Good-Bye Ye O'MySpace

After ummm a many years I have decided to jump ship on the Myspace wagon, before it becomes fashionable to do so.

These are my current opinions on the atmosphere of Myspace. Back when the system was new, there was a feeling of excitment and interest, but now that Myspace has been around for years and years, I feel that the whole thing has settled back to normal human social structures, reminicient of High School. People used to randomly add each other and randomly comment on each other's pages, but these days, there are Myspace cliques and gangs, which always reseamble the social groups in real life. So if you and your friends all have Myspace, then you all comment and look at each other's pages. I don't think this was happening during the Golden Age of Myspace, back then, people added people who were not in their immediate social circle, which made it more fun and interesting to network.


Also, if you don't spend all day commenting on other people's pages, they will never comment on yours, which leads to no one commenting on anyone because no one cares enough to take initiative.


Another Myspace killer is the private setting, where only your friends are able to see your profile and your pics. This leads back to my first point. What's the point in having a Myspace if only your friends can see you? I feel this defeats the purpose because you can just text or see your friends.


I think the explosion of Myspace initially had to do with meeting people, and making new friends, not maintaining old contacts because I would imagine you would see your friends often.
This is also why I think a lot of people are switching to Facebook, where is more about communicating with your friends all at once so you won't have to send a mass email or text.


I don't think Myspace will die down, but I do feel the feeling of exploring and the fun and intrigue of making new friends and meeting new people is lost.

Trigger Words

Confession

I confess my sins father, even though I ignore yours. Your killings, wars, evil attributes, lack of covenant fulfillments. All lawyers should unite and have you deliver your confession. My confession is that which remains in the corpses of men, when their hearts melt…so do their secrets. I care not for worms to be my sole audience. Give confession! Give! No confession allowed for reptiles. No confession allowed for children.

My confession is more like an accusation. Does that make me evil?

Quake

My heart QUAKES like a house in China, destroying my foundations with the catalyst of my own ideas. My Mind QUAKES at the sound of bliss, like when a child enjoys his new toy. My feet QUAKE when the Earth is calm, quiet and serene. My legs QUAKE when I enter the house of my love, not afterwards. I QUAKE in my head, because I’m expected to. I’d rather sleep. There is no QUAKE in my dreams, no heavens in motion, and not natural disasters.

Words QUAKE with permutations. DOG=GOD. GDO=GDO. ODG=ODG.

Bullet

Bullet in the head. That’s what she said. I give a shout out to the living brain-dead. I ain’t on a pedestal, rocking my views, knowing only a few mean anything to a few. A bullet can substitute for a brain sometimes. Metal logic is healthier for the souls of men, than animal logic. Bullets is short for bulletin-an announcement of the brand new paradigm, where brains are thrown at each other, and brains are bought in stores, and brains come multi-packed in small boxes and brains are weapons: mini-Grim Reapers, except he has no scythe but a fucking bullet.

Sorry, But You Actually Don’t Like the Music You Listen To. (or Why Having a Hit Song or Album Means You’re a Horrible Musician.)

We all utter certain clichés about the music we don’t like. I hate rap, I listen to everything except country, or I listen to what I grew up with-that’s it. These statements suggest an active listener, as opposed to a casual or non-listener of music. The idea behind this is basic: people like certain forms of music, dislike or disprove of others.

But the question is: what makes someone like a certain piece of music? And why? The easiest approach to this is not by examining neurological theory or some psychological basis of music appreciation in humans (see This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levitin), or even by some drawn out evolutionary theory, but by examining the effect of context, environment, peer pressure and the human need to be part of a particular group in our current society.

Before we dive in, I am basing the following social situations based on my experience, and in no part am I falling back on stereotypes which may or may not exist. I am not a racist nor prejudiced in any manner, I only call them as I see them.

With that in mind, let’s look at environment first as a basis of intense influence on a person’s enjoyment, and even needfulness of a particular song or style of music.

THE CLUB (or more accurately…)

DA’ CLUB

This to me is the easiest environment to point out the connection between it and music enjoyment/need. Music is not heard at the club on a purely aesthetic level, but the type of music generally played at Da’ Club is more of a soundtrack to the intents and purposes of the patrons of such late night establishments.

