Is Classical Music Dying?

Recently, music has been categorized into two main kinds: classical music and modern/popular music. However, classical music is just classical music, but modern music actually contains sundry different kinds of mass music categories, for instance, rock, Rap, R&B and so on. With the larger and larger number of majority  listening to only modern music, some people start worrying about the risk of the extinction of classical music.

The article published on The New York Times on Nov. 24^th, 2012 was the correspondence from Les Dreyer who worried about that classical music is dying. Dreyer narrated that a schoolboy asked him if Richard Wagner was a pitcher for the Yankees as an example to start his claim. Les Dreyer stood on the angle that classical music is superior to the pop music and claimed emotionally that it “weaned away from the cacophony of rock”. In addition, he pointed out the reason caused the runoff of classical music is the lack of musical education to the young. Dreyer complained that the youth of the recent generation is forced to learn only “core” courses. Very few of them have chance to even touch classical music, let alone to fall in love with it. From Dreyer’s potential opinion is that classical music is way better and more valuable than modern “cacophony of rock”.

The second and the main part of the article are the different responses from different readers. Sundry opinions make the discussion very interesting. None of the readers totally agree with Dreyer. Some people agree with him partly, some people totally against him. Within the people who partly agree with him, many of them also worry that classical music is dying and will be replaced completely by modern music. However, unlike Dreyer who blame the prevalence of pop music, people have different perspectives about the worry. First, several people said that classical music is too expensive to be afforded by everyone. Only a few groups of people can afford the cost of classical music: sitting in a golden odeum listening to symphony even under some dress code. Second, people point out that the youth today have tiny chance to touch the classical music is because their parents actually grow up with pop music too. For the people who completely against Dreyer, mostly are disagree with his prejudices of the pop music. People agree that rock music also has precious values influencing people today as the classical music did before. They are just two different categories of music, but cannot to be compared and say which one is better or which one is worse. Besides, people also come up with other advice of the situation. Some people suggest cutting the prize of classical concert for the youth. Some people distinguish classical music and pop music as culture and entertainment (market-driven) and point out they are both important. Some people say that providing chance for youth to involve into the classical music like instrument learning is better than the abstract lectures.

The last part of the article is the response from Dreyer to the readers. He appreciates for some suggestions, but as stubborn as he was, treating rock music as cacophony.  What do you think about classical music and popular music? Do you agree that classical music in America is dying? As a reader, do you have any response to Dreyer’s idea?

Pulling Back the Curtain

This audio piece Pulling Back the Curtain speak on what happens behind the scenes or backstage during radio shows and radio stations like MPR. John Solomon who narrates this piece speaks on how the editing process makes host sound more articulate because you don’t hear them messing up or trying to figure out what to say. Through this editing you don’t hear the on air slip-ups and radio host seem to have perfect transition throughout the whole show. Solomon voices his opinion if the audience would be interested about the editing process. Radio is supposed to be live be what the audience don’t know is that sometimes the host aren’t even at the radio station but rather they are calling in from a different location to do an interview. Also what you hear maybe not going on live but may have been pre taped, and interviews are shorten to get rid of the useless parts. Sound effects are also a huge part editing adds effects like laugher or previously saved sound bites. Solomon explains that a lot of the listeners believe radio to be truthful because of the preconceived notion that it is live and unedited, study’s show that because of the editing process that’s why audience don’t believe television to be truthful. Ultimately you as an audience how do you feel about editing a radio and do you believe you should be told when it’s being used. Or do believe there is the capability of being too much editing going on within the radio and people are assuming that what they hear is what is really going on.    

In the podcast “Making Radiolab”, hosts Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich discuss the importance of sound in radio shows as a means of storytelling. They reference a clip in which developmental psychologist Anne Fernald says, “Sound is kind of touch at a distance,” and then delineate how this is so. The air that pulses into a listener’s ears causes vibrations and bending of receptive hair within the ears, then charged particles send electricity to neurons to create the sounds we hear. Jad and Robert distort Fernald’s sentence through filters by extending the effects, vibrations, and breaths of the sound clip- subsequently demonstrating the capabilities of sound effects and illustrating the story of sound as a travelling journey to the ear.

To further exemplify the use of sound in story, Abumrad and Krulwich refer to an interview done with pilots facing G-forces in a flight simulator.  One “raw” interview with a pilot (“raw” meaning not edited) is then compared to an interview reinvented with editing. Through music, juxtaposed vocal tracks, and various sound effects, the edited interview clearly creates a more colorful story of which the listener associates with a work of art, as opposed to any other typical recording. As they word it, they’re “manipulating reality to a degree” in order to stir emotion and connection within the story.

