Hi guys, welcome to Orygyn!
A few years ago, there was some YouTube drama involving Onision. Onision is a very high profile YouTuber who has a reputation for being childish, egotistical, and exploiting serious illnesses for attention. He's also a very passionate vegetarian and, in the video that kicked off the drama, he looks down on meat eaters telling them that he is literally repulsed by them. This sparked a wave of fury, most notably with TJ (TheAmazingAtheist) asking his audience to buy and eat some meat product every time Onision made a video. 3 years later, this has come up again.
Personally I'm a meat eater. Even now I tend to find the majority of fruit and vegetables disgusting. It is possible that I could live off of a vegetarian or vegan diet, but I have no current burning desire to try it. Enough about me, let's look at the actual issue.
As the real emphasis is on the morality of the issue, I will only address this aspect of it here. The issue is killing an animal for food. There are many different moral aspects to such an action. You are taking an animal's life. The process of killing the animal could cause it suffering. The conditions under which some animals are bred are appalling.
Let's start with life. Personally, I don't view the "life" component of the issue to be very relevant. Life could be anything from a bacterium to a multicellular human being. We don't lament the death of viruses or of the individual cells which make up our body. A lot of us put no thought into killing insects that become enough of an immediate nuisance to us. Taking life is not something I perceive to be a problem here. What matters is the individual characteristics of the life you take.
Why do we value human life above all others? My answer would be that we are the most cognitively complex species. Note that I'm not referring to intelligence here, I'm pointing to our capacity to desire, to have ambitions, to feel emotions, and to share the complex interplay of these cognitive processes with other members of the species in a way that has no rival: language. How we treat other animals does, and should, take into account the animal's ability to feel emotion and to suffer. Dogs may not be able to say "I need this", but they can whimper, and we universally recognise this as expressing a pressing need. The lack of having this need, the suffering, is emotionally evident in the whimpering.
It has been pointed out that if the value of life is to be judged by this criteria, there are some humans which don't even measure up to the level of some animals. This, I think, is simply false. I should point out we're not talking about the unborn or terminally ill comatose for whom the issues of abortion and euthanasia make use of the exact same reasoning to justify it, we are talking simply about the severely mentally disabled. First of all, I have never heard of a disability so severe that the victim is incapable of desire, emotion and self-awareness, short of an end-of-life scenario for which many of us have already taken the view that unplugging the life support is acceptable. I'm not saying there isn't such a disease, and if presented with specific examples, I will address them, but if we don't know much about the disease, putting them in the "edible meat" category when they are physiologically human is premature and irresponsible.
TheAmazingAtheist, during the original drama 3 years ago, expressed the view that "nothing is off the menu", although cannibalism would only be acceptable on human bodies that are dead anyway, and that it is not OK to kill them for this specific purpose. I have read before that there are health risks associated with eating certain parts of the body, but I agree with TJ, and in fact held this view myself independently of him before he expressed it in his video.
My views are that if an animal lacks the cognitive capacity to desire or have ambitions, this is the essential difference. Without these, an animal is essentially a biological computer program, seeking out sustenance and responding to threats by fleeing. You are not cutting short an animal's potential to achieve something, because it has none. If it has the capacity to feel emotion, the slaughter should be as painless and humane for the animal as possible, and it should be kept in good living conditions. If it can't feel such emotion, this is less important to consider. Science is the key to unlocking the answers to all the questions we have about what animal is capable of which mental functions.
As additional justification, I look to the thoughts expressed by Mitchell & Webb in this video. As it's from British TV, it's possible that some viewers won't be able to watch it, so I'll sum it up in 1 line:
"There might be more polar bears left if more people wanted one for breakfast."
When we breed a species for meat, we keep the species alive. We ensure it doesn't become extinct. If our treatment of such species falls in line with their mental abilities, there isn't much to worry about.
Finally, vegetarians and vegans are likely to have responses to my arguments. Assuming I am unable to maintain my position after the debate is over, there is still one scenario in which there is no problem with eating meat: in the future when it is grown on a cellular level in the lab. No-one and nothing is harmed in such a scenario. At worst, some DNA will be taken from animals for the procedure. This is akin to a vaccine. The moral problems with eating meat persist only as long as we breed animals for it instead of growing the meat in the lab.
8<{D-
Thursday 26 April 2012
DawahFilms: The End of Civilization
Hi guys, welcome to Orygyn!
I want to address Ali's (DawahFilms') latest YT video, "YT Atheist Circus Vs. Reality". In it, he talks about charity events, video behaviour and other events relating to the YT atheist community and puts them in the perspective of the global financial crisis and what he perceives to be the ultimate collapse of our economic systems.
The first point I want to make is that, although the video might come across as being addressed to all YT atheists, this should not be taken that way. I know for a fact that Ali knows better than that. The alternative is impossible in light of the drama he has gone through with thunderf00t.
He accuses the organisers of charity events of showboating. I've seen a few videos recently by popular YT atheists advertising a blogTV show to raise money for and awareness of HIV/AIDS and research into cures. We engage in many such events in our community. While there is always a component of selfishness to organising charity events, as true altruism is impossible, this should never upstage the actual charity unless it has negative implications for the result of the charity (e.g. a religious charity excluding minority groups they disagree with). The desire to come across as a selfless and caring individual has no such negative implications and so is irrelevant. For Ali to undermine such charity work to focus on a motive that is pretty much intrinsic to charity work and doesn't itself do anything to undermine such work is utterly disgusting.
He also talks about false flagging and DMCAs, and our response to them. The only YouTuber I'm subscribed to that has had trouble with such things recently is Vogter. He has been dealing with supporters of the philosophy of True Forced Loneliness, who claim that their loneliness is the result of impractically high societal expectations of them. I may address this topic in a future post or video. Anyway, Vogter predicted successfully that his channel would be flagged down if he engaged certain individuals who share this philosophy. Before the channel was flagged down, it would be perfectly reasonable to criticise Vogter for being too dramatic, although he never complained and simply asked people to subscribe to a backup channel just in case. As the prediction came true, there is little to criticise any more.
Another point was the Reason Rally. This was an atheist gathering in Washington D.C. that happened last month. 20,000 people attended and a lot of footage of the event was uploaded to YouTube. I can't help but to slightly cringe, not so much at the event itself, but the idea that it needed to happen, that a significant minority of people in America are so demonised for not believing in a god that they need to hold a rally.
All of the above problems are compared by Ali to what he perceives to be an impending global crisis. I will outline my opinions of this crisis later, but first, I want to address how we treat problems of differing significance. There is a parallel here to the idea of "first world problems". The idea common to both scenarios is that it is in bad taste to complain about your problems when there are greater problems to address: African poverty, environmental damage, unsafe water in many countries etc. I have always been critical of this concept as it ignores the reality of the situation. One TED talk that I watched presented data that paraplegics and lottery winners were equally happy 6 months after the respective events, winning the lottery or losing the use of their legs, took place. What this tells me is that we become accustomed to our environment. We grow to accept things we can't change, and the novelty of great fortune wears off. As such, our suffering is not the result of generally poor conditions but of inferior conditions relative to our average, or a perceived average experience. The suffering experienced by a spoiled teen who gets a different coloured expensive car to the one they wanted is just as real as the suffering of a cancer patient in agony, the only difference is the degree and length of the suffering. It's still suffering in the sense that they experience real negative emotions in response to the stimuli which causes the suffering. We can criticise the teen in the car scenario for outwardly expressing such suffering, but the actual suffering is no more within their control than their sexual orientation or skin colour. If anyone is at fault, it is the parents for creating an environment where they always get what they want.
The appropriate response to ANY suffering is to minimise it, not to grade it then ignore the less significant manifestations. HIV, while increasingly treatable, is still a terrible disease which affects and kills millions, and so could not be said in any context other than an Armageddon scenario to be insignificant, but should be addressed either way.
OK, time to address the big one, the global crisis. Ali predicts that economies will collapse and that everything we fight against on YouTube is insignificant in the face of this new threat. Ali never outlines the threat in detail, but I've heard it before, so I'll do my best here.
I've heard it twice: once in a Horizon documentary by David Attenborough called "How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?" and in ThereminTrees' recent video "death - part two". Both videos describe the scale of the investment needed in alternative energy or the degree to which we need to change our consumption rates in order to prevent a global resource shortage. We use half of our available freshwater for energy or agricultural means, we need thousands more nuclear plants, wind turbines, dams or equivalent sources of renewable energy to replace the vacuum that will be created when fossil fuels are exhausted, developed nations use 4 or 5 times the sustainable resource capacity per person, which is counterbalanced by the developing nations, meaning that our lifestyles would be unsustainable if everyone on the planet lived like we currently do. Given these scenarios, it is understandable to imagine that resource wars could break out very soon, and that we would experience a sudden sharp decrease in our standard of living if we don't do something soon. Ali is right to criticise us for not paying more attention to these problems, as I completely agree that their significance supersedes that of any other problem, but, once again, it does not mean we shouldn't address other problems as well. I believe, in fact, that it is essential to both. Once we solve our personal problems, we tend to care more about more macroscopic problems.
To conclude, Ali has been unfair and unsympathetic to us, but his main point of contention is perfectly legitimate and I will second it here: we must discuss our resource use and the idea of an impending global crisis relating to it far more often than we're currently doing. As atheists, we have taken pride in not shying away from uncomfortable topics to discuss, and this is the most uncomfortable of them all. To be in denial or to ignore these problems at this stage is truly retarded.
8<{D-
I want to address Ali's (DawahFilms') latest YT video, "YT Atheist Circus Vs. Reality". In it, he talks about charity events, video behaviour and other events relating to the YT atheist community and puts them in the perspective of the global financial crisis and what he perceives to be the ultimate collapse of our economic systems.
The first point I want to make is that, although the video might come across as being addressed to all YT atheists, this should not be taken that way. I know for a fact that Ali knows better than that. The alternative is impossible in light of the drama he has gone through with thunderf00t.
He accuses the organisers of charity events of showboating. I've seen a few videos recently by popular YT atheists advertising a blogTV show to raise money for and awareness of HIV/AIDS and research into cures. We engage in many such events in our community. While there is always a component of selfishness to organising charity events, as true altruism is impossible, this should never upstage the actual charity unless it has negative implications for the result of the charity (e.g. a religious charity excluding minority groups they disagree with). The desire to come across as a selfless and caring individual has no such negative implications and so is irrelevant. For Ali to undermine such charity work to focus on a motive that is pretty much intrinsic to charity work and doesn't itself do anything to undermine such work is utterly disgusting.
He also talks about false flagging and DMCAs, and our response to them. The only YouTuber I'm subscribed to that has had trouble with such things recently is Vogter. He has been dealing with supporters of the philosophy of True Forced Loneliness, who claim that their loneliness is the result of impractically high societal expectations of them. I may address this topic in a future post or video. Anyway, Vogter predicted successfully that his channel would be flagged down if he engaged certain individuals who share this philosophy. Before the channel was flagged down, it would be perfectly reasonable to criticise Vogter for being too dramatic, although he never complained and simply asked people to subscribe to a backup channel just in case. As the prediction came true, there is little to criticise any more.
Another point was the Reason Rally. This was an atheist gathering in Washington D.C. that happened last month. 20,000 people attended and a lot of footage of the event was uploaded to YouTube. I can't help but to slightly cringe, not so much at the event itself, but the idea that it needed to happen, that a significant minority of people in America are so demonised for not believing in a god that they need to hold a rally.
All of the above problems are compared by Ali to what he perceives to be an impending global crisis. I will outline my opinions of this crisis later, but first, I want to address how we treat problems of differing significance. There is a parallel here to the idea of "first world problems". The idea common to both scenarios is that it is in bad taste to complain about your problems when there are greater problems to address: African poverty, environmental damage, unsafe water in many countries etc. I have always been critical of this concept as it ignores the reality of the situation. One TED talk that I watched presented data that paraplegics and lottery winners were equally happy 6 months after the respective events, winning the lottery or losing the use of their legs, took place. What this tells me is that we become accustomed to our environment. We grow to accept things we can't change, and the novelty of great fortune wears off. As such, our suffering is not the result of generally poor conditions but of inferior conditions relative to our average, or a perceived average experience. The suffering experienced by a spoiled teen who gets a different coloured expensive car to the one they wanted is just as real as the suffering of a cancer patient in agony, the only difference is the degree and length of the suffering. It's still suffering in the sense that they experience real negative emotions in response to the stimuli which causes the suffering. We can criticise the teen in the car scenario for outwardly expressing such suffering, but the actual suffering is no more within their control than their sexual orientation or skin colour. If anyone is at fault, it is the parents for creating an environment where they always get what they want.
The appropriate response to ANY suffering is to minimise it, not to grade it then ignore the less significant manifestations. HIV, while increasingly treatable, is still a terrible disease which affects and kills millions, and so could not be said in any context other than an Armageddon scenario to be insignificant, but should be addressed either way.