Now let’s examine the music played here. I recently visited a popular spot in San Diego, known as On Broadway. It is the apex of the club scene in downtown, and houses probably thousands of people in its various large rooms and levels. On this adventure of mine, I noticed that a particular song from Britney Spears was played, much to crowds roaring delight. I may be dating the date here, since it was her recent hit, which of 9/22/09, had been a number of months ago.

I do not remember the song. I just know it happened. This is how I would also describe a number of “hits” from Beyonce, Justin Timberlake or any other number of popular artists who have “hits” and have these songs played at Da Club. After awhile, you just forget about these songs you met at Da Club.

I don’t remember the names of any Beyonce, or Justin, or even recent hits like Lady Gaga. That’s because I didn’t care, or wanted anything serious with any girl I would have hooked up with at a club. You don’t go to Da’ Club to find a wife, only for meaningless sex.

Huh? I’ll explain….

Speaking from a male point of view, (and judging from the way they dress and drink, some women too) people do not go to a club to find a soulmate. The majority of men are seeking for a fling, a one night stand, to hook up, to find something without meaning, something that is easy and hopefully stupid. Now, in order to find this qualities in a girl, you would expect the proper soundtrack to your intentions.

Enter “hit” music from Lady Gaga, or Beyonce, or whoever else is getting top play at Da’ Club. Popular hit music that gets played in the Da Club is written with the same intentions that accompany the individuals that listen to it in a particular environment. You wouldn’t play Miles Davis at the Da Club, or Mozart, or Public Enemy at the Da Club, because these musicians infuse their work with meaning, love and reflect the higher, more spiritual qualities of the human spirit. These are not the soundtrack of the environment someone goes in with the idea of looking for fast love, something that he or she won’t bother calling ever again. It would be detrimental to play something that can last multiple listens over a period of decades in the Da Club, because you just want to get laid, so you need something that reflects that, and I can insert a number of musicians or hit songs here but they would only reflect how quickly dated this article will be in a few months.

Another example: Your musical tastes are not yours, but belong to the Environment you grew up in.

This can be a bit risky and offensive, and I hate referring to Stereotypes because there are generally exceptions. But, it’s not too much of a stretch to point that people listen to the music everyone around them listen to in order to fit in to their social group. The environment in this case would be in entire culture and its various sub-groups. The music particular person listens to is the soundtrack to his or her attempts to fit in and feel like they belong to a member of a group. Peer pressure is very, very strong in this area. Notice how I said nothing on the enjoyment of the form of music on a pure level. Music is just a soundtrack for someone’s intentions, and is not really paid much attention to in itself. Let’s see an example of this, and I’ll try to make it fair because I am not prejudice or some racist prick.

People in urban areas listen to rap and hip-hop. This is because the artists themselves came from urban areas, and because the lyrics deal with issues that are of interest to people in these environments. These are violence, gangs, proclaiming your space and presence in the streets, cars, money, fast women, killing and dealing drugs. Now, if somebody from an urban area is involved in these activities, would they listen to John Coltrane or The Chemical Brothers? Probably not. The environment will dictate what this person will listen, and it will be songs that serve as a soundtrack, songs full of lyrical imagery of violence, gang warfare, police brutality or anti-police themes, drug use and women bashing. Rap and hip-hop deal with these issues, and it serves as a poignant soundtrack.

That there is a debate wither these musical forms are music at all proves how powerful the environment is to appreciating them. I think this debate over wither rap is really music comes from the inability from people who are not from urban areas or who do not involve themselves in such situations and activities to relate to. Just the fact that there is such a debate means that people do not listen to music they do not relate or, or that does not provide the fitting soundtrack to their intentions. Again, nothing here is said about listening to music purely by itself, without the needs or intentions of the individuals.

AN EXPERIMENT

In order to further enforce the point of this essay, I suggest an experiment, one which no one will do, and by not doing will prove my point. The thesis of my argument is that people basically and oddly enough don’t listen to music. They only listen to what they think serve as soundtracks to their lives. When you watch a movie, your not paying attention to the soundtrack, only the events of the film. I think people do this as well in their lives, and in their iPod and CD collections. While there are exceptions, I think they are very rare.

So, as an experiment, I challenge the world to do this: For two weeks, listen to music you “hate.”

