30 min of news

Over the weekend I watched 30 min of CNN during the afternoon on Saturday. Each news segment consisted of about 3 min of news time the first one was Remembering journalist Andy Rooney which aired for maybe 5 minutes, however the rest which included segments of the case about Michael Jackson's doctor, a family court judge accused of beating his daughter caught on video, Justin Bieber accused of supposedly impregnating a girl, all of which received about the same amount of news time. The commercials in between these news segments were longer than the actual news time however, which lasted about 5-6 minutes each. During this thirty minutes I did not see any news on sports or politics (which I assumed would get the most news time), but the segments I watched, I was surprised to find aired for the same 3-3 and half minutes of time.

Advertisements effects

After watching the film on Thursdays class I really felt I could relate to this idea of marketing which takes advantage of teens, by trying to get as much money as they can through the mass consumption of products by teens and young adults by advertising "cool". I remember being in high school, and feeling like the most important thing is what labels you're wearing and if they're considered to be "cool". Back then it was abercrombie, express, hollister, etc and maybe it wasn't until recently that I learned that these labels are just that -- labels. I developed some sort of shopping addiction as if I got a "high" for shopping or just spending money on not only clothes but products in general. This mass advertising targeted at teenagers has a real affect, because I still find myself using "shop-therapy" as the solution to everything. I completely agree with the film that advertisements are aimed at teens because this is definitely the group willing to fork up the cash for merchandise. When you're a teenager you don't have to worry so much about bills, and responsibilities, therefore all your money goes out to entertainment and spending money on "the new cool" item. All of this led me to oversee my high school senior brothers shopping charges at the mall this past weekend. He was surprised to find out he actually got a ton of compliments on the clothes I helped him find opposed to a $75 plane t-shirt that has an abercrombie tag.

bubble gum pop

On Monday's class you talked about how bubble gum pop is music that makes the radio because it has a catchy beat. Even though this music has really no meaning to it, people seem to like it. Do you think these type of songs like mmmbop represent American music in a positive way? I mean I have heard a countless number of people say that rap/hip hop is garbage although a lot of it uses instrumentals, beats, and has meaning to the lyrics. If people can say this about hip hop then should there be more criticism on songs like mmmbop?

hip-hop/rap

I absolutely love hip-hop and rap, which actually doesn't get as much respect as it deserves. After the guest lecture from Billy Drease Williams (and I wish all the people that bash hip-hop could have heard him) I feel he brought up some strong points about hip-hop/rap as an art. Many people think hip-hop is garbage, that there are no instrumental elements or components, but I disagree. Billy Drease Williams, for example creates his own beats, so why can't beats be considered an instrumental component? In order to create beats one must still learn to use an instrument (or in this case whatever equipment used to produce beats), practice, master it, and have an ear for a special sound and creativity in order to create that sound. To me this idea deserves the same respect as someone who can play an instrument. Hip-hop and rap also require an artist to write their own lyrics (hopefully, but there are many artists from other genres that don't write their own music who still receive more respect than hip-hop artists), and of course sing or rap. In Billy Drease Williams case, he even produces his own videos, and has created art work to illustrate those videos. I think their are a lot of components and elements of hip-hop that are undermined and go without notice. It truly takes a talented and creative person to be a hip-hop/rap ARTIST. =]

Minority guiding the Majority

With context to Dreases presentation and his look on artistic expressions in the hip hop and music world in todays age. When he described the stories of him accepting he may never make it big but still held onto his ownership of his music is rare for many artists. Many compromise along the way to make it big or to have moderate success in some way of television or radio exposure across the country. but with not only in Dreases case but with other artists as well in other genres that constantly progress or hold onto the values of what they feel is their music. their words and music personify a feeling that would want to share and its unique to them. Like      Drease other bands like the Black Keys who are known for their rough and tough grit and grime sound of two guys on Guitar and Drums mixing not only classic and forgotten blues of past generations but other elements of Rhythm and Blues with the feedback of Jimi Hendrix playing up to elven on every song. they also produced a Rap album with collaboration with Hip Hop Artists like Mos Deff, Q-Tip, Nicole Wray, and several members of the Wu Tang Clan. This just goes to show all musical styles can be made to co-exist and work together to make more unique sounds and styles for the masses and players to enjoy.

Parental Discretion Advised

Personally, I wouldn't consider myself someone who listens to the Hip Hop music on the radio today. I don't have any desire to listen to music about slapping hoes, banging for money, and shooting people down on the streets. It's not that I am personally offended by the way women are portrayed in some hip hop music, even though any other person has every right to feel offense, but it's the fact that I would not want to support any artist that thinks that passing lyrics such as "got her on her knees, the same knees that she be prayin' on" is in any way an accurate portrayal of music. Yes, freedom of speech allots these songs to be produced and played on the radio and so forth, but music was an escape for everyone. Why would someone want to escape into a world of guns, violence, and objectification of women? I know that I don't understand it, but a lot of people buy into it. This shows that for some reason, this subdivision of Hip Hop, which is a vastly different style from the roots of Hip Hop (which mostly focused on social commentary and naming grievances), people are focusing less on the meaning behind the lyrics. People, being (a) the rapper- because there are a lot of other issues to write about other than sex, money, and drugs, and (b) the audience- no matter what, people know that these lyrics are offensive, and they just don't care. People will listen to this stuff, memorize the lyrics, fully know their meaning, and they have no problem with saying that their favorite song is something called "p*ssy, money, weed." I don't know, I just think it's a little disheartening to see music, something that hold so much importance on the meaning and the message, take this type of downturn. It was refreshing to hear Billy Drease Williams' work in class on Monday because it showed me that the original style of Hip Hop is not dead; it is just masked by the chart topping, radio raiding rap singles that evince the wrong messages.

Progression

After taking a look at what the original sound of hip hop was and realizing how different a style it is from then to now it is interesting to see if those who were a fan of the "old school" style are disappointed or happy with the progression and change it has made over the years. It also raises the question of whether or not the various artists appreciate the stylistic change or not as well.

Drease and Hip-hop

People say that Hip-Hop and Rap is not music because there are no instruments, but as was discussed in lecture their voice is the instrument. Hip-hop is very much a form of musical expression and artistic culture. But not all hip-hop artists are real artists. The true artists are ones like Billy Drease Williams. He raps what he feels and stays true to himself. After years of hard work he still has not made it as a huge success, but he never gives up because he loves what he does and knows his music is better than a lot of the junk played out there. In his guest lecture Drease said that whenever he would play his music for a record label they would ask him who he sounds like and they would end up not signing him because he doesn't sound like anyone on out there. I think that's rediculous that they want artists to sound alike. Drease has his own style and if they gave him a chance I think he could go far.

hip-hop music

Actually I did not have good image about hip-hop music, I was thinking most of hip-hop music is just noisy and only about money and violence. But after Billy Drease Williams lecture, I noticed hip-hop music also has artistic aspect and I was really touched by that lecture. Probably many people have dirty image about hip-hop music like me, but I think this kind of stereotype is should be removed. We have to understand hip-hop music is developing and has artistic aspect like Drease's music.

Drease

Billy Drease Williams guest lecture on Monday exemplified his courage and determination to excel in a difficult field of work. Working on a low budget and out of his own pocket it amazes me that Drease, while being a husband and father, has the time to produce and perform low budget music videos. Although very different from mainstream hip-hop Drease chooses to rap about real life situation without the use of profanity. He is self made and in my opinion, we could all learn from Dreases determination; starting out small and striving to be all he can be while keeping his beliefs at the forefront.

Hip Hop as a Rape Culture

Ashley Judd's comments about hip hop as a rape culture caused a lot of controversy and were thought to have racial undertones because of hip hop being a predominately African American genre. She then apologized for her comments saying they were a general statement about how popular rap today promotes misogyny. Should she have apologized? Mainstream hip hop does promote misogyny and objectifies women. Obviously not all hip hop is misogynistic but much of popular hip hop revolves around violence. How has this de evolution of hip hop start? Has popular hip hop ever been considered "clean" or at least not so violent?

C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me)

Since the birth of hip-hop, the genre has slowly become more and more commercialized. Originally, rappers used the genres popularity to address social issues, such as "C.R.E.A.M" by Wu-Tang Clan and post-humorous releases by Tupac Shakur such as "Changes" and "Ghetto Gospel," both recorded in 1992. More modern rappers, most notably Lil Wayne, Drake, and Nikki Minaj do not address social issues like the earlier MC's used to. These 3 rappers continue to top the charts but only really rap about their fame and money. I'm not trying to say that there are not rappers that do ddress social issues now-a-days, it's just not as prominent among the "top" MC's of today as it was in the late 80's and 90's. It seems that rappers are more concerned with clubs and money than bringing the issues that plague the streets where they grew up to the attention of the world. It really seems that Wu-Tang Clan was right, cash does really rule everything around us.

Are we really that surprised?

Hip Hop and even rap has changed dramatically over time. There is no going around that. Sure now rap is all about money, drugs, and bitches, but honestly, are we surprised? Many people seem shocked that it has come to this, but why? We saw bands like the Beach Boys steal music to make hits, we saw bands from the 80s fit a cliche mold of dancing and singing (aka the pop start), we saw MTV change from a video channel to a reality channel, and now Hip Hop turning into music about partying and nothing real. Rather than complain about how our world changes in a way that makes all music and pretty much all aspects of our life cookie cutter, why don't we ask why. I am most definitely glad we have people who decide to break the mold like Drease and Immortal Technique (who by the way is not suitable for children to listen to considering he swears a lot and talks about gang rape, I saw that in a previous post). The ones who go out of the box makes society realise that there is more than what is played constantly on the radio, and that there is more than what mainstream is providing. An ideal world would have many more of these artists, but unfortunately that is unrealistic. Why? Because it doesn't make money. WHY DOESN'T IT MAKE MONEY? Why is it that our world is willing to buy music that contains really dumb lyrics as suppose to an intellectual rapping or singing about real issues. Its a mystery.

*CAUTION* long winded rant ahead.

okay. where did those glorious days of rap go? days where you had to have a purpose behind your rhymes? days where songs like "tears" by wu-tang clan and "california love" by tupac were topping the charts. not songs with lines like "shes so sweet make her wanna lick the rapper" were leading to a-list stars like ashley judd wanting to call hip-hop a rape culture. the talent level and the complexity of the rhymes coming out of main stream media is of such a poor quality that its disgusting. artists like drease amd immortal technique are keeping the original meaning of rap and hip-hop back to the ears of the younger children. is there an open market for those who want to make hip-hop more than a "rape" culture?

Billy Drease Williams

So after Edreys came on Monday I did a lot of research on him. I was extremely intrigued by his talents and how realistic he was as an artist. He has his own website http://www.dtr45.com/billydrease/, he does everything on his own, he has extremely good morals and cares about his family so much and his music means the world to him as well. What surprised me the most was that he has been in this game for 10 years and still won't give up while being comfortable with the fact that he might never make big in the celebrity world. That is true dedication, that is a true artist in my opinion. Which really made me think, what makes a rap or hip-hop artist a "true" artist? And why won't record labels sign Billy Drease Williams? Why is it that artists that degrade and belittle others get the most positive attention and those musical artists that could have a positive influence receive no attention at all?

The Game

This weeks discussions on hip hop have been very interesting. I forgot that we had a guest speaker coming in on monday. I was glad we did because it was a very interesting presentation. Billy Drease Williams was a great speaker. He kept me interested all the way through his presentation. I became even more interested when he started to play his music videos. If he did not tell us that his videos were shot with a very low budget, I would have never thought that. I liked the idea that he presents himself as a role model and does not curse in any of his songs. This is something that you do not see everyday in most artists. I started thinking about what he said about the Ashley Judd comment and I agree with him. I did not see anything wrong with it. Some rap music does demean women and look at them as just an object. I do listen to some rap and I can say that this is a reoccuring event in some artists lyrics. Thats why I really liked Billy Drease Williams lyrics because they actually have meaning. I would definately like to see him perform live someday.

Hiphop!

Over the past two lectures, I feel that I have learned more about Hip-hip and it's culture.In today's class, I have learned that hip hop is not just a genre of music but embodies 3 aspects: Graffiti, Dance and Music,Dress and Speech. I feel that hip hop has a deep meaning and through these 3 aspects, the message that hip hop was trying to bring across was conveyed to the audience.

Although hip hop started off as an outlet for artist to express their views on social political issues, it has now evolved into something more mainstream. In the guest lecture on Monday, Billy Drease Williams mentioned about a comment that Ashley Judd has made about the hip-hop culture. Although many people were unhappy with her comment, I find that what the issue that she has raised is indeed a pressing issue. Most hip hop artistes do use many vulgar language and raps about violence and sexual stereotypes. Even some of their music videos objectify women and reinforce sexual stereotypes. I am glad to know that there are still artists out there like Billy Drease Williams who raps about current issues and their own beliefs. But due to the many other hip hop songs that we are exposed to, our perception of hip hip has changed and we ourselves gain stereotype about the hip hop culture.

I believe that not only the hip hop culture has changed their lyrics as time goes by, Many popular music now has the same problem. At which point of time did lyrics in music start to change and become music that portrays violence and stereotypes in the lyrics? Many popular songs talks about partying and clubbing. Is that because it is the main culture of the society now? Or does it act as a form of escape music for people?

Dancing with the devil...

Hip Hop music today has definitely taken its genre to a whole new level. One very influential artist is Immortal Technique. His song "Dance with the Devil" tells a story of young aspiring gang member who has to earn his respect through acts of violence, and drug dealing. The lyrics are very gruesome and grotesque and follows a very scary/eerie beat. One of the most horrific parts of the song is "...but only the devil responded, cause god wasn't there and right then he knew what it was to be empty and cold and so he jumped off the roof and died with no soul they say death take you to a better place but I doubt it after that they killed his mother, and never spoke about it and listen cause the story that I'm telling is true cuz I was there with Billy Jacobs and I raped his mom to and now the devil follows me everywhere that I go infact I'm sure he's standing among one of you at my shows..." The only reason I feel the need to post this is because I feel like Immortal Technique should not be judge on his lyrics at all. He is just expressing his emotions through his lyrics and music. Today a lot of rappers talk but have nothing to back it up. Immortal Technique and other rappers such as Tupac, and Notorious BIG had rough lives and found ways to tell their stories in their own ways. So before people begin to blame Rap/Hip-hop music, they should take in to consideration that some artist's write these songs to raise awareness like we discussed in class. As disgusting and horrific these lyrics above may be to many of you reading this post, it is reality and things like this go on every single day. In no way shape or form does Immortal Technique state in his song that any of this is acceptable. It clearly states towards the end of the song "So when the devil wants to dance with you, you better say never because the dance with the devil might last you forever." He was just being real, he felt there was no need to sugarcoat anything, it is what it is.

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dRgYd5Mxs0&feature=related

Rap and Race

As a fan of Hip-Hop it has always puzzled me as to why race played such a large role in the genre. Yes, it is very true that Hip-Hop and rap were created by African Americans as a platform to speak about the everyday struggles they faced. However, when white artists began to try and start a career in the genre they are often ridiculed as being "fake" or not being as talented as many of their black counterparts. I am a fan of many different hip hop artists, black or white, and I have never felt the need to bring race into the discussion of talent. What do you think is the basis behind the involvement of race in the hip hop genre? Furthermore, and slightly off topic, but why is it that many talented artists such as our guest speaker Mr. Billy Drease Williams, fail to make it big while rapping with substance, yet people such as Gucci Mane and Waka Flaka can make a song repeating the same chorus over and over and make millions of dollars? Does this say something about us as listeners or something about the industry? Or both?

Fake Ghetto

It was interesting to learn that the early performers of hip hop came from very run down areas of New York City. Their music was a way to bring the issues faced by people in these areas to the forefront. It's ironic that many hip hop artists today use the idea of the ghetto to make themselves look bad a** or tough. These artists may not even have come from run down areas but they use the persona to appear like "true gangsters". It's unfortunate that hip hop has evolved this way.

Set back in time?

Rap music came from original African American roots. Storytelling with a rhythm is basically what rap music started off as is. It is pretty upsetting that what started as a way of celebrating their roots, has now given off such a bad image with mainstream rap. A majority of mainstream rap/hip hop now talks about pretty offending things. It is sad because of that music, it gives a bad image to African Americans. Isn't it weird how rap started off as a way for African Americans to relate t o their ancestors, and now rap music basically fits all the stereotypes that African Americans have tried so hard to get away from? African Americans were once mocked for using poor grammar and being overly sexual. Now, the mainstream music really goes into those stereotypes. There is an awful lot of music that talks about sex, and women, and use words like "da" and even the N word. These are all things that African Americans wanted to get away from. Their rights were fought for and so I don't understand why they would do this. Do you think that this mainstream music sets African Americans back in their progress int he world? I feel as if it is just giving them the image they fought so hard to not have. It is pretty sad. There is nothing wrong with hip hop/rap , but I just think there is something wrong with the music that is constantly played. Why would America want to hear this?

Ashley Judd's Statement

I am not so sure that her statement could be held against her. I believe you have to find true hip hop or rap on your own these days. Most mainstream hip hop and rap do degrate women and is consisted of personal gain or loss. While hip hop (when started and some underground hio hop) are concentrated on more social issues. Some may talk about their childhood in the ghetto or about the gang culture. Or even when Eminem response to FCC for censoring his music.

Hip Hop the modern day soundtrack to misogyny?

Actress Ashley Judd created quite an uproar with her statement "As far as I’m concerned, most rap and hip-hop music — with it’s rape culture and insanely abusive lyrics and depictions of girls and women as ‘ho’s’ — is the contemporary soundtrack of misogyny". I can see that the statement could be controversial because it kind of lumps all rap and hip hop music together. I would be quicker to agree with the statement if she would have distinguished " most MAINSTREAM rap and hip-hop music..." I think this statement has a lot of truth to it. The lyrics of many popular rap songs are extremely degrading to women. Mainstream hip hop artists take it a step further with their music videos. The girls in them are depicted as nothing more than objects of sexual desire. I think that a handful of popular hip hop artists give the genre a bad reputation. Billy Drease Williams proved in class on Monday that there are rap artists that do not conform to this vulgar, misogynistic norm. Unfortunately, sex sells very well and many popular rap artists are cashing in on it and degrading women in the process.

Is Hip Hop making rape hip?

I recently read up on Ashley Judd's accusations, that Adrese mentioned in class, about Hip Hop culture objectifying women and promoting a rape culture. It turns out that Judd is a humanitarian who is an ambassador for the "Youth AIDS" orgnaization that promotes AIDS awareness. After recieving violent threats as well as sexual threats she proceeded to make an apology to the hip hop community. The article i read ( http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8768388-ashley-judd-caves-to-hiphop-death-threats ) actually agreed with Adrese in that the journalist felt it was weak of her to back down and retract her statement which was for the most part accurate. I can understand why some hip hop artists who's music has a more positive inspirational vibe would feel stereotyped, but truth be told for the most part her accusations were spot on for main stream Hip Hop culture. In another class I'm taking we recently discussed Latino masculinity, and one point that was made by the professor was that in Hip Hop, males who promote the stereotype of having a large "sexual organ" are only harming themselves. Does anyone else think that this also promotes a rapist image?

Greatness arise from the unexpected...

First off I want to say that Edreys' lecture on Monday was very inspirational. He is very talented and I really hope that he gets more recognition in the near future. He is the prime example of greatness arising from the unexpected. Nowadays, people think that the only things Buffalo have to offer is just buffalo wings and the Sabers. But who would ever thought that Buffalo can also offer a myriad of musical talents that is comparable to many mainstream artists?...Not a lot. From today's lecture we learned that hip-hop originated from the Bronx. Talented people are everywhere but they can't be found that easily. Sometimes you have to go to the least expected places to find great talents. One thing that I really like about Edreys' music is how he chooses not to use any profanity within his music. Hip-hop often carry the stereotypes of the use of profanity and the subject often revolves around sex, drug and money. Edreys definitely showed us that that is not that case. Hip-hop can be profanity free and can be about inspirations and goals instead of sex, drugs and money. I really respect what he does and I'm glad that we have people like him to show what true hip-hop is.

Billy Drease Williams

In Mondays class Billy Drease Willams brought up a few strong points about who he is as a rapper and as a person. Billy brought up that as a rapper his music does not take off and sell as quickly as other popular rappers because his music does not fit inside of the mainstream box of rap music. Billy's raps contain metaphors on life and do not contain foolish rimes on women and chains. I respect Billy a lot for not only persevering in the rap game, but donating his time to help out impoverished kids in local schools in Buffalo. Although Billy does not have the fame and fortune as a rapper, he still is a great role model.

...

On Monday I really enjoyed guest lecture by Billy Drease Williams. I can see the passion for what he is doing. In my opinion, his songs are meaningful and expresses a lot of different feelings. It is hard to believe that he was rejected many times. As far as I am concerned, it just shows that, as he mentioned, he sounds like himself, not like anybody else. At the same time I understood that it is hard or even impossible to be yourself in music business. Producers are looking for entertainment, not talent. For example, my friend, who has phenomenal voice, was trying to get into American Idol and was rejected, which is unbelievable. I guess, you have to be shocking, have some sad story about you or look hollywoodish to interest people.

Billy Drease Williams

This is a comment not a question.

Today in class, Billy Drease Williams talked about his hip hop career. He mentioned how he approaches hip hop with a different style in that his work is not like a "gangster rapper." I really liked the videos he showed us and his approach to the genre. I personally do not like much of the newer gangster rap because I can not relate to most of it. To me, all this mainstream rap is a bunch of artists saying the same thing (money, drugs, gang banging, sex, etc...) with different words and beats, however I do like the beats of some of the music. I liked how he was able to present him self well in his videos along with the lyrics (no profanity). I also liked how he is standing by his own image , by creating inspiring lyrics that kids and other fans can look up to. He said he was not going to change his rapping style just to make a ton of money, which takes a lot for someone with his talent. Overall, I thought what he showed us today was impressive, especially his approach to hip hop.

MTV

MTV is an important part of music history. It opened the door for tons of artists by showing their music videos on television. It also helped to break the color barrier in the music industry by showing black artists videos. Most notably starting with Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" MTV broke the color barrier. It's sad how MTV has changed now. As it started with the video, "Video Killed the Radio Star", music videos have now been killed by reality tv. It seems like MTV should change its name because it stands for Music Televion, but there is no music on it. I read people now call it Missing Televisiont Videos.

I wonder if a television channel similar to MTV would have been popular say in the 1950's and 1960's. Was there something culturally about the 1980's that would have made this type of expressive channel more popular than in the past? Did shows that showcased artists (like the Ed Sullivan show) play the role of MTV in the early days of television?

music TV Progression or regression?

As MTV began boradcasting, they were all about promoting music. Later on they designated another chanel to do so (MTV2) and moved on to more realility based tv. In the 80's music/video industry was booming. And today the reality tv industry is moving. It is not the music that these channels such as MTV or VH1 are advertising. They are following the trend. Today's trend is reality tv and 16 year old mothers (or so it seems according to MTV). Do you think it's ok to be recognized as the MUSIC NETWORK and promote everything but music?

MTV A Dying Breed

Like what Joe said in class today, I remember coming home from school and watching TRL. It is weird watching it then and how much it has changed. I uesed to love waiting for the number one video and seeing who would be appearing on the show that day. I always wanted to go to time square and see the show being filmed and possibly be on it. I never would of thought that it would of changed into what it has today. Do you think that it changed for better or worse? Do you think it would still be popular today if it was the way it originally was?

MTV...

I mentioned today that other television channels play more music than MTV. Since we were talking specifically about MTV, which is understandable due to its undeniable significance, I began wondering about other channels (more specifically BET). Though I am not necessarily a huge fan of the music that is played on this channel, I wanted to see what they were about considering it is "Black Entertainment Television". What I found is that it began with African Americans as the target audience. This seems obvious, but what I really thought was interesting was that it was created by lobbyist who wanted to reach black audiences in 1980, and music videos by black artists were played (there were no threats needed). It is clear though that seeing white people is rare on that channel; also while doing research I saw that many people asked why Hendrix isn't even played, even though he is black. I guess my question(s) would be, what makes a music channel respectable in the eyes of a viewer? What sacrifices do these channels have to make in order to maintain viewers (does Hendrix have to be ignored because he really isn't hip hop or the same genres as other artists played)? And why is this double standard acceptable considering we criticize MTV for not originally playing Michael Jackson?

Mtv

The network title of Mtv really does not mean all that much anymore. Tune to it at nearly any point during the day and music is nearly nowhere to be found on the stations schedule. While this is most likely due in part to the target audiences lost in interest with music videos the real question may be when and why may this have happened? Also it seemed as if today in class there were a number of people who would like to see some music videos on the channel which make me wonder, should the network reconsider their decision?

The Decline of MTV

It is obvious that in recent years MTV has turned into a reality television station as appossed to a music station. This change can be chalked up to wanting to stay popular with the public oppinion as well as a quest for ratings. My question is why do you think MTV made such a drastic change while other designated stations have stuck to what they were origionally created for?

MTV

MTV changed the way that music was disseminated when it was introduced in 1981. The video based TV station was a huge hit and every teenager watched it on a regular basis. MTV also broke the color barrier by showing music videos of artists such as Michael Jackson and Tina Turner. My question is in recent years MTV has become less popular especially with younger teenagers today, why do you think that?

Black v. White Music

I was shocked to learn that MTV refused to play music by black musicians, even with Michael Jackson's popularity. Playing Michael Jackson would only have helped the network so why is it that this amount of blatant racism was occurring and acceptable? Today there are genres that are predominately one race, like hip hop for African American musicians but there is more cross over and popular music relies heavily on rap. Was it that even as far into the 80s there was still the divide between "black music" and "white music"? "White music" being the mainstream?

I want my MTV

MTV started as a channel purely for music. It was a station that promoted new artists, and gave people the thing they wanted to see most- their favorite artists performing their favorite songs in music videos. This was a revolutionary approach in the music industry- mass visual production. However, as the years went on the ratio of music videos to other programs significantly decreased, to the point where today programs called Sixteen and Pregnant and Disaster Date are taking over where TRL used to air. Why do you think, besides the increased popularity of YouTube, it is not custom for a channel short for Music Television to virtually air no music? Should the channel change its name because of false advertising?

MTV then and now

MTV in the 80's was strictly music television. With the turn of the millennium the name MTV has taken on newer meaning due to its infiltration of reality TV. Alike artists in the music industry is it possible for a music station to "sell out"? Do you think MTV's shift to reality TV and away from music videos was a mainstream effort that brought more attention and popularity to the station, or did it ultimately diminish its reputation?

MTV.

MTV has played a big role in creating music superstars by playing artistes' music videos on television. Because of MTV, music have turned into something more visual and is not just about music anymore. What is the significance that MTV have on the music videos at that time? Did music videos evolve into something that is more complex (e,g: Michael Jackson's "Thriller", a music video that seems like a movie)?

MTV have now changed its direction and plays more reality TV shows rather than music videos. Most of the reality TV shows aired are trashy (at least to me), and it seems to me that MTV have lost it's uniqueness. Although they have separate channels just for music videos, I feel that the public image of MTV has definitely changed. Has MTV become a channel that have negative influence on the youth?

pirating

Pirating was the illegal copying of commercial recordings by consumers with cassette tape decks in the 80's. This is similar to many of todays ways of stealing music such as limewire. How did this affect the music industry and artists in the 80's, and were consequences taken back then like they are today?

Michael Jackson

Today in class we learned that early MTV played no music videos with African Americans, and refused to play Michael Jackson's "The Making of Michael Jackson’s Thriller-60 minute home video" despite the fact that it sold 350,000 copies in the first three months. Finally after threats from Columbia Records to ban their white rock groups from performing on MTV, Michael Jackson's video was aired. How did Michael Jackson's collaboration of different genres of music such as R&B and Rock, and MTV's airing of his video's contribute to the integration of races within our culture? What did this do for African American musicians to follow?

80's

the reason i did not want to comment on the topic of the 80's in mondays class was not to step on anyones feet when i say things such as i feel the 80's and early 70's is the cause of the falsity of music i see it as fake and unreal no real emotion or sentiment. im not saying music with a message went and died out but was buried by the industry it created. when you start to define music to certain people and target a single audience to maximize profits and not tend to the artists ambitions. they tell the man with the guitar in his hand what to play and not to when music should be a free expression and not so one sided. we can see the effects already in everyday when bands come and go there are no names out today that you can faithfully say they have staying power like so many greats that get casted aside for a face and not the voice or talent that it takes to preform day in and day out not for just a video and mouth the words the best you can. next time you want  to make watch a music video just go to a mirror play the song and you mouth the words its the same effect just your not wearing a one piece jump suit and spandex

What is a video for?

As we saw in class, MTV really started the idea of artists creating videos for their songs. With this new channel, the artists could easily promote their songs with videos that would be memorable. However, I have came across multiple videos by bands way before the time of MTV. I know the Beatles have a few videos out there, such as a video for "Something", and I guess even David Bowie has a few videos. What was the point of these artists making the videos back then when they did not have such an easy accessible place to play them such as MTV? How did people see these videos? The videos made when MTV came about and on have had a pretty specific point to them...to make the band commercially successful. These artists wanted to be remembered and known with their risky, or elaborate videos. It also makes me wonder what the point of some videos are now a days. It now seems like just a place to show off the awesome bodies and sexuality of musical artists. It seems as if music videos used to be just an art form, then basically to commercials, now I don't even know what their point is. But, it seems like music videos are and have been a very popular idea, and I really do hope they never die out. I also just hope they can go back to having some sort of meaning, and being more than just a long dance scene.

media changes and artists

today we discussed about the change of MTV. At first MTV was broadcasting lots of music videos but recently the contents of MTV are varying, reality shows and funny shows like jackass, and the importance of music video decreased. I think it is because the power of TV is getting weaker due to the appearance of the internet. Is the music videos still important for artists? What do you think is the most appropriate way to promote artists in this internet era?

Video Killed the Radio Star

When MTV first came on the air it was a unique and promising tool for the distribution of music and promotion of artists. However, fast forward to the present day and MTV basically cycles through a series of different "reality shows" 24 hours a day. My question is what influenced the gradual phasing out of music from "Music Television", and furthermore what were some societal factors that could have influenced this change?

MTV? How about RTV??

When we compare the original MTV to the MTV that we currently have now its totally two different things. When MTV was first aired it held its name, it was truly MUSIC television. They played music videos of popular songs and promoted many artists. But now all we see on MTV is a bunch of reality shows like Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, 16 and Pregnant, MADE, etc. The musical aspect has virtually gone down the drain over the years. Yes there are separate channels that still shows music videos and such but its not what it used to be anymore. Since MTV has taken such a major change through the years do you think we can still call MTV, MTV anymore? It seems like we should rename it as RTV (Reality Television).

The Rise of Music Videos

In the 80's, music videos became popularized with the rise of MTV. Music videos were a new and exciting way to showcase an artist's music and quickly became extremely popular among teens and young adults. Although music videos are a great way for an artist to spread it's music to a larger audience, I wonder if there are consequences to having video associated with music. The production associated with some music videos is so vast that the music can become secondary to the video. I think this is especially apparent in many modern rap videos. These music videos commonly have expensive sports cars, yachts, mansions, and gold jewelery. I feel like all of these things can act to divert attention away from the music. My question is, do you think that high production music videos take away from the music? Why or why not? Do you think that these videos are artistic and add to the music, or do they just attempt to captivate their audience by using outrageous images?

Music Television

Today in class we discussed the difference between what you and I think of when we hear 'MTV' vs what out parents might think of when they hear 'MTV.' In the 1980's, MTV was actually all about the music. I found this really great website that represents what MTV was like in the 1980's: http://www.liketotally80s.com/80s-mtv.html, stating that "...it did have tons of music videos, awesome VJs and music news unavailable anywhere else."

Now anyone today that would go to their TV and turn on MTV, there is a very high percentage that what you turn on is going to be some reality show thats really actually scripted and is used for pure useless entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I watch these shows on MTV and find some of them extremely entertaining, but for something called Music Television (MTV), I have to say it really has nothing to do with the music anymore which is sad. So my question is, what provoked this huge change in MTV to progress from the 80s, to 90s and now to move so far away from what they originally started with?

back to the 80'S!!!!

I must say my favorite decade was hands down the 80's!! I love everything about this time era. The music was amazing and I love the style and boldness! Madonna is insane in everyway, her outfits and the way she expresses her sexuality is very entertaining. She reminds me of the modern day Lady Gaga, the was she always takes everyone by surprise! Another artisit who set the pace was Michael Jackson. An amazing preformer who was so compeltely talented. Every song a hit and so gifted in dancing and singing. The 80's was an incredable time for music. I will continue to listen to the 80's for years to come!

Madonna

When I am thinking about Madonna, I also think about the influence she does for other women. Personally, I do not think she is the best example. Even though she is a very successful business woman, in my opinion, she is kind of trashy. However, at the same time she is encouraging older women to stay young which is not a bad thing. 

Michael Jackson

Growing up I never really paid too much attention to Michael Jackson. I know he was the "best" pop artist, or at least according to many people. Aside from his music, he did have a lot going for him, good and bad. I do not know very much about him outside of his music besides all the rumors about how he did inappropriate things. As an African American he seemed to have things pretty good, at least from what I know. My question is why did he change his skin color? I would assume there is more to it than he just did not want to be black.

"Punk is the Nostalgia of Punk"

Totally forgot to post on time. . . fell asleep: figured i would anyways seeing as i enjoyed today's, well yesterdays guest lecture on Punk rock. Growing up with Punk bands like Blink 182 and Greenday led me to perceive Punk for what it was in the 21st century rather than the 1970's when it originated. Contrary to the 21st century; bands like The Sex Pistols and the Ramones paved the path for this new unique style of music. Punk venues like CBGB began to spring up in major metropolitan cities alike New York; and before we knew it, Punk had gone from merely a genre of music to its own rebellious subculture. Although I may not appreciate Punk rock for all that it was when it originated, it opened the door for similar genre's of music like ska and reggae to emerge down the road. With 40 years of growth, Punk rock and its subculture has remained prominent and evolved into a much larger scene with more musical variety. Bands like IllScarlett emerged with a unique new sound that could only be categorized as this "ska punk pop infused reggae ". Originating out of Mississauga in 2004 IllScarlett captures its audiences with their up beat. . . easy to listen to. . . chill as hell. . . punk reggae sound. Modeling themselves after sublime and other punk sounds IllScalett has nearly formed a genre of their own, and for that i thank you Punk rock. . . P.S. maybe my teacher will enjoy my post and consider giving me some credit. Because God knows I've missed way to many of these things.

Hot Topic is not Punk Rock!

Most people feel that Green Day, and Blink 182 are punk. I feel that their intentions of creating a punk image were not as important as selling out to them. They did open the eyes of modern society to punk music, but in a more pop way. Their concern with adopting a mainstream culture tarnished their reputation as great punk bands. Today's society feels that music all about currency, but little do they know that by "selling out" they are killing their reputations as musicians and moving more towards a product. I'm not saying what they are making isn't still considered good music, but it is most certainly not punk rock.

Punk & Race

In class today, there was mention of the idea of race being related to certain subcultures. I definitely agree with that idea because I think that subcultures happened in the past because of the presence of fringe groups. These fringe groups were usually created on the basis of race or nationality. This could show the connection between race and who we identify with because, as seen in the past, it was a sense of unity and comfort to be in these subcultures. However, as also mentioned in class, there were instances of all-African American Punk groups, and there are white hip hop artists. Is it agreeable that this is the beginning of a de-emphasis on race as common ground for fringe groups to relate on?

Hippies with Teeth..

Today's lecture was outstanding by the way. I enjoyed listening to Marta lecture about this crazy, "out there" culture. This brought me back to my roots in ninth grade before country music took over my life! Anyways... I feel that Punk music was very creative and gave musicians a new way to let their angst out on socio-political issues. It definitely is a culture and not just music! When you listen to punk music you are now apart of that culture. If you don't act, look, or riot like a punk, you most certainly are not punk. One of the most influential bands I feel were The Ramones. I personally feel that they helped create the punk scene in America. What was really cool about them was the fact that they took on pseudonyms such as "Joey Ramone" to help create the punk image. Most people will argue that the music was boring, but it had nothing to do so much with the music when this band came about in 1974. With their influence of pop music The Ramones took basic music and added grunge, controversial lyrics, and turned it onto "Awesome-Sauce" and sprinkle on the burger of greatness and turn it into the delicious tasty treat that is current punk music.

Hip Hop and Punk

In class (during the guest lecture session) it was brought up how race and music related. I think it's very ironic hip hop too developed in the 70's as a response to political and social issues. Hip Hop culture like punk did not just progress through music, but also in art (graffiti) and dance (popping locking, b-Boeing). Both these genres were not looking to achieve fame. The main purpose for the two genres was to bring forth the political and social issues, in many cases they were the same. For example, two of my favorite artists Rise Against (punk) and Atmosphere (hip Hop) talk about the social oppression of the lower middle class and the difficulty to get through each day/ living from paycheck to paycheck.





Yes! the type of music is different but we cannot deny the fact that they share same ideals!

Punk Music

Punk is not only a style of music but a way of culture. It influences the way people dress and present themselves. Punk is looked down upon because of drugs and the way they dress, because it's different from the normal of society. In my opinion, I think punk is misunderstood. I think punk lyrics have unique meaning behind it and shows a good expression of emotions which all punk bands show, such as my favorites Good Charlotte, Green Day, and Cute is What We Aim For. Punk music gets a bad rep. I wonder if punk music will ever be fully accepted in society and become popular again?

Punk

Punk has no single definition. You can't kill something that can't be defined. I took that away from class today. It's a cool thought because no matter what punk will never die out. The punk sub culture is very intriguing because it is full of rebellion. I figured from listening to how simple a lot of punk songs are that the band members probably were not expert musicians, but I didn't know until lecture today that some bands like the Sex Pistols basically just picked random people to be in the band even when they didn't know how to play. Some people may think for this reason that punk bands are untalented and not worth listening to, but it doesn't really matter what those people think because punk bands are known for not searching for fame. Part of punk is that they don't care if they become famous, they just say what's on their minds and play what they want to play whether people like it or not, and they have tons of followers that respect them for that. Fame isn't a punks priority.

Punk Music vs. Hippies

The guest lecture in class today was very interesting in my opinion. Sure I have heard plenty of different punk music/bands however I did not know very much about the sub culture of punk music. One interesting piece that I took away from the lecture was the quote about punks being "hippies with teeth," many people took this as meaning that they were very different. In my opinion it just was the instructors way of saying they were an edgier movement than the hippies. If you look at the two movements side by side, sure there were plenty of differences but they had some very similar anti-establishment ideas that cannot be ignored.

Boogie Nights!

Even though Disco music was so basic and most songs sounded similar, I think the music is great. The beats that go along with the music are very catchy and make you want to break out on the light up dance floor and do the hustle! Disco dancing I think let people express themselves and dance freely unlike todays bump and grinding. I almost wish that there was a Disco Tech club open today, I would most definitely rep a leisure suit with my chain hanging out, bust out the hustle and dance to The Bee Gees and KC and The Sunshine Band.

Punks and Hippies

Today Marta discussed the quote "Punks are hippies with teeth". That led to a discussion about how punks were very different in their lifestyles and music. I do agree that the styles between the punk movement as well as the hippy movement were very different; however, I feel that they had a lot in common. Sure hippies would put a flower on a tank and punks would throw rocks but overall what was the purpose? To object to something in their own way. Punks lived the way they wanted, but so did hippies! Free living away from the capitalist world was the purpose of both groups. They did what they wanted when they wanted and made music to represent that. Of course punks seemed more angry compared to the peace and loving hippies, but when it comes down to it, both groups are very similar. I do not feel that hippies led to punks directly, but both groups aren't as different as they seem.

overuse and abuse.

oas i sit here at work at burger king, i cant help but notice all of the disgusting over indulgence of the american culture. it disturbs me but at the same time it reminds me of the culture of the 1970's with the abuse of new wave drugs. however has that become the new drug of the 21st century? is american getting high off of low quality food stuffs in a desperate attempt to reclaim the days of yesteryear? the music pumped into the dinning room is 1970's muzak covers and calming waves of strings beckoning the people to use and abuse the new drug. this is almost as disgusting to me as the thought of the bathrooms at studio 54.

Punks- "Hippies with Teeth"

Today's discussion on punk was very interesting. When she said that punks were reffered to as hippies with teeth, I began to think. They are completely two different life styles. I don't think that the hippies transitioned into punk. I think that this was a new wave of people that developed just like the music. When I think of punk I think anarchy and disorder. Punks make their own rules and live the way that they want. The music definatly was a way of displaying this. I think I would rather live the life style rather than listen to the music. When we listened to the electric eel song agitated, I was very suprised. I knew it would be upbeat and chaotic but I felt that the song was not good at all. I feel like I could of gotten a group together and made a sopng just like it or better. Im not putting down all punk because I do like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols, but there are some bands that were developed that were not very good.

Punk: A Waste of Life

Why even talk about punk? Is this subculture of social misfits and their wana-be counterparts worth our breath? For me, the punk subculture is worth studying from a culturally influential standpoint, but it is certainly not worth promoting. In any case, as Marta explained in class today, punk subculture thrives off a satisfying sense of destruction. White flight and capitalist gains were not the cause of south Manhattan ghettos, they just left the door open for these kinds of misfits and slackers to fill the void. The punk subculture offers very little contribution to the state. Marta described some of their habits as couch surfers and bar brawlers looking for a chance to instigate a fight. It's important for us to study these kinds of subcultures because they're viral to the health of a community more often than not. On the other hand, my knowledge of positive contributions to society from the punk subculture are minimal, so i cordially invite you to prove me otherwise.

Modern Day Punk.

From our discussion about punk, I started to wonder what you could consider modern day "punk" . Should punk ever stand alone as a music genre, or should it be a music genre when you fit all of the other specifications of punk into it? Can you be a "punk" band without the ideologies/beliefs of a punk, or can you be a punkish band (meaning they have the ideologies) without having a particularly punk sound? Which bands are exactly considered punk in the modern music world? I feel like there are bands that do not care about fame, do what they want on stage, act wild, that seem to have the punk beliefs, but are not labeled as punk. However, I feel as if many bands would said to be labeled as punk just because they resemble the stereotypical punk look. I feel like punk should be more than just a physical image. Now, it doesn't really mean anything if you dress like a punk-this does not make you a punk. Punk, to me should be more of a label based on ideologies, not necessary a music category. I believe some bands exist that could be considered punk based on their performances and statements, but you would never hear them and say they are punk. I feel there is almost a new type of punk, not based on the type of music played, but more based on what is put into the music and how it is expressed.

DiScO

The disco era was a great time in America. It was the start of a more DJ oriented time for clubs. The music of this time made people feel good and move to the new style of electric sounds. These clubs would be equipped with wild colorful lights that would flash and shine on these huge dance floors which would be swarmed with people. If I could go back in time for a weekend, I would want to time warp back to the 1970s to a popular club and get my groove on.

Punk is Anarchy

With more time to think of what punk is I believe that punk is not just music but a movement. I believe that punk can be associated with the anarchy movement which is the belief that there should be no government at all. As it is stated in the film SLC Punk "there is nothing but chaos" which is seen in many punk music shows. Among these are the way that the performers antagonize the audience and even start fights with the crowd. For the most part the band, as well as the crowd, enjoys that they can start altercations without consequence which is one of the main ideas behind anarchy. Therefore I believe that punk music is product of the anarchy movement.

Just A Bunch of Unskilled Punks

An interesting point brought up in the guest lecture on punk was the general lack of musical skill among punk artists. Granted I'm sure there were some punk musicians would were very talented but generally it seemed like these groups just let anyone play. I think that is also why punk is so hard to define because it does not conform to any set musical pattern like other genres. With people of all skill sets playing, it would seem that the same song might sound different every time it was played. Maybe that is why punk is on the decline as of late, maybe people really just want to hear songs played the same way every time with no deviation. Auto-tune and computer beats always ruin things for everyone.

Identifying With Music Genres

In today's guest lecture about Punk music, it really got me thinking about how music is defined in general. Marta asked, "how can we define punk?" Can we define any type of music? Is it possible to be a type of music? Marta referred to herself as a "punk." This means that punk is not just a type of music, but it is also a whole culture and a way of living. Therefore, can we do this with other kinds of music genres? Is it possible to identify yourself as country, hip-hop, rock, etc? I think it is very interesting when people identify themselves as a type of music because it really shows the huge impact music has on other people's lives and the way they want to live.

Punk and "Art Terrorism"

I really enjoyed the guest lecture on punk music today. One part I found particularly interesting was the information about the 70's punk band The Electric Eels. I thought it was completely wild that they intentionally abused their audience at live shows with chains and other weapons. Today was also the first time I heard of the idea of "Art Terrorism". It seems that this idea doesn't only relate to physically harming the audience, but also terrorizing them with shocking ideas and behaviors. An off-stage example of this could be when punk bands would appear in public places wearing shirts with terrorizing messages on them. Examples include shirts that said "White Power" or had Nazi references on them. These acts were intended to shock people and provoke fights. According to some of these artists, these behaviors were meant to be satirical. Upon searching for "Art Terrorism" online, almost all of the links were for Banksy, a modern street artist who describes himself as an "Art Terrorist". This could be one way that the influence of 70's punk continues to live on today.

Disco fever!!!

The disco era is such a lively and interesting one. While learning about it during lecture I was so intrigued with the dance moves, the outfits and the hair! The whole generation seemed to be a continuous party. The theme of disco must have been a successful one, for even now in days over fifty years later must songs are still well known and popular. Not to mention each year they still have a disco party that a significant number of people attend. Its a form of music that was fun for everyone and I have to say I am a fan!

Disco

Disco music was the genre of dance music which was popular during middle and late 1970s. As far as I am concerned, this type of music is not my favorite because I find it kind of monotonous. However, it makes me excited about whatever I am doing. To be honest, I wish I was born at that time because I believe, that the time disco music was popular, was so much happier to grow and live.

Boogie Wonderland!

I have learned in the lecture on Monday about how Disco came about. There were several factors that contributed to the rise of Disco music. Due to the advance in technology, nightclubs no longer have to rely on musicians to perform. All the people need is a DJ and a few records. Up till now, it is more common to see DJs playing records in a club rather than live performers. In Singapore, live performers can mostly be found only in pubs.

It is also interesting to learn that Disco music is another type of escape songs. It seems that escape songs have been transcending through time and helped to provide a type of release for most people. Since the focus of disco is on social dancing, I believe that most people "dance" their troubles away. Although the Disco era was quite short, I feel that it had a strong impact on the music scene. Most of popular songs from the Disco era are still often being played on radio stations, in movies and even in commercials.

To end of my post, I am going to share a song by Earth, Wind and Fire. I like this song a lot and first heard it on a variety show. "Boogie Wonderland" was one of Earth, Wind and Fire's biggest hit and is regarded as one of the classics of the Disco era.

DISCO!

When I hear the word disco I automatically think about Afros and bell bottom jeans. In my opinion I think that the Disco Era is the funnest out of all the eras in American music history. If you had a chance to go back in time which decade would you want to visit? I would most likely go back to the 70's. Its a type of music that makes you happy and want to just get up and dance to it. As we have mentioned many of the songs are still being played today. A party is not a party unless you have the disco songs playing. I believe that disco music is one of those things that will never get old!

Image and Popular Music

The Beatles are regarded as arguably the most influential band of the British Invasion period largely because they were the first and received extreme success. The Beatles' success was due to their ability to blend rock with wholesome pop lyrics and maintain a clean cut image whereas the Rolling Stones are seen as the antithesis of all that the Beatles "stood for". Mick Jagger's larger than life persona on stage combined with drug use and sexual lyrics made their image the opposite of the Beatles' wholesome appeal. However, the Beatles had many songs that contained suspected drug references like the line "found my way upstairs and had a smoke / and somebody spoke and I went into a dream" from "A Day in the Life" and "I need a fix, 'cuz I'm going down / Down to the bits I left uptown" from "Happiness is a Warm Gun". Also, although nowhere near as suggestive as lyrics from Rolling Stones songs, the song "Why Don't We Do it in the Road" is clearly a sexual song that did not fit into the clean cut image. John Lennon also famously made the comment about being "bigger than Jesus" which was extremely controversial. Why were the Beatles considered to be so wholesome despite this?

British Invasion

Why is it that people have moved from the all-around talented artists of the British invasion to the more unskilled, auto-tuned generation? As time continues on, will the older generations of music become forgotten, as in will people even know of the Beatles a few decades from now? Is it possible for the music of the British invasion era to ever become popular again?

Influence in music

After the R&B era, the British music influence grew in America. The arrival of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones introduced a new twist to American Rock and Roll. Even after this musical invasion, many other musicians from different areas of the world seek success in the mainstream American Music. Can it be said that the only way of getting world recognition for your music is if you are mainstream in America? Do you think the Beatles and Rolling stones were the ones who opened the doors for the rest like Duran Duran (England) and even Ah-ha (Norway) who only had one hit in the US?

The Next British Invasion

In class this week we discussed The British Invasion and its influence on American music. With the American blues elements in their music, they helped revive the blues scene. This revival helped to influence more bands and so on and so forth. With the impact that the British had on American music do you think that Americans still look to Britain for more musical influence? Would it be safe to say that more genres such as dubstep and other electronic music are the next "wave" of the British Invasion?

The Beatles

In 1964 The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show introducing a new sound of music which was a break through moment in American popular music. Not long after they changed their sound by experimenting with instrumentation and production of their music, yet a large amount of fans still followed. Why do you think the Beatles became so popular when originally coming over during the British Invasion and why after The Beatles changed their sound did fans still follow them and take to the new music?

How such a fast shift?

It's funny when you look back at the music leading up to the 60s. Not every single song/musician of course, but a majority of songs in the 50s and early 60s had very simple lyrics. Think of the songs that were big; songs about dancing (The Twist), repetitive surfer lyrics (Beach Boys), simple love songs (The Dixie Cups). I am not saying these songs are bad, because they are actually quite fun to listen to, but the lyrics don't really have much depth. How was there such a fast shift from finding these songs great, to finding songs with more abstract lyrics so phenomenal? There are songs in the 60s that have crazy, yet amazing lyrics. Even when you think about some of the Beatles' songs you see this. Mostly though, Bob Dylan was the biggest change. He said he was a poet first, and it definitely showed in his lyrics. Sill known to be the one of the greatest songwriters,, he surely proved that he had a lot of important things to say. It's shocking that a world can go from liking simple melodies and lyrics, to liking a man with just a guitar and a lot of great words. During this era, a lot was happening in the world, and people were trying to make many changes. So, what I always wonder is, does music and change go hand in hand? It's clear that there is a definite strong correlation between music and movement in the 60s. Music had one of the biggest impacts on the people. Do you think the generation in America started to change and think more because of the more thought provoking lyrics, or do you think the people started to change, and so they wanted to hear more thought provoking lyrics? I could never see a generation switching so fast from what they found appealing musically, so I just really wonder if what was going on in the world around them such as the civil right movements, and the Vietnam War affected their new found taste in music.

Influence

It is easy to see the astounding influence that the British Invasion had not only on the culture and music of America during that time, but is also important to note the impact that it has had since then. The two primary bands we looked at in class were The Beatles and The Rolling Stone both of which are house hold names even decades later which makes it apparent the kind of effect they had on America. This begs the question then what would have happened had they stayed on their side of the "pond"? Would it have really mattered?

the border of music

the border between UK and US music disappeared in the 1960s. the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were both influenced by American musicians such as Chuck Berry, and had big influence on American musicians too after they appeared in American music scene. After the border disappeared, UK and US music has been corresponding each other and growing up. Now we have the internet and chance to experience any kind of music, so what do you expect in the future of music?

Chaos Is a Friend of Mine

I want to point out the complex relationship between American electric blues, rock and roll, and the British invasion. The Rolling Stones site blues musicians like Robert Johnson and Muddy waters as major influences to their sound. The Beatles site Chuck Berry as a major influence as well. In the Bob Dylan interview titled "Chaos is a Friend of Mine", Dylan explains that the English are responsible for bringing this sound into the mainstream. To what extent do you think Rhythm and Blues owes its popularity and economic potential to the British invasion? Also in the early 60's, as English artists are starting to make money off this sound, what kind of success are black blues rock artists seeing?

It doesn't matter....

The Beatles were the first band to invade the U.S. American erupted when they had heard the sound of The Beatles and adored them for their clean cut looks. They were a very successful band, only touring for a few years. They had recorded 27 studio albums, 4 live albums. These were produced over a seven year span. They only toured for about four years. I feel they were more successful than any band in a seven year span. The Rolling Stones were influential for their sexual lyrics and dance moves on stage. They were a very talented band recording 29 studio albums, and 10 live albums. I don't feel that one band is more successful than the other because I love both of these bands. I will say however that both bands had their success. The conclusion to this is that both bands had an impact. The Beatles invaded the United States and were able to have a commercial impact. The Rolling Stones bent the rules a bit with their lyrics and dance moves and were able to change the culture of rock music.

What is the U.S. really interested in?

In terms of music and artists, it is difficult to say what the American public is really looking for. Are we looking for genuine talent or are we looking for something to take up our time and keep us entertained? Are artists famous for what they do or for what they show? The reason I ask this is because we see a sort of parallel with artists and their legacies. The Beatles are still popular today, but not so much the stones. Why is that? Is it because The Beatles were accepted by all social groups, or was it because they were tragic (John Lennon's Death for example). Phil Spector is a great example because he was such a huge part of the music business, but now people just remember him as the crazy producer who shot a woman not too long ago. A current artist that applies to this as well is Michael Jackson. He created all this amazing music but then his music took a backseat while he was all over television for his trials. Once he died his music was all over the place. So what is American interested in, the trials and tragedy, or the music itself? Does their "entertaining" life help them leave a legacy?

Why You Hatin' On The Beatles?

In class today we compared and contrasted The Beatles v. The Rolling Stones. Obviously, this was done because they were both bands a part of the British Invasion. I've never even known of such a hardcore rivalry between both fans; I personally never linked the two together on account of that they were both British bands. Yes, I am a fan of both bands, considering my musical influences are from my Dad, but, I'll admit it, ever since I was young, The Beatles took the cake for me. I know a lot of people would argue that The Rolling Stones were innovative with their sound, and always changed it up in their music, and not one song was similar to another; but, let's not just focus on the early emergence of The Beatles in the U.S. Yes, The Beatles started off with their bubble gum pop songs such as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" that made all the girls scream their heads off, but if you take a look at their later work, after they grew into their own sound a bit, they experimented just as much as the Stones. Every member (yes, even Ringo) contributed in song writing for the band, Paul McCartney's songs were blatantly diverse from John Lennon's songs, and the band experimented with new instrumentation, such as synthesizers and sitars. Other than experimenting with new sounds, many of The Beatles's songs had great meaning behind them, often referring to the state of the world. I mean, there was a whole musical movie created around The Beatles's songs depicting the Vietnam War ("Across The Universe"). All I got to say is that I personally don't think that it's fair to say that The Rolling Stones were more innovative with their sound, and this is because I think that most people usually associate only the songs from the album "Please Please Me" rather than songs from "Revolver" with The Beatles. Comparing The Beatles and The Rolling Stones is just too difficult a task simply because they are two, equally influential, and greatly different bands. I just wanted to give The Beatles some credit where it's due.

Follow the influence

if you want to compare the Beatles and the Stones be my guest i myself find it foolish to spend time on this argument because of the influences and modeling of previous musicians from both America and the U.K. the primary influences on the Beatles at first was mainly Elvis and the other Sun Record players Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison,and Jerry Lee Lewis. The Stones idolized the Blues Greats that came over in the 50's and 60's from America Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson II, and Chuck Berry all had played in England in European Tours. The Beatles eveloution in music is more present in the short period of time they had created masterpieces after making a name and comfortable arrangements to have the freedom to make "their" music. Albums now became more than just a record most of the later albums were concept and had pages and linear notes on all the songs, From Magical Mystery Tour to the White Album the Beatles were given the freedom of the studio and used it as an instrument. The Stones on the other hand stayed the course with blues and dabbled in the latest sounds in many songs to stay fresh and legitimize themselves as artists. The started out covering Chuck Berry Tunes and Muddy Waters their name comes from a song of His! in a era of disco and dance music they write Miss You to get an audience then they come right back to the blues it proof when they constantly play with Buddy Guy and other still living blues greats in concerts. Its shown more than ever in "Shine A Light"the film by Martin Scorsese. They both paved the way in Rock 'n' Roll showing to future players that theres more than one sound in Rock and its the child of the past genres before it.

Motown Night on American Idol

Ok-so I can honestly say I generally only like to watch the audition portion of American idol. What can I say, they make me laugh. But for whatever reason-this season I have actually been following the show-maybe it's Steven Tyler, he's such a wild card! For those of you that watch it-tonight is Motown night, so all of the competitors are covering hits from the phenomenal music produced from this era. You might recall that we covered Motown this week (Monday), so I thought some of you may enjoy it.

Oh-and it's on right now!

Does being a better a role model make you more successful?

Call me crazy, but I never knew before this class that the Rolling Stones were from the UK. I always knew The Beatles were and I always thought The Beatles were like THE IT group when they came over to the US and expanded their music. So what does this say? In class we discussed how The Beatles looked better "on paper" you could say because they were less trouble, unlike the Rolling Stones who were often looked at as a poor example and not a very good role model. But did that mean they were less likable? Or less famous/popular? I personally don't know the answer to that question but it makes me question music groups and artists of today. If a group or artist is a more of a positive role model than another, CAN that determine their fame, success, and likability? In today's society, I would say, yes. However, at the same time I would say that it would not really matter because many other things would have been considered inappropriate back in the The Beatles and the Rolling Stones days, considered not so bad now. Regardless, I believe that it is flawless how much of an impact both of these groups have influenced American popular music.

"Crossing the Pond"

The British invasion had a tremendous impact on the music industry and the general populace during and preceding the 1960's. Bands such as The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and The Rolling Stones all played a significant roll on the impact of British and European influence on American music. The Beatles were the first to cross the pond and tour the U.S. There unique style and new genre attracted Americans from all social class's. These European bands are still regarded to this day as some of the most popular talented artist of our era.

Beatles and Rolling Stones

I am not personally the biggest fan of the Beatles, however I do not mind the Rolling Stones. I feel like the Rolling Stones have a more catchy beat to their music. From listening to some different Beatles songs in my past, I can not get into the rhythm of their beats. Obviously these bands coming from foreign countries took over American Rock n Roll. What is it about these bands that made them so popular compared to other American artists? Was it their looks, voice, lyrics, or instrumental talents?

Sorry Beatles

To be honest I have never really listened to the Beatles and the songs that I have heard I never really liked. I know they are know of one of the greatest bands of all time but I would prefer the Rolling Stones anyday. They had a much better rock n roll sound to me that would suck me into their music. The Beatles just never could suck me in like the Rolling Stones. My respect for them also went up when we learned that the Beatles stopped touring at a relatively early part of their career. The stones are still performing today and they are well into their elder years. I feel that the stones had a bigger impact on the bands that came later on. To this day I never have had any Bealtes on my iPod but I always have had the stones.

First Come First Serve?

When the British started taking its roots into the American music industry there was a definite splurge of talents that came about. The Beatles being the first British band gained high popularity and was exceptionally successful. There was just something about them that drove people wild. What is it about the Beatles that makes them that popular? Also, from lecture today we touch upon the Rolling Stones and saw how they are often compared to the Beatles. The Beatles were more popular because they were the first British band that was introduced to us. Do you think that there would have been a difference if the Rolling Stones was the first major pioneer of the British invasion instead of the Beatles?

Battle of the Bands

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones...who's better? I never really knew there was a kind of "battle" between these two bands until class the other day. Both bands had die hard fans that would argue that their band was better. I don't think either was better than the other. They were both rock but had their own styles. It really depends on the mood you're in. Listen to the Beatles for the softer "clean cut" music, and listen to the Stones for a harder "bad boy" style. They are both very talented and influential bands that deserve the fame they've had. I just read an argument about how The Beatles started it all and there was no British Invasion before them and wouldn't have been one without them, and that everything after them was an imitation. Then it said in the Stones defense that the Stones were an R&B band on the London Club Circuit and had nothing to do with the Beatles and the Liverpool sound and many other bands that followed: The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds came from the London scene not the Liverpool one. This in a way can put to rest one of the main arguments that the Beatles are better than the Stones because they started the British Invasion.

Rock And Roll Tournament Bracket

Every year during the month of March millions of people fill out a college basketball bracket to determine who they think will be the best team in the country. Well an Espn radio host Colin Cowherd has created a bracket this month that ranks the best bands of all time. Millions of people have voted and considered the Beatles to be the third best behind AC/DC and Pearl Jam. The people have spoken and the conclusion is that a group of four British musical artists have made an impact on millions of peoples lives in their country and in our own.

The Beach Boys - America's Band?

Upon learning about how The Beach Boys ripped off Chuck Berry, I kind of wrote them off from being a respectable band. However, after discovering that their later album Pet Sounds was the main influence behind The Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I began to reconsider. Upon doing a little research, I realized that several music magazines have rated both of these albums among the greatest ever created. I also noticed that The Beach Boys are commonly cited as being "America's band." Do you think they deserve this title? Does their later, highly acclaimed material overshadow the musical plagiarism of their earlier days? Do you think that by dubbing The Beach Boys "America's band, " it makes it seem as if coping another artist's work is acceptable?

British Invasion.

The Beatles have played a big role in the music industry within America. Because of The Beatles, more British music groups started to bring their music cross the border to America. Even now, many English bands (eg. Coldplay) are gaining popularity in America.

This leads me to the question of how the music industry in America would have been different if there was no British Invasion. Did the British Invasion help to break the music boundaries? Did it help the Americans to get exposed to more kinds of music? Was the British Invasion just a phase in the past or did it transcend through time?

Zi Xuan

Stealing or not?

Mondays discussion about the Beach Boys and their so called "hits" they wrote really got my attention. It made me wonder how many of the hits out there were actually someone else's songs first. Are most songs written and sung by other artist first, before they are covered by the band that makes them famous. Is it stealing if copy right laws did not exist? I'm sure this whole situation with the Beach Boys has happened with other artists as well I just wonder who.

How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n' Roll

For those skeptical of the Beatles and their role in American popular music-I encourage you to check out this book. Elijah Wald is an excellent author and this book offers a different twist on the history of American popular music.

Beatlemania

In my opinion, The Beatles is never ending addiction. Sometimes seems that they are overrated and loving Beatles is just a trend. I understand that they were very influential but I do not agree that they are the best ever. Talking about Beatlemania, it is ridiculous how people can be so dedicated and crazy about them. Some people compare it with Bieber Fever. I would not agree with this because that believe and hope that it is temporary. However, as far as I am c0ncerned, Beatlemania is timeless.

Rock and roll music

I think it's funny how rock and roll has its background in country, and yet every person I know that listens to modern day rock does not like country. I personally do not really mind country, but I would much rather listen to something else. I think today's rock and roll music is becoming more rooted with the pop genre, as it seems a lot of songs are becoming auto tuned. I wonder if it will continue to morph with other genres in future.

What if...

One topic which was brought up more than once in both the discussion as well as the presentation was the common occurrence of songs being covered. Many of the songs which were covered were given a more rock and roll style and often were more popular than the originals. One question that comes to mind is what if there were copyright laws present at the time and these songs were never changed? Would this have effected the popularity of rock and roll as a genre? Would it have caused the other genres to become more popular in its stead?

Too much blame on Freed?

Alan Freed greatly influenced the rock n' roll music world. Specifially, he really helped black musicians get out into the mainstream and popular music world. He got into a lot of trouble for the payola scams he was going through. However, do you think he was targeted so much because of his association with the black musician community? I feel as though he was given so much trouble for payola, because the world wanted an excuse for how these songs got so big. It seems like they did not want to admit that African American musicians could actually have great and popular songs on their own, so they sort of used Freed as a kind of scapegoat to explain it.

Covers

The Bill Haley version of "Shake, rattle, and roll" lacks the passion and soul that you hear in the Big Joe Turner original. Most people can agree that cover songs are never as good as the original because they lack the same feeling that an original has. There are exceptions, like when an artist does something different with the song-like the Jimi Hendrix version of "All Along the Watchtower". Unless an artist reworks a song to make it their own, cover songs generally come across as ameatur versions.

Song Covers

The idea behind covering a song has changed since the beginnings of rock and roll. While covering a song originated with an artist basically stealing a song from someone else and calling it their own it has since become a tribute to the original artist. Many bands pay tribute to their idols by covering songs and also with collaborations with other artists. What i like most about covered songs now is that it may introduce people to bands that were before their time and thus opening them up to other bands.

Rock 'N' Roll

Rock n roll was crated as a mixture of R&B and hillbilly music. It was targeted at young adolecence in specific the baby boomers, the influx of youths after the war ended. Rock n roll was a new style of music that was viewed by the youth as the sound of the new generation and by adults as devils music. Some radios would only play caucasian music due to the racism that stills persisted in the U.S. The radios that was non bias sky rocketed in reviews and became more prdominant and popular than others becasuse they played music from all ethnic backrounds and didnt discriminate. This new genre and style of music was maketed at the youth that could afford records and became the new fad.

Covering Music and Rock n Roll

There are many different topics discussed in the blog posts that I would like to address, but the main one being the idea of covering different artists. I was not in class on Monday to hear the discussion, but through lectures as well as my own knowledge I can say that I am torn between bands that cover other music artists. Original songs from an artist have meaning (usually) which will always make it "special". However, when an artist covers the song, though they have not written the lyrics, they can make it their own. A wonderful song interpreted in a way that one wouldn't have thought of, makes listening to it a completely different experience. What makes covering bad is when the artist that is covering as ill-intentions. The Beach Boys for example, though they were not necessarily out to get Chuck Berry, copied the rifts for their own profit. I hate that, there is no going around it. I am glad there are laws now to avoid those situations but we still see it all the time. I am always listening to music on the radio trying to hear if a song sounds like it came from somewhere else. Songs are always coming from other songs, especially now, where a lot of Rap artists or pop artists are taking songs and adding a modern twist, like the Black Eyed Peas or even Vanilla Ice (which of course is not modern but was very controversial). I wish artists would try to be original now, but music is becoming increasingly generic and it is so sad.

Cover It Up

I can absolutely understand why many African American musicians would be discouraged by the idea of white musicians covering their songs. This not only meant that their songs would be broadcasted on the mainstream radio with credit given to a different musician, but also that most of the time the lyrics would be changed. I can totally understand how difficult that would be because if I wrote a song, and someone changed the lyrics on me, that would ruin what the song meant to me. Those African American musicians had little voice still in main stream music, and this only gave them less worth by changing their lyrics to fit the idea of "appropriate." Music isn't about being appropriate or approved; it's about letting go and showing what you feel.

Hail Hail Rock n Roll

What appears to be over looked more often then people notice is the fact Chuck Berry was billed as country artists before he meet Muddy Waters and Chess. His rhythm and sweet voice was idolized from all over the world he was the sound that sent the world a flame and its the fact that all the English bands covered at least his sound or a song in full. Countless artists from the British invasion were replaying what had already been played in America but fell on deaf ears when the songs were first played by the original players. Howlin' Wolf  from Sun Records but latter persuade to join Chess was a huge move to solidify Chess as the home of electric blues. Wolf was the base of influence for Led Zeppelin while the Stones and Beatles loved everything Chuck played. What fueled the love for the blues in England was because of the extensive touring by the players of Chess through out England the exposer left its mark on the future generation of musicians.

Rock And Roll

Rock and Roll was developed in a very opportune moment in the United States. The war was finally over and the troops were on their way home to a new age in America. The Rock and Roll period of the United States was the jump start to the new audience of the American youth. It was the first time that there was a genre developed in music that targeted young adolescents. Record companies started to take the youths opinion into account and mixed their opinions with those of older adults.