Sample Blog #3

The Original vs. The Cover

I consider myself a music snob. I listen to a TON of music of all different genres spanning several decades. I grew up listening to my Dad’s music (Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Paul Simon, you get the picture). When I got to junior high/high school music became my identifier. I “discovered” rap, hip hop, alternative rock. This will date me, but I loved going to the record store on Tuesday when the new albums were released and pick up 1 or 2. Take a look through my Iphone today and you’ll see Bonnie Raitt, Beyonce, Chromeo, N.E.R.D., Michael Jackson, and the Stones – a little bit of everything.

I liked listening to music because of the stories that were told but also the way it made me feel. There was always a song/album that represented what I was feeling/experiencing. Then there was also music that just sounded good – maybe the lyrics were vague or limited, but the beat was solid.

In Snellow’s The Musical Perspective chapter, we are introduced to the concept of congruency (lyrics + music = clear message) and incongruity (emotion + concept contradict each other and where the critic either has to examine the music or lyrics in isolation). Seems pretty simple to understand. Either things match or they don’t.

Then I got to thinking about cover songs. You've heard the saying, “Everything old is new again” especially in music. The original can be substantially different from the cover even though the lyrics, the message is the same. The original could be targeting your Mom’s crowd with 80’s guitar riffs and sultry saxophones, while the cover can be your teenage brother’s anthem of angry rockers. So, how does a cover change the original? Does it? Is the message the same? Is the feeling the same? Is the audience even the same?  

Take, for example, George Michael’s 80’s hit Faith, a buble-gum-ish/rock ballad that was written and produced as G. Michael’s breakout song. On the surface, it’s got a simple up-tempo beat. Lyrics are pretty direct, not much room for ambiguity. From my reading, it’s a song about a torn lover trying to get past a relationship with someone who might not have been as invested as he. An optimistic take that someone better is out there. “Well I need someone to hold me, but I’ll wait for something more…”. The target audience mostly likely is the adult contemporary/young adult female audience. Seems pretty straight forward as far as congruency in lyric + music). 

The Original -- George Micheal (GM)

Now, here are 2 covers by 2 very different bands. 

The Cover -- Limp Bizkit (LB)

** Careful -- some blurred out images included **

....and

The Cover -- Lake Street Dive (LSD)

The tone of these songs change, absolutely. LB’s version sounds like the ultimate “screw you” to the girl that tore you up and stepped on your heart. The fast past and sudden switch of beat, tempo, and song (singing vs. screaming) is reminiscent of the schizophrenic mood and opinion changes hormonal teenager and young adults often deal with in relationships. The target audience is most likely young, rebellious, invincible, and dare I say, arrogant men and women. The song is absolutely congruent with its target audience and tone, but not necessarily the original. I doubt an older listener would feel much more than a headache from this.

In LSD’s version, the songs ton is similar to GM’s. However, the old jazz standard style is more reminiscent of Ella Fitzgerald. Definitely something your hipster roommate would identify with. The song now has a soulfulness and aching feeling to it. It’s less “screw you” and more “thanks, but no thanks. I’m going take care of me”. The feeling of this version is much less angry and more insightful. The lyrics and music in this version still operate with congruency within itself, but again, not necessarily the original.

Here’s my take. These versions all express congruency within their own context and audience. The GM version will resonate and be clear with your Mom’s crowd, but would be lost on your brothers. LB’s version speaks to the shared emotions of many outspoken rockers, while your millennial hipster sister will identify with LSD’s version. Laid side by side, these songs don’t seem to have anything in common or congruent. However, within the context of their audience, the tone of the music, and the style, these songs are very clear – and congruent. These songs all make each respective audience feel something in a way that will resonate only with them.

When looking at other cover songs, do you see the same thing? Versions resonating with one audience over another yet having the same meaning and feeling? Am I right in my analysis? 

Sample Blog #2

Movies: The let-down of the avid reader

I can remember the first time I discovered the greatness that is Dan Brown. I was in sixth grade and my mother had been going on and on about the sequel to her favorite book Angles & Demons, that had just came out. It was called The Da Vinci Code and she was calling everyone she knew and demanding they go out and buy a copy that instant.

Being an avid reader myself, I picked up the book a few days later and spent the entire next week glued to the pages; absorbing and studying every bit of it that I could. I’m not going to lie, it was quite a chore; but once I completed it I felt such a sense of accomplishment, pride and a whole new understanding about the world of religion and symbolism. The next Christmas my mother even bought me my own illustrated version of the book, that I still treasure to this day. 

Fast forward to 2006, Ron Howard’s film version of The Da Vinci Code is released and people flocked to the theatres across the world — well, at least in countries where it was not banned. The film grossed $758 million worldwide and was ranked as the fifth highest grossing film in the U.S. People ate up the film, but just as many spat it back out in disgust and the film did not have nearly the cultural impact I was hoping for. I was hoping to see streams of people, even students my age, flocking to the library to read up on ancient sects and secret societies. However, it seemed to only drive people farther away.  

My personal feelings on the movie aside, I find that whenever I bring up some of the movies finer points with friends or co-workers — points that I have researched well beyond the scope of Brown’s pages — I am often met with something along the lines of, “Oh, you mean like from the Da Vinci Code?” My initial excitement soon turns to despair as I discover they, usually, had “only watched the movie” and had a very elementary understanding of what the author was really pushing and gave no effort to do any self-research after the fact.

People moving away from written material, however, is not at all an uncommon thing. As we learned in Caleb Crain’s Twilight of Books, the amount of time and number of people reading written books/newspapers/articles is declining rapidly while the amount of television and other such media is increasing. 

Throughout this chapter, however, we also hear of some theories and studies indicating that with the decline of reading, so comes the decline in “smarts.” On page 316 of the reading, we learn about the studies done regarding the babies and videos along with more studies of third graders and television.  

Now, there is a reason why, in elementary school your teacher would instruct you to write a book report on the actual book and “not just watch the movie at home.” One reason I could think of is because the director can often misunderstand the story. Remember, it’s not the director’s story, but he (or she) still gets to tell it in his or her own way; and, occasionally, it can become something else entirely.

In Twilight of Books, it is also indicated that those who read a message to themselves come away with a more positive understanding of the topic than those who received the other. Now, in the case of The Da Vinci Code, I think this fits like a glove. The book is complex and can be quite dense at times, especially when going through history and religious texts, but the work is all laid of for the reader to go through and come away with a better understanding and “feel” for what they have experienced.

Think about it, the average movie is a little less than two hours, and many people will only really watch a movie once. A book is a far more serious investment of your time and, whether you love it or hate it, it is obvious it takes much more effort both physically and mentally. You have to really want to finish a hard book, a movie, at least in my mind, is far easier to flip off.

My questions to you all are 1) Do you agree with me that movies almost always miss the mark on what the original author was trying to say? 2) Do you agree with my conclusion that as the written media declines so will the overall intelligence of the coming generations, especially in the realm of critical thinking and analyzing/absorbing information? 3) Do you have any similar examples such as mine. Movies that you were hoping would push your favorite written work further only to see it only drop it lower down on the scale?

Sample Blog #1

American Culture

'Merica - Disclaimer: I will not be writing about any of these items. 

I do not believe America has a distinct culture. I will go into detail about why I have come to this conclusion, but to do so, I will provide some insight into my background, particularly my childhood and family life. There are other ideas that I do not address in this post that shape (or fail to shape) American culture, but my ideas come from family and ethnicity so I will be addressing those here.

I don’t know the exact year my father came to the United States from the Philippines, but I do know he became a citizen in 1993. My mother was born in California and she would be considered “white.”

Shortly after my brother was born, my grandmother (father’s mother) came to live with us. It is traditional in most Asian countries for parents to live with their children and their spouses. So naturally, she came to live with us. Well, my mom didn’t quite understand this concept having never been exposed to it herself because America is an individualistic country. My grandmother and my uncle lived with us for most of my childhood. It was a very different upbringing than a typical American family, but that leads me to think, “what is normal?”

What is a normal American Family? Is it a mom, dad, and two kids? Does the mom make breakfast every morning and take the kids to school? Does the dad come home from work at night to dinner already on the table? Do they all sit around and talk about their day while they eat? This is the image portrayed in most television shows about American families, but this was never reflective of my family. Naturally, I started to believe that my family was weird and when I grew up and had my own family, we would be “normal” family. As we have evolved as a society, this image has changed and the idea of normal has been challenged. Look at the show Modern Family and you can see how complicated family roles truly are. By no means is this show perfect, but it is a step closer to showing the public that a family does not fit into one specific mold.

So if families don’t have to all look the same, how does that affect American culture? My idea is that American culture is not set in stone by any means. It differs vastly from city to city, state to state, and region to region. The culture in Utah is certainly not reflective of America as a whole but it does play its own piece. Living in Los Angeles is different from New York City and each of those are different from what Cedar City culture is.

Part of the problem of America not having a distinct culture comes from our desire to cling to our ethnic backgrounds. If you ask someone where they are from they are likely to answer in two fashions: 1) I am from (hometown) 2) I am part (ethnicity). Why do we feel the need to distinguish we are 50% Italian, 25% German, 15% Dutch, and 10% English? This question always raised issues for me. I was clearly 50% Filipino but when I asked my mom’s side of the family where we were from, I always got the same answer: Heinz 57 (not a ketchup brand, my grandma was implying I was a mix of things). I was not curious for personal reasons, but because it was expected in school. In elementary school there was an assignment where we had to research our ethnic background and present on it. What was I going to do with Heinz 57? The problem is, I know I am half Filipino and half “white” but what does that actually mean in terms of my culture?

I know a little bit about Filipino culture, particularly the food and some other little customs. I know a little bit of Tagalog, but not enough to keep up in a conversation. I’ve visited the Philippines, but it has been almost 13 years since the last time I was there. I don’t feel as if I know enough about Filipino culture to consider myself Pinoy.

On the other hand, I do feel comfortable with considering myself as “white” because I was mainly raised by my mother. Part of that comes from that I remember more about my home life from after the time my father passed away. Once he was gone, it felt like I would never have that chance to really understand Filipino culture. It never made an impact in my daily life and to be honest, it is easier to be a white person in America. The only problem with identifying as “white” is my skin tone. People see me and assume I’m Mexican or some other form of Hispanic. I once had a friend tell me that I was the poster child of white appropriation. I thought to myself, how could that be if I am white? (I have more ideas about the “white girl” culture that I will address another time.)

Eventually, I started telling people I was American. That is the beauty of America. It was meant to be a “melting pot” - a blend of many different cultures. I’m not advocating that everyone should forget their ancestry. Instead, think about what it means to be an American.

Discussion Questions:

1) What do you think American culture is? Where did you get these ideas?

2) Did your childhood or family life shape your views on American culture? How? 

3) When people ask, “What are you?” do you think we should continue providing each percentage of our heritage or answer “American?” Is it important to keep distinguishing our ties to these other ethnicities, even if we don’t practice their same customs?