It’s very simple, yet no one will do it, because it will shake and rattle the hold the ego has on constructing itself. It will only force an active listening experience. Listening to Lady Gaga or Pink at Da Club helps your enjoyment of their music, because it fits in with the environment and your intentions there, but sneak in your iPod and listen to Pink Floyd or Tony Bennett at Da Club. Your mind will kick and scream. If all you listen to is rap and hip-hop, spend two weeks listening to Japanese Pop and Indie. If all you listen to is Indie and Alternative, spend two weeks listening to hip-hop, rap and funk. If all you listen to is Britney, Beyonce and the other divas, spend a week listening to Metallica and Megadeth.

Though I think it would be fun for everyone to do this, no one will, because everyone thinks that their music is better than everyone else’s. So, we come full circle, the reason people like a certain music is because of an ego thing I would say, and because it fits as a soundtrack to their lives. People do not listen to music for itself, and for its own enjoyment. When an individual is confronted with a musical form that is unknown, they act in horror. “I didn’t grow up with rap” or “rap is for black people” are justifications I’ve heard people utter when refusing to listen to it. They never break it down intellectually why they do not enjoy rap. “I don’t like rock, its for white boys” is another comment I’ve heard.

There is nothing wrong with social groups influencing your tastes in music and the environment your are listening it to. But unfortunately, whatever you seem to like, or what you think you like, its actually all in illusion, because rap is not better than rock, jazz is not better that classical, and electronic is not better than Indie, etc, etc. An active listener would appreciate and be able to enjoy all forms, and if not, they would be able to give better, intellectual and logical arguments why a certain song or musical genre is poor. Music is an art form that is too innocent to be hijacked by the human ego of forming tribes and “us versus them” mentalities, and it is too precious to be treated like a one night stand. It is a waste of life to listen to a song once and never calling back again. “Hit” songs are just fads, and in actually, whatever is at the top of the charts reflects what the most awful music is, not the best.

A Who’s Who of Decadent Authors in English Literature

Decadent writers from the late 19^th century rebelled against Victorian cultural prejudices and attitudes about what a “proper” life should be. This generation is deemed “decadent” for creating tales that did not educate readers in Victorian morality, but instead in criticized society, providing alternative ways of thinking.

The Decadent movement in literature began with an influential essay by Walter Pater titled the “Conclusion.” Written in1873, Pater explains that truth is possible only through “personal experience,” unique sensations that varies individually. No two people experience the Mona Lisa alike, which explains her longevity. Having no broad truth applying equally to all shocked the Victorians, since the possibility exists for everyone to test their ideals. Pater goes further in his “Conclusion” that art should be loved for its “own sake.” The idea of art serving no higher purpose other than to be enjoyed, unnerved the Victorians, which upheld the exact opposite notions: hard work and discipline. Anything fun was seen as a lesser un-Godly, and a distraction to what life is about.

Pater’s essay is more of a personal credo, under disguise as a scholarly work, by highlighting the seriousness of his ideas. This lead to his ideas to be battled out by other scholars, and to be read by young university men. One such young man was Oscar Wilde, writer of The Picture of Dorian Grey. Influenced by Pater’s ideas, Wilde used a witty style to create a story that both preached and warned against living for art’s sake. Wilde’s used comical wit, for its unexpectedness and intellectual perception of human behavior. While Pater explains that art must live for itself in the real world, Wilde used fiction to create a story where art literally lives, and responds to the actions of the central character of Dorian Grey, watching it change as he changes. The picture becomes disfigured as Dorian Grey himself becomes a moral menace, demonstrating the connection between art and morality, since if Dorian lived properly, his picture would theoretically remain beautiful.

The character of Lord Henry offers views that on the surface mean one thing, but to the insightful, reveal their true meanings, and also bring about the truth about people who live in Victorian delusions. Wilde attacks Victorian society without it noticing, unable to see the mental prisons they create. Only the reader has the “wit” to understand the hidden implications of both Lord Henry’s views, and the The Picture of Dorian Grey itself.

In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Stevenson uses less wit than Wilde, and writes with stunning realism. Ahead of modern psychological theories, Stevenson demonstrates the folly of strict Victorian codes. In his novel, Stevenson demonstrates what occurs with a through purging of a human’s “evil,” or “bad” side. The character of Dr. Jekyll is described early on as a prominent doctor, a member of high society, and with a good reputation, a classic Victorian description. But Dr. Jekyll wants to go further; he creates a potion to get rid of the possibility of him doing any bad deeds. Like Dorian Grey, Dr. Jekyll develops a doppelganger, but instead of a picture, it is a living, moving entity that takes over his body, transforming good, proper Dr. Jekyll into the maniacal Dr. Hyde.

