Music Consumption

Who takes the time to go to the store and buy CDs anymore? Most of us download our music-- legally and illegally. Our music is something that is disposable. We can download it, listen to it, delete the tracks we don't like, or erase the album as a whole. When an artist creates an album, they intend it to be a whole composition-- meaning, they want you to listen to it beginning to end. They placed certain tracks in specific locations of the album for a purpose. When you play the album on shuffle or only choose to listen to one song off the album and ignore the others, you aren't taking in the artist's sole intention of their work. Have we lost our appreciation of music as an art form? Many choose to not even buy a full album, they might download the one song the artist has on the radio and not listen to what else the artist has to offer. In the same token, artists know how people are listening to their music so they can work hard on one song that they want to be put out there as a single and then rush to make a couple other songs to make a complete album.

How I consume music, well, I am a downloader. I used to spend my weekly allowance at the record store. I would spend a good amount of money. Think, 2 CDs, that's almost $40! Now, I choose to not pay for my music, I feel guilty for this, but why pay when it is easily accessible for free. Do I think it is stealing? Sure. But since it is something that isn't a physical object, it doesn't feel like I am stealing. I do attend concerts of the bands I like that I download for free. I sometimes buy their merch and this contributes more to the band than actually buying the CD. The CD betters the record company, rather than the actual artist.

Although I do download music, it is a disposable thing, and I get a few albums a week, I do listen to albums in their entirety. I have an iPod, but I can't listen to it in my car. I burn most of the albums I download onto CDs and play them beginning to end while driving around.

I am positive that record stores will be in non-existence in a few years. I find this sad, but I can't complain since, like many other, I don't visit these places anymore. It will be interesting to see the face of the music industry in another ten years.

KRAMER VS. KRAMER

Where is it written that a woman makes a better parent than a man? This is a question that arises in the award winning film, Kramer Vs. Kramer. The story is about, Joanna Kramer, a woman (wife/mother) who leaves her husband, Ted Kramer, and son, Billy, in search of her own identity. She could no longer only see herself as being someone's "daughter, wife, and mother".

Ted, who is a workaholic, left most of the care taking of his son up to Joanna. With the absence of Joanna, Ted realizes that he needs to step-up and change his role. He struggles in the beginning, but then gradually understands what it takes to be a good parent. He puts his son before his job and actually loses his job for this.

After Joanna had been gone for over a year and a half, she realizes that she wants her son Billy back in her life. She meets with Ted and tells him that she wants to have her child back. Ted won't allow it. He was the one that was there when she walked out. Billy is practically all the Ted has and he isn't willing to give him up.

They end taking one another to court and fight for custody of the child. Although, Ted is the more appropriate parent and provides a stable home for Billy, the court (as well as the rest of society) feels that a child should be with their mother. She wins the case.

When she comes to pick Billy up from Ted, she feels guilty taking Billy away from his room of "painted clouds" and sees that Ted is a fitting parent for their son.

The story is a different view of gender roles. We are trained to think that a mother is a care-taker, one who is a parent, nurturer. The man is thought to be the worker, the one who brings home the money, spends less time with the children. This movie was made in 1979 (almost 30 years ago). The view on single fathers is about the same. We usually see single mothers, not too many single fathers. So why is it that we believe a woman makes a better parent than a man?

This question makes me think about gay parents. It is looked down upon by society if a child has 2 fathers, or 2 mothers. Does gender/sex really matter when it comes to raising a child? Call me crazy, but it seems that having 1 or 2, or even more parents loving you, taking care of you, and supporting you matters a lot more than their biological sex.

I can see why this movie was considered controversial at its time, as it is still a somewhat controversial issue in our society. Other movies have had their own take on this issue, such as Mr. Mom.

How I Consume the Media

As I discussed in my last blog, I consume most of what I watch over my computer. I use websites such as Hulu.com & WatchTvSitcoms.com. Even some networks allow you to stream their shows straight from their websites. I personally think that this is a good way for company's to get their shows out there. Not all people can watch shows at their original airing time. This allows people to access and gain knowledge of the programs anytime of the day.

