we still mean “taking pearls from the ocean.”
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata.
In Jacques Lacan’s work, The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious, he aligns metonymy with the function of desire. Lacan presents the algorithm for linguistic science: S/s, which is the signifier (S) over the signified (s). In the nature of metonymy, the bar separating the signifier and signified is kept horizontal, keeping the separation in tact. Therefore, just like I explained about metonymy above, the signifier can be displaced by other signifiers along a signifying chain and the signified will remain. Meaning is never created at one point when one signifier is over the signified. Rather, meaning insists on the movement from one signifier to another. The nature of metonymy is similar with desire. If desire is what is signified, then the signifier is constantly displaced by other signifiers (the things we desire). Desire is always a desire for something else. Desire comes from a lack of something, because desire is constantly trying to displace the lack of something with objects of desire.
This video I’m about to show is a visual representation of metonymy. What seems to be a different set of lives (signifiers) are actually signify a similar movement, in which the different set of lives signify one life (signified) that is in the music video. Try watching the video with the nature of metonymy in mind.
Metaphor
Metaphor functions as displacement by substitution. I am going to use a similar example as I did for the Metonymy explanation. If we take the word “fishing,” and use it in a phrase like “fishing for information,” then we have taken the concept of fishing into a new domain. When someone is “fishing” for information, we don’t imagine someone near an ocean or on a boat searching for general information in the sea. Rather, we transfer the elements of the action of “fishing” (catching something that cannot be seen) into a new domain.
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata
Back to Lacan’s algorithm: S/s, in which the signifier (S) is above the signified (s). In the nature of metaphor, the bar separating the signifier and signified is vertical. Therefore, the signifier is able to cross over the bar and merge with the signified, and a new signified is produced. This is what Lacan calls signification, in which meaning can only happen when the signifier and signified converge to create a new signified.
The way metonymy works is displacement by contiguity (association). For example, the phrase “to fish for pearls” derives from the idea of fishing, or taking from the ocean. It doesn’t literally mean fishing, because we know that fishing involves fishing rods and bait. The contiguity from “fishing fish” and “fishing pearls” comes from the associations with the ocean and boats. Instead of saying, “taking pearls from the ocean,” it is rephrased as “fishing for pearls” by displacing “take” with “fishing” through contiguity (association). No new definition has been created; we have displaced “take” with “fishing,” but we still mean “taking pearls from the ocean.”
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata.
In Jacques Lacan’s work, The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious, he aligns metonymy with the function of desire. Lacan presents the algorithm for linguistic science: S/s, which is the signifier (S) over the signified (s). In the nature of metonymy, the bar separating the signifier and signified is kept horizontal, keeping the separation in tact. Therefore, just like I explained about metonymy above, the signifier can be displaced by other signifiers along a signifying chain and the signified will remain. Meaning is never created at one point when one signifier is over the signified. Rather, meaning insists on the movement from one signifier to another. The nature of metonymy is similar with desire. If desire is what is signified, then the signifier is constantly displaced by other signifiers (the things we desire). Desire is always a desire for something else. Desire comes from a lack of something, because desire is constantly trying to displace the lack of something with objects of desire.
This video I’m about to show is a visual representation of metonymy. What seems to be a different set of lives (signifiers) are actually signify a similar movement, in which the different set of lives signify one life (signified) that is in the music video. Try watching the video with the nature of metonymy in mind.
Metaphor
Metaphor functions as displacement by substitution. I am going to use a similar example as I did for the Metonymy explanation. If we take the word “fishing,” and use it in a phrase like “fishing for information,” then we have taken the concept of fishing into a new domain. When someone is “fishing” for information, we don’t imagine someone near an ocean or on a boat searching for general information in the sea. Rather, we transfer the elements of the action of “fishing” (catching something that cannot be seen) into a new domain.
