Electronic Drivel- Popularizing Music In America

Imagine playing Beethoven's Symphony No. 7, drifting along with the playful exchanges between wind and strings in the opening...feeling the accelerating tension sweep through you and continue along like an emotional butterfly, all as fluid as thought. Play this enchantment upon the average American pop-listener and he'll tell you, HARDER. I want to feel that precious butterfly CONVULSING INSIDE OF ME.

The story of electronic music in America has gone similarly awry. Beside the venues of trashy nightclubs and sporadic “raves,” electronic music is widely dismissed as “Eurotrash” and seems to be just another misunderstood subculture. However, there is one form that appears to be gaining mainstream popularity in the Western world. Dubstep, the queer form of electronic dance music, has been gaining commercial success in the States, even recognized by the 2012 Grammy awards. However, this adaption of electronic is becoming a satire of what originally started in the UK. As we see electronic music slowly crown its head here in America, it's curious to wonder why it's spent decades on the fringe. What is to be said about our appropriated version of the European custom and how does that reflect our society?

Electronic music has a young, albeit dynamic history. Pioneered primarily as an art form with the message of nonstop dancing, it gradually developed into a multitude of genres and subgenres, some of which are still tastefully respected, some are not. But any music to be considered art requires some knowledge for comprehension and appreciation. It's like looking at a piece of fabric- what one sees as a bunch of fibers, a skilled eye will notice how tightly the fibers are bound, how nicely they blend, how durable yet soft they are. Modern electronic music has been fabric that's too avant-garde for America until recently. 

Laymen are usually turned off by the element of repetition, but when looked at from different angles, there's incredibly complex patterns and tonal sequences to be noticed. Many pull from classical influences that aid to take you down a melodic journey. I'm not sure if it has the clout to stand next to Beethoven, but there are interesting nuances and intelligent structures that can easily go unnoticed. This new dubstep doesn’t seem interested in paying homage or advancing the rich, soulful history of some of its predecessors. Instead, it’s threatening music that was celebrated for complexity, not how quickly your eardrums are annihilated.

Considered by in large the black sheep of electronic music, American dubstep has online communities ranting. Traditionally beginning in South London, dubstep was originally recognized by its dominating bass and layers of synthesizers. However, the sound that has evolved is often referred to as aggressive robot mating calls. It's like androids screaming in your face relentlessly. This has left a bad taste of disdain in the mouths of the community, along with many other confused listeners. They’ve even given it a cute pet name, BROstep, in obvious attempt to stress we do not agree with this shit.

Americanizing culture is an eternal concept that’s contributed to the unflattering stereotype of lazy, simple-minded people only concerned with money. Sadly though, our tenacity to take something of meaning and then strip it bare, water it down and exploit it for money has sort of made us accountable. Bred under capitalism, the American music industry is only concerned with one thing, profit maximization. Music must produce mass commercial interest and attract the widest audience possible to survive. What results is a standardized structure: obsessively repetitive rhythms, manipulated effects and reverberating bass, all woefully drenched in 4/4 meter. Contrarily, Europe has leniency to focus on formal structure, sonic properties and theories about sound. There's more of a luxury to explore the intellectual areas of their music. European music is usually more artistically involved, opening thoughts for criticism and demanding focused attention. It’s art. So here we have a frank display of where two societies go with their ideas of music and art. On one hand, we have droning robots that exasperate the ear with belligerent bass lines and drops while, on the other hand, there’s popular music with subtle patterns between spacey atmospheres and thoughtful melodies.

Our society likes things harder, faster and easier. The ramifications of this highly produced stimulation are self-evident. It’s undeniable that the modern attention span is worse than a gnat’s, that “immediate gratification” isn’t fast enough and the remaining traces of creativity left are being channeled to advancing technology and advertisement-fueling the source to this miserly cycle. So the million dollar question remains, is dubstep popular because it reflects our innate behavior; sociologically representing us as we are? Or are we being sculpted by the PR firms and cultural taste-makers of the media, becoming lazy and passive from the lack of refined art and higher levels of thinking?

Houston's Death Highlights Sensationalism

Whitney Houston died. That’s right, the spectacle of song made her dramatic exit at the age of 48; chances are your comatose fish knew about it. Like Michael Jackson, news of Houston’s death is omnipresent in the media and suffocating subsequent stories. American media is infatuated with celebrity stories, but when they die, we explode. The coverage of this and other celebrity deaths have been sensationalized to a point of mania and become more diluted the longer we’re bludgeoned to death by the story. Why is it we’re so obsessed with underwhelming stories?

Houston’s story is intriguing. She binged on cocaine and erratic behavior while her voice bellowed sounds of heaven and life. While “intriguing” is sometimes enough for coverage, the ubiquity of her death in the media is puzzling. Factors to consider a story newsworthy include:

• Impact or consequence- the greater the impact, the more newsworthy
• Conflict- humans love reading about war
• Proximity- how relevant the story is to the reader’s geographical location
• Prominence- famous people are more newsworthy
• Timeliness- if it happened a week ago, it’s nonexistent
• Unusualness- “when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro” (Hunter S Thompson)

Houston was a prominent figure who died an unusual death. Now that she’s passed, her fame has been inflated to the likes of the Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis. Obviously, this was not so. Houston’s talent was great, but she will never be considered an iconic classic like the aforementioned. It seems we’re trying to justify this media charade. I think it’s time to reflect on the news industry’s responsibility to covering what is best for public interest. This mainstream media bias is encouraging coverage of what everyone else is already reporting, distracting the public from any meaningful news. We’re misplacing our values into hype and degrading our culture to trivialization.

Tips For Detectable Tweeting

In a world so connected to hundreds of millions of people blasting their voices and opinions everyday, is it possible to be more than just part of the drone? Is the future of public relations just a shouting match, a catty competition for volume? Opening the platform for any schmuck to be heard is triumphantly favorable to the profession of PR, yet simultaneously diluting the attention span of the world tweet by tweet.

Our generation of new professionals faces challenges incomparable with others before. Not only is the less-than-stellar job market smothering but also technology has evolved into a narcissistic queen, demanding our utmost brilliance, creativity and aptitude at all times. Almost every article giving tips for the professional twitter circles around using more creativity, personality and stimulating communication. But how is this creative brilliance to be noticed in the muddled abyss? Using specific keywords help brand visibility by increasing the odds your content will appear in the search results.Without using the words people are using to find information, there’s little chance of garnering enough attention to your message. Getting better web presence is vital, a lusty term for it is Site Engine Optimization [SEO]. Other than molding your content around what everyone else is doing and searching, greater SEO is evasive.  So in a beautiful twist of events, we’re supposed to shine with flamboyant creativity yet remain part of the status quo so that people can find us.  Here are some tips that foster these puzzling contradictions.

-      Improve your vocabulary

o   Yes, it is important to include keywords that people are searching for. However, exercising your vocabulary frequently is imperative for writers of any media. Learn words that describe your message more precise and succinct. But remember to use language that is familiar, or at least contextually obvious.

-      Engage With Others

o   Forward your replies to your cell phone so you get a notification when someone @replies you. While it’s easier said than done and certainly time consuming, it pays off. When someone notices you, they should know you noticed too.

-      Write Gaudy Headers

o    Your header is the deciding point whether to click or not. This needs to be exciting, lucid, drawing or provoking. Only successful news outlets bother with emaciated, factual headlines. Dress yours up! Make a tranny out of it. But easy on the adjectives.

-      Find Inspiration

o   No creativity is original. In fact, nothing is truly original. Read around, get ideas flowing from your mentors. I love reading lyrics to spark a dead fuse.

America the Sham

Growing up in white suburbia produces a mindset that is becoming more unusual to me. I, like many of my peers, was convinced at an early age that America is this mystical land that rests on a platform, superior to all other lands we humbly take pity on. That we live in this utopia where freedom is pumped through our water systems and prosperity is sprouting from the sequoias, ripe for the plucking. Children are misled; words like “freedom” and “prosperity” have become banal guarantees. Kids, what are we “free” from, anyways? These guarantees have lost their real importance as human fundamentals that we are entitled to because we were born, regardless of what politics say or not. Our personal paths in life have been obscured in the path planned out for us, but not by us. Whether one agrees with American ideals or not, the fact is our lives have been hijacked, and it’s weird that this is normal.

Our lives have been hijacked because we think and believe things that aren’t self-produced. We live by guidelines, laws, codes that are said to be normal, that it’s just the way it is. We’ve accepted the axiom that hard work, discipline and education are the treasure trails to success. But who came up with this? Seeing as these aren’t a product of nature or evolution, there must be some man behind these concepts. The idea that hard work and respect will get you far in life didn’t seem odd to me before, but suddenly I’m realizing these “honorable” traits aren’t for personal advancement, instead for blind obedience to the American standard.

I’ve begun to lose my mind. Not in some dramatic fashion or more so than most people I know, but in a more creepy, insidious way. It’s the outcome of breaking from conventional ways of thinking. From the boundless literature of intellectual minds from the past and present, and from talking to others I respect, I know my way of thinking is hardly original. I feel insecure talking about this at times because I wonder if this is common sense and I’m simply just late to catch on. Then I wonder if it’s some esoteric concept only grasped by astute thinkers (ha..ha..humbly spoken, of course). Now I realize what I speak of is only foreign to those that grew up like me, privileged and misguided.

This is a cathartic realization for me. I realize now why I find myself angrier than my non-white friends at the inscrutable and subconscious racism that camouflages within society every day. I sometimes talk with my friends from inner cities about the smoke and mirrors of America and become consumed with rage while they coyly smile and respond nonchalantly. Corruption of our nation and unapologetic lies are yesterday’s news to our minority sisters and brothers. They’re aware of the racism and experience it every day; in ways that most white people have been conditioned to think is trivial. Suburbia grew up with the highest trust in our policemen and considered unquestionably reliable in case of an emergency; while urban communities realistically teach kids to stay away from the police at all costs- not only are they undependable for help, but also out to ensure your demise. For some, this sounds like paranoia or like excuses being made for certain behavior, but those are the ones that have never been ticketed for J-walking or searched because of the brand of clothing you’re wearing. For half of the 20^th century, Jim Crow laws were enforced as a way to either disrespect blacks or remove them from our sight and relocate them to jail. Simply because lazy white men were resentful that they couldn’t have slaves do their work anymore. Isn’t this an astounding parallel to today’s circumstances- with our jails at an unprecedented disproportion of blacks to whites, the drastic economic gap between the men with the money and the men who make their money but never see it, or the question of why education costs so much?

I get heat from others who think I talk about this too much or think about it too intensely. Which is exactly the negativity that has brought nothing progressive to the people and kept the hegemony thriving in favor of those undeserving. By not talking about it or questioning what people tell you, we’re handing over our minds while allowing authority to oppress us and our peers. And the reason why America is worse than other oppressive countries is because we wear this mask of benevolence and altruism. We claim to be something that we’re not. It’s outrageously offensive finding out we’ve been tricked since conception, and that we’re still in denial.

Ay, Brah.

The image of women in the media has been prominent in controversial discussion and social conflict theories for decades. While a worthy issue to speculate, we've been distracted from analyzing the male image. Has anyone ever stopped to think, how did men get to where we are now?

The virtues that [straight] men admire in other men have become qualities that confound most common sense. Alpha men today aren’t like they used to be. Iconic male figures in history like James Dean or John Wayne were celebrated for their charisma, confidence and chivalry. Their presence in society wasn’t because of their physical size, misogyny, or aggression, as we see today. Through the years, we can see a visible difference from the men we used to respect to the men held revered today. You can expect the "bro-tastic" "alpha male" of today to be cocky, arrogant, presumptuous, intolerant, and unbelievably muscular. Other than exasperation, this might be posing a real problem. Afterall, men commit 90% of violence and research shows we’re getting more violent. Even CNN chimed in saying the concept of a "quality man" is obsolete.

Men have undergone shocking reformation in the media through the years. Today, masculinity is associated with how much alcohol you can endure without vomiting, how freakishly huge their biceps are, or the turnover rate in their bedroom. He's expected to know flippant details over a few domestic beers, which he will always drink with his "bros." Men today love their bros, and religiously oblige to the latest puzzling concept of "bro-code." Ugh, barf. Also, the physique of admired men apparently caught elephantitis and has swollen to masses beyond pleasing. Notice the changing bodies from Marlon Brando, John Wayne, James Dean, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme in the 80s and 90s.

In the video “Tough Guise,” Jackson Katz explores the impact that overly-masculinized images have on society and culture. His insight is directly related to the cultivation theory, that suggests mass-produced images and messages are responsible for shaping the perception of our reality, ultimately “cultivating” our culture as a whole from media. Boys will turn out like the men they watch in movies, and those that don’t can expect backbreaking harassment and vicious words like bitch, fag, pussy. We are immersed with this ideal through media. It’s not just in a few places like video games and movies, but it’s literally what passes as a social norm. Katz also drew interesting connections between the construction of hyper-masculinity and politics, sports, consumerism and the marginalization of women.

This image of the alpha male is not an accident. It’s sourced and controlled by white, heterosexual males that do control this message and can leverage it to their benefit. Theoretically, one could postulate how these images encourage military advocacy. One could argue that men conditioned to think brute violence is the route to respect would find more hope in the military. Either way, with media reinforcing apathetic, mindless, aggressive behavior is implementing an ideal that isn’t realistic, and conjointly putting restrictions on an individual’s growth, behavior and attitude.

Sports: Mind-Controlling Propaganda

Considering sports as an “important” part of American culture is the understatement of the year. Sports are a central part of people’s lives and they certainly influence culture. Athleticism, teamwork, competition, hard work and so on are staples of American ideals because of sports. We witness the crowds of everyday people losing their minds, temper and money as though it’s completely normal behavior. Allegiance to a sports team is basically the same as fidelity to your spouse. People get tattoos of their sports team, spend outrageous money to see them perform, paint themselves and riot all for the sake of their team. How has sports become such a monster capable of such mania?

The sociology of professional sports strikes an uncanny resemblance to American sociology in general. To understand a society, one must understand political economy- how money and power are intertwined and what their intentions are with such power. Conflict theory of sociology says that social order results from the rich and powerful using their privilege to maintain their advantage – sometimes by force but more often by control of the media, symbols, schools, and other institutions. American sports are undoubtedly dictated and shaped by the structure of the economy. Furthermore, sports are also socially constructed, but constructed by the powerful moneymakers. Dimensions to question: How athletes become alienated from their own bodies, sports and commercialism, sports as patriotic/nationalistic propaganda.

Sports are a business, an extremely profitable business. Millions and millions are spent publicizing sports and millions of dollars have also been spent watching them. American sports teams are designed to make rewards (usually monetary) for their business owners, and those affiliated become conditioned to only want money, power and prestige. The deviance in sports conduct emphasizes this- increased use of violence, breaking rules like holding and pushing, and the use of steroids as a performance enhancer. Athletes are doing this for the symbiotic relationship, not for individual betterment. In fact, when an individual becomes an athlete, they lose their identity and become a spokesperson for their economic suppliers, or sponsors. Personal beliefs, ethics and positions are replaced with those of the sponsor. Michael Jordan is a perfect example of an athlete exploiting himself to the desires of his many sponsors. On the other hand, Tommie Smith and John Carlos show what happens when you utilize fame to voice personal beliefs. The two athletes were condemned for demonstrating against the inequality in America after they won the gold and bronze medal, respectively.

The NFL also regularly acts as propaganda for the military. Militant advocacy is ubiquitous during games- frequent advertisements for US military, appearances of troops at games, segments of troops overseas during holiday games. The Super Bowl begins with the national anthem and then encouraging words from the president, followed by fighter jets flying above. Furthermore, the parallels between the two are unmistakable. Athletes, like soldiers, become numbered gladiators that sacrifice their health and identity to follow orders from a commander. They are submitted to a caste system; and exploited to never see the kind of money they’re actually generating. Their bodies become conditioned for violence to gain territory on the opposition. Even terms used in football come directly from military use: Blitz, line to gain, bomb, trench, and encroachment.

As a non-sports fan, I’ve always found the reaction from fans intriguing, or mind-boggling. It’s interesting that seemingly sound-minded people can fall in love with athletes from across America that play for the team they live in, while developing this irrational hatred for similar men that play for opposing teams. Reminiscent of flag-waving war supporters without a clue what we’re fighting for, much?

The sociology of sports reflects everything that is wrong with America. Sports naturalize extreme violence for the sake of winning, is run by commercialism, uses the subservience of athletes to back corporate wishes, and strips the individual of their voice to stay popular with the keepers of normality. Corporations use their power to hide this fascist agenda and mislead fans into believing there’s no political notion in sports. We have been manipulated into accepting irrational behavior, finding ourselves act the same as those who are heavily biased in politics or blind nationalism. Sports have become a diversion to the issues that matter, a distraction that pits our own human nature against ourselves.

Yay For Gay

What do you get when you have two working people bringing home a salary with no child to spend it on? A marketer’s wet dream. According to San Francisco research, 76% of the gay and lesbian community earns more than the national average of $40,000 a year. This is largely because there is no child in the picture so both parties can afford to work. Marketer’s refer to it as DINK (dual income no kids) and are tickled to death by this jackpot. But what do you do when you have a mass of money to appeal to and the rest of your market is still up their bigoted ass? Use innuendo like your life depended on it.

For some reason, advertising to gays has this stigma that misled people to believing it must be sleazy or overly sexual to be effective. As though the only way to get homosexual attention is through sex. But isn’t that already a maxim for advertising in general anyway? Sex sells…to everyone. For decades the sexy attempts to sell to straight men has produced sweeping outrage from women for the shocking indecency and deprecation. When advertisers find themselves in this new light of moral awareness, they use a tactic like product placement. Homo-placement discreetly places symbols or other gay suggestions in the ad that blow over most hetero-heads. However, these ads that target gays don’t frequent your average CNN or ABC. They implement the classic American device known as “separate but equal.” Advertisers will run one gay commercial on Logo or Bravo and another, basically identical without homosexual implications, to the rest of America.

I’m not totally certain how I feel about these strategies to incorporate gay characters in mainstream commercials. On one hand, the fact these companies are using utmost discretion sends a message that being gay is something to hide. However, subtle placement could also be seen as attempts to normalize the homosexual community to the rest of society. While there’s always room for scrutiny, these ads could be baby steps toward tolerance (the non-offensive ads, anyway), a way to include homosexuals in ads without alienating them. Perhaps eventually pave the way to overall social equality. After all, there’s no better way to reach the top than through capitalism!

While it’s true that marginalized groups in history have acquired power through economic resources, it’s always been through producing or controlling money. However, gays and lesbians are breaching equality in the economic realm as the role of the consumer. It is because they’re so attractive to advertisers that they are offered the some kind of route to equality. Unfortunately, this commodization of homosexuality resulted in ads that hide gay culture with innuendos behind a straight appearance. Misrepresentation like this is ignoring millions of homosexuals who don’t experience reality like this, thus rendering their lives invisible once again.