I, personally, have a video iPod, but I do not use it to watch videos. I use it for its main intention, to listen to music. My cell phone also plays video, but I use it only to text and talk to people. I feel that our society tries to mush together too many products into one thing. I like to keep it "simple". For instance, I use my camera to take pictures, I use my phone to talk, I use my iPod to listen to music. Different from these gadjits, the computer is something that has many sole duties-- internet, pictures, word documents, video, networking, etc. I feel there is not just one purpose of the computer and that's what makes it such a fundamental part of our society and how we do things.

It is crazy to me how much we all depend on computers. We can see that it is wiping out things that we used to frequent, such as record stores and bookstores. Most of us are Amazon people. We order our books online or-- we don't read paper books anymore, we read them digitally. Anyone heard of the Kindle. It is Amazon's new wireless reading device. Say good-bye to books, this thing allows you to receive any digital book under a minute so you can read it straight from the device. I don't know if this is a potential good or bad thing. Yes, it is nice that we won't be using so much paper. But, isn't it nice to have a hard copy on your shelf, something tangible. Who knows what this means for the future?!

Why would we ever want to subscribe to cable?

We are living in the digital age! We do it all on our computer. Hell, why would we ever need to leave the house?! Websites such as Hulu.com and WatchTvSitcoms.com allow people to watch full episodes of shows and movies without paying a cent. I am one of these people that truly appreciate these websites. These websites do not require you to download anything... it is streaming... just as if you are on YouTube! All you do is, make your selection, click play and boom, you are enjoying entertainment of your choice.

On Hulu.com, they have commercials, which is kind of a bummer. Networks, like PBS, don't have commercials on their programming on TV, but on Hulu.com, they do. Do I have a problem with this? Not really. Them having commercials is making it possible for them to stay in business without me shedding a penny.

On the other hand, WatchTvSitcoms.com, I believe, is doing some illegal stuff. In their movie section, they have movies that are bootlegged (You know, the kind that someone sneaks a video camera into during a screening... the kind where you hear people crunching popcorn... the kind where you get to see silhouettes of people in the audience). Not all of the movies are like this, but a good amount.

I wonder if in ten years from now people will still frequent the theatres even though they can watch Hollywood's new releases from the comfort of their own home without paying a cent.

Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen

We sit in silence, watching team after team haul equipment, animals, and canvas back to the train. Performers leaving the back end of the big top disappear into dressing tents and emerge into street clothes. They stand in groups, laughing and talking, some still wiping their faces. Even out of costume they are glamorous. The drab workmen scuttle all around, occupying the same universe but seemingly on a different dimension. There is no interaction.

There is an evident distinction between classes in Sara Gruen's popular novel, Water for Elephants. An older man (one who can't remember if he is 90 or 93) , Jacob Jankowski, tells his story of his early years working for the Benzini Brothers Circus during the Great Depression. At the age of 23, while attending veterinarian school, Jacob's parents were killed in a terrible car accident. He meets with a man, Edmund Hyde, to discuss his parents' estate. He finds out that his father, a veterinarian, was taking payments in "beans and eggs" because he couldn't stand by and watch animals suffer. Jacob's parents fell behind on their mortgage because they were paying for Jacob's Ivy League education.

I stare at Edmund Hyde, in his expensive suit, behind his expensive desk, in front of his leather-bound books. Behind him, the sun streaks through lead-paned windows. I am filled with sudden loathing- I'll bet he's never taken payment in the form of beans and eggs in his life.

At this moment, Jacob becomes aware that he is left with nothing and watching someone, obviously, of wealth drives him over the edge. He can't take it so he runs away. He jumps a train, and since it is late at night, he doesn't see that the side of the train reads: "Benzini Brothers Most Spectacular Show on Earth".

Jacob is thrown into a new world. A world of working. The men on the train take him in and put him to work! There is a large seperation between the people who work for the circus and the people who perform in the circus. The circus performers are called "kinkers" and they get special treatment. This different treatment is evident in the eating quarters. The kinkers sit at beautiful tables with flowers and nice silverware, while the workers sit seperate from them at plain tables.

Jacob is bunked with a dwarf performer, Kinko.

I step forward, holding out my hand. "How do you do," I say.
Kinko regards my hand coolly and then looks back at August. "What is he?"
"His name is Jacob."
"I said what, not who."
"He's going to help out in the menagerie."
Kinko leaps to his feet. "A menagerie man? Forget it. I'm a performer. There's no way I'm bunking with a working man."

Because Kinko has a pet dog, and isn't supposed to, August (equestrian director and superintendent of animals) requires Kinko to bunk with Jacob or else he can't keep his dog. The two, Jacob and Kinko, end up being good friends.

August is considered to be of upper class in this novel. He has a hot temper and is violent, which frightens the workers. Later in the novel we come to find he suffers from Schizophrenia. August's wife, Marlena, is also a member of this upper class. She is a star performer in the circus. Although she is a member of the upper class, she treats everyone the same. She was once scolded by the manager of the circus, Uncle Al, for giving someone of lower class food. He compares them to animals, as if you give them something one time and they will just keep coming back for more.

Uncle Al (Alan Bunkel), like August, is a member of the upper class. Both he and August exploit the lower working class. Uncle Al is the owner and ringmaster of the circus. Uncle Al is a buzzard, a vulture, an eater of carrion. When shows did not succeed, he was there to "sop them up". In 1928, The Benzini Brothers Circus ran out of money and couldn't make it to the next town. The general manager left everything behind-- people, equipment animals. Uncle Al was in the area and swooped up the opportunity and made the circus his own, keeping the original name. He is a man of business-- a man with his focus on the dollar. He treats the workers poorly and even throws them from the train in the middle of the night so he won't have to pay them for their work.

The performers, that worked under Uncle Al and August, were also of upper class. The performers saw themselves as a higher class, with their noses in the air to the workers. When money became tight in the circus, the performers received their pay while workingmen would not.

An important part of any circus are the animals. The animals are viewed, even though not human, as members of the lower class in this novel. Although the animals are part of the lower class, they are viewed as being of higherer (lower) class than the actual workers. This is apparent when Uncle Al brings an elephant on-board because he knows it will bring larger audiences. Having an expensive animal like this takes away from the pay of the workers. Even though the animals are a little bit higher on the lower class spectrum than the workers, they still aren't treated well. The animals were abused, mostly by August. Marlena had a horse that was sick and they knew that there was no chance of recovery so they shot the horse and fed its body to the cats.

The workers were treated the worst. It is obvious, from the examples I have already presented, that the workers were not treated in a humane way. There was segregation between the workers and pretty much everyone and everything else. They were stuffed in train cars, sit on the opposit side from the performers, and treated as though they had no value.

The place Jacob is at, when telling the story, is a 90 something year old man living in a nursing home. He is put there by his children, who would rather him live in the nursing home than with any of them. From what we see him struggling with in his older age, is the modern way we view and treat the elderly. He is forced to take pills and "become a sheep" by the doctors even though he feels like he doesn't need it. He has little say so on what he does and has lost his freedom as an adult. He is treated similar to a member of the lower class. One who is not appreciated and forgotten by the rest of society.

Jacob goes into great detail about his experiences in the circus. He paints a dark image of the circus, rather than the magical beauty that most people hold in their head. We are able to identify the classes in this novel. Today, class levels have become more complicated. They still exist but aren't so black and white. We have upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class (working class), lower class. Many people are unaware of what class they fall under-- most of us don't want to consider ourselves one of a working class, but unfortunately, most of us are.

What's Your Lovemark?

What makes us "loyal beyond reason" to one brand, store, or product? Is it the advertising, marketing, customer service, or the satisfaction we get from the actual product? A lovemark is something that can not be replaced, something that holds close to ones heart and mind, something one is loyal to. Every individual has a lovemark, but most of our lovemarks are not the same.

My lovemark is Apple. I am a Mac girl. I have a Macbook, iMac, and of course, an iPod. I have a "want" for the iPhone, but am tied to a current phone contract that doesn't end until March-- I know, sad, right? It's killing me.

Apple computers are simple. Period. Their design is simple and using them is simple-- of course if you are used to using a PC, it will take sometime to get used to. Apple is progressive and other computer companies struggle to even compete with them.