OK, time to address the big one, the global crisis. Ali predicts that economies will collapse and that everything we fight against on YouTube is insignificant in the face of this new threat. Ali never outlines the threat in detail, but I've heard it before, so I'll do my best here.
I've heard it twice: once in a Horizon documentary by David Attenborough called "How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?" and in ThereminTrees' recent video "death - part two". Both videos describe the scale of the investment needed in alternative energy or the degree to which we need to change our consumption rates in order to prevent a global resource shortage. We use half of our available freshwater for energy or agricultural means, we need thousands more nuclear plants, wind turbines, dams or equivalent sources of renewable energy to replace the vacuum that will be created when fossil fuels are exhausted, developed nations use 4 or 5 times the sustainable resource capacity per person, which is counterbalanced by the developing nations, meaning that our lifestyles would be unsustainable if everyone on the planet lived like we currently do. Given these scenarios, it is understandable to imagine that resource wars could break out very soon, and that we would experience a sudden sharp decrease in our standard of living if we don't do something soon. Ali is right to criticise us for not paying more attention to these problems, as I completely agree that their significance supersedes that of any other problem, but, once again, it does not mean we shouldn't address other problems as well. I believe, in fact, that it is essential to both. Once we solve our personal problems, we tend to care more about more macroscopic problems.
To conclude, Ali has been unfair and unsympathetic to us, but his main point of contention is perfectly legitimate and I will second it here: we must discuss our resource use and the idea of an impending global crisis relating to it far more often than we're currently doing. As atheists, we have taken pride in not shying away from uncomfortable topics to discuss, and this is the most uncomfortable of them all. To be in denial or to ignore these problems at this stage is truly retarded.
8<{D-
Wednesday 18 April 2012
Sexism: Pogobat vs TheAmazingAtheist
Hi guys, welcome to Orygyn!
2 enormous YouTubers disagree. I've seen this before when thunderf00t addressed pogobat's video on education but now pogobat is addressing TheAmazingAtheist. For simplicity I will refer to them by the names they normally go by: Dan (pogobat) and TJ (TheAmazingAtheist).
Dan is addressing a relatively old video of TJ's about an incident involving a man who had his penis cut off by a woman. Sharon Osbourne made fun of the incident on TV calling it "fabulous". Among the immediate TV audience,the response was laughter, but it also sparked understandable outrage, best summed up by TJ's video: that if a man had mutilated a woman's genitals and a man had made fun of the incident on TV, his career would die pretty much instantly. At the very least, he would be ruthlessly condemned for his comments. Dan's problem with the video is that, although he agrees with the central point, he views TJ's approach, which he paraphrases as whipping his audience up into a frenzy over the issue and calling Sharon Osbourne a "cunt", as divisive and counter-productive, and that true equality is more nuanced than TJ is making it out to be in the video.
First, as always, I need to explain where I'm coming from so all possible bias is out in the open. If you're not interested, I fully understand, and I'll save you the trouble by saying skip this paragraph and the 2 after. I've been subbed to TJ literally since the day I started my channel nearly 4 years ago. There was a period in Spring 2009 where I had unsubscribed from him for reasons similar to Dan's 1st criticism (long story short, he made a slew of what I perceived to be uncharacteristically aggressive and needlessly personal pwnage videos) but I gained a new perspective on everyone's videos in the middle of the year, and I forgave him, resubscribing. Since then, I have watched TJ's videos, agreeing with him the vast majority of the time but having a few issues now and then. A lot of them did, in fact, revolve around his views on feminism which, until a relatively recent video (where he makes plain that his only criticism of all feminists is in their choice of label, which focuses on only 1 gender) I thought were simplistic generalisations.
I discovered Dan through his mini-drama with thunderf00t. As I was at uni at the time, I was intrigued by what Dan said in his video "An Open Letter To Educators" (even just from watching the parts played in thunderf00t's video) because I could relate to a lot of it. As I watched thunderf00t's video I got a whiff from it of something deeply unpleasant. When I watched Dan's video afterwards, my thoughts were confirmed. Legitimate criticisms of education were ignored or presented in a deeply unsatisfying form in thunderf00t's video while thunderf00t did not miss a single opportunity to make Dan look as idiotic as possible. I didn't subscribe, though, until a few months later when I had seen a video by him made not long after "An Open Letter To Educators" called "DON'T BE A ZOMBIE!" (the video no longer exists on the internet from what I've seen).
I have a lot of respect for both YouTubers. They both make topical videos in an entertaining manner. Having said that, I always step back and look at the arguments. Of all the people I've encountered on YouTube, only Dan himself has put a comparable amount of effort as me into condemning the mindless drone behaviour of standing by a YouTuber simply because you like them, so I'd be a huge hypocrite to do that myself. Anyway, let's get to it.
Whipping Up A Frenzy
It's very easy to see, as Dan suggests, the comparison between the style of TJ and the style of Rush Limbaugh, or perhaps even people like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann. The thing is, the loudmouth talk-show host style appears to get results. It tends to polarise people but the point is that they watch. If the content is sensible, I don't personally object. As TJ's content is topical and reasonably sensible most of the time (there will always be exceptions) I don't have a problem with how he chooses to make his videos. As to whether it whips up a frenzy, this is where I feel Dan's position lacks nuance. The end result is only guided by TJ, the viewers themselves decide the final reaction. After a cursory glance at a few pages of comment section on TJ's video, the number of people who seem visibly "whipped up into a frenzy" is pretty small. The vast majority are discussions between commenters, others talk about other things Sharon Osbourne has done, insults towards TJ, and more mild agreement. But perhaps my most significant point is that TJ's approach has changed since the Cody Weber era when this video was made. He does still let people have it, but the videos tend to be more substantial and not many are directed towards a particular person, instead he comments on current news and, in my opinion, tries to get people to really care.
Cunt
This is the more important part of Dan's first criticism. He says "you can't fight sexism with more sexism". In a comment discussion with TJ, Dan points out that "cunt" has more of a history of being used by sexists for sexist purposes, whereas words like "dick" don't. My response to that is that it doesn't matter.
First, a bit about how language works. Typically, someone coins a word or phrase. This could be in academic publications, or just an influential figure of some sort who put a twist on an already used word or blurted out something new. The next part is when it catches on. People hear the word or phrase and start using it themselves. This won't just happen with any word or phrase, although the exact characteristics of successful propagation of a particular word or phrase are very complex. "Cunt" is used in 2 ways. First, as a synonym of vagina, and secondly as a dehumanising insult. Using the word the second way is to essentially reduce her to a body part. It is like saying "you're good for making babies and that's it". At least, that's what someone defending Dan might say. The exact same logic applies to the word "dick", yet the 2 words are treated very differently. We could argue over why, but as long as they are treated differently, the defence argument falls.
Ultimately what matters is the degree of offence taken. A lot is taken over the word "cunt" but not much is taken over the word "dick". This is what really matters, and this is all we need to know to change things. I take the greatest issue with this part of Dan's video because it is feeding into the mindset that keeps words like this powerful. To me, if all it takes to be considered a sexist is to say a certain word, something is wrong. I've dealt with a situation like this before in a video called "Variablast and the All Powerful N-Word". People were squeamish then, I'm not expecting much of a difference here, but the principle is the same. When we chastise others for using a word or censor ourselves from using it, we are giving the word more power. To make it less powerful, you need to use it, and not chastise others for using it. Simple in theory, problematic in practise. You see, the views that people have about such words come from years of being told they're very very bad, or instances of extreme reactions when someone has used them. But, as with swear words, the words have no power in and of themselves. Their power depends on us treating them as if they do. We create the illusion and maintain it. If you've even read what I've just written, you are now aware of the illusion if you weren't before, and that's the important first step. The next part is up to you. How powerful the word becomes depends on the collective decisions of everyone to either treat it as this great evil, or to be able to say it and diminish its power just that little bit. It's a start.
True Equality
On Dan's second criticism, I agree with the general sentiment. True equality, I think, is neither practical nor desirable. There are all sorts of differences between the genders. There are some organs unique to each gender. Men tend to be taller and physically stronger. Men tend to have deeper voices. The list goes on and on. Some people have been accused of sexism for simply pointing these things out but stating empirical truths is not sexist. Sexism is looking down on the other gender. Sexism is valuing them less because of superficial differences. Mentally, everything that's unique about being human is common to both genders. We are as intelligent as each other, and we feel the same emotions, and these are the 2 things that seem to matter most when valuing life. We place less moral value on other animals specifically because they lack the self-awareness or emotional capacity that would lead them to be able to suffer or feel pain, and how we value each animal tends to depend on how much of these 2 characteristics they possess.
The Suffering Involved
I'll finish by looking at the man who had his penis cut off, that Sharon laughed about. Cutting off the penis means the man suffers in 2 different ways.
1. The physical and mental pain involved.
2. He is sterilised, and so has permanently lost the ability to have kids.
TJ draws an analogy with a woman having her tits and clitoris cut off. What suffering is involved here?
1. The physical and mental pain involved in 2 different parts of the body.
2. Possible sterilisation, depending on how much and what parts are cut off.
3. The inability to breastfeed (even in sterilised cases, adoption is still viable).
Ultimately, it's difficult to compare them and say which is worse, but I'm sure we can both agree that significant suffering is involved. Even if you believe the woman's suffering is greater, the man's could not be said to be insignificant enough to warrant ridicule of the type dished out by Sharon Osbourne. I have to conclude, then, that in this case, the specific equality which TJ is calling for is perfectly reasonable. You either laugh when it happens to both man and woman, or neither. Personally, I'm going with the latter.
8<{D-
2 enormous YouTubers disagree. I've seen this before when thunderf00t addressed pogobat's video on education but now pogobat is addressing TheAmazingAtheist. For simplicity I will refer to them by the names they normally go by: Dan (pogobat) and TJ (TheAmazingAtheist).
Dan is addressing a relatively old video of TJ's about an incident involving a man who had his penis cut off by a woman. Sharon Osbourne made fun of the incident on TV calling it "fabulous". Among the immediate TV audience,the response was laughter, but it also sparked understandable outrage, best summed up by TJ's video: that if a man had mutilated a woman's genitals and a man had made fun of the incident on TV, his career would die pretty much instantly. At the very least, he would be ruthlessly condemned for his comments. Dan's problem with the video is that, although he agrees with the central point, he views TJ's approach, which he paraphrases as whipping his audience up into a frenzy over the issue and calling Sharon Osbourne a "cunt", as divisive and counter-productive, and that true equality is more nuanced than TJ is making it out to be in the video.
First, as always, I need to explain where I'm coming from so all possible bias is out in the open. If you're not interested, I fully understand, and I'll save you the trouble by saying skip this paragraph and the 2 after. I've been subbed to TJ literally since the day I started my channel nearly 4 years ago. There was a period in Spring 2009 where I had unsubscribed from him for reasons similar to Dan's 1st criticism (long story short, he made a slew of what I perceived to be uncharacteristically aggressive and needlessly personal pwnage videos) but I gained a new perspective on everyone's videos in the middle of the year, and I forgave him, resubscribing. Since then, I have watched TJ's videos, agreeing with him the vast majority of the time but having a few issues now and then. A lot of them did, in fact, revolve around his views on feminism which, until a relatively recent video (where he makes plain that his only criticism of all feminists is in their choice of label, which focuses on only 1 gender) I thought were simplistic generalisations.
I discovered Dan through his mini-drama with thunderf00t. As I was at uni at the time, I was intrigued by what Dan said in his video "An Open Letter To Educators" (even just from watching the parts played in thunderf00t's video) because I could relate to a lot of it. As I watched thunderf00t's video I got a whiff from it of something deeply unpleasant. When I watched Dan's video afterwards, my thoughts were confirmed. Legitimate criticisms of education were ignored or presented in a deeply unsatisfying form in thunderf00t's video while thunderf00t did not miss a single opportunity to make Dan look as idiotic as possible. I didn't subscribe, though, until a few months later when I had seen a video by him made not long after "An Open Letter To Educators" called "DON'T BE A ZOMBIE!" (the video no longer exists on the internet from what I've seen).
I have a lot of respect for both YouTubers. They both make topical videos in an entertaining manner. Having said that, I always step back and look at the arguments. Of all the people I've encountered on YouTube, only Dan himself has put a comparable amount of effort as me into condemning the mindless drone behaviour of standing by a YouTuber simply because you like them, so I'd be a huge hypocrite to do that myself. Anyway, let's get to it.