Example from: Dirven, René. Conversion as a Conceptual Metonymy of Basic Event Schemata
Back to Lacan’s algorithm: S/s, in which the signifier (S) is above the signified (s). In the nature of metaphor, the bar separating the signifier and signified is vertical. Therefore, the signifier is able to cross over the bar and merge with the signified, and a new signified is produced. This is what Lacan calls signification, in which meaning can only happen when the signifier and signified converge to create a new signified.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Day, The Dream
February 20, 2007
I woke up around 8:40 AM and was too anxious to go back to bed. It was Friday morning, and the weekend I was slaving for all week was approaching. I got out of bed and took a shower, brushed my teeth, etc.
Class was more enjoyable than usual. I must have been on drugs or something. Everything seemed funny. We saw a clip from a movie; I forgot the name. I thought it was funny when the main character was having sex with his co-worker on the photocopy machine in his dream.
I had lunch at Sexton, the Reef was too full as usual. I decided to skip my 2:40 class. I had to make time to go down to the cities to pick up my band's equipment for our gig on Saturday at CSB. I kept receiving phone calls from Chakong about renting speakers for the performance. I left campus around 2:00 PM.
The drive home seemed longer than usual. It was such a struggle to stay awake.
I tried to look for my CD of Albert Hammond Jr tracks, I couldn't find them in my car.
3:15 PM I picked up Dave (my drummer) at the U of M Twin Cities campus. We then headed to my house to pick up my mom's SUV. My mom was apparently sick when I got home. My dad was fixing something for my mom to eat. We then headed to Dave's house to pack up the equipment. I bought some girl scout cookies from Dave's sister.
The drive back to CSB was very long. Snow was falling like ashes, and the sky was a deep purple. Dave and I would exchange words here and there about bands, music, girls, and life. The drive took around two and half hours.
We arrived at CSB and unloaded our equipment on the top floor of Gorecki. I exchanged a few words with friends on our way in. A girl named Anne was there, we looked at each other but never exchanged words. She must be shy or just cold.
When we finished unloading, rehearsals were still going on for the festival on Saturday. I was called over by the Japanese girls to say hello. "That girl" was there with 'that guy,' I decided not to say anything to her yet. I watched some of the rehearsals, the Japanese dance was the most interesting. I talked to "that girl" after she got off the stage. She seemed more in tune than usual with what I had to say, but I knew she was leaving with "that guy." Women are confusing, or I'm just clueless.
Dave and I finally set up our equipment. I was relieved when Dave and I found out how to work the P.A system. Dave and I decided to go to Wendy's to get something to eat. On our way back, the rest of the band members arrived at my sister's place in Saint Ben's.
Later on that night, we all gathered at Theo's place. Jak (the bassist) had an intense mohawk; I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Andy (the keyboardist/synthesizer) brought "Rock Band" for the Xbox 360. I found it ironic that a band was playing 'rock band.' Everyone had a good buzz going. I sucked at the quarter game; I can't seem to toss the quartar just right.
I sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer." I was chewing gum, and everyone buzzed on their beer bumped me. I accidently swallowed my gum, but when I said it out loud, it sounded like something dirty.
I went to bed around 2:40 AM.
The Dream
Most of my dream was set during night. The sky was a deep purple, but the lights along the streets and buildings were orange. There was a girl in my dream, around my age, who was someone I knew well. But in reality, I never knew this girl before. She told she wanted to do heroin; she wanted to see the world in new ways. My friends Theo and Jak also wanted to do heroin. I remember telling them not to do the drug, but they refused to listen. I gave them an ultimatum, to choose between the drug or our friendship. They chose to do heroin, and I remember deleting them from my contacts in my phone.
I remember walking fast outside, through some house parties. I missed the bus, so I decided to walk home. There were tents along side the road with lines of people waiting outside. I saw Gwen (from our class) waiting in line. I decided to wait in line as well.
I woke up around 8:40 AM and was too anxious to go back to bed. It was Friday morning, and the weekend I was slaving for all week was approaching. I got out of bed and took a shower, brushed my teeth, etc.
Class was more enjoyable than usual. I must have been on drugs or something. Everything seemed funny. We saw a clip from a movie; I forgot the name. I thought it was funny when the main character was having sex with his co-worker on the photocopy machine in his dream.