The hosts then use historical events to discuss the reception of sound on a physical and biological level. In 1913, the play Rite of Spring used new music that did not sit well with its audience. Riots arose in response to music that was unheard of at the time. The reason for this is scientifically speculated to be caused by a massive release of dopamine exerted when the neurons in the auditory cortex cannot accurately decode the new sounds attempting to be processed. This release literally caused insanity. However a year later, when the play was re-introduced, the crowd was openly receptive… possibly because the music had already been introduced, and therefore able to be decoded.

Abumrad and Krulwich use this event to represent how the brain processes sound, and uses art as a means to create new meaning based on what has already been introduced. To further exemplify this idea, a clip of sound designer Walter Murch is played on the podcast. In this clip, Murch tells how he accidentally adjusted his neuronal musical receptors to solely understand Gregorian chants (for a project he was working on at the time.) He discovered he had reset his brain when hearing a later piece by Bach, which he momentarily interpreted as rough noise. Murch’s story shows the listeners how, as radio hosts and sound editors, one must reset how they’re able to tell stories, just as their brain resets to understand new sound. The auditory effects used in Adumrad and Krulwich’s examples further illustrate the connection they’re trying to create between the listener and story.

As they say, if they’re doing their jobs right, there is no need for visuals in storytelling. 

Do you think stories are best told in a blatant and "raw" manner? Or best told after editing, elaborating, and embellishment?

Have you ever listened to stories told solely through audio, if not would you? If not, then why not?

As for creativity and innovation, do you believe our brains reset themselves based off of what it already knows in order to create new work? Or do you believe it is one continual stream of creation?

Problems Plaguing Memoirs

Over the years, society has become aware of a situation involving aspects of the truth in literary culture.  The “memoir” has become the lightning rod for the majority of scandals that rock the book industry, and is the most publicized.  In the past decade, the most notable case of an issue with the truth within a memoir would be James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces.  The main reason the major fallout in this case centers on that the memoir had the initial backing of TV personality Oprah Winfey, which was later recanted.  The point is that the lack of truth in a person’s memoir is a more understandable phenomenon than people think.  In my chosen blog post, I came to the decision to examine an article that explains how memoirs are inheritably flawed.  The article, The Problem With Memoirs, is by Mano Singham, the director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve University.  Singham had his interest peaked in memoirs after learning about a new book by David Maraniss titled Barack Obama: The Story, which challenges some of the details in Obama’s memoir.  Singham then goes on to explain why he was not surprised about this new turn of events.  He believes that since memoirs are based on memoires and on the author’s perception of the world, instead on research, memoirs are automatically untrustworthy sources of the truth.  Singham points out that since we are human, we have a natural tendency to make our stories more dramatic as the result of attempts to make the memories more meaningful to ourselves.  Also, over time, we start to the believe the lies we have told ourselves, and Singham cited several times where his vivid childhood memories could not be substantiated by his family.  As a result from this evidence, Singham came to the conclusion that all memoirs should not be considered bastions for the truth.  He took this in consideration when he was serving on he used to serve on the committee that chose the first-year book that all freshman had to read. He attempted to block the decision to use the memoir Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson, but was unsuccessful.  It was later discovered than large parts of the memoir were false. 

So as this issue is becoming more and more common, do you feel that the credibility of a “memoir” is stained beyond recovery? Do you feel the author’s are totally to blame for the problems with the truth, even though the process is flawed?  Should an author conduct more research into their own memories, even though that will take time and resources?  Would you still read a person’s memoir?  Any additional commentary would be greatly appreciated. 

Truth in Memoirs

Truth in memoirs is topic that over time has become more and more talked about in our society. In the past 10 years we have heard of plenty of literary scandals that have unfolded, such as James Frey’s, “A Million Little Pieces” or Norma Khouri’s, “Forbidden Love;” but why is there such a rise in being untruthful and what can be done to stop this? Fern Kupfer, an English professor at Iowa State University wrote an essay called, Everything But The Truth,where she explains how there are three kind of “lies” that are not only acceptable, but also necessary in memoir writing.