Every product Apple has come out with for the last 5 years have been nothing but successes. Rumor has it that an iCar will be coming out within the year. It seems that no matter what market they choose to enter, they will succeed. They proved this with their iPhone. People camped out for the release of this phone. What other cell phone, in history, has had people camp out for its release.

It seems that I am not alone in Apple being my lovemark. I will continue to purchase and support Apple until, well I don't know, but most likely for the rest of my existence. I would overall say that I am loyal to Apple for their products. Every purchase I have made with them has brought me satisfaction beyond belief.

Want to learn more about lovemarks? Check it out at Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands

The United States, Land of the Free-- A place we call home, a place where we have "freedom of speech"...

Freedom of speech? How ironic that in a place, where we are told we have freedom of speech, books would be banned. I don't know if it is just me or not, but what's the difference between writing something down and saying it? I mean, I understand the fact that once something is written, it becomes documentation-- something of permanance. But it is still a form of speech, an expression, an idea!

The American Library Association website has a week that celebrates the books that have been banned in American history. This "emphasizes the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them".

With the idea of freedom of speech, how can the government justify banning books? One has an idea, writes it down, and people choose to read it or not read it. Plain and simple. Books are something people CHOOSE to read.

Along with the fact that people don't have the freedom to write what they want to, people do not have the freedom to read what they want to. So what the hell does freedom of speech really mean then? I can say what I want? I just can't write it?

So people are banning books and people are choosing to accept it... well then where does it stop? Someone finds something offensive, it can't be printed. We all have different values, different interests, different ideals. It is impossible to please everyone. People can just choose to not read it if they don't want to.

If people are worried about "sexually explicit" material getting into the hands of minors, then they should use censorship rather than banning. Pornography is legal-- that's a whole lot more than words.

Banning books is a waste of our governments energy. They need to start putting their focus somewhere else. Like maybe our educational system?

Good Night and Good Luck

I recently watched the movie Good Night and Good Luck, which was written and directed by George Clooney. This film was made in 2005, but takes place in the 1950s. The movie is in black and white and if I had not known this was a newer release, I would have thought it was made in the time of the story-- minus my knowledge of current actors (George Clooney, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jeff Daniels) 

The movie is about the conflict between CBS radio and television journalist, Murrow, and Wisconsin Senator McCarthy. The Senator accused Murrow of being a communist because he supported a person who was taken out of the Air Force due to his sister's political views as well as his father having a subscription to a Serbian newspaper. The men, working at CBS, come together to work against the senator. I feel that the moral of the movie is to not allow the media to control your thoughts or allow you to believe everything that is presented to you.

I feel this film was made today because we are living in a time when many people are controlled by the media. The majority of society believe all that they read and see, but are unaware of it being fact or fiction. In today's world, we are fed many stories about why we are at war. People are being accused of being terrorists because of their race or birth name. People need to have a voice and stand up for what they know and feel is right. My generation is one of "non-voters". I feel that many of my peers don't feel like they have a voice or don't feel that their opinion matters. We live in a country where we are raised with "freedom of speech", but what does that mean to many? We watch television, are fed images, and take whatever it is as fact with little much thought after that. People become sheep, follow the herd, and promote little creativity. How can we have change if everyone is following the same "garbage"? To have change: 1.) people need to identify what is going on, 2.) do their research and find out what the "truth" is, 3.) use their voice. 

In an article titled Clooney Speaks Out About Journalism and Filmmaking As NYFF Opens, he says that he "thought it was a good time to raise the idea of using fear to stifle political debate."

He also says that, "the real teeth of journalism has been missing [recently] but there is still some [good] journalism out there". When he speaks of "good" journalism, he is speaking about one of truth. 

Questions that rise from me is, what information should be considered news' worthy? How can we really know what the truth is?

NEWSPAPERS: Will they be around in 10 years

We live in a time where all information we need, or could possibly want, is just a click away. As a part of the "Millennial" generation, I rarely pick up a newspaper, and let alone, can barely remember the last time I looked through one. Sometimes a newspaper may have been laying around and I flip through it to look at popular movie reviews, the weather, or comics (nothing of importance, I guess one could say). 