I had lunch at Sexton, the Reef was too full as usual. I decided to skip my 2:40 class. I had to make time to go down to the cities to pick up my band's equipment for our gig on Saturday at CSB. I kept receiving phone calls from Chakong about renting speakers for the performance. I left campus around 2:00 PM.
The drive home seemed longer than usual. It was such a struggle to stay awake.
I tried to look for my CD of Albert Hammond Jr tracks, I couldn't find them in my car.
3:15 PM I picked up Dave (my drummer) at the U of M Twin Cities campus. We then headed to my house to pick up my mom's SUV. My mom was apparently sick when I got home. My dad was fixing something for my mom to eat. We then headed to Dave's house to pack up the equipment. I bought some girl scout cookies from Dave's sister.
The drive back to CSB was very long. Snow was falling like ashes, and the sky was a deep purple. Dave and I would exchange words here and there about bands, music, girls, and life. The drive took around two and half hours.
We arrived at CSB and unloaded our equipment on the top floor of Gorecki. I exchanged a few words with friends on our way in. A girl named Anne was there, we looked at each other but never exchanged words. She must be shy or just cold.
When we finished unloading, rehearsals were still going on for the festival on Saturday. I was called over by the Japanese girls to say hello. "That girl" was there with 'that guy,' I decided not to say anything to her yet. I watched some of the rehearsals, the Japanese dance was the most interesting. I talked to "that girl" after she got off the stage. She seemed more in tune than usual with what I had to say, but I knew she was leaving with "that guy." Women are confusing, or I'm just clueless.
Dave and I finally set up our equipment. I was relieved when Dave and I found out how to work the P.A system. Dave and I decided to go to Wendy's to get something to eat. On our way back, the rest of the band members arrived at my sister's place in Saint Ben's.
Later on that night, we all gathered at Theo's place. Jak (the bassist) had an intense mohawk; I wasn't sure how I felt about it. Andy (the keyboardist/synthesizer) brought "Rock Band" for the Xbox 360. I found it ironic that a band was playing 'rock band.' Everyone had a good buzz going. I sucked at the quarter game; I can't seem to toss the quartar just right.
I sang Bon Jovi's "Living on a Prayer." I was chewing gum, and everyone buzzed on their beer bumped me. I accidently swallowed my gum, but when I said it out loud, it sounded like something dirty.
I went to bed around 2:40 AM.
The Dream
Most of my dream was set during night. The sky was a deep purple, but the lights along the streets and buildings were orange. There was a girl in my dream, around my age, who was someone I knew well. But in reality, I never knew this girl before. She told she wanted to do heroin; she wanted to see the world in new ways. My friends Theo and Jak also wanted to do heroin. I remember telling them not to do the drug, but they refused to listen. I gave them an ultimatum, to choose between the drug or our friendship. They chose to do heroin, and I remember deleting them from my contacts in my phone.
I remember walking fast outside, through some house parties. I missed the bus, so I decided to walk home. There were tents along side the road with lines of people waiting outside. I saw Gwen (from our class) waiting in line. I decided to wait in line as well.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The 80s are back!!
I don't know if I'm the only one noticing this, but the 80s are coming back. Oh God, I have been listening to 80s tracks all day: "Africa" by Toto, "Everyone Wants to Rule the World" by Tears for Fears, "Come On Eileen" by Dexy's Midnight Runners, "Just What I Needed" by The Cars, "Just Like Heaven" by The Cure, and "Take On Me" by Ah-ha. Anyways, I have been noticing trends that are very similar to the 80s. Look around you: the puffball skirts, abstract and bright color designs, big chunky jewelry, the new hairdos (thank god we haven't seen the mullets), the use of synthesizers in music, and so on. Now, what does this mean? Well, I don't know really.