Whipping Up A Frenzy
It's very easy to see, as Dan suggests, the comparison between the style of TJ and the style of Rush Limbaugh, or perhaps even people like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann. The thing is, the loudmouth talk-show host style appears to get results. It tends to polarise people but the point is that they watch. If the content is sensible, I don't personally object. As TJ's content is topical and reasonably sensible most of the time (there will always be exceptions) I don't have a problem with how he chooses to make his videos. As to whether it whips up a frenzy, this is where I feel Dan's position lacks nuance. The end result is only guided by TJ, the viewers themselves decide the final reaction. After a cursory glance at a few pages of comment section on TJ's video, the number of people who seem visibly "whipped up into a frenzy" is pretty small. The vast majority are discussions between commenters, others talk about other things Sharon Osbourne has done, insults towards TJ, and more mild agreement. But perhaps my most significant point is that TJ's approach has changed since the Cody Weber era when this video was made. He does still let people have it, but the videos tend to be more substantial and not many are directed towards a particular person, instead he comments on current news and, in my opinion, tries to get people to really care.
Cunt
This is the more important part of Dan's first criticism. He says "you can't fight sexism with more sexism". In a comment discussion with TJ, Dan points out that "cunt" has more of a history of being used by sexists for sexist purposes, whereas words like "dick" don't. My response to that is that it doesn't matter.
First, a bit about how language works. Typically, someone coins a word or phrase. This could be in academic publications, or just an influential figure of some sort who put a twist on an already used word or blurted out something new. The next part is when it catches on. People hear the word or phrase and start using it themselves. This won't just happen with any word or phrase, although the exact characteristics of successful propagation of a particular word or phrase are very complex. "Cunt" is used in 2 ways. First, as a synonym of vagina, and secondly as a dehumanising insult. Using the word the second way is to essentially reduce her to a body part. It is like saying "you're good for making babies and that's it". At least, that's what someone defending Dan might say. The exact same logic applies to the word "dick", yet the 2 words are treated very differently. We could argue over why, but as long as they are treated differently, the defence argument falls.
Ultimately what matters is the degree of offence taken. A lot is taken over the word "cunt" but not much is taken over the word "dick". This is what really matters, and this is all we need to know to change things. I take the greatest issue with this part of Dan's video because it is feeding into the mindset that keeps words like this powerful. To me, if all it takes to be considered a sexist is to say a certain word, something is wrong. I've dealt with a situation like this before in a video called "Variablast and the All Powerful N-Word". People were squeamish then, I'm not expecting much of a difference here, but the principle is the same. When we chastise others for using a word or censor ourselves from using it, we are giving the word more power. To make it less powerful, you need to use it, and not chastise others for using it. Simple in theory, problematic in practise. You see, the views that people have about such words come from years of being told they're very very bad, or instances of extreme reactions when someone has used them. But, as with swear words, the words have no power in and of themselves. Their power depends on us treating them as if they do. We create the illusion and maintain it. If you've even read what I've just written, you are now aware of the illusion if you weren't before, and that's the important first step. The next part is up to you. How powerful the word becomes depends on the collective decisions of everyone to either treat it as this great evil, or to be able to say it and diminish its power just that little bit. It's a start.
True Equality
On Dan's second criticism, I agree with the general sentiment. True equality, I think, is neither practical nor desirable. There are all sorts of differences between the genders. There are some organs unique to each gender. Men tend to be taller and physically stronger. Men tend to have deeper voices. The list goes on and on. Some people have been accused of sexism for simply pointing these things out but stating empirical truths is not sexist. Sexism is looking down on the other gender. Sexism is valuing them less because of superficial differences. Mentally, everything that's unique about being human is common to both genders. We are as intelligent as each other, and we feel the same emotions, and these are the 2 things that seem to matter most when valuing life. We place less moral value on other animals specifically because they lack the self-awareness or emotional capacity that would lead them to be able to suffer or feel pain, and how we value each animal tends to depend on how much of these 2 characteristics they possess.
The Suffering Involved
I'll finish by looking at the man who had his penis cut off, that Sharon laughed about. Cutting off the penis means the man suffers in 2 different ways.
1. The physical and mental pain involved.
2. He is sterilised, and so has permanently lost the ability to have kids.
TJ draws an analogy with a woman having her tits and clitoris cut off. What suffering is involved here?
1. The physical and mental pain involved in 2 different parts of the body.
2. Possible sterilisation, depending on how much and what parts are cut off.
3. The inability to breastfeed (even in sterilised cases, adoption is still viable).
Ultimately, it's difficult to compare them and say which is worse, but I'm sure we can both agree that significant suffering is involved. Even if you believe the woman's suffering is greater, the man's could not be said to be insignificant enough to warrant ridicule of the type dished out by Sharon Osbourne. I have to conclude, then, that in this case, the specific equality which TJ is calling for is perfectly reasonable. You either laugh when it happens to both man and woman, or neither. Personally, I'm going with the latter.
8<{D-
Sunday 15 April 2012
"These arguments have been refuted before!"
Hi guys, welcome to Orygyn!
I want to ask you a question. Have you heard it all before? When we're discussing an issue on which you're an expert and I'm a layman, your answer will probably be "yes". There's probably nothing I can say that you haven't heard before.
DarkMatter2525's most recent YouTube video is called "Creationists' First Time on the Internet". He raises all of the common creationist arguments in an attempt to dissuade creationists that are new to the YouTube scene from making them. The video is entertaining and funny as always, but the central premise is a hopeless endeavour. Let me explain.
I've been on the receiving end of such comments myself. When I made my video, "Taxation Is Not Theft", a few libertarians and anarchists remarked that "all of these arguments have been debunked before". So why did I make the video? It's simple. I've never seen arguments of the type I've made. I'm not saying they haven't been made, just that I haven't personally seen them. The arguments I've seen are "if taxation is theft, property is theft", and "it's an emotional statement that's useless if the position isn't practical". I didn't make those ones specifically because they had been made before. I made the ones I did because I haven't personally seen them before. Therein lies the problem.
I'm not an expert on any issue. I've been making videos on the internet and posting blog posts for nearly 4 years but I'm always seeing new arguments and new content. To an actual expert, though, they're probably not new. Everyone has different levels of knowledge about the issues, regardless of their position. If, for example, a creationist has just set up an account on YouTube, and, for the sake of argument, this isn't a hardcore evangelist who has no intention of changing their mind because they're in some way invested in their position, they are not likely to have seen any of these arguments before. DarkMatter's video, while it is a collection of the common creationist arguments, does not refute them, it only raises them. If a creationist of the sort I described sees the video and doesn't understand why it is a bad argument, and can't find any videos or posts on the internet addressing them, they are likely to investigate themselves by posting a video making the argument. At this point, they will open themselves up to the full wrath and fury of the atheist and secular communities on the internet.
Now, DarkMatter made the point that the internet is "saturated" by the answers to these arguments, implying that there is no excuse for not being able to find such answers. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Think about it. When you make a video that a substantial number of people are going to disagree with as I have done with my most recent videos, and you're not satisfied with the response, you're not going to change your mind. If you have answers to their criticisms, you're not going to think your argument is any weaker and so you're likely to keep making it. It could be that we don't fully understand the criticisms, and it could be that the criticisms genuinely are inadequate. Some degree of emotional investment in a particular issue or in simply not wanting to admit you're wrong if it is the case could be aiding the fog that obscures your understanding of the criticisms. It would be unwise to underestimate how powerful these emotional investments are. It's easy to overlook all of this when you're a relative veteran of the scene, when you've heard all the arguments and know their ins and outs.
As long as people who know nothing beyond what they've been indoctrinated with arrive on the YouTube scene, they will continue to make these arguments. And let me stress again, I'm not talking about the Ray Comforts, Kent Hovinds and VenomFangXs. I'm talking about teenagers who live in the deep South and have been taught all their life, possibly even homeschooled to prevent access to anything that conflicts with that family's religious dogma, that there is a God, it created everything 6000 years ago, and that atheists are absolutely the worst degraded abominations of humanity. It's only their fault in their lacking of the superhuman mental strength needed to overcome such dogma. Of course, everyone is different. Some retain their curiosity, either due to their genetics or their environment, and the dogma is stronger in some places than it is in others, but to not be aware of this when we deal with them, as I've witnessed many many times, is to take action against them which will most likely be interpreted by them as a confirmation of everything they were taught to believe. When we ridicule them, we confirm the dogmatic stereotype of atheists, and we potentially lose any interest they could have had in understanding us better.
But this isn't restricted to religion and creationism. This is true regarding every issue. You're unlikely to come across the sheer magnitude and strength of the dogma found around religion, but to some degree, we are emotionally invested in some of our positions. When it comes to fundamentally moral issues such as statism vs anarchism, abortion or euthanasia, there is simply no right answer. Your particular moral views are likely to determine your position, regardless of the facts and arguments surrounding them. The facts and arguments only serve to grant the greatest possible logical strength to your position, but 2 experts who know all the ins and outs of the position could still have differing views based on their views on morality.
The moral of the story is this. People are going to make arguments you've heard before. They'll do it either because they haven't heard them before, or because they have, but they haven't been convinced yet. They might make an argument you haven't heard before, so it's not only inappropriate, but untrue to write them off as having been refuted. Either way, this is done far too often on the internet. Playing the game of internet debate requires patience and repetition. Can you stomach it?
8<{D-
I want to ask you a question. Have you heard it all before? When we're discussing an issue on which you're an expert and I'm a layman, your answer will probably be "yes". There's probably nothing I can say that you haven't heard before.
DarkMatter2525's most recent YouTube video is called "Creationists' First Time on the Internet". He raises all of the common creationist arguments in an attempt to dissuade creationists that are new to the YouTube scene from making them. The video is entertaining and funny as always, but the central premise is a hopeless endeavour. Let me explain.
I've been on the receiving end of such comments myself. When I made my video, "Taxation Is Not Theft", a few libertarians and anarchists remarked that "all of these arguments have been debunked before". So why did I make the video? It's simple. I've never seen arguments of the type I've made. I'm not saying they haven't been made, just that I haven't personally seen them. The arguments I've seen are "if taxation is theft, property is theft", and "it's an emotional statement that's useless if the position isn't practical". I didn't make those ones specifically because they had been made before. I made the ones I did because I haven't personally seen them before. Therein lies the problem.
I'm not an expert on any issue. I've been making videos on the internet and posting blog posts for nearly 4 years but I'm always seeing new arguments and new content. To an actual expert, though, they're probably not new. Everyone has different levels of knowledge about the issues, regardless of their position. If, for example, a creationist has just set up an account on YouTube, and, for the sake of argument, this isn't a hardcore evangelist who has no intention of changing their mind because they're in some way invested in their position, they are not likely to have seen any of these arguments before. DarkMatter's video, while it is a collection of the common creationist arguments, does not refute them, it only raises them. If a creationist of the sort I described sees the video and doesn't understand why it is a bad argument, and can't find any videos or posts on the internet addressing them, they are likely to investigate themselves by posting a video making the argument. At this point, they will open themselves up to the full wrath and fury of the atheist and secular communities on the internet.
Now, DarkMatter made the point that the internet is "saturated" by the answers to these arguments, implying that there is no excuse for not being able to find such answers. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Think about it. When you make a video that a substantial number of people are going to disagree with as I have done with my most recent videos, and you're not satisfied with the response, you're not going to change your mind. If you have answers to their criticisms, you're not going to think your argument is any weaker and so you're likely to keep making it. It could be that we don't fully understand the criticisms, and it could be that the criticisms genuinely are inadequate. Some degree of emotional investment in a particular issue or in simply not wanting to admit you're wrong if it is the case could be aiding the fog that obscures your understanding of the criticisms. It would be unwise to underestimate how powerful these emotional investments are. It's easy to overlook all of this when you're a relative veteran of the scene, when you've heard all the arguments and know their ins and outs.
As long as people who know nothing beyond what they've been indoctrinated with arrive on the YouTube scene, they will continue to make these arguments. And let me stress again, I'm not talking about the Ray Comforts, Kent Hovinds and VenomFangXs. I'm talking about teenagers who live in the deep South and have been taught all their life, possibly even homeschooled to prevent access to anything that conflicts with that family's religious dogma, that there is a God, it created everything 6000 years ago, and that atheists are absolutely the worst degraded abominations of humanity. It's only their fault in their lacking of the superhuman mental strength needed to overcome such dogma. Of course, everyone is different. Some retain their curiosity, either due to their genetics or their environment, and the dogma is stronger in some places than it is in others, but to not be aware of this when we deal with them, as I've witnessed many many times, is to take action against them which will most likely be interpreted by them as a confirmation of everything they were taught to believe. When we ridicule them, we confirm the dogmatic stereotype of atheists, and we potentially lose any interest they could have had in understanding us better.
But this isn't restricted to religion and creationism. This is true regarding every issue. You're unlikely to come across the sheer magnitude and strength of the dogma found around religion, but to some degree, we are emotionally invested in some of our positions. When it comes to fundamentally moral issues such as statism vs anarchism, abortion or euthanasia, there is simply no right answer. Your particular moral views are likely to determine your position, regardless of the facts and arguments surrounding them. The facts and arguments only serve to grant the greatest possible logical strength to your position, but 2 experts who know all the ins and outs of the position could still have differing views based on their views on morality.
The moral of the story is this. People are going to make arguments you've heard before. They'll do it either because they haven't heard them before, or because they have, but they haven't been convinced yet. They might make an argument you haven't heard before, so it's not only inappropriate, but untrue to write them off as having been refuted. Either way, this is done far too often on the internet. Playing the game of internet debate requires patience and repetition. Can you stomach it?
8<{D-
Wednesday 11 April 2012
Stream of Consciousness: Things Are Looking Up
Hi guys, welcome to Orygyn!
So I haven't posted much in the past week. I'd normally be feeling pressure to do so but not this time. Elsewhere, my progress has been really good. I managed to upload a YouTube video, I got another song onto my AxyssTV channel, I've learned a whole lot more, I got my 1st subscriber on this blog, and, most importantly of all, after over 3 months of job hunting, I finally have an interview. As of now, I feel great.
First I'll talk about the video. It's called "A Stateless Society", and it was far better received than "Taxation Is Not Theft". There was still plenty of disagreement, don't get me wrong, but this time round I covered a more substantial issue, and as a result, this generated more discussion. There are a few relatively insubstantial things I want to address before I get to the substantial stuff. First, if I say something you don't agree with, I WANT you to call me out on it. A few people seemed apologetic about their response to the previous video, but the apology isn't necessary. The incredibly vast majority of people on both videos were very civil in their disagreements, and the fact that many were passionate about their beliefs doesn't detract from that. Secondly, 17 hours of no response from me is not long enough to conclude that I've left the discussion. In that amount of time someone could've been out, sleeping, at work, or any number of things, although probably not 1 thing on its own. It did come up so I feel I need to mention it.
As to the substantial stuff, I think there was really only 1 thing I can address without looking at further resources provided by people in the comment section. I addressed Stefan's slavery analogy relating to how a stateless society might work, that if an action or policy is immoral, it is not necessary to show that an alternative works before you outlaw it. The analogy goes that that was the case with slavery. I responded by saying that it is literally impossible that the first human society to exist had slaves, as non-slavery is the default position, and that there were already suitable examples of how non-slavery would work, as many were already practising it. One thing I didn't address was Stefan's example of a currently working stateless society: individual interaction. This came up in the comment section and proved highly contentious.
I disagree with Stefan in that I don't see his example as an example at all. In the slavery example, a non-slave, assuming (s)he isn't a slave master, is unaffected by slavery. They might know about it, but it doesn't impact the day-to-day activity of their life. A slave-free society, then, is simply a generalisation of the lives of all applicable non-slaves to everyone in society, and so, in a society with slaves, even if there is no significant prior example of a slave-free society, there is enough information provided by the non-slaves to suggest this society can work. Critics of my video pointed to Stefan's example of individual interaction as being generalisable in the same way to a stateless society. The problem I have with this is that individual interactions ARE affected by the state. The state imposes laws on us, telling us that we can't kill, rape, steal, do certain kinds of drugs, that we must pay tax etc. These are all legitimate criticisms of the state made by anarchists, but the fact that the state does this skews the "data" regarding the success of individual interactions. For the critics of my video to have a convincing argument, we need "data" on individual interaction in a state-free context. It's also not a case of generalising individual interactions anyway, the interactions can become very complex, and many of the interactions necessary in a stateless society don't and can't occur in our current societies. Hence why I encouraged someone to try to set up a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organisation) as outlined in Stefan's book.
There is another thought I've had and it's to do with the morality of the state. My main criticism of current anarcho-capitalist views was that the moral basis of their position seemed limited to taking the immorality of state violence, and violence against innocent people in general, as an absolute. I'll use Stefan's own slavery example to make my point, although it's unlikely that you'll agree if you don't share my more utilitarian approach to morality.
Stefan said that slavery should be outlawed on the basis of its immorality first and foremost. Now, let me be absolutely clear. I do not condone slavery. However, let's take a hypothetical slavery-legal society. What if the slaves themselves felt that their life was better under the slave master? What if the vast majority of slave owners were benevolent, and treated their slaves well? Now, you might say "it doesn't matter, they still don't have any freedom beyond that which the slave master chooses to grant them, and that's still wrong". But what if the slaves were aware of this argument but didn't value freedom that highly? At that point their decision is suitably informed. Now if the slave genuinely doesn't want to be freed from his slavery, who would anyone be to tell them that that slavery is immoral when even the victims of such slavery have come to an informed decision (this particular part is very important) that they disagree? Certainly, in such a society, anti-slavery politicians wouldn't have been very popular with these particular slaves.
The previous paragraph is how I feel about the state. Yes, my choices are follow the laws of the state, or live like a hermit, not participating in modern society. Yes, the state does enforce those laws through violent means. But, as things currently stand, I don't mind. If I'm a slave, I'm happy to be 1 for the time being. The moment when I think a stateless society could work, either when technology is sufficiently advanced enough to eliminate scarcity, or when I come across a convincing blueprint for a stateless society that can work today, I will change my mind. As things currently stand, I view the state as a net positive moral entity, simply because the moral opportunity cost of proposed alternatives I've come across, due to my assessment that they can't currently work, is too high. I appreciate the attempts anarchists have provided so far, and I will continue to look into the resources, but now I think anyone reading this has the clearest portrayal of my views on the issue I've ever given.
I now want to move onto drugs. I saw a documentary about cocaine: how and where it's produced and how it gets to the consumers. It focused on production in Colombia by farmers who would be in horrible poverty otherwise, how they sold it to the cartels to refine it, how it was trafficked to Mexico through their cartels, what law enforcement officials in Mexico and the USA are doing to combat it, and how the cartels adapt to new prevention strategies. After watching the documentary I saw a stunningly idiotic comment in the comment section. It said that the documentary was state propaganda. If anything, it was 1 of the strongest arguments for legalisation I've ever encountered. Despite raids on farmers and cartel labs in the jungle, and near-Orwellian border controls, they are still failing miserably to win the "war on drugs". The documentary clearly showed their utter failure, and 1 official even admitted that the problem was never going to go away.
Here's why I think legalising cocaine in all 3 countries can solve these problems. I'll look at everything mentioned in the documentary. First, the farmers, who are only trying to provide for their family, will not be raided. Now, what happens then is likely to be a trade-off of the process, because if it is legalised in all 3 countries, cocaine could be grown in either of the 3 countries (thanks to hydroponics and indoor farming, a warm climate is no longer necessary). Since the farmers mainly supply other countries, their business is likely to decrease, as it would most likely be cheaper to grow cocaine intended for American consumers in the USA. If demand for Colombian cocaine decreases, the prices will, and so the farmers would most likely need to find some other cash crop. However, the money formerly used by the Colombian government to raid the farmers could instead be used to fund projects which may ultimately help them.
The picture is far rosier elsewhere. Legal cocaine vendors in the USA, as it would then be legal to grow it there, would not need to do business with the Mexican and Colombian cartels. Since the incentive to deal drugs is money, this is likely to kill them off, unless they can find some other profitable black market to serve as their source of revenue.
The money that all 3 governments lose by fighting drug proliferation can now be money gained by taxing the newly legalised drug. Setting the level too high could keep the black market alive, if significantly weakened, as they could still undercut the legal businesses, but if set responsibly, it would be an excellent investment.
Finally, if Portugal is anything to go by, usage will actually decrease. It's important to pay attention to the nuances of Portugal's legislation as 1 detail different could change the outcome, but there is a lot to be learned from their approach to the issue as well as the approach of the Netherlands.
Well I think that's enough for today. Hopefully, things will continue to look up, and I hope they do for you too.
8<{D-
So I haven't posted much in the past week. I'd normally be feeling pressure to do so but not this time. Elsewhere, my progress has been really good. I managed to upload a YouTube video, I got another song onto my AxyssTV channel, I've learned a whole lot more, I got my 1st subscriber on this blog, and, most importantly of all, after over 3 months of job hunting, I finally have an interview. As of now, I feel great.
First I'll talk about the video. It's called "A Stateless Society", and it was far better received than "Taxation Is Not Theft". There was still plenty of disagreement, don't get me wrong, but this time round I covered a more substantial issue, and as a result, this generated more discussion. There are a few relatively insubstantial things I want to address before I get to the substantial stuff. First, if I say something you don't agree with, I WANT you to call me out on it. A few people seemed apologetic about their response to the previous video, but the apology isn't necessary. The incredibly vast majority of people on both videos were very civil in their disagreements, and the fact that many were passionate about their beliefs doesn't detract from that. Secondly, 17 hours of no response from me is not long enough to conclude that I've left the discussion. In that amount of time someone could've been out, sleeping, at work, or any number of things, although probably not 1 thing on its own. It did come up so I feel I need to mention it.
As to the substantial stuff, I think there was really only 1 thing I can address without looking at further resources provided by people in the comment section. I addressed Stefan's slavery analogy relating to how a stateless society might work, that if an action or policy is immoral, it is not necessary to show that an alternative works before you outlaw it. The analogy goes that that was the case with slavery. I responded by saying that it is literally impossible that the first human society to exist had slaves, as non-slavery is the default position, and that there were already suitable examples of how non-slavery would work, as many were already practising it. One thing I didn't address was Stefan's example of a currently working stateless society: individual interaction. This came up in the comment section and proved highly contentious.
I disagree with Stefan in that I don't see his example as an example at all. In the slavery example, a non-slave, assuming (s)he isn't a slave master, is unaffected by slavery. They might know about it, but it doesn't impact the day-to-day activity of their life. A slave-free society, then, is simply a generalisation of the lives of all applicable non-slaves to everyone in society, and so, in a society with slaves, even if there is no significant prior example of a slave-free society, there is enough information provided by the non-slaves to suggest this society can work. Critics of my video pointed to Stefan's example of individual interaction as being generalisable in the same way to a stateless society. The problem I have with this is that individual interactions ARE affected by the state. The state imposes laws on us, telling us that we can't kill, rape, steal, do certain kinds of drugs, that we must pay tax etc. These are all legitimate criticisms of the state made by anarchists, but the fact that the state does this skews the "data" regarding the success of individual interactions. For the critics of my video to have a convincing argument, we need "data" on individual interaction in a state-free context. It's also not a case of generalising individual interactions anyway, the interactions can become very complex, and many of the interactions necessary in a stateless society don't and can't occur in our current societies. Hence why I encouraged someone to try to set up a DRO (Dispute Resolution Organisation) as outlined in Stefan's book.
There is another thought I've had and it's to do with the morality of the state. My main criticism of current anarcho-capitalist views was that the moral basis of their position seemed limited to taking the immorality of state violence, and violence against innocent people in general, as an absolute. I'll use Stefan's own slavery example to make my point, although it's unlikely that you'll agree if you don't share my more utilitarian approach to morality.
Stefan said that slavery should be outlawed on the basis of its immorality first and foremost. Now, let me be absolutely clear. I do not condone slavery. However, let's take a hypothetical slavery-legal society. What if the slaves themselves felt that their life was better under the slave master? What if the vast majority of slave owners were benevolent, and treated their slaves well? Now, you might say "it doesn't matter, they still don't have any freedom beyond that which the slave master chooses to grant them, and that's still wrong". But what if the slaves were aware of this argument but didn't value freedom that highly? At that point their decision is suitably informed. Now if the slave genuinely doesn't want to be freed from his slavery, who would anyone be to tell them that that slavery is immoral when even the victims of such slavery have come to an informed decision (this particular part is very important) that they disagree? Certainly, in such a society, anti-slavery politicians wouldn't have been very popular with these particular slaves.
The previous paragraph is how I feel about the state. Yes, my choices are follow the laws of the state, or live like a hermit, not participating in modern society. Yes, the state does enforce those laws through violent means. But, as things currently stand, I don't mind. If I'm a slave, I'm happy to be 1 for the time being. The moment when I think a stateless society could work, either when technology is sufficiently advanced enough to eliminate scarcity, or when I come across a convincing blueprint for a stateless society that can work today, I will change my mind. As things currently stand, I view the state as a net positive moral entity, simply because the moral opportunity cost of proposed alternatives I've come across, due to my assessment that they can't currently work, is too high. I appreciate the attempts anarchists have provided so far, and I will continue to look into the resources, but now I think anyone reading this has the clearest portrayal of my views on the issue I've ever given.
I now want to move onto drugs. I saw a documentary about cocaine: how and where it's produced and how it gets to the consumers. It focused on production in Colombia by farmers who would be in horrible poverty otherwise, how they sold it to the cartels to refine it, how it was trafficked to Mexico through their cartels, what law enforcement officials in Mexico and the USA are doing to combat it, and how the cartels adapt to new prevention strategies. After watching the documentary I saw a stunningly idiotic comment in the comment section. It said that the documentary was state propaganda. If anything, it was 1 of the strongest arguments for legalisation I've ever encountered. Despite raids on farmers and cartel labs in the jungle, and near-Orwellian border controls, they are still failing miserably to win the "war on drugs". The documentary clearly showed their utter failure, and 1 official even admitted that the problem was never going to go away.
Here's why I think legalising cocaine in all 3 countries can solve these problems. I'll look at everything mentioned in the documentary. First, the farmers, who are only trying to provide for their family, will not be raided. Now, what happens then is likely to be a trade-off of the process, because if it is legalised in all 3 countries, cocaine could be grown in either of the 3 countries (thanks to hydroponics and indoor farming, a warm climate is no longer necessary). Since the farmers mainly supply other countries, their business is likely to decrease, as it would most likely be cheaper to grow cocaine intended for American consumers in the USA. If demand for Colombian cocaine decreases, the prices will, and so the farmers would most likely need to find some other cash crop. However, the money formerly used by the Colombian government to raid the farmers could instead be used to fund projects which may ultimately help them.
The picture is far rosier elsewhere. Legal cocaine vendors in the USA, as it would then be legal to grow it there, would not need to do business with the Mexican and Colombian cartels. Since the incentive to deal drugs is money, this is likely to kill them off, unless they can find some other profitable black market to serve as their source of revenue.
The money that all 3 governments lose by fighting drug proliferation can now be money gained by taxing the newly legalised drug. Setting the level too high could keep the black market alive, if significantly weakened, as they could still undercut the legal businesses, but if set responsibly, it would be an excellent investment.
Finally, if Portugal is anything to go by, usage will actually decrease. It's important to pay attention to the nuances of Portugal's legislation as 1 detail different could change the outcome, but there is a lot to be learned from their approach to the issue as well as the approach of the Netherlands.
Well I think that's enough for today. Hopefully, things will continue to look up, and I hope they do for you too.
8<{D-
Monday 2 April 2012
My Music Dissertation
This is the music dissertation I wrote last year for my music course at university. Sensitive information will be omitted and I can't provide the data but here you go.
Dissertation – The Changing Perceptions
of Popular Music
Name:
<omitted>
Matriculation
Number: <omitted>
Degree
course: BSc Mathematics and Music
Abstract
Listening to opinions on recent
popular music over the last few years has given me the sense that people
generally have a more negative perception of popular music of the last decade
than of popular music of the 20th century. This dissertation endeavours
to determine whether this is true, and why, by examining perceptions of popular
music with a focus on prevailing attitudes towards popular music of the 21st
century, and whether perceptions of 21st century popular music are indeed
more negative than perceptions of 20th century music. To these ends,
practical research was carried out amongst fifty members of the public, to
assess their views with regard to six different popular music eras and factors,
relating to the production of music and the listening experience, including,
but not limited to, how they discover music they like, the recording medium on
which they listen to music, where they get music from, including whether it is
bought or pirated, what social pressures they feel with respect to their
tastes, and whether they attend live performances. The findings of this
research can be summarised as follows. While the era most people regarded as a
favourite was the 21st century, on a rating scale it was rated joint
lowest with the 1980s. This suggests that there is a strong difference between
what people like and dislike, and what they view as good and bad. In addition, from
the more objective standpoint of good and bad, the 21st century is
perceived to lack good music more than the 20th century in general.
The most cited reason for this is that, in general, the music was made for
commercial purposes. However, there is strong disagreement with the idea that
all popular music of the 21st century is bad, regardless of genre. Other
points include that the most admired traits in an act are talent and originality.
It can be concluded that, in order to change negative perceptions of 21st
century popular music, acts must focus more on adopting the aforementioned
admired traits to appeal to the disillusioned listeners, as well as retaining
their mainstream appeal.
Introduction
Over the past few years, I have
listened to a lot of music on the internet. The internet has revolutionised the
way that music is sold, how it is listened to, and even the circumstances under
which it is produced, and one site, in particular, that I regularly use for
this purpose is YouTube. The music is accompanied either by its official music
video, containing the artist or band performing, a live performance by that
artist or band, a music video made by the YouTube user on whose channel the
video is hosted, photos of the artists or band set to the music, or simply the
album cover of the album from which the song originates. Below the video is a
comment section, where anyone can let the user, or people who have left other
comments, know what they think of the song. On almost every song that I’ve
heard on YouTube, at some point in the comment section, the same opinion is
expressed. The wording of the comment varies, as does the detail that the
person goes into, but the general idea remains the same: “music today sucks”.
An overwhelming number of people appear to have a very negative view of how
popular music, that is made today, compares to popular music that was made in
previous decades. Furthermore, this view is not limited to older people. Some
comments by older people, which have extended the criticism to the “kids
today”, that choose to listen to such music, have engendered criticism from
teenagers and even pre-teens, who state their age, and then talk about how much
they dislike today’s music. I want to explore this opinion: why people think
this, how many people think this, the extent to which they dislike music today,
what exactly they mean by “music today”, whether there is variation in opinion with
regard to gender, age, country, or the style of music that people listen to, what
could be different about the environment in which music is produced today that
could create music deemed to be so inferior, and whether this opinion is truly
representative of attitudes towards current music. It will also be necessary to
discover what perceptions people have about music made in previous decades.
The music industry has
fundamentally changed in the last decade in many ways, due to advancements in
technology, particularly computer technology, the internet, and the popularisation
of mp3 players, such as Apple’s iPod. Sites and applications such as Napster,
Limewire, and BitTorrents have made it easier for people to obtain music without
paying, thus encouraging piracy, and promoting the view that it is acceptable. The
Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA, is trying to control this
piracy. However, due to the fundamental structure of the internet, in that
there are numerous sites to upload music to, ways to record music from such
sites if it cannot be downloaded, and even functions built into social
networking software such as MSN or Skype that allow you to send files to your
friends, gaining total control of the problem would not be feasible. Musicians
themselves need not book recording time in a studio to record an album, as
various types of music making hardware and software can be connected to, or
installed on, a computer, so that music can be composed and recorded in one’s
home. These developments mean that more music is being produced now than in any
other decade, with literally millions of musicians or bands uploading their
music to the internet. In light of these changes, it will be necessary to find
out how people find out about new music, how and where they buy it, whether
they buy it at all, and how this compares to how music was bought in previous
generations. In addition, it would be interesting to find out what form of recording
media people listen to music on. I am aware that music stores have been selling
recently released music on vinyl, so it would be interesting to investigate whether
a significant number of people still buy vinyl records.
In schools, it is not unusual for
students to form social groups on the basis of their musical tastes. These
musical groups extend beyond school. Current examples include indie kids, scene
kids, emos, and metalheads. Since I expect to get a significant number of
respondents who are my age or younger, this dissertation presents an excellent
opportunity to investigate the effect of social pressures within schools on one’s
musical tastes.
Most importantly of all, the
importance of certain features of the music should be investigated. An analysis
of how important these musical features are to the respondents, and how they
change over the demographics, will reveal whether there is a discrepancy in the
demand for certain musical features, and the musical features of music being
released today, which will be a particularly significant indicator that there
is a legitimate concern amongst those who listen to popular music in the 21st
century.
Finally, it will be necessary to
examine people’s perceptions with regard to live music. If enough people are
disenchanted with mainstream music, I would expect to see a significant amount
of people going to performances by local acts as one method of discovering new
music they like. Whether their perceptions of an act change would depend on the
live performance of that act: whether they use Auto-Tune, or whether they play
the instruments in the recording, or they just sing along to a backing track. Whether
they prefer to listen to the act perform live, or to listen to a recording of
them, can tell us a lot about acts which particular groups of people, in the
context of their musical tastes, see, and the effect which the music has on
them live compared to the effect of listening to them on a recording.
After completing the investigation,
I can then build up a picture of people’s tastes, the social factors and
musical environment which influence them, the specific traits which they value
in a piece of music, and whether live performances influence their decisions.
Once this has been achieved, this picture can be compared with current and
former musical landscapes to identify the changes that need to be made, and to
discuss whether they can be, so that the current musical landscape compliments
the tastes of the public, rather than coming into conflict with them.
Literature Review
This research is motivated less by
existing academic research on the subject, and more on my observations of
people’s opinions, and conversations with people who feel this way. As such,
the preliminary stages of the research were to continue making these
observations, and to take case studies of certain artists and songs, which best
represent, or represented, mainstream music. This section of the dissertation,
therefore, will be reserved for these case studies. They will look at specific
features of the music and image of the artists or bands described.
Lady Gaga is an American pop star, arguably
the most popular, in the world right now. She achieved international fame with
the release of her 2008 album, The Fame, which contained the very popular
singles, “Just Dance” and “Poker Face”. Her songs are primarily synthesiser
driven and accompanied by a 4/4 dance music style drum rhythm. Her lyrics tend
to focus on love, enjoying oneself and partying. Where Lady Gaga really stands
out though is in her fashion sense. In live performances she wears elaborate
costumes, which are designed by her fashion collective, the Haus of Gaga, with
prominent examples being a suit made entirely out of meat, and a bubble dress. In
addition to her extraverted fashion sense and synthpop, she is a vocal advocate
of LGBT rights, being bisexual herself, speaking out on her official YouTube
channel against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a policy of the American government which
allows homosexuals to serve in the US military only if they keep it a secret,
and in return they will not be asked about it. She also gave a speech against
it at the National Equality March in Washington D.C. on October 11, 2009. Gaga
has stated that her gay fans were instrumental in her obtaining early exposure
to radio stations, thus setting the groundwork for her later success.
Justin Bieber is a Canadian pop
star who received international exposure after being discovered on YouTube by
Scooter Braun, an American talent manager. He polarises public opinion due to possessing
a voice, which has not yet matured, and the characteristics, both musical and
lyrical, of his music. His music and lyrics are written in collaboration with
numerous other song writers and producers. His single, “Baby”, in particular,
has been extremely popular, being viewed over 500 million times on YouTube,
making it the most viewed video on the site. The child-like qualities of his
voice, his catchy mainstream sound, and even the debate and hatred resulting
from and aroused towards him have helped him become and, so far, remain
successful.
Madonna, dubbed the “Queen of Pop”,
is one of the most successful pop stars in history, as she has been
consistently successful as a pop star, since the beginning of her career as a
pop star in 1982. As with Lady Gaga, Madonna’s pop sounds have relied on
synthesisers and consistent drum rhythms, as befits the style at the time, her
lyrics have primarily revolved around love, enjoying oneself, and partying, and
she is celebrated as a gay icon. Her influence on current popular music is
enormous, with pop stars such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Lady
Gaga all citing her as such. It is not so much vocal talent, as her ability to
reinvent her persona to keep up with the trends of the time, and the catchiness
of her songs, that make Madonna such a success and enormous influence, with
songs such as “Papa Don’t Preach”, “Like A Prayer”, “Ray of Light”, and “Music”
achieving significant commercial success, while varying in their musical attributes.
Therefore, Madonna’s traits as a popular music act are originality,
versatility, and catchy songs.
Nirvana were an alternative rock
band from Aberdeen, Washington, who popularised the grunge movement when they
released their second album, Nevermind, in 1991. The album, taking everyone by
surprise, went to #1 on the American Billboard charts, and has sold 26 million
copies as of today. Their lead singer, Kurt Cobain, wanted Nevermind to combine
the sound of the alternative rock scene in Seattle with catchy pop melodies.
The lyrical themes of Nirvana’s songs are varied, and Cobain has been critical
of people attempting a “second-rate Freudian analysis” of his lyrics, but they
include teenage rebellion (Smells Like Teen Spirit), a real-life rape incident
(Polly), acceptance and tolerance (Come As You Are), and a distaste for
judgemental people, whom he doesn’t like, going to his concerts (In Bloom). Nirvana
split up in 1994 following Cobain’s suicide via heroin and shooting himself
with a shotgun, and drummer, Dave Grohl, who commands enormous respect for his
abilities on his instrument, has gone on to form the Foo Fighters, and drum in
collaboration with other bands. Nirvana, then, had very catchy songs,
significant expressive ability, and a wide variety of complex and interesting
lyrical themes.
Queen were a British rock band
responsible for some of the most memorable songs ever written, who were consistently
successful up until the death of their lead singer and frontman, Freddie
Mercury. Queen have employed a diverse range of styles including rock,
vaudeville, 80s pop, heavy metal, progressive rock, ballads and opera. Songs
were written entirely by each of the four members of the band on their own,
until their 1989 album, The Miracle, when they started collaborating. As such,
the musical and lyrical themes of the songs vary considerably, but all four
members have contributed songs which have been extremely popular. For example,
Mercury wrote “Bohemian Rhapsody”, drummer, Roger Taylor, wrote “Radio Ga Ga”,
bassist, John Deacon, wrote “Another One Bites the Dust”, and guitarist, Brian
May, wrote “We Will Rock You”. All four members are highly praised for their
skills on their respective instruments, particularly Mercury’s vocal abilities
and stage presence, both of which are widely perceived as the most impressive
by any popular music act ever. Queen’s songs are frequently used at various
events, particularly the use of “We Are the Champions” at football matches, in
adverts, films, and TV shows. There has even been a documentary, “The Story of
Bohemian Rhapsody”, made about “Bohemian Rhapsody”, one of the most successful
and respected songs ever written, about its recording environment, and lyrical
meaning, which remains the subject of debate. Queen possess extraordinary
instrumental and vocal talent, the ability to write catchy, original songs in a
wide variety of styles, and significant expressive abilities.
Bearing these case studies in mind,
the pop music charts today suggest that the vast majority of music produced
fits most of the characteristics of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber. They tend to
be love songs, or they tend to be songs designed for use in a nightclub. It is
rare for a chart-topping single to deviate from this formula today. Continuous
saturation of the pop charts with music that fits this description will
discourage many from wanting to listen to that entire style of music. The
pertinent question to ask is this: why is there such a dominance of these types
of music today? In order for these songs to continue to become number ones,
there would need to be continuous significant demand for them, yet, if there is
such a backlash, why isn’t this reflected in the demand? Where is the challenge
to this mainstream, and why is it so impotent in comparison to music that draws
such criticism and shame?
Methodology
I set up a questionnaire, which I
sent out to fifty people, asking them thirty-two questions to try to gauge
general attitudes towards popular music made today, and during previous
decades. The timeline of popular music has been split into six eras: music made
before 1960, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and I combined the 2000s and
2010s into one era, given that only one year of the 2010s has elapsed. The
respondents were then asked which of the six aforementioned eras they grew up
in. I had three groups of nationalities: British, American, and Other. I had
six age groups: 11-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, and 66 or over. If
respondents were 25 years old or under, they were also asked if they were still
in school or at university.
Question 1 asked the respondents
which genres of music they listened to. There were fifteen options which they
could have chosen: pop, rock, country, R&B, hip-hop and rap, jazz, soul,
metal, easy listening, world, classical, dance, blues, alternative, and
religious. An “Other” option was given for respondents to write-in genres of music
which were not covered by the fifteen pre-codes. The purpose of this question
was to associate attitudes towards the six aforementioned eras of music with
the genre of music that the respondents listen to, to see if there are
variations. Such variations are predicted because there is conflict between
fans of different genres of music. For example, fans of alternative music, and
particularly punk rock, frequently express criticisms towards more mainstream
popular music, due to its focus on image, or strongly held principles that
music should not be written to make money.
Question 2 consisted of four parts.
The first asked respondents how often they listened to music made during each
of the six eras: regularly, occasionally, rarely, or never, and an extra option,
“Don’t Know”, was added for respondents who were unsure. This was to gauge
whether or not they should be asked later questions, which ask their general
opinions of those eras, the music of which they listen to occasionally or
regularly. The second part of the question asked how frequently they listened
to music of the time in each era. The same options were given, with the
addition of “N/A” for people who had not been born at the time. For example, a
20 year old would circle “N/A” for the Pre-60s, 60s, 70s, and 80s eras, as they
had not been born until at least 1990. These two parts were assigned a score of
3 for “Regularly”, 2 for “Occasionally”, 1 for “Rarely”, and 0 for “Never”. The
third part of the question asked the respondents to pick a favourite era, and
the fourth asked them why they picked it. Available options were nostalgia,
variety of music, atmosphere, a lot of musical talent, musical features, and
lyrics, again with the addition of “Other”, where respondents could give
another reason.
The next twelve questions came in
pairs. Each pair was associated with one of the six eras; for example,
questions 3 and 4 would be associated with the Pre-60s era. Each first question
was split up into four parts and each second question was split up into three.
Regarding the first question in
each pair, the first part asked respondents about the genres of music they
listened to from each era. They had five genres of music to choose from, and an
“Other” option where they could write in the name of a genre that was not
covered. Then, they were asked to write down their favourite artist or band
from that era, what they liked about them, and to circle the styles of music
that they played, with the available options being the same as in the first
part of the question. The aim of this question is to gather specific details
about respondents’ preferences, particularly finding out what traits of an act
are most desired, so as to reveal the qualities that the ideal act might
possess.
The second question in each pair asked
respondents to rate each era on a scale of 1 to 10, so that an average rating
could be determined, what they liked about that era in general, with the same
options as the third part of question 2, and what they disliked about it,
choosing from simplistic, cheesy, lack of talent, image, commercial, and
“Other”, again writing in their other criticism. This allows for the six eras
to be compared to each other as objectively as possible, while revealing the
qualities of each musical era that respondents like and dislike.
Question 15 asked the respondents
about their family’s attitudes towards popular music, and was split into six
parts. With the exception of the fourth part, which asked respondents if they
had children over 11, each gave the respondents the option to answer “Very
Unfavourably”, “Favourably”, “Neither good nor bad”, “Unfavourably”, “Very
Unfavourably”, “Disinterested”, and “Don’t Know”. The first part asked
respondents how the music of their childhood was viewed by their parents. The
second asked them what they thought of the music that their parents liked. The
third asked what they thought of the music being made during their own
childhood. The respondents who said that they had children over 11 years old
were then asked to answer the fifth part of the question: what they thought of
the music being made during their children’s childhood; and the sixth, what
their children thought of it. A mean score was calculated from the results with
“Very Favourably” representing 2, “Favourably” representing 1, “Neither good
nor bad” representing 0, “Unfavourably” representing -1, and “Very
Unfavourably” representing -2. This question has two purposes: the first to
implicitly multiply the number of respondents with regard to the general view
of the six eras, and to find out whether, as is commonly believed, parents tend
to disapprove of their children’s music.
Question 16 probes the respondents
to describe, in more detail, what they think of contemporary popular music. The
first of three parts of the question presents the respondents with six
criticisms, and are asked whether they agree strongly, slightly, neither agree
nor disagree, disagree slightly, or disagree strongly, and, again, they are
given the option of saying “Don’t Know”. These six statements were as follows:
- Mainstream music in general is of bad quality.
People must look underground or to the past to find music they like.
- All current music is of bad quality, regardless of
genre.
- Music today generally lacks soul (emotional
appeal).
- Mediocrity in music is celebrated now.
- The majority of current music is made for the sole
purpose of making money.
- Lyrical meaning is limited to sex, partying, money
and fame.
The second part of the question
asked respondents whether contemporary popular music is better, worse, or as
good as 20th century popular music, with the option of saying “Don’t
Know”. If they answered with worse, they were asked to write in why. This
question concentrates on the focus of the survey, probing respondents to the
maximum extent possible about their opinions of popular music today.
Questions 17 and 18 were three-part
questions asking respondents how they find and obtain music. Question 17 asked
them how they obtain it today, and question 18 asked them how they obtained it
when they were at school or university, although only respondents who have
finished both were asked this question. In both cases, part one asked them if
and where they find out about music, choosing from “Radio”, “Internet”,
“School”, “Friends”, “Magazines”, “Family”, and “TV”, and writing in any
others. The option “None” was also available if they didn’t look for music.
Part two asked them to pick the music source that they went to the most. Part
three asked them where they went to get new music; “Music stores”, “Sent by
friends”, “Gigs”, “Bootlegging”, “iTunes (or other legitimate internet
stores)”, “P2P networks (e.g. Limewire)”, “Torrents (or other illegitimate
internet download sites)”, “Streaming sites/applications (e.g. Spotify)”,
“Social networking site downloads (e.g. Facebook)”, “Sent by family”, “Other”,
followed by a space to write in what other source they use, or “None”. These
are two of many questions designed to assess the environment in which the
respondents’ opinions of popular music are formed.
Question 19, a two-part question,
asked respondents how their school classmates’ music taste compared with their
own. First they were asked whether they shared the vast majority of their taste
with their classmates, whether they differed slightly, differed significantly,
or whether there was next to no overlap in their tastes. Secondly, they were
asked whether they were made fun of for their tastes. This question examines
the role of peer pressure in the process of respondents forming their tastes.
Question 20 asked respondents to
assess how important the following musical features were to them: lyrics,
musical complexity, originality, whether the music is catchy, the length of the
song, musical talent, the emotional impact of the song, and whether it is good for
dancing to. In examining the exact features of the music, one can determine
what respondents expect from a song.
Respondents, who said that lyrics
were quite or very important to them, answered question 21, which asked them
what types of lyrics, or lyrical themes, interested them. Their choices were
“Personal (specific)”, “Narratives”, “Political”, “Love”, “Partying/dancing”,
“Confrontational”, “Money”, “Fantasy”, “Religious”, “Other” with a writing
space, and “Don’t Know”.
Respondents, who said that musical
complexity was quite or very important to them, answered question 22, which
asked them whether they preferred simple or complex music, or whether it
depends on the song. Again, a “Don’t Know” option was given.
Respondents, who said that the
length of the song was quite or very important to them, answered question 23,
which asked them whether they preferred songs under 4 minutes long, songs from
4 to 7 minutes long, or songs longer than 7 minutes. A “Don’t Know” option was
given.
Respondents, who said that musical
talent was important to them, answered the two-part question 24, asking them
which instrumental talents, and which vocal talents they admire most. The
options for instrumental talents were expressive ability, performance speed,
performance dexterity, innovative use of the instrument, use of instrumental
effects, and performance charisma. “Other”, with a writing space, and “Don’t
Know” options were given. The options for vocal talents were expressive
ability, distinctive voice, pitch range, vocal techniques (e.g. vibrato),
versatility, pitch accuracy, and vocal strength. Again, “Other”, with a writing
space, and “Don’t Know” options were given.
Respondents over the age of 25 then
answered question 25, which asked them whether they listened to music on vinyl,
cassette, CD, or in the mp3 or other digital format, when they were growing up.
“Other”, with a writing space, and “Don’t Know” were also options. Question 26
asked all respondents the same question with regard to the present day. Information
about listening formats is important to the survey, because it can tell us
where they listen to music, giving us more information about the environment in
which they form their opinions.
Question 27 asked respondents how
often they attended live concerts. The options were weekly or more frequently,
2-3 times a month, monthly, every 2-3 months, every 4-6 months, annually, less
frequently, or never, with the additional option of saying “Don’t Know”. Live
concerts could be a primary method for discovering new music, and they have the
ability to change perceptions of acts, depending on how well they perform.
Questions 28 to 31 were asked of
all respondents who attended concerts at least annually. Question 28 asked
respondents what types of live events they went to, choosing from gigs by local
acts, gigs by nationally recognised acts, gigs by internationally recognised
acts, multi-act tours, and music festivals. The options “Other”, with a writing
space, “None, and “Don’t Know” were also available. The type of acts the
respondents see can tell us more about their opinions towards current music.
Question 29 asked respondents how
often they were introduced to music they liked, going to live events. Options
were “Never”, “Rarely”, “Sometimes”, “Often”, “Every gig”, and “Don’t Know”.
Question 30 asked respondents how
often watching particular acts live changed their opinion of them. Options were
“Yes, always”, “Yes, sometimes”, “Yes, depending on who is performing”, “No”,
and “Don’t Know”.
Question 31 asked respondents
whether they preferred seeing the same act live, or listening to them on a
recording or music video. Additional options were given for people who had no
preference or didn’t know. If respondents prefer live acts, then live concerts will
likely be where a significant part of their views towards current popular music
are formed.
Finally, for the respondents who
chose live, question 32 asked them why they had this preference. The options
were “Experience of seeing them live”, “More social atmosphere”, and “Music
affects me more/more effective”. “Other”, with a writing space, and “Don’t
Know” options were available as well. This question can be used to determine
the factors which lead to an ideal live performance and the extent to which a
live act can control these factors.
Findings and Discussion
The data from the 50 questionnaires
provides some interesting insight into the minds of people who listen to
popular music today. Some of the findings are fairly intuitive, and others are
very surprising, but all of them need to be taken in combination with each
other to produce as complete a picture as possible of what people think of
contemporary popular music.
Of the 50 respondents, only three
were aged 56 or over, and so the 56-65, and 66 and over categories were
combined with the 46-55 category to make a 46 and over category. There may
therefore be a lack of detail in the answers to some questions, particularly
ones dealing with the Pre-60s and 60s music periods. The gender, age, and
nationality demographics were used as cross breaks for the data.
Of the 50 respondents, 31 were male
and 19 were female. There were 20 respondents aged 11-25, 12 aged 26-35, 7 aged
36-45, and 11 aged 46 or over. 39 were British, 5 were American, and 6 were of
another nationality.
It is important that we get some
insight into the listening habits of the respondents. Style was used as another
cross break so all of the group sizes will be given. The most popular genre of
music was rock with 42 of the respondents (84%) listening to it. As some
context, the second most popular style of music was pop with 34 of the respondents
(68%) listening to it. The others were country with 16 (32%), R&B with 21
(42%), hip-hop & rap with 20 (40%), jazz with 20 (40%), soul with 16 (32%),
metal with 23 (46%), easy listening with 14 (28%), world with 12 (24%),
classical with 30 (60%), dance with 16 (32%), blues with 20 (40%), alternative
with 23 (46%), and other with 6 (12%). Respondents consistently listened to
more recent music than older music, with the average rate of listening
increasing in an unbroken trend across the decades to the present day. On a
scale of 0 to 3, the pre-60s era scored 1.6, the 60s scored 1.76, the 70s
scored 1.98, the 80s scored 2.18, the 90s scored 2.44, and the 2000s/2010s
scored 2.54. With respect to gender, there is little variation apart from in
the pre-60s period, where males scored 1.36 and females scored 1.89. With
respect to age, those aged 46 and over listened most often to pre-60s music, with
a score of 2.11, with an unbroken decrease in listening frequency correlating
with age, so that the 11-25 year olds had a score of 1.23. The 36-45 year olds
listened most often to 60s (2.5), 70s (2.67), and 80s music (2.83), and tied
with the 26-35 year olds on 90s music (2.83 each), with the trend in each case
being that the further from the 36-45 year old age group another age group was,
the less often they listened to music from that time period. The 11-25 year
olds listened most often to 2000s/2010s music, with 2.67, with the frequency
dropping as age rises to the 46 and over group (2.3). Americans listened more
often to music of every era than any other nationality. The scores for
listening habits during each era were consistent from the 70s to the 2000s/2010s
(2.52-2.63), but the scores were lower for the pre-60s (2.2) and 60s (2.09). The
2000s/2010s era was chosen as a favourite by the largest number of respondents,
with 28% of the votes. Regardless of which of the six eras was chosen as a
favourite, the dominant reasons for choosing that era were talent and variety.
Questions 3a, 5a, 7a, 9a, 11a, and
13a, which asked the respondents which styles of music they listened to in each
era, produced the following results. In the pre-60s period, the most popular
style of music was Jazz with 43% listening to it. In the 60s, two styles were
close: rock with 45%, and pop with 42%. In the 70s, it was rock with 61%. In
the 80s, two styles had 50% or more of the respondents as listeners: rock with
74%, and pop with 63%. In the 90s, three styles had 50% or over: alternative
rock with 60%, pop with 57%, and heavy metal with 52%. In the 2000s/2010s, two
styles had 50% or over: rock with 74%, and pop with 61%. Questions 3c, 5c, 7c,
9c, 11c, and 13c, which are in chronological order with respect to the
questions, and which asked the respondents to rate each era on a scale of 1 to
10, show a different result to those derived from question 2c about the
respondents’ favourite era. While the 2000s/2010s were chosen as the favourite,
the same era was rated joint lowest with the 80s, with an average score of 7.58.
This is not a contradiction though, as it could simply be that respondents who
did not pick the 2000s/2010s as their favourite era rated that era lower than
respondents who did had rated other eras. It could also be down to the wording
of the question: “favourite” is a subjective term whereas asking the
respondents to rate the era requires a less personal and more objective
assessment. The dominant reasons for this era being disliked are that
respondents considered it, in descending order of importance, too commercially
orientated, lacking talent, focusing too much on image and being cheesy. The
highest rated era, with an average score of 9.06, was the 60s, and the dominant
reason for liking it was that it had a lot of musical talent.
I asked respondents to name a
favourite band, so that the most prominent could be examined in more detail.
There were omissions, and some respondents either stated that they didn’t have
a favourite, or picked more than one, and in both cases, this was accepted.
There were four acts cited as a favourite five times or more: Muse, Oasis,
Metallica, and The Beatles. Muse are a very popular British alternative rock
group, Oasis were a very popular Brit-pop band, Metallica are a very popular
American thrash metal/alternative rock group, and The Beatles were a British
rock group from the 1960s, that commands enormous respect, was extremely
commercially successful, and project enormous influence over contemporary
popular music. In addition, the Canadian progressive rock band, Rush, were
cited as a favourite across three different decades: the 80s, the 90s, and the
2000s/2010s; the only act to achieve this result.
The mean scores for question 15, which
dealt with perceptions of music by parents and children, were as follows. 20%
of parents of the respondents were not interested in the music being produced
during the childhood of the respondents. Of those who were, the average score
was -0.05, indicating that they neither approved nor disapproved. The
respondents themselves viewed the music of their parents’ generation in a slightly
more favourable light, as evidenced by their mean score of 0.26. Respondents
viewed their own childhood music in a slightly more favourable light still,
with a mean score of 0.79. 24% of respondents had children over the age of 11.
These respondents had a favourable view, although slightly less so than towards
their own childhood music, of the music of their children’s childhood, with a
score of 0.5, and the children had the highest mean score, and thus most
positive view of all, for their view of the respondents’ childhood music, with 1.1.
The mean scores for question 16,
asking respondents whether they agreed with six criticisms of contemporary
popular music, were as follows. Respondents were neutral on their view of
mainstream music with a mean score of -0.02. Those demographics most agreed
that it was of bad quality were males (0.1), 36-45 year olds (0.14), and Americans
(0.2). Among style groups, metal and alternative listeners expressed agreement,
with scores of 0.22 and 0.3 respectively, but the “Other” category expressed particularly
strong agreement, with a score of 0.67. Hip-Hop & Rap, pop, and jazz
listeners expressed relatively strong disagreement, with scores of -0.53,
-0.33, and -0.3 respectively. Respondents most strongly disagreed with the idea
that all contemporary popular music was bad, with a score of -1.45. All
demographics were representative of this, with the 46 and over category being
least so with -1.27, as is the case with the style groups, with the strongest
disagreement expressed by the “Other” category again (-1.83). Respondents
expressed a small amount of disagreement with the criticism that music today
lacks soul, with a mean score of -0.38. This is represented well over the
demographics, with the exception of those, whose nationalities were classified
as “Other”. This group was the only one to score positively: 0.2, and the
alternative style group scored exactly 0. Respondents expressed moderate levels
of agreement with the criticism that mediocrity in music is celebrated now,
with a score of 0.53. A particularly interesting observation from the data is
that there is more than one point of difference between the 11-25 year olds,
with 0.06, and the 26-35 year olds, with 1.17, the lowest and highest scores
from the individual demographics respectively. In other words, the 11-25 year
olds had an almost neutral view of the criticism, whereas the 26-35 year olds
expressed significant levels of agreement. The American and “Other”
demographics also differed from the mean with scores of 1.00 and 0.33
respectively. The other demographics were representative of the total mean. One
particular style group, “Other”, scored 1.5, expressing extremely strong
agreement with this criticism, whereas the “Hip-hop & Rap” group scored
0.15. Respondents expressed significant agreement with the criticism that the
majority of current music is made for the sole purpose of making money, with a
mean score of 0.96. The demographics are fairly representative of this mean with
slightly over half a point of difference between the lowest scoring group, the
26-35 year olds with 0.71, and the highest, the 36-45 year olds with 1.25. Once
again the “Other” style group expressed the strongest agreement with 1.67. What
is particularly interesting is that this criticism is made particularly
strongly against hip-hop & rap, and yet this group expressed the weakest
agreement, tied with the jazz group. Finally, respondents had a neutral view on
the criticism that lyrical meaning is limited to sex, partying, money and fame,
with a mean of -0.02. However, there is little consistency among the
demographics. While the most disagreement came from the 11-25 year olds, with
-0.28, the Americans agreed significantly, with a score of 1.00. However, they
also had a standard deviation, of 0.69, so there was widespread disagreement
within this demographic as well. There is greater consistency among the style groups,
however. When asked the question of whether they thought current music was
better or worse than previous eras, only 8% said that they thought it was
better, all of whom were British and in the 11-25 year old age group. 34%
thought it was worse. This is represented well over the demographics, with the
exception of the 36-45 year old group, only one of whom had this view. 50%
thought that current music was as good as previous eras, representing well over
the demographics, with the same exception: all other members of the 36-45 year
old age group, 86% of them, had this view. The remaining 8%, all males and all
11-25, were unsure. The style groups represented by 2 or more respondents, who
thought music today was better, were rock (2), pop (3), country (2) and R&B
(3). A very interesting observation is made when examining the additional
criticisms made by the respondents. Of the respondents who thought that music
today is worse than music from previous eras, 35% of them had nothing further
to add; however, every respondent who did had something different to say. The
criticisms were as follows. There is musical talent, but it is not receiving
widespread exposure. The image of the artist or band is perceived as more
important than the musical and lyrical content of the song. The radio doesn’t
explore beyond the mainstream, it simply plays mainstream music. The music
doesn’t have staying power, and will be forgotten quickly. There are too many
similar acts. The enormous variety of music around today is not displayed, or
easily accessible to the public. The lyrics are crude. Talent shows are
responsible for producing particularly poor quality music. Singers shout rather
than sing. The musical styles of today are recycled from previous decades. Music
has become a commodity. There are too many one-hit wonders. There is generally
very little integrity in the music. Finally, there is very little time taken in
writing the music.
There were four sources for finding
out about music that 50% or more of the respondents used. These will be
presented in descending order. The most popular, with 78% of respondents using
it, was the internet. Secondly, 70% of respondents found out about new music
from the radio. Thirdly, 56% found out about music from there friends, and,
with exactly 50%, was family as the fourth most popular source for finding out
about music. When asked which source was most significantly used to find out
about music, again, the internet was the most popular choice with 38%, and
radio was second with 32%. There were three sources for obtaining new music
that were frequented by 50% or more of the respondents. Again, in descending
order these were music stores with 74%, and then friends and iTunes, or other
legitimate internet stores, were tied with 50% each. 36% of respondents pirated
music either from P2P networks or Torrents. All of those who did it in their
childhood continue to do it. Piracy was most committed by 11-25 year olds, with
60% of them engaging in it. It was also more popular with males than females,
with 48% of males engaging in it, as opposed to 16% of females. Rates of piracy
ranged between 25%, with world music listeners, and 50%, with hip-hop and rap
listeners, and listeners of other music.
62% of respondents were not either
in school or university, and so answered the same three questions with regard
to their childhoods. The four most prominent sources, used by 50% or more of
the respondents, are, in descending order, friends with 74%, radio with 68%, TV
with 55%, and magazines with 52%. With nearly three times as many votes as its
nearest contender, radio was chosen as the most significant source of finding
new music during the respondents’ childhoods, with 45%. Finally, by far the
most frequented source for new music, and the only one used by more than 50% of
respondents, was music stores with 81% of respondents using them.
The extent to which the tastes of
classmates of the respondents compared with the respondents was as follows. 30%
said that classmates shared the vast majority of their tastes, 36% said that
their classmates’ tastes differed slightly, 30% said that their classmates’
tastes differed significantly, and only 4% said that they had next to nothing
in common musically with their classmates. 34% of respondents said that they
were made fun of for their tastes. If respondents tastes were more different to
their classmates, being made fun of was more likely, and this trend was
perfectly consistent: 7% of respondents, the vast majority of whose tastes were
shared with their classmates, were made fun of, this rose to 28% when the
differences were slight, 60% when the differences were significant, and 100%
when there was next to nothing in common.
The mean scores for question 20, in
which respondents were asked how important certain musical features were, the
results were as follows. Lyrics had a mean score of 2.98, meaning that it was
viewed as significantly important by the respondents. The highest scoring
group, with 3.43, were the 36-45 year olds, and the lowest, with 2.5, were the
26-35 year olds. The aforementioned importance of lyrics, then, is
representative across all demographics and style groups, although to a lesser
extent by listeners of dance (2.53) and world music (2.67). Musical complexity
was also considered important, although slightly less so, with a mean score of
2.51. While this is well represented, amongst the demographics, there are two
significant outliers: those aged 46 or over, with 2.11, or neither important
nor unimportant, and Americans with 3.4, or very important. There is good
consistency across the style groups, with “Other” achieving the lowest score of
2.33, and jazz achieving the highest with 2.79. Originality was considered very
important by respondents, with a mean score of 3.31. No demographic gave it a score
less than 3, with the group of other nationalities giving it exactly that, but it
achieved an average score of 3.8 amongst Americans. Consistency is very strong
across the style groups too with R&B scoring lowest (3.19), and alternative
scoring highest (3.52). Whether or not a song is catchy was of significant
importance to the respondents as well, scoring exactly 3. The only outlier in
the demographics was the group consisting of respondents with nationalities
other than British or American, scoring 2.17. The style groups produce
extremely intuitive results, with metal scoring lowest (2.52), and pop scoring
highest (3.29). The length of a piece was regarded by the respondents as being
of relatively little importance, achieving a mean score of just 1.4. 26-35 year
olds, in particular, found it to have very little importance, giving it only
0.58. No group gave it 2 or more, with the highest being 1.9, by the 11-25 year
olds. Although the scores do differ, this only translates as disagreement over
how unimportant length is. The style groups reflect this apathy as well,
particularly by the “Other” group (0.33), and with pop giving it the highest
score (1.56). Musical talent was considered exactly as important as
originality, also achieving a mean score of 3.31. The 26-35 year olds group was
the only one to score less than 3, and the highest scoring group were the
Americans again with 3.6. The mean score, then, is represented well across the
demographics. Again, the style groups have produced a very intuitive result:
classical listeners value talent highest (3.62), whereas dance music listeners scored
lowest (exactly 3). Emotional impact was another aspect of the music viewed
with significant importance by the respondents, with a mean score of 3.13. The
36-45 year olds viewed it as being extremely important, giving it a score of
3.71, otherwise the consistency amongst the demographics is good. The soul,
jazz, and “Other” style groups all scored 3.6 or more. Finally, respondents
thought that whether the music was good for dancing was neither important nor
unimportant, achieving a mean score of 2.04. Demographics were more or less
equally distributed over each side of 2, with the only outlier being those of
nationality other than British or American, scoring 1.2. The “Other” group
produced the lowest score among the style groups, with 1.5, whereas dance music
listeners gave it 2.73.
72% of respondents viewed the
lyrics of a song as being quite or very important. Three categories of lyrics
interested more than 50% of the respondents. These, in descending order, were
lyrics which were personal to the writer, with 78%, narratives or storylines,
with 58%, and love, with 53%. “Personal” was the most popular lyrical theme
amongst every style group without exception.
46% of respondents viewed the
complexity of the music as being quite or very important. However, the vast
majority, 70%, of those thought that it depended on the song. 9% definitively
preferred simple music, and 17% definitively preferred complex music. The 9%
who preferred simple music all belonged to the pop, rock, and easy listening
style groups. The 17% who preferred complex music all belonged to the rock, classical
and alternative style groups.
Only 16% of respondents viewed the
length of the song as being quite or very important, meaning that the data that
follows isn’t very substantive. However, of those who did view it as important,
50% preferred that the song be four minutes long or shorter. The 50% that
preferred songs of length four minutes or shorter all belonged to the rock
style group.
84% of respondents viewed musical
talent as being quite or very important. Four types of instrumental talent were
particularly valued by 50% or more of the respondents. In descending order,
these were expressive ability, with 81%, performance dexterity, with 62%,
performance charisma, with 57%, and innovative use of instrument, with 55%. All
57% of the respondents who value performance charisma belonged to the rock
style group. Five types of vocal talent were particularly valued by 50% or more
of the respondents. In descending order, these were having a distinctive voice,
with 71%, expressive ability, with 67%, vocal strength, with 62%, and pitch
range and versatility, both with 57%.
All respondents over 25 years old,
60% of all respondents, were asked which recording media they listened to music
on in their childhood. Vinyl and Cassette were the most popular listening media
with 83% of those respondents choosing each, while 53% of them listened to
music on CDs.
All respondents then answered the
same question with regard to the present day. 88% of respondents listened to
CDs and mp3s. An interesting observation about the data on this question
reveals that the 11-25, and 26-35 year olds listen to music on vinyl, suggesting
a resurgence of interest.
The frequency, with which
respondents attended live concerts, was as follows. 2% of respondents attended
them weekly or more frequently, 4% attended 2-3 times a month, 4% attended
monthly, 16% went every 2-3 months, 12% went every 4-6 months, and 12% went
annually, meaning that 50% of all respondents attended live concerts at least
annually, and so answered the remaining questions. 32% went less frequently,
and 18% never attend. An interesting observation is that all respondents
belonging to the “Other” style group attended live concerts at least annually.
There were three types of live
events attended by 50% or more of the respondents who attended live concerts at
least annually. These were, in descending order, gigs by internationally
recognised acts, with 64%, gigs by nationally recognised acts, with 56%, and
gigs by local acts, with 52%.
These respondents were then asked
how often they discover new music they like at gigs, and the results were as
follows. 8% never discovered it, 24% discovered it rarely, 48% sometimes
discovered it, and 20% discovered it often. The most popular response, then,
was “Sometimes”.
They were then asked whether their
perceptions of the act, which they are watching live, changed due to the live performance.
8% of respondents said that this always happened, 64% said that it sometimes
happened, and 28% said that it depends on who is performing. No-one said that
it never happened. Most respondents feel, then, that their perceptions of an
act, after seeing them live, sometimes change, but the discrepancy between
whether they change or not is not down to who is performing.
These respondents were then asked
whether they preferred seeing acts live, or listening to them on a recording.
48%, thus making this the most popular option, chose live, 12% said recording,
24% didn’t have a preference, and 16% were unsure.
The 48%, that preferred seeing acts
live, answered the final question, asking them why. Two reasons were chosen by
50% or more of these respondents, and these were, in descending order, the
experience of seeing the act live, with 67%, and that live events had a more
social atmosphere, with 50%.
Conclusion
Now that a picture of the
respondents’ perceptions has been formed, there are many useful conclusions
that can be drawn, and suggestions that further study in this area can confirm.
To begin with, an investigation of the four most popular acts cited in the
survey can shed some light on the attributes which make these particular acts
stand out.
Muse are a British rock band from
Teignmouth, Devon in England. They are one of the few mainstream rock bands
around today that are respected as creative musicians as well as being popular.
Initially, with their 1999 release, Showbiz, Muse received criticism, as they
were perceived to be derivative of Radiohead. However, with their 2001 release,
Origin of Symmetry, in which they incorporated classical and progressive rock
influences and pushed the boundaries of their musical talent, they began to
develop a strong identity of their own. Their music incorporates a wide variety
of styles, and their lyrical themes tend to focus on love, conspiracy theories,
politics, and end-of-the-world scenarios. The primary songwriter and lyricist
is their lead singer, guitarist, and keyboard player, Matthew Bellamy. Bellamy
is extremely respected as a performer, even going so far as to be called the
greatest guitarist of the previous decade by Total Guitar for his knowledge and
use of multiple guitar techniques, innovative add-ons, and the Plug In Baby
riff, derived from baroque music. In addition, he has a three octave vocal
range, two of which are in full voice. Muse, then, clearly possess the two most
valued features in a successful music act, as suggested by the survey: talent
and variety.
Oasis were a Britpop band from
Manchester, England. They were the most enduring Britpop act, and released
several highly commercially successful songs, including “Roll With It”,
“Wonderwall”, and “Don’t Look Back In Anger”. The attention is normally focused
on brothers, Liam and Noel Gallagher, both multi-instrumentalists, as they were
frequently the subject of controversy for remarks and rows towards other
musicians, audiences, and each other. Their biggest influence is The Beatles,
and these influences are evident in their songs, which set catchy pop melodies
to a guitar-based background.
Metallica are a heavy metal band
from Los Angeles, California. In the 1980s, they pioneered thrash metal,
releasing four of the most respected albums of the genre: Kill ‘Em All (1983),
Ride the Lightning (1984), Master of Puppets (1986), and, following the death
of their bass player, Cliff Burton in 1986, …And Justice for All (1988), before achieving
significant commercial success with 1991’s Metallica, or the Black Album, and a
more mainstream hard rock sound. While every album since then has reached #1 on
the Billboard charts, fans have always cited the 1980s as being the period
where Metallica were in their prime, so this is the period I will focus on.
Metallica’s respect come from their decision to speed up metal, make it more
aggressive, and bring a greater standard of complexity to it. The complexity is
attributed to Burton’s classical influences, and his skills as a bass player
have seen him praised as one of the greatest bassists ever. Metallica’s 80s
music consisted of heavy, fast, chromatic guitar work with memorable riffs and,
lyrics consisting of personal and social themes. Talent, originality and
personal lyrics were both highly valued musical elements from the survey.
The Beatles are one of the most
respected popular music acts ever. During their career in the 1960s, they wrote
some of the most memorable, popular and respected songs and albums in popular
music history, and have had an enormous influence on later popular music. All
of the band members were capable of playing many different instruments, and, as
with Queen, they all individually contributed songs to their albums, although
John Lennon and Paul McCartney were the principal song writing force behind the
band. Lennon was shot and killed in 1980 outside his apartment in New York, and
bassist, George Harrison, died from lung cancer in 2001. Their songs draw from
an enormous range of influences including rock & roll, American black music
of the time, and world music, and many of them are instantly memorable. The
Beatles exhibited originality, talent and they wrote catchy songs, all of which
were highly valued by the respondents from the survey.
The focus of the survey was to
identify the reasons for what seemed to be an unusually strong backlash against
current popular music. The results would seem to suggest that there is indeed a
disproportionately strong backlash, and there have been a multitude of
criticisms cited in the survey for why this is the case. Due to the
respondents’ feedback on the sample criticisms presented in the survey, it is
also very clear which traits they find objectionable.
The criticism is that mainstream
music focuses too much on the image of the artist or band, and on making money.
The talented acts, of which there are many, receive relatively little exposure,
while acts who rely on technology to sound acceptable achieve international
success, thus giving off the impression that there is a shortage of musical talent
at the moment. This makes mediocrity the norm and discourages originality and
talent.
The most important thing to do now
is to assess whether this can be changed, and what can be done to change it.
The respondents have expressed clearly the traits which they find admirable in
music. In the literature review section of this dissertation, I inquired as to
why there is such a dominance of synthpop and ballads if there is also such
distaste for them. The data suggests a possible reason. Respondents cited an
enormous range of artists and styles that they listened to in the 2000s/2010s
as opposed to previous decades. The most respected feature of this period of
music was its variety, and yet, all demographics of respondents predominantly
bought music from music stores. Perhaps the reason why there is such a
dominance of synthpop and ballads today is that everyone who is not interested
in such music has looked elsewhere, but, since there is such an eclectic range
of tastes, the result is that everyone buys music of different styles. In order
for there to be an effective challenge to the mainstream, there must be
cohesion. A theoretical solution, then, would be for an act of an alternate
style to appeal to as wide a range of these differing tastes as possible. If
such an act were also to appeal to people who have mainstream tastes, their
challenge would be a considerable one. From looking at the data, Muse appear to
be the most successful challenge to synthpop that has alternative and
mainstream appeal, but they also seem to be largely alone, and their current
level of appeal is not sufficient enough as a challenge.
There is another hurdle.
Alternative acts have traditionally had trouble adjusting to mainstream
exposure. Two such prominent examples are Pearl Jam and Radiohead. After
Cobain’s death, Pearl Jam stopped making music videos to minimise their
mainstream exposure, fearing a similar fate, and, after the success of OK
Computer, Radiohead’s lead singer, Thom Yorke, suffered severe writer’s block
and a nervous breakdown. They focused on experimental electronic music after
this, retreating from the mainstream. The fans, too, expect an act to succeed
on their own terms, and not off of the success of another. Some have hostile
reactions to mainstream success either way. What can be done to counteract
this? Perhaps Muse, being in their key position, could focus on making their
next album fit the criteria given to us by the survey more precisely than they
currently do. Or perhaps a new or currently unknown act, possessing the
required qualities, must offer a challenge of their own, on their own terms, in
a single song or album that goes viral on the internet. Rebecca Black’s
“Friday” recently achieved this, but for the opposite reasons.
Finally, the survey brought up
concerns about the role of technology in music production and the propagation
of music via TV talent shows. It seems clear from these observations that if an
act were to surface and challenge the current mainstream, it must avoid using
Auto-Tune, or other form of technology that is perceived to serve as a
substitute for talent, and they must avoid any association with names such as
American Idol, X Factor, or Simon Cowell. They must rise to fame through their
song writing, instrumental talent, and vocal talent, or they will fail to
achieve the result desired by the respondents. The importance of being able to
perform well live is a significant finding of the survey.
In conclusion, there is clearly a
large demand for music that is original, created by an artist or band that
writes their own songs and lyrics, and that has expressive power and lyrical
meaning beyond the themes of love and dancing. This demand needs to be focused
into a single style or act if the content of the mainstream is to change. It is
easier than ever for an artist or band to write music, record that music, and
to advertise it. In such an environment, I am very optimistic that the focus of
that demand is on the horizon, and will rise to fame within this decade. I hope
that the results of this dissertation, or a similar survey conducted on a
larger scale, can encourage such an act to surface so that I, many others like
me, and especially those from future generations, do not look back on these
decades feeling disappointed and ashamed of the music of their childhood.
Word Count: 10,332
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Sample Questionnaire
<can't be provided here>
Appendix B: Data Tabulations
<can't be provided here>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)