Facing the Music

Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent.
-Victor Hugo

Sorry Victor, but I just don't think it's that complicated anymore.

A thought struck me the other day--and I'm sure I'm not the first. Lately I've been incredibly disappointed in music. I love music; I love music so much I can't say "I love music" enough to get my point across. But I'm kinda bored with it right now and I'm constantly changing the station because it's the same crap day after day.

And then I began to consider that maybe today's music doesn't necessarily suck, it's just the music that the radio stations choose to play. If someone was completely ignorant and listened to the same station every day, I firmly believe they would think that the world only has 100 songs in it at any given time. We hear the same music every few hours and even if it was good music to begin with, it wouldn't take many cycles to get bored of it.

Unfortunately, most music on these radios stations is already bad, and there are a few relatively new groups/artists I'm already sick of. On top of that list are:

1. Nicki Minaj

2. LMFAO

3. Karmin

The first two should be self-explanatory, so I'm not going to insult my readers with a lengthy paragraph about why Nicki Minaj and LMFAO have no musical talent whatsoever.

"Say whaaaaaaaaat?!"

However, I'm really disappointed in Karmin. I was a big follower of theirs when they were just a cute little duo on YouTube. Now their song, "Broken Hearted," is on the radio constantly and I hate it. The lead singer, Amy, sounds exactly like Nicki Minaj with the way she goes back and forth between singing and rapping. That tactic is fine, really, but there can't be two artists getting more famous by the minute off the same schtick.

I've never done this before, but I do want to shout out to this blog I found, because I think this quote is amazing: "The rapping. It's like an Internet joke gone retroviral, a train flying off the tracks to the delight of people who think every tragedy is an opportunity for LOLZ." Click here to check out the full article.

And I know this may come as a shock, but Amy is actually NOT British. Even though she says "Cheerio!" five times throughout the song. Stop. It.

Another thing I want to talk about is something that I simply find funny. When I first saw it in an Internet advertisement, I thought it was "sooooo true." But when I thought just a wee bit harder, I realized this is probably not just a problem of modern-day music. What I'm talking about is the lyrics of today versus the lyrics of yesterday. Take the song, "Bohemian Rhapsody" for example:

"Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
Open your eyes, 
Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
Because I'm easy come, easy go, 
Little high, little low,
Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to 
me, to me."

Pretty heavy shit, right? Now, do you remember in high school English when your teacher asked you, "What do these lyrics mean?" I just don't think you can try that with most of today's music. For example, let's look at the first modern-day song that came to mind:

"I like that boom boom pow
Them chickens jackin' my style
They try copy my swagger
I'm on that next shit now

I'm so 3008
You so 2000 and late
I got that boom, boom, boom
That future boom, boom, boom
Let me get it now

Boom boom boom, gotta get-get
Boom boom boom, gotta get-get
Boom boom boom, gotta get-get
Boom boom boom, gotta get-get"

Wait, I'm sorry, what? There are chickens jackin' your style, or is that supposed to be slang for something? Simple fix: if a chicken jacks you, jack it back and eat it! And what does it mean to be "3008?" This is in no way metaphorical, and you can't be a number. Silly Black Eyed Peas. Also, your name should technically be "Black-Eyed Peas." This, children, is called a compound modifier. Both "black" and "eyed" are acting together to modify the noun, and this requires a hyphen. Just saying.

I wouldn't mess with this chicken if he were jackin' my style.

Back to business: As I stated, I'm sure there are plenty of songs from earlier generations with awful lyrics. I just think that bad lyrics are in much higher abundance these days, but there are also a lot more songs to choose from, too.

Well, it started off as a valiant effort on my part, but it spiraled downwards as I realized I simply can't justify the music and lyrics of today. And I don't care how much you like "Bohemian Rhapsody." At least Queen completed their thoughts, and used words that make sense next to each other.

Dover

One of my favorite stories to tell people--it's quite possibly my number one favorite--occurred on my month-long stay in Cambridge, England. It is a wonderful memory about which I have no complaints. Except for the person with whom I share it, perhaps. Of course, this is England, so we're talking about the Woman here.

I was there for his birthday weekend, and I wanted to do something very special for him. He was living in England for almost a year at that point, and he'd never ventured very far off the base. If I recall correctly, he hadn't even been to London before I visited.

By the weekend of his birthday I had been to multiple cities, castles, and other general places of interest, but I knew he'd be most impressed by Dover castle.

We got there a late, and of course I was irritated. I had wanted to take him to the Secret Wartime Tunnels that wind their way through the white cliffs of Dover beneath the castle. We missed this opportunity by a measly 10 minutes. Not only this, we were unable to truly see the castle because we were rushing through it. I think the "10 minutes to close" announcement was being made as we walked through the entrance.

After rushing to the top of the castle (with a castle guard hot on our tails to kick us out), we snapped some quick pictures from the view up-top, and then made our way out to the castle grounds.

The other half of his birthday plan was to swim in the English Channel.

Now, every day up until his birthday had been incredibly hot. Apart from a slight drizzle every day that lasted anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes, it was blazing hot under the sun; perfect swimming weather. Which of course meant that on the day we decided to go swimming, it was going to be a breezy 65 degrees at best, leaving the English Channel "unswimable."

Because we were unable to swim in the Channel, we decided to walk up and down the beach because there looked to be some food stands down by a pier. We ordered a bunch of seafood which smelled great but was okay at best. When we finished, we walked back up the beach, planning to return to the car and drive home completely defeated.

I realize that up until this point I have done nothing but complain, so I'd like to retract my previous comment of "I have no complaints." But remember how I said that this is my favorite story to tell people?

On our way back to the car, we spotted one of those virtual roller coaster machines, so we forked over the ₤3 each to try and reclaim the excitement of the day. After a minute and a half of money well-spent, we came out of the machine to a completely different atmosphere.

The sidewalks were filling up with people, and as we walked closer to where our trek had begun, we realized that the promenade had transformed into a regular road-side attraction.

As we were making our way toward food tents and mini-rides, we heard a man announce over a loud-speaker, "Are you guys ready for the fireworks tonight?"

I had no idea what was going on, but I was totally ready to see the fireworks. We ran down the beach toward the source of the sound to figure out what was going on, and I quickly realized I'd have to wait because it was at least two hours before the fireworks began. Luckily, whoever had planned this show had thought this through. To entertain us, they played music and let us dance on the beach with Dover Castle and the white cliffs in the background.

I'm just going to stop there. What else could I possibly say to make the situation any more amazing? Besides of course:

Playing Favorites

I'm sort of on this superhero kick, what with "The Avengers" in April, "The Amazing Spider-Man" a week ago, and the long-awaited end to arguably the best superhero trilogy of all time, "Batman: The Dark Knight Rises." The first movie was fantastic, the second was phenomenal, and the previews for the third make it look epic, so I am really excited. So excited, in fact, that back in April I put in a request for PTO for this Friday. That was four months ago.

Last night I was watching "Batman Begins," and I was thinking about how insanely cool Bruce Wayne is. But then it struck me how incredibly unfair it is to say that, because his situation is perfect. Bruce is a good guy, no doubt, but he also has a billion dollars, all the time in the world, and a deeply disturbing grip on revenge. This makes it effortless for Bruce to be Batman.

Ooh la la.

Now let's look at superhero Tony Stark. Forgetting the fact that he is the most beautiful man to ever put on an iron suit, take one off, walk the earth, etc etc, Tony Stark is your average guy whose "heart problems" make any woman weak in the knees with sympathy. As if his stunning good looks weren't enough.

Oh, wait, that's right. He also has a bajillionty million dollars, a very flexible schedule, and a level of intelligence on par with whatever Einstein + Da Vinci + Newton equals. And maybe throw in Aristotle and Mozart for good measure. Tony may not have lost his parents to a desperate thug, but he has a life-altering experience in the cave with Dr. Yinsen when he discovers that his weapons are being misused. So, while Iron Man may come out on top with the coolest looking gear, he's still just another billionaire driven by guilt to transform into a protector of the innocent. I'd really like for him to be my favorite, though, because he's rich, witty, and brilliant.

The other superhero I'm going to rule out, without much explanation, is Superman. He can do everything, and his only weakness is kryptonite from the planet Krypton, which is anywhere from 50 light years to 2.5 million light years from Earth. Either way, that's too far, and we can't get there. Superman is completely unfair and I'm done talking about him.

After considering all of this, last night I began a search for my favorite superhero. My first instinct was Captain America simply because of his humble origins. He's also stronger than Tony Stark and Batman if you rid the latter two of their suits. And, Captain America is just inherently good and proud of his country, and badly wants to fight for America and all it stands for. Then I noticed what this means: he is the exact same person from exposition to denouement. Unfortunately, his unwavering dedication to his "good guy" persona also makes him very boring to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, because it's a few months since I've seen the movie, but the only change Captain America undergoes is a physical one, from scrawny to buff. In addition to all that, I have no interest in 1940's America. American history isn't as interesting to me as maybe it should be.

What I do have an interest in is mythology, and watching Chris Hemsworth parade around acting like a self-absorbed god. While Thor's origins may not be quite as humble as I'd prefer, he is forced into humility by, get this: humiliation! Thor's arrogance earns him mortality, and a trip to Earth where he learns, albeit hilarious, smashing your cup and declaring "Another!" does not mean, "Wow, this beverage is delicious!" to your average bystander. Okay, he didn't actually learn an important lesson for this brutish behavior, but I like that part of the movie.

I would argue that Thor undergoes the biggest change as a character. He is completely stripped of power and betrayed by the closest person to him. It's a lot to juggle, even for a god, but I think Thor does a wonderful job in quickly realizing that there is more to being a king than fearlessness and outstanding battle tactics.

I would have liked to talk about more superheroes, but there are way too many. So I'll leave you with these charmers for now.

The Amazing Spider-Man: Movie Review

SPOILER ALERT: If you haven't seen "The Amazing Spider-Man," do not read this blog!

Last night I had the Giant over, like I always do on Wednesday nights. And last night we went to a movie, like we always do on Wednesday nights. (If we're not bowling, that is.) We saw "The Amazing Spider-Man," which....

Okay, sometimes I get writer's block, but that was just ridiculous. I can't finish the sentence because I'm having a really hard time deciding how I feel about the movie. I thought the action was great, and the dialogue was pretty good, and I even kinda liked Peter Parker better. To be clear, I've never been a Tobey Maguire fan. My dislike probably began with the stupid spelling of both his first and last name because it generates red squiggly lines that are annoying to look at and know that I can't fix it because it's not actually misspelled. Also, Andrew Garfield's costume was way sweeter.

I'll try to focus, I'm sorry. Sometimes it's difficult because my logic is so flawless it boggles my mind.

Anyway, I like the new Spider-Man movie, but I think I'm bothered for a lot of the same reasons the Giant talked about on the drive home.

Number one: It's way too soon to do a reboot. It's only been 10 years since the original Spider-Man movie, and it was AMAZING. Even the second one was good! But just because the last film of a three-part installment was an embarrassment to Marvel, doesn't mean it's time to burn the film reel and try again.

Number two: Poor Aunt May! Not only does Peter aid the circumstance of Uncle Ben's death, but he is completely out of sorts and MIA. During the climax of the action, Aunt May is sitting at home watching the news while Peter is swinging from annoyingly convenient construction cranes. Why doesn't she ever pick up the phone and try to call him? They're evacuating half the city and Peter is nowhere to be found! And why does she stop asking him why he always looks like he just fought a giant lizard?

Number three: Peter Parker is kind of a jerk. Not only is his character just arrogant in general (the f*** do you mean your powers don't scare you?!), but he completely disregards how his actions are affecting the people who care about him. Also, he fully intends to break a promise he made to a dying police officer who happens to be his girlfriend's father. I will admit that I liked his sense of humor, and I think Andrew Garfield did a good job acting, but I thought the character was just too cocky for someone who is supposed to be a photo-journalist geek.

Number four: I don't think I like the fact that Peter didn't inherit the ability to produce spider's web. He's got amazing reflexes, increased sensory abilities, and sticky hands. But no webbing? Cheap!

Number five: Uncle Ben, you totally did that to yourself. In "Spider-Man," Uncle Ben's death was clearly Peter's fault which created a heart-wrenching dynamic between Peter and Aunt May. In "The Amazing Spider-Man," Uncle Ben does something seemingly heroic but also undeniably stupid. I doubt Uncle Ben would have ended up in a pool of his own blood had he just put his hands up and backed away. So instead of guilt, we're left with revenge. Not that that's a bad thing. Revenge is a great motivational tool. It's just a difference in the story from the comic (which I never read but know enough about) that I don't really agree with.

Don't worry Spidey. This one isn't on you.

There are other bothersome moments, but those are the ones that come to mind. I think I was struggling to make a decision because I like the movie as a whole, but there are a bunch of small issues that are muddling my ability to express my opinion.

"What Makes Good English Good"

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM!

Now to the post....