In the early 2000s, we saw an emergence of a the 60s-70s revival. At that time, bands like The Strokes, The Hives, The White Stripes, The Vines, The Killers, and Franz Ferdinand received some hype for their old-school attitude and style of music. Tight-ripped jeans were cool, even with the boot cuts so they look like "bell bottoms." Long wavy hair was cool for guys, almost like a Kelso (That 70s Show) imitation. Now, the 80s are coming back. It is a bold assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Trends recycle themselves, even if they are just the smallest things. Where do these trends come from? Well, I'm not the one to make such a bold of a claim. But my hypothesis, which is a pretty obvious guess, is the involvement of the corporate businesses and marketing. Like Naomi Klein says in her book, No Logo, "street style and youth culture are infinitely marketable commodities" (80). The 80s trend could come from a group of kids who shop at second-rate stores for all we know. The point is that whatever trends the market is promoting, it will spread like wildfire. Marketers won't stop their advertising, and the next thing you know, 80s fashion are the only things available at the mall.
In No Logo, there are "Cool Hunters" who stalk youth culture everyday seeking the modern definition of "cool" in order to squeeze dollars out of it. These "cool hunters" could blend in easily, being young associates of large corporations, and notate the next big move of youth culture. In matter of fact, these "cool hunters" hype up brands and promotions using a 'peer-to-peer' distribution. It's almost as if they don't need to search for cool, they can create whatever trends they want with the corporations support and hype. These "cool hunters" make their way into private parties, gatherings, concerts, and other youth events, and whatever is put to spotlight ends up being called "sold out" by modern youth. Then, the search begins again in this cycle that goes on and on.
Now, I really don't know where the 80s trend is coming from. Somehow, the corporations have caught on to this trend, either by using their "cool hunters" or just because. Who knows what will happen. Perhaps the 80s fad will only last for a short period of time, or it may never come. Fads come and go, but the marketing machine never stops rolling. Anything has become marketable, and you take that any way you like. Now if you don't mind, I am going to continue to listen to "Straight Up" by Paula Abdul...Yeah, Paula...So what?
P.S:
Check out the picture and video below. These are recent; they look pretty 80s to me.
In the early 2000s, we saw an emergence of a the 60s-70s revival. At that time, bands like The Strokes, The Hives, The White Stripes, The Vines, The Killers, and Franz Ferdinand received some hype for their old-school attitude and style of music. Tight-ripped jeans were cool, even with the boot cuts so they look like "bell bottoms." Long wavy hair was cool for guys, almost like a Kelso (That 70s Show) imitation. Now, the 80s are coming back. It is a bold assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Trends recycle themselves, even if they are just the smallest things. Where do these trends come from? Well, I'm not the one to make such a bold of a claim. But my hypothesis, which is a pretty obvious guess, is the involvement of the corporate businesses and marketing. Like Naomi Klein says in her book, No Logo, "street style and youth culture are infinitely marketable commodities" (80). The 80s trend could come from a group of kids who shop at second-rate stores for all we know. The point is that whatever trends the market is promoting, it will spread like wildfire. Marketers won't stop their advertising, and the next thing you know, 80s fashion are the only things available at the mall.
In No Logo, there are "Cool Hunters" who stalk youth culture everyday seeking the modern definition of "cool" in order to squeeze dollars out of it. These "cool hunters" could blend in easily, being young associates of large corporations, and notate the next big move of youth culture. In matter of fact, these "cool hunters" hype up brands and promotions using a 'peer-to-peer' distribution. It's almost as if they don't need to search for cool, they can create whatever trends they want with the corporations support and hype. These "cool hunters" make their way into private parties, gatherings, concerts, and other youth events, and whatever is put to spotlight ends up being called "sold out" by modern youth. Then, the search begins again in this cycle that goes on and on.
Now, I really don't know where the 80s trend is coming from. Somehow, the corporations have caught on to this trend, either by using their "cool hunters" or just because. Who knows what will happen. Perhaps the 80s fad will only last for a short period of time, or it may never come. Fads come and go, but the marketing machine never stops rolling. Anything has become marketable, and you take that any way you like. Now if you don't mind, I am going to continue to listen to "Straight Up" by Paula Abdul...Yeah, Paula...So what?
P.S:
Check out the picture and video below. These are recent; they look pretty 80s to me.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Originality Continued...
So this past weekend I discussed the topic on "originality" with my friends and my guitar instructor/professor. Here is what some of them had to say.
Friend's Theory:
So one of my friends came up with the thoery that songs can be different every time a song is played. When a band plays their single live, it is different, which is why people go to see them live. You can even argue that each time a song is played live, it is different. You can argue that the change in location affects the song, a mistake changed the song, the crowd's reaction changed the song, the way the band performed, a lot of factors.
Guitar Instructor:
My guitar instructor didn't mention much about originality and music in general. However, he did have a theory on Pop music. His notion was that the Pop music formula does not incorporate complete originality. A Pop song must express something that appeals to the general public, therefore being a Pop song. It cannot present something completely alien. People usually respond to Pop music because of something familiar, and a pop song can only be popular by appealing to familiar elements. Familiar elements can be the trends of the time, a familiar emotion, a situation most people experience, and so forth.
My Thoughts:
Being completely unique is difficult, because if I ever were to claim something I made was completely unique, one could argue against it down to the fine details. One could argue that "the instruments you used weren't completely original," or "the musical notes you used existed before, so you can't claim it's completely original." Even if I attempted to create something 'out of this world,' it would most likely be unappealing.
Perhaps good music does not require such an extreme dose of originality. Good songs also have a sense of familiarity. How can one interpret, or even enjoy a song that is completely alien? Even if a song is not in comformity with the current genre of music, and is considered unique, it must contain something that is familiar to the few that appreciate that song.
A good song takes things that already exist, and creates something different, even if it is just a little 'different.' Perhaps it is like making ice cream, gathering ingredients that others are familiar with and creating something else. Hip hop artists take samples from other songs and write new music. Others can argue that those songs aren't original, but I don't consider Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure" to be the same song.
Two songs from different artists could sing about love, but their interpretations of love are different. They are appreciated for their different reasons, one could present a more fantastic view of love and the other presenting a bitter point view. Even if the two songs are talking about the same thing, they are appreciated for different reasons. In matter of fact, albums from the same artist are appreciated for their own reasons, and songs from the same artist are appreciated for different reasons. Interpretation and appreciation come into play with originality. Despite having the same chord progression or even the same tune, they are intrepretated and appreciated differently. Personally, Nancy Sinatra does a better version of "These Boots Are Made For Walking" than Jessica Simpson. And I like Alien Ant Farm's "Smooth Criminal" just as much as I like Michael Jackson's version for their own different reasons.
In conclusion, it is very difficult to create something completely original. But songs can be appreciated differently, and if that means anything, then somethings can be a little original. Honestly, I don't care much about being completely original anymore. I understand that my identity isn't even completely original (but that is a whole other discussion). I should end with some kind of concluding sentence but I am too tired right now to think of one...so "good night."
Friend's Theory:
So one of my friends came up with the thoery that songs can be different every time a song is played. When a band plays their single live, it is different, which is why people go to see them live. You can even argue that each time a song is played live, it is different. You can argue that the change in location affects the song, a mistake changed the song, the crowd's reaction changed the song, the way the band performed, a lot of factors.
Guitar Instructor:
My guitar instructor didn't mention much about originality and music in general. However, he did have a theory on Pop music. His notion was that the Pop music formula does not incorporate complete originality. A Pop song must express something that appeals to the general public, therefore being a Pop song. It cannot present something completely alien. People usually respond to Pop music because of something familiar, and a pop song can only be popular by appealing to familiar elements. Familiar elements can be the trends of the time, a familiar emotion, a situation most people experience, and so forth.
My Thoughts:
Being completely unique is difficult, because if I ever were to claim something I made was completely unique, one could argue against it down to the fine details. One could argue that "the instruments you used weren't completely original," or "the musical notes you used existed before, so you can't claim it's completely original." Even if I attempted to create something 'out of this world,' it would most likely be unappealing.