This realism in Decadent literature was taken to a higher level, with the appearance of Rudyard Kipling. Following his predecessors, Kipling demonstrated the error of the Victorians views on work and strictness, using literature influenced by the British Empire’s actions in colonial India. The Victorian mindset wanted to free the barbarous Indians from their savagery, and their heathen religions. Taking cue the Decadent movement, Kipling set out to use his experiences to create realistic, even biographical and autobiography elements in his writings to attack Victorian society.

Kipling’s short stories are not witty and fun reads like Wilde’s, nor are they scholarly works like Pater, but are similar to Stevenson’s novel in terms of realism, except that Kipling’s style is more horrifying, due to its hyper reality. In his short Without the Benefit of Clergy, Kipling is influenced by historical accounts o describe what happens when “superior white men” try to pass themselves off as Gods to a community of “heathens.” The story ends with the obvious, the men are not Gods, neither are the Victorians. The white men are killed in the fashion of their Jesus, dying in a world where it did not matter who they were, or who their God is.

Kipling’s realistic attacks on the Victorians take a personal, heartbreaking note in Without Benefit of Clergy. Echoing Stevenson again in the form of a character leading a double life, John Holden is a civil member of British society to his colleagues, but marries Ameera, a Muslim girl and has a child with her. Tragedy hits when both his Muslim wife and half-breed child dies, and Holden have no choice but to forget this episode of forbidden love. Kipling reminds us with the title that this affair of Holden’s occurs without the sanction of his church, and because of this, Ameera was unable to travel to Britain to avoid the plague, because British society would not approve. With fear based ideologies; the Victorians do more harm than love in the long run.

Kipling takes on the issue of women, and of their potential as equals or superiors to men, an outlandish idea to Victorian codes. Women had their place as submissive creatures. But Kipling gives an account a woman in his short Lispeth that breaks these barriers, with stunning reality; no one can question its plausibility. The character Lispeth shows her strength by carrying a male on her back, and having the audacity to proclaim her love for him. Lispeth is also prone to showing her feelings, a breaking of Victorian code, and being more human than the cold British featured in the short.

All of these English writers used their own styles to attack, and break apart Victorian morality and codes, especially concerning their stance on being good, working hard and having no fun. They flaunted stories where the opposite traits were highlighted, and exposing the Victorians for the faults of their intense devotions to their standards.

Why Peer-to-Peer Sharing Deflates the Ego of the Music Industry (and of the Artists).

When I was ten years old, my older sister brought home a copy of Siamese Dream from the Smashing Pumpkins. I recognized this name because MTV played their video with people making out in the fields, and some dude driving around in an ice cream truck, painting himself and others amok. The video was cool, and the song was fun. While she was off at work or with the boyfriend, I would sneak into her room and listen to the entire disc. I remember being frightened at the sounds of “Silverfuck,” headbanging to “Quiet,” and enjoying the lush melodies of “Sweet Sweet” and “Luna.”

            I thought my sister was coolest for listening to such incredible music. Except she never listened to the entire album. I would watch her throw on Siamese Dream, and finish it ten minutes later, or the span of both “Today” and “Disarm.” Instead of waiting around all day for the radio to play them, she got her fix on the two hit songs, and then CD would be put away. What about layered majesty of “Hummer?” Or the heartbreaking “Spaceboy?” What was wrong with her? In fact, what was wrong with the six million people worldwide who bought the record? I ask this last question in lieu of the 500,000 people who bought Smashing Pumpkin’s Zeitgeist CD in 2006.

How does a band go from selling six million to 500,000 fourteen years later?

            The culprit according the music industry: Peer-to-Peer file sharing networks. People are stealing music. It’s not the artist’s fault. People loved Siamese Dream, that’s why it sold six million.

            Or did they just love “Today” and “Disarm?”

            What the music industry doesn’t want to admit is that albums are like books-everyone has a few in their home, but rarely do they read them from start to finish. There was a time when people gave their time to an entire album like The Wall or Revolver. But something happened along the way. Starting perhaps with the mega sales of Thriller, album sales were part of an inflation, which corrected itself with illegal downloading and iTunes. In retrospect, the numbers sold before the Internet do not reflect the number of people who listened to an entire album. This led to a gross overestimation of fans for a given artist.