She begins by explaining how although many of us would like to read good stories, we also don’t like to be lied too. Kupfer then goes on to tell a story about a student she once had in her nonfiction seminar class, Chris, who told an elaborate tale of his family, where his father deserted them and his mother was left alone with his siblings to survive. Chris eventually got an A in that class, and the following year Kupfer happened to have his girlfriend as a student. Through talking with her and hearing how she was going to visit Chris’ parent’s for the holidays, Kupfer became confused, because from Chris’ story, that didn’t seem to add up. As she began to dig deeper, she realized Chris’ has lied to her in his memoir, and his parents never separated to begin with. Kupfer felt betrayed, and seeing how you can accessorize the truth to make your story seem less dull, Chris in fact “did more than our creative judgments could have allowed…Chris had constructed exclusively from his imagination. Chris had lied” (292). Kupfer then moves on to explain how she get questions from her students all the time about how they feel they can’t mold their stories in a way they feel in which they aren’t lying. She then tell us how there are three kinds of lies that are acceptable, and how we “need to give memoir writers permission to lie, but only when the reconstructed version of the story doesn’t deceive the reader” (292).The first lie that is deemed acceptable is little “white lies” that you make up when you are unable to remember the minor details, such as the color of your coat, the dress you wore on your birthday, and so on. The second lie is one that “narrative structure often demands: composite characterization, compression of time, omission of unnecessary detail” (293). Where some details could take up too much time, or clog or overpopulate your story, it is better to compress characters or take out information that allow you to get straight to the point. The last lie is that called “the gift of perhaps.” She describes how you can imagine the “what if’s” of your story, to help you better understand characters feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. Your story is to be told from your perspective, and so shaping the truth without having the reconstructed version deceive the reader is an acceptable aspect of this type of writing.

With that being said, do you agree with her methods of acceptable lies? Do you think they are necessary when formulating your memoir? Is okay to use your imagination in writing and how much? How does one formulate boundaries when writing memoirs? Should any type of “lying” or shaping the truth be acceptable?

"When Patents Attack!"

     The web audio show This American Life, hosted by Ira Glass, features in the episode “When Patents Attack!” first hand interviews, research, and commentary by NPR correspondent Laura Sydell and This American Life producer Alex Blumberg. The focus, as the title of the episode suggest, is patents and their unintended use as springboards for countless lawsuits.

     The show begins with host Glass introducing the story of a man named Jeff Kelling. As a software developer, Kelling explains how he and his friends (also developers) started their own business creating a way for user to share photos over the Internet. After years of success with this business, Kelling receives a letter stating that his business was in violation of patents that another company was holding and therefore owed them money. The choices Kelling had were to either go to court which was too expensive for his business, or settle outside of court which he did.

     The reason this case is mentioned is to point out a key factor: the company that sent the letter bought the patents from someone else (the original inventors, even before Kelling) but wasn't using the patent to make products, instead filing lawsuits against others who did. This leads to the authors introducing a key term “patent troll” coined by Peter Detkin who at the time was a lawyer. The term refers to an analogy that Detkin makes with the fairytale Three Billy Goats Gruff, “cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, “How about a patent troll?”(Detkin).

     The majority of the show follows Sydell, and Blumberg as they investigate further into the issue of patent trolls. The commentators focus on the patent buying and usage company Intellectual Ventures. Examination of interviews containing dialog of people in relation to Intellectual Ventures or knowledge of patent law rights forms the authors' argument against patent trolls. The authors use this large company as an example of just how big an influence the patents can have on creativity and innovation. Even large corporations like Google, Apple, and Microsoft will spend billions of dollars to obtain patents to use as “protection” against lawsuits. Stated during an interview about thirty percent of patents (in the U.S.) cover roughly the same technologies and ideas which can really cause legal issues. This is suppose to be a system to protect inventor and allow them to profit from their ideas but the audio show suggest instead that they are now stifling innovation as inventors fear of being sued.

     I find the issue to have a lot less significance to our class than the closely related issue of copyrights but the issue itself seem to be very important to our economy here in the U.S. There should be a regulation to combat the role of patent trolls, decrease the chances that one company can control so much intellectual property becoming similar to a monopoly.

So what do you think about the patent troll strategy, an effective way to make money or a damaging practice to the industry of inventors?

The trolls use a strategy of threatening to take people to court knowing that they would lose but take advantage of the fact that small companies don't have enough money to pay for court fees. Do you believe that this is a flaw in our judicial system?

Culture and Self-Expression

“Culture and Self-Expression,” written by Heejