Thoughts on Who Knows What

I’m gonna be totally honest, this class started pretty slowly, just more of the same we’ve talked about all semester. It got more interesting though when we got into radio and eventually censorship. It’s weird to think how the radio is dying nowadays, only select people really listen to it. I can’t think of anyone who really still owns a radio other than just in emergency situations or power outages. Once upon a time cars that came with a radio or tape player were considered luxury, my 2006 Volvo station wagon was a luxury car because it had a CD player. Now all cars come with radio, CD and the nice new ones have Bluetooth so you can connect your phone since everyone for the most part has a smart phone. People don’t have a need to listen to the radio when things like Sirius XM, Spotify, Pandora and Apple and Amazon Music have their ad free versions. Come to think of it, part of why people don’t like the radio is because of those ads you can’t skip. I for one have zero patience for it and I’m willing to pay for Spotify Premium no matter what, I refuse to go back. When I’m in a rush and don’t have time to connect my phone via the FM transmitter I have for my car, I flip on Sirus XM. My car has the one of the oldest “life time warranty” Sirus XM radios there is but it still works and it’s still better then public radio. Maybe there is something to say about Carr’s theory if we’re too impatient to live with ads now… I still hate it though. To think that there was a time where radio was the main advertisement tool is astounding to me. I never really thought about it but there was only a short time in my life, maybe about half of it, that public radio was still the most popular source of music. I used to listen to Kiss 108 FM all the time and my parents hated it because they played a max 40 pop songs over and over again. Now I have Spotify Premium and drive my parents crazy with my “loud fake music” all the time.

What even happened to NART? We never talked about why those censorship “rules” ended. Actually, we sort of did because there were more channels that were more specific as opposed to the max 10 TV stations. I honestly can’t think of one popular show on today that doesn’t break at least one of those rules besides kids shows, and even they are getting more progressive. Then two new genres have come around, one are the cartoons that have complex worlds, cartoons and lore like Adventure Time that just ended or even Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir. (Both amazing by the way). The other genre is adult shows/cartoons intended to be upsetting or controversial like literally anything and everything on Adult Swim. No contemporary show could be popular or interesting if it followed those guidelines. Even documentaries dramatize things to add shock value. It’s what people these days like I guess. I honestly think it’s way better this way. It means people aren’t afraid of talking about controversial topics and change can finally spring from people’s discussion and openness with it.

With that new comfort comes the problem of sponsors or advertisers dropping shows that stir up conversation. Thus is the problem that YouTube is having where everything is getting demonetized or classifications that prevent adcents. It’s really a big problem the YouTube community is facing, a lot of people can’t afford to be strictly YouTubers as a career and so have to do it as a hobby. A lot of channels are dying because of it and less content is released. It’s because of this adpocolypse, as it’s called, that censorship has become a bigger question. People have started considering what should be censored versus what needs to be discussed, it’s great actually. Too bad the money spenders will always win.

Finally, to what extent should we protect free speech? A lot of free speech is spreading false information or offensive to certain groups of people. Like the anti-abortion people who protest in North Plaza. I despise them. I’m 100% pro-choice (in reason) and it feels like they’re trying to strip women’s rights to their own bodies. Possibly worse is people who preach how homosexuals need to be “fixed” or Jewish people need to be converted. It’s actually hate speech but because it isn’t directed at one person in particular nobody can do anything about it. All we can do is mutually agree that those people are terrible, however you want to interpret that word. Yes they have a right to free speech and yes they have the right to their opinions, but should they be protected at the sake of other (in my opinion better) people? It’s infuriating, impossible and completely unfair.

This is probably going to be a shorter post, this class was another all about copyright. It was also the one that really lead me to being over the “everyone deserves to be paid” argument. In terms of copyright, it’s the only real solid argument for why we need it. Yes people deserve to be paid for their work but there’s so many arguments for the other side that I’ll get to in a bit. The only other thing that copyright does is give money to people who are already rich. Think back a couple posts I made when I ranted about why I hated Disney™ as a company. Paying for copyright just gives more money to the already rich corporations, it also makes it unaffordable for those with less money. Those with less money can’t afford to pay and restricted in what they can actually do. Therefore, it already restricts creativity and makes it a money game. There’s also a point where we will actually run out of creative things . There’s only so many notes and so many instruments and so many effects. You can only sing about so many topics and the combinations are a limited resource too. Now it may take a long time for those reservoirs to run dry.

That’s why I’m so done with copyright, it’s the reason people can’t climb the ladder. Those who have time and are willing to commit to creative endeavors are also the poorest people. Piracy makes things happen, it makes things accessible to an otherwise small number of people. In terms of music, while someone may steal a single song, it is the door through which they can learn to appreciate new bands. Once a fan has decided they are in fact a fan, they’re going to be willing to pay for merchandise. Think about stores like Hot Topic and Spencer’s that exist just to sell pop culture merchandise. Fans will also buy albums they really like, concert tickets to see favorite bands or artists preform live, even merchandise directly from the artist’s websites (something most bands have now). That’s one dedicated fan that would never have been so if they hadn’t downloaded that one song to begin with. The only real counter is that people with apps like Spotify (the best), Pandora or Apple Music can find bands that way. Then they get paid a tiny amount from each listen and more for merchandise there. Anyways, copyright is stupid, that’s my conclusion.

I’m just gonna start by saying thank God I’m not the only one who doesn’t like the Beatles. Too many people think they were the greatest thing since sliced bread (actually that may have come after I don’t know). Anyways, this was an interesting class and it gives me a platform to talk about my theory on music taste. I forget if I’ve written this one before so I’ll keep it short. I think people seriously shorthand themselves when it comes to music genres. Too easily people are swayed to listen only to pop and rap music because it’s what plays most on the radio. I also think people lie to themselves when they say it’s their favorite genre: Now let me clarify and say I’m definitely biased in I really don’t like either of those two genres in case it wasn’t apparent through this class and blog so far, at the very least I will say some songs in those genres are exceptions but it’s rare. It isn’t until people reach out and broaden their horizons that people realize there may be other better genres out there. It may only take one song and more than a little effort to look into the responsible band and others like them, but from there you can discover a whole new musical world. I wonder what else drives people to listen to new types of music, is it because they get bored of the old stuff and want something new? Or is it the traditional human obsession with creation that pushes people to make new things/genres? (Humans a fascinating… too bad a lot of them suck.)

We talked about some specific songs in class, mainly Mambo Italiano which is a strange one and Louie Louie the story for which I love. The first brings into question what it means if the original singers was an Irish immigrant. Also what makes it sound so Italian? I would guess it’s the beat that dictates the “Italian” sound.  There’s some real displacement for you. As for the second song, how is it fair for the FBI to investigate distasteful lyrics when you can’t understand them. No matter the speed the lyrics were nonsensical so clearly we need to investigate this national favorite. It makes me think about that who subliminal messaging psychology craze that was investigated a while ago. People thought there was subliminal messages controlling their thoughts and actions so a bunch of studies were done and nothing came of it. Even more it reminds me of that time a bunch of metal and rock bands were investigated for incorporating satanic words and rituals in their songs. There’s so many problems with even investigating that like freedom of religion and speech, also separation of church and state. Unless their songs were actually talking about some heinous crimes they were planning on committing or already had then there was no reason to try and censor or investigate them. Also, it was clear the only reason that was a problem was because old people didn’t like the fancy new-spangled music kids were listening to. I love oldies, it’s a great genre, but there’s definitely a lack of deep  meaning or real problems being sung and written about there. Some people are contented to be lied to about how great life and everything is, but genres like punk, rock, metal and generally just modern songs nowadays actually discuss real problems. It’s the best metaphor for generational gaps and why thankfully the future lies in the hands of younger generations.

It’s ridiculous to me that you have to pay to sample now a days. Sampling has been around forever but genres like funk began because it was poor man’s music. Funk artists and DJs used those samples to create entirely new songs to play in clubs and for fun. How is it that now even a tiny sample has to be paid for? Sampling used to be done for people who were poor it has a whole culture that evolved from it. There’s no way out of the whole copyrighting has put me in. The more we discussed it in class the more I began to find it ridiculous. The creative commons law is all people have to put creative twists in already existing sources and while it’s good, it’s already been attacked. Creators on YouTube are already getting copyright strikes and demonetized for their creative work that may include samples. It makes me scared for our future if this is already a problem. I know this sounds over-dramatic, but I can’t help but be afraid that some The Giver type dystopian world is where we’re headed. Who knows though, it could stagnate or maybe it’s a pendulum effect that we’re about to swing back into. I don’t know, there’s no way to actually predict the future.

Then there’s the question of what actually belongs to us. Does the past belong to us? What about heritage? Thinking back on the medium is the message class we had forever ago, history says things in a museum are important to our past— they help define us, who we used to be and what has become of us. Museums also say “you can’t be trusted to touch this history, you’ll taint or destroy it” (which is weirdly metaphorical if you think about it). Can you really say it belongs to us then? I don’t know it’s a crazy concept.

The concept of ownership has been around forever. It used to be that anyone could claim ownership without too many questions asked, all you had to do was build a hut and exclaim to all those around you now own this plot. Now the big thing was however, that way back when, if you owned something people expected you to lead as well. The person with the biggest house often ended up being the leader of a village. With that responsibility came a duty to provide for your people, that’s what has killed so many people— famine, drought, plague, all horrible things that were due to nature were now because a leader isn’t protecting it’s people, it was the wrath of whatever god or gods people explained their worlds with. In some respects, that’s still how it is today; we just don’t blame natural disasters on our human leaders unless it was completely preventable. What we do blame on our leaders are disasters that happen because of people’s bad decisions or situations, like if a school gets shoot up it’s the mayors fault for not seeing it coming or for letting school continue to happen if the campus isn’t secure. We tend to always blame our leaders, those who supposedly own the most responsibility if you will, instead of reflecting on ourselves. Perhaps the school shooting was because teachers failed to see the bullying going on or students weren’t willing to be friendly with the loner “weird” kid. Now I’m not saying it should be entirely in the hands of teachers who are way too busy for their paychecks or students who are lost in the tides of puberty and their own life stressors, but there need to be some distribution of guilt. Same goes for leaders. Way beck when leaders were beheaded for reasons beyond their control, maybe the famine was due to lazy farmers, an enemy battalion, or even just natural disasters like droughts or flooding. I don’t know but there’s something to be said about the balance of responsibility and leadership. All those non-leader people also were owners of something, from a family and home of their own to just the clothes on their backs, and I think it’s fair to say that everyone owns responsibility to and for their fellow human.

We then discussed how you take land by force and it was certainly a mind opener for me. I had never really considered why violence happens, when peace seems like a better alternative for everything and everyone. Maybe it’s just because obtaining land without force is so difficult and humans have an insatiable need for more more more. I came up with two possibilities 1.) peacefully coexisting and developing a new way of life together and 2.) start a cult, use charisma to win people over so they want to join your cause… (no I’m not even kidding hear me out).

1. This is probably the most wide-eyed and naive approach to this problem but it would have the best outcome. Getting two people to coexist is nearly impossible unless there’s a preexisting friendship or other relationship there. Even in situations like that some people still value alone time and isolation and would never be willing to share a ownership of land with someone else. You could pay them for the land which is what we do now, but that would only be morally acceptable if the person was trying to sell it already. If you were able to coexist, however, both parties would be happy (theoretically) and you may even be able to develop your own relationship/culture together. We already kind of do this with roommates, my roommate and I definitely have a culture of our own for when we’re in the dorm and outside too because we’ve become friends. The impossible part of this proposition though would be if you want to acquire inhabited land when the other doesn’t want to share peacefully.
2. Starting a cult might be the most effective strategy here as impossible, morally questionable and illegal it may be. Charisma however makes sense, even if it is sleazy. Imagine literally using words to coax someone out of their homes and off their land. It is peaceful because it doesn’t require violence if it’s done right. I would think, though, that the coaxer would have to have some weight over the coaxee if it were to work, and that’s where cults come in. An extremely charismatic cult leader could convince people to hand over life and property to join their cause (I mean religion does it all the time but that’s a whole other discussion). The leader could propose that the aliens have spoken to them and require the coaxee’s house for purposes beyond their understanding. Now it would take more time, you have to actually convince them that you were “100% real” when commonsense is usually a person’s main guide in situations like this, but there is a series of steps that can certify a cult following. All cults that have existed and do exist have taken these steps to certify unquestioning loyalty. After they’re taken you could easily persuade them to give you their land, thereby peacefully acquiring it (as ethically questionable it is).

Ok so I know that last one is crazy and part of me meant it as a joke, but it would work provided you have the drive and skills to do so. I also really wanted to write about cults in an official thing for school and now I have, perfect opportunity. They’re fascinating and terrifying. On to other topics. If corporations are like pseudo-people in the eyes of the law then wouldn’t shares be like slavery? I realize that corporations are only people without bodies, so I guess it can’t be because slavery was a complete disregard of humans as such and their bodies were what was owned. It’s still eerily close enough to make me uncomfortable. Then there’s the fact that corporations are legally considered humans just so people who operate them have a sort of scapegoat without taking full blame if something bad happens, I’m not sure how I feel about that. I think we need to hold corporations responsible for their actions and the people who operate them as well. That being said, I think we should consider individuals under a corporation as well and that we should have some grounds on how to protect them when it’s right. I just don’t know how.

The last thing I wanted to write about was how terrible and atrocious Disney™ is as a company (the TM is so if they ever see this they don’t sue me, that’s how terrible they are). We have laws that protect the market from a monopoly, but clearly they need some updating because a monopoly is exactly what Disney™ has. They are in possession of the majority of the film market, especially since they bought out Fox. They have billions worth of copyrighted material which I hate for another reason. Disney™ literally steals preexisting ideas for films and whatever from public domain and make something of it, which isn’t bad on it’s own, but they then go on to sue anyone who makes anything after them that’s even a little bit similar. It’s deplorable. On top of that, they’ve also got a history of racism, antisemitism, vulgarity and conservatism which I despise since they’re considered a “family” company. Anyways, I hate Disney™ as a company which sucks because their movies and parks are good, which sucks more because it’s all just there to sell merchandise. At this point in time, there’s literally NOTHING that could take down Disney™ as a company, they’re too rich and powerful, outside of government intervention and even then it probably wouldn’t topple them because they have their grubby fingers in almost every influential country. UGH… sorry that was a lot of rage… it’s always been there but this lecture just brought it out.

I’ve never thought about how important acoustics are in a building. It’s just something that I assumed didn’t have to worry about. Maybe in small buildings you don’t have to… I guess only architects know. That made me consider how things must have been for places like the Constitutional Convention in PA. Imagine how different things might have been if they were either less or more echoey. What if something was omitted because the person who delivered it wasn’t loud enough to be heard over he reverberation? Also, often these things are decided by how many people declare I or nay. It can’t be too accurate with all the echoes bouncing off the marble walls and columns. Like everything there’s a formula to help us consider these things and I wonder what all goes into that calculation.

There’s also places devoid of echo, these chambers have driven people mad. I don’t usually think about how much echo I’m hearing and I doubt others do either, therefore the absence of it really resounds with us (pun definitely intended). I can only imagine the things that go on in peoples minds when they hear nothing, something like wondering if what you’re hearing is what you’re saying or if it’s only in our heads. On a less meta note, it really is weird to think about how electric recording has allowed us to change how much of a person is emphasized in a music track… When the older greats were in the studio you might hear an orchestra behind them but their vocals come through louder. It’s something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around, how much music has evolved with technology. Now we even have music genres that are entierly electronic, dubstep, electronica, even funk which may be the first version of it. I can only imagine what that means for the future of music.

This was a class I found particularly interesting. Do things really get better the more people use them? When thinking about the internet I’m not sure. The internet allows for so much toxicity and the more people the easier it is to find other toxic people. I’m talking online communities that do illegal stuff of even some comments on YouTube can be toxic sometimes. There have been cases the FBI handled when online communities existed for the sole purpose of the closest things I can think of as evil, I don’t even want to go into it. That might be a theory Carr could get behind. On the other hand there’s good to be found online to, good in the everyday make people’s lives easier sense— but also on a much larger scale like live streams from bug YouTube names like Markiplier that raise millions of dollars for causes like childhood cancer of Crisis Text Line. The internet is a center for power, it’s about how we use it. I guess that’s how it always is though…

Another thing that was fascinating was how we got to the internet as we know it now. At one point in its history the internet existed as a free platform where anyone could make a website and everyone could access all that was available on it. That was the idea anyways. Now you have to pay for a server and a domain, or you have to use a website to make a personal website and those cost money (if you want full access that is). YouTube existed at one point with no ad-cents and no copyright guidelines. People used the platform as a way of sharing creative (sometimes stupid) videos and ideas. Now if you use song in a video you can get taken down or demonetized for using other’s music. I’ll stop now before I go on my long and passionate rant about YouTube’s recent decline. More so, how did we get to a place where you have to pay for some software. It makes me wonder if there’s something to the idea that free is never really free and that open-internet is a thing of the past. There’s some connections there too with net-neutrality (which I am a HUGE supporter of). We need the internet to remain in individuals control, as soon as we put that power into corporations or the governments hands, we’re done for.

I particularly liked Prof. O’Malley’s comment on how historically we haven’t had copy right so why are we concerned with it now? What would we know of history if Plato, Socrates and Aristotle had copyright? Absolutely nothing. Are we going to be forgotten someday? We always think of the internet as eternal, which it is in some respects, but how are our voices going to be snuffed if free expression gets abused? The reason we know anything about philosophical greats is because they all plagiarized each other. It makes me consider those in charge of our devices and software, mainly the difference between Apple and Linux for example. Apple is entirely exclusive, their software doesn’t work on other devices and it’s the reason I have to use my old high school’s computer lab to do this final project. I don’t own a single Apple device (minus super old iPods) and Garage Band is separate. Apple only wants money, Linux wants advancements. Linux is run by people who are passionate about technology, others are not. It really makes me think. This may be a topic I focus on in my final project.

So basically every problem in America is a failure of reconstruction… thanks Booth. If it weren’t for you Lincoln would have fixed the country. We’d probably still have problems, but maybe racial issues wouldn’t be as big of a problem. If racial issues had been handled the right way, then maybe the KKK wouldn’t have been the end for so many individuals, but it goes both ways so there’s a good chance we wouldn’t have had the important changes that came across with the Civil Rights Movement either (which I hope everyone who reads this can agree would be horrible). What that lead me to was the question of how important the individual is. Who causes what to happen and how much power does one individual hold? Do you have to be an important figure head like Lincoln to really make an impact?

People always say “you can change the world”, “you are important and what you do sets the tides of human history”, which to an extent I believe. However, I don’t think every person has an equal chance of setting times in motion, some are luckier then others when some have names lost to history. It’s kind of depressing really… I do wonder though, if its just a person’s situation that determines it. When it comes to important figures in history, a lot of them turned a situation into their favor. It’s that manipulation of cards almost, playing your cards smart. Rosa Parks could have been any African American lady, she just got to it first; she steeled her courage, spoke her peace, and played on her attributes. Now she’s one of the many faces of the Civil Rights Movement. There’s other examples too, it’s about taking what you have with enough passion to make a difference.

How then, does this all relate to the concept of digital media and authority? The person who has authority is the person who takes control of their own situation, their own life. I think it’s fascinating. We, in the year 2018 and our foreseen future, have a responsibility to take authority through control what is digitally presented to us. It’s so easy to lie and spread fake news, so it is our job to do the required research, be informed and stand for the only the truth. It’s so important to have opinions but be malleable to others’ thoughts as well, extremes in any sense are the worst fate humanity could bestow on itself. And what’s frustrating is that we are the only one’s capable of hurting ourselves like that.

I guess I have no idea how my thoughts all connected like that, it’s a little all over the place; but hey, that’s what this class is about! Making some thing out of who knows what… (see what I did there 😉

If I’m being totally honest, I didn’t really understand the beginning of this day’s class. No background in music means I have no idea what a 415 rhythm pattern means; I understand a little in that it’s when the beat hits, but that’s about it. The rest of the class, however, was pretty interesting.

I particularly enjoyed the question of “who are the ‘folks in folk music?’ if only because it’s so complicated. One version of the ‘folks’ is those who were not in touch with commerce, people played music for people for only that reason. It was a time so different from our own where people didn’t try and monetize everything which is something I feel people in my generation might have a hard time understanding. So why did they did they sing for people instead of the money? Well, partially, I’d imagine they, being “folks” from the regions of the world without a strong industry in commercialism, simply weren’t used to it. However, I also believe it may have been tied to the culture of people like that. In that I mean, culture is a binding agent that connects us to those who are important to us. Culture can take numerous forms and span whatever gap it has to, but it’s thread that helps we as people define ourselves. It can also be part of why nationalism exists. Biologically, mentally, physically, we tend to be drawn to and feel connected with those who are similar to us, culture is just one of those things. This connection, however, is known as nationalism.

Possibly the most complicated thing about the USA is that nationalism in the States takes on an entirely different form than anywhere else in the world. This is simply because the USA is too young. Most people can’t trace roots in the States, the only one’s who could would be Native Americans; but when settlers first came to America persecuted them to a point of near non-existence. While Native Americans are still around, even a few tribes are, their numbers are and have been dwindling. Most citizens of the USA are for a completely different origin. Nationalism in America has it’s own definition, its something else that drew us together, and unfortunately I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to pin point what that definition is or why it exists at all.

I like to think of the USA as the sitcom Friends. We are all just individuals who came together as a group, decided to live together, and ascribe to some sort of contract as to how we treat each other. It could also be compared to a “Dungeons and Dragons” campaign where all the players and characters agree to follow the Dungeon Master but also have a say in what happens and how things play out. That being said, you don’t send off your children to war for a contract or loose agreement. There has to be something else that leads people into wanting to fight for our country. It may be that humans have this conflicting balance between rational and romanticism. We rationally know that the USA is just a name, our country is just where we live, and we ask ourselves if it’s worth dying for. The romantic in us says that this is our home and it’s special; it’s where we live so we have to protect it and our loved ones. Nationalism, why we feel pride or empathy for the USA, is all emotionally driven; there’s more to it than laws and contracts. But why do we feel an affinity for a country that has such a messy dark past? Is it really and equal balance that deems it alright that we’ve done bad things? These are questions people have studied for years and never found the answer to. Why nationalism? Why patriotism and pride? Why do we love our country when we don’t have a rich cultural history here and everyone who lives here is so diverse from places all over the world?

And then there’s a question of t0 what extreme should we be going to. One extreme was Hitler, he was also a nationalistic romantic… and we all know how that went. It’s funny to me that nowadays people are advocating for building walls, deporting immigrants and solidifying true Americanism when the meaning of American has never really been clear. This country was founded on immigrants and settlers, we don’t have a vast and extensive sameness like other countries. America isn’t even a full 300 years old which is nothing when scratched into the history of humanity. It’s infuriating when you look at the big picture.

I hate country music, I will never like it. At least I can appreciate it more now, that classics that is, I don’t think there’s much substance to appreciate in modern. One genre I do like, however, is folk which I find entertaining. I don’t know what it is, but whatever the difference between the two— that thin line that separates country and folk— is what I like. Maybe it’s just because my dad used to listen to folk and classic country all the time and I grew up with it… well that and 80s music. I think a significant chunk of a person’s taste come from what they grew up listening too, no matter what, even if you don’t listen to a genre because it’s what your parents liked.

I have this philosophy about pop music and why people seem to like it. It’s so easy to just accept what is frequently listened to and accessible. Therefore, people don’t go looking for other genres, they just accept what comes on. Instead of looking for new or different music they’d rather just not listen. The number of people I hear who claim, “I don’t really listen to music” is disheartening. It isn’t until some different song comes on the radio that’s a little different than typical pop songs that people’s interest is peaked. I say all this because it was my experience.

Way back in 7th grade (and honestly one of the only good things to come from middle school) I heard what I thought was a lesser known song called Bring Me to Life by Evanescence.

Now me, not really having considered that there was other music than typical radio pop, was fascinated. I remember being awestruck with the heavier guitar and intense lyrics/vocals. It wasn’t until the end of the song that I realized I needed more, so I went on a hunt for the song. Eventually I found it and was quickly sucked into the Evanescence void that was my dark middle school phase. I decided I wanted to investigate more bands like them so I found Nightwish, Flyleaf and my favorite of the four (given it’s the only one I really listen to still), Within Temptation. I then picked apart whatever genre it was, classifying it as alternative metal in my head (which was the beginning of my genre making, something I still do that is really just my best attempt to file separate genres under one classification in my head). From there I started investigating metal music, Metallica was my first metal band which I realize now is it’s own sub-genre of metal, and it just grew from there. Eventually I ended up on punk music, pop-punk, electro-swing and dubstep/electronic, there were and still are other genres I got into that kind of branched off from the main ones like steampunk, rockabilly, big band/swing music and so many others, even folk (particularly dark-folk) which I never had considered before.

It really is funny to trace people’s music trails. This whole semester we’ve been talking about how music has evolved and been adapted. I never really understood why that happened with my music taste but now I see why. Under the surface of every song and every band is the stuff you don’t hear without thinking about it. It’s those flavors that lead you down a path, you’re drawn to things you like.

On a completely unrelated note, I’ve decided I’m going to pay more attention to outfits of performers. Looking at Buck Owen and his Buckaroos and how they dressed in a very flashy appropriated Mexican garb. So why do a lot of artists like NateWantstoBattle (a YouTuber gone musician) perform in all black and skinny jeans? It’s an interesting thought.

One final note, and something that still bothers me… what happened to yodeling???