Hello faithful readers. So in my last post I pooh poohed UWO, and in this post I'm going to share with you something I wrote in college. Makes perfect sense. I just happened across it tonight, and thought it was worth posting because it's personal and I still maintain these ideals. It's even mildly educational. The paper references an article, which unfortunately I can't find a link to. However, I think you'll get the picture as you go along.


“And they says we ain’t good in English”

Ever since I first understood the concept of prescriptive versus descriptive grammars, I haven’t been able to assert myself as a surefire advocate of one or the other. It felt too much like politics to me: in some ways I’m a Democrat, in some ways I’m a Republican. However, after reading, “What Makes Good English Good,” by John Algeo, I think I can safely say that I would promote descriptive more often than prescriptive, if not always.

When it comes to English, I’ve always believed in “doing it right.” I’ve followed the rules of past teachers with the expectation of being struck by lightening if I were to falter: don’t repeat the same word twice in a sentence; be concise; omit words like “just” and “really,”; don’t start a sentence with “and,”; avoid the use of parentheticals (they detract from the flow, I’ve been told). While these are all fine suggestions, who’s to say that they make English better? It’s as Algeo said:  “There may be one or two trivial matters for which the sweat of English teachers has dripped so incessantly on the stone of real language that it has finally worn a small indentation […] but on the whole, not only are English teachers overworked, underpaid, and poorly educated, they are also ineffective.”

I’ve had my fair share of both wonderful and ineffective teachers. I remember them as individuals, but excepting my grammar teachers from 6^th and 9^th grade (and maybe I can add “my senior year of college” to the list), I can’t remember a single thing that I was taught otherwise.

I believe this might be because so much of English is subjective. Drawing from a real life example, the other day I was in a class and we were going over the rough drafts of our final projects, in which we were to write a review of a short story we had read and publish it to the class blog. The first group to have their assignment read and corrected suffered an ill fate: everyone in the class was adamant about having their say, and seeing the assignment become what they wanted it to be. We were an hour into class when I realized we were on page three of five, at which point I said, “Jesus Christ people. It’s a blog, not a dissertation.” I agree wholeheartedly with Algeo on this point: “Talk about clarity and logic in language is often an unconscious confession of ignorance and ethnocentrism.” While the blog may have been poorly written (though mostly it was just wordy), the brilliance of the ideas had not suffered, and the class was trying to correct something that wasn’t really wrong.

One thing I’m excited to have the opportunity to pick on is the cannon by which high school teachers must abide. Algeo argues that “the literary criterion suffers from several weaknesses. One is the difficulty of deciding which authors are reputable or best and which are not.” To this I ask: who said that Shakespeare needed to be at the top of the cannon? What about Chaucer? (Sorry Milton, I’ve never read you!) Shakespeare’s ideas are no better than Chaucer’s, nor is his writing. Both languages have their challenges that can be overcome with enough exposure. I just don’t think that it’s right to only teach high schoolers about one major author. I didn’t even know there were other major authors until I got to college. What a sheltered education I suffered.

Another outlook of mine that this essay and class have changed is the daunting feeling that the world is going to hell in hand basket. The world might be suffering economically or politically or whatever, but the English language is not a passenger in said basket. In the section titled “Stylistic Criterion,” Algeo declares that there really is no problem with the direction language has taken; it is not necessarily on the decline: “It is ironic that the demise of English should be predicted at a time when the language is being used by more people for more purposes in more places around the globe than ever before.” It’s possible I’m misunderstanding the true intention of the quote, but in all of my conversations, I have never judged anyone's ability to speak the language, but only their ability to communicate their problem or question. And shouldn’t that be the way of things? So much of writing is ambiguous. Try as we may, we’ll never truly know the intent of authors; we cannot be 100% certain that we understand that message the author means to convey. Language is faulty. Words mean different things to different cultures, races, genders. For example, I hate the words “fine” and “sure.” While the people who say them to me assure that they don’t mean them negatively, all I hear is negativity because that is how I use them. “Would you like to go out?” Well, not really, but, “Sure.”

I used to be exceedingly uptight about language; linguistic “shortcuts” (ilu, <3, ttyl) caused a sharp intake of breath, arms folded across my chest in a huff of annoyance at peoples’ laziness. My philosophy was: if language is the only means we have of effective communication, why wouldn’t we use it to the best of our ability? But it never occurred to me that simply communicating, in any way necessary, is effective and a worthy use of language. Of course there is a time and place for professionalism, but in day-to-day life, what does it matter how it is said as long as the message is clear? Plus, playing with language is fun. Kthxbai.