Perhaps good music does not require such an extreme dose of originality. Good songs also have a sense of familiarity. How can one interpret, or even enjoy a song that is completely alien? Even if a song is not in comformity with the current genre of music, and is considered unique, it must contain something that is familiar to the few that appreciate that song.
A good song takes things that already exist, and creates something different, even if it is just a little 'different.' Perhaps it is like making ice cream, gathering ingredients that others are familiar with and creating something else. Hip hop artists take samples from other songs and write new music. Others can argue that those songs aren't original, but I don't consider Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" and Queen's "Under Pressure" to be the same song.
Two songs from different artists could sing about love, but their interpretations of love are different. They are appreciated for their different reasons, one could present a more fantastic view of love and the other presenting a bitter point view. Even if the two songs are talking about the same thing, they are appreciated for different reasons. In matter of fact, albums from the same artist are appreciated for their own reasons, and songs from the same artist are appreciated for different reasons. Interpretation and appreciation come into play with originality. Despite having the same chord progression or even the same tune, they are intrepretated and appreciated differently. Personally, Nancy Sinatra does a better version of "These Boots Are Made For Walking" than Jessica Simpson. And I like Alien Ant Farm's "Smooth Criminal" just as much as I like Michael Jackson's version for their own different reasons.
In conclusion, it is very difficult to create something completely original. But songs can be appreciated differently, and if that means anything, then somethings can be a little original. Honestly, I don't care much about being completely original anymore. I understand that my identity isn't even completely original (but that is a whole other discussion). I should end with some kind of concluding sentence but I am too tired right now to think of one...so "good night."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Original?
What is original? Can I really call something I wrote original? This has been going through my head as of late after I read Stanley Fish's essay, "How to Recognize a Poem When You See One."
Why original? I always thought the determination to push new boundaries is what separated the greats from the mediocre. Artists use their imagination to present things in new and interesting ways. This is why I value originality; I would not want to be labeled as a cliche or shadow of what already existed before me - well at least as an artist (If I dare to call myself one yet).
The dilemma I face involves the use of the word, "original." In the essay, a point is made that our thoughts are not our own. Our thoughts, beliefs, ideas are influenced from our experience and interaction with other people, societies, communities, and other factors. Therefore, how can we label something we thought as original? There is a huge history behind us, with countless ideas and philosophies existing before we were born. Those ideas and philosophies of the past have shaped our society and ourselves. We have adapted those philosophies and ideas. Me thinking "I have my own thoughts is" not original, there are probably a number of people from the past and present who had that thought.
On to my main point. So if my band and I write a new song, can we really call it original? Let's say we write a love song. There have been countless numbers of love songs written in the past. Therefore, how can expressing these emotions in a song be anything new or even, interesting? I guess, one can argue that creating something original has become a lot more difficult.
These are just thoughts, and I have yet to come to a conclusion.
Why original? I always thought the determination to push new boundaries is what separated the greats from the mediocre. Artists use their imagination to present things in new and interesting ways. This is why I value originality; I would not want to be labeled as a cliche or shadow of what already existed before me - well at least as an artist (If I dare to call myself one yet).
The dilemma I face involves the use of the word, "original." In the essay, a point is made that our thoughts are not our own. Our thoughts, beliefs, ideas are influenced from our experience and interaction with other people, societies, communities, and other factors. Therefore, how can we label something we thought as original? There is a huge history behind us, with countless ideas and philosophies existing before we were born. Those ideas and philosophies of the past have shaped our society and ourselves. We have adapted those philosophies and ideas. Me thinking "I have my own thoughts is" not original, there are probably a number of people from the past and present who had that thought.
On to my main point. So if my band and I write a new song, can we really call it original? Let's say we write a love song. There have been countless numbers of love songs written in the past. Therefore, how can expressing these emotions in a song be anything new or even, interesting? I guess, one can argue that creating something original has become a lot more difficult.
These are just thoughts, and I have yet to come to a conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)