Would this be the same if the internet wasn't in existence? Everyday, I log into my Yahoo! account and the popular news stories cover the front page. I can click the articles and read into them more extensively. If I want to find out about a specific event, all I have to do is "search it" on Google. 

In an article, which I searched online, Newspapers: The Future by Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, discusses the issue on how newspaper circulations are shrinking and newsprint costs have risen causing many of the nation's largest papers to re-evaluate their business. 

Since the price has gone up in printing, many newspapers have shrunk down their papers-- or mostly cater to their "electronic" paper. Most newspapers are able to survive through advertisements printed in their papers. The author of the article discusses, that online, when reading a paper, the ads are more vibrant and readers can have the option to click on the ads to obtain more information.

In my opinion, I feel that papers will still be printed in 10 years. But, I do think that the amount of papers printed will be very minimal or only sent to people with a paid subscription. I believe this because:  1.) newspapers are expensive to print, 2.) people are becoming more environmentally conscious, where it may be a waste of resources to print papers, 3.) news can be easily accessed through the internet with no cost to print, 4.) newspaper companies can continue to make a profit from advertisers, and 5.) news can be put out there more quickly on the internet without the time needed to print newspapers.

I believe our society is very comfortable with the fact that they can access any information with the click of the button. People enjoy the idea that they can obtain pretty much anything, including their newspaper, without even leaving their house. 

Serial Killers: Celebrities?

In my Media and Culture class, we discussed the phenomenon in which serial killers (murderers) are viewed as celebrities in U.S. Society. I had never really thought about it before, but it is pretty sick. In an article I found online, Serial Killers Are as American as Apple Pie - Why do we make serial killers into celebrities?, they discuss the interest people find in people who do terrible things. The author points out that the USA produces 85% of the world's serial killers (Holy SHIT!). People become fascinated by these sick individuals because they are living a life they will never experience (unless, they, themselves, decide to go on a killing frenzy!). 

People are fascinated by Paris Hilton because she has money and is living a lavish life, many could never experience. People hear stories about Charles Manson (one of the most famous serial killers of all time), and want more because it is something so far out from ordinary and something they, most likely, will not experience. 

America has banked on this idea. Many books, movies, documentaries, and television specials (media in general) have been created to share information and facts on serial killers. Is it wrong for people to want to know all about these individuals? Is it wrong for the media to provide people with information about this? 

I personally, have a fascination with serial killers. I do not idolize them or look to collect serial killer memorabilia. I tune in to programs that discuss serial killers, when broadcasted on television. Just because I do it, do I think it's right? No. I do admit that after watching these types of things, it upsets my stomach and I don't feel comfortable, but it is interesting. I just can't understand what could compel someone to do these horrible things and how some of them get away with it for so long. Somethings are better left unknown, but what's the fun in that?

Millennials

So, there is a name for us kids born between 1980 and 1995. I, being born in 1985, am titled as a "millennial". After watching a segment from the popular news program 60 Minutes, I have learned how the rest of society views my generation. 

I personally felt the assumptions of my generation were a little ridiculous, but I can see why older generations would feel this way. 

Things I agree with, from the program: 

1. We were raised to think we are special. 

2. We strive for a dream job- one where we enjoy what we are doing while also making lots of money.

Things I disagree with:

1. We need someone to teach us how to eat with a knife and fork

2. We need someone to teach us how to work

3. We need someone to teach us to cover up our tattoos (These things, are all common knowledge... people who believe all people of my generation are like this must be around some really dumb "millennials")

4. Want employers to send letters to our parents saying we are doing a great job. (What??)

5. A way to keep "Millennials" as employees is to offer napping and happy hours (what employer does this? And who expects this?)

So yes, we were raised to believe we are special, but mostly because our parents wanted for us what they never had. They want us to feel like we deserve the best, but I think finding it in ourselves rather than having it handed to us. I know some kids in my generation are spoiled, but not all. But what generation doesn't consist of spoiled individuals? My parents have raised me to believe that I have talents and that I am special, but they always pushed me to work hard to reach my potential. Their support has helped me push myself because they have made me believe that I can do anything I put my mind to. 

Check it out for yourself:

CBS NEWS: 60 Minutes- The "Millennials" are Coming

60 Minutes Millennials Video