            Let’s go back to the Smashing Pumpkins example. Siamese Dream sold six million plus, but out of those millions, how many heard every single song routinely? I would estimate 500,000, based on the Zeitgeist figure. My sister was never a hardcore fan. She just liked “Today” and “Disarm.” But those other songs on that CD? Well…

            But, if you were to ask her how times she listened to Depeche Mode’s Violator album, she would throw a figure in the thousands. She had each lyric memorized, knew all the band members names, and knew who produced it (Flood, who would then produce Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness), where it was recorded and when. She knew how many copies it had sold and somehow, without the Internet, bought all the music videos, the EPK, interviews of the era and bootleg concert footage of the Violator Tour. Now this is a true fan, but she paid the same amount for her Depeche Mode CD as she did for the Siamese Dream. It’s easy to understand how this cross-pollination makes it difficult for someone like Billy Corgan to overestimate his true fanbase. My sister didn’t care about the Smashing Pumpkins-she just wanted “Disarm” and “Today.” And I would estimate more than half of the people who bought Siamese Dream felt the same way.

            When an artist today complains that his or hers or their sales are down because of illegal downloading, they are actually disillusioned like Charles Foster Kane, in that they actually believe that all of those millions who used to buy their records are (not were) hardcore fans, who listened to their entire albums like previous generations listened to the entire Dark Side of the Moon. The reality is, there was an inflation of record sales for a very long time, because you wouldn’t want to go out and buy all the singles for Michael Jackson’s Bad album (no pun intended), and having to put one tape or CD in after another. If you get the album, you can hear “Dirty Diana,” “The Way You Make Me Feel,” “Bad,” and “Smooth Criminal”. But “Librarian Girl” or “Just Good Friends”? Just the hardcore fanbase would be able to hum those tunes. And the number of those are likely the same as the sales of Michael Jackson’s 2001 Invincible album. In 1987, Bad sold over thirty million, while Invincible ten. That leaves about twenty million who bought Bad as casual listeners who wanted to hear the hits, not true fans of the artist, and the numbers are most likely higher for Thriller.

            The present situation in the music industry is this: people download songs they like, either on iTunes or illegally, because they don’t want to buy the entire album, because people have the choice today of picking and choosing from the menu of an artist’s musical fruits, instead of buying everything and letting the leftovers rot in the fridge. True, there are still people buying albums, but this reflects the true fan base of a given artist. Depeche Mode recently released a new album in 2009, and while I can easily download it illegally, I prefer to buy it because I am a true fan and wish to support them financially so they can continue making music I love. My sister feels the same way. But my friends who are casual fans? Before they would be forced to buy the entire album just to hear the singles being played on the radio, but now they can cruise to iTunes and get to the point. The same with the Smashing Pumpkins. The 500,000 consumers who purchased Zeitgeist one way or another are in fact their true fan base, even during their Siamese Dream era where millions bought the album more due to fashion and mild interest than because of the band’s artistry.

            Illegal downloading exploded with a rebellious fervor because people were sick of being made feel guilty of being casual fans of a particular artist. I like some Steve Vai songs, but I wouldn’t want to drop sixteen dollars on an entire CD to get one song or two at the most. And I shouldn’t be made to feel guilty if I don’t happen to like Steve Vai’s entire output. Artists and the music industry must stop complaining, and be more appreciative of those buying their albums, because all that is left for artists are their true fans, the people who listen to every second recorded, every note played, the ones that read every single word of the booklets and know who produced their record and where they recorded it. Frankly, it’s annoying, insulting and slightly insane when someone like Corgan complains about the good old days, and flirts with the idea of not releasing albums anymore. In today’s climate and economy, there is no more room for the casual fan. Sure, they are making millions less, but the money they were earning before was based on an imaginary fanbase, and whatever marginal dollars made today is reality.

            Bottom-line: people want to hear a good song. They don’t care if your David Bowie, or Madonna, because fame isn’t enough to make your album marketable these days. Just write some good songs and sell them for a buck, or even better, sell your entire album for a dollar and just record it at home using Pro Tools, a couple of Macs and some good Microphones and Equipment. Avoid the expensive studios in Los Angeles and NY. Why go to Starbucks when you can buy an espresso machine for your home? Your second option is just giving it away for free. The Rosebud in this story is the idea that everyone that used to buy your albums loved every microsecond of it, and nearly every artist successful before the advent of the Internet holds on to this idea. Sadly, this was never the case. Peer-to-Peer sharing revealed this reality to the consumer. It’s time the music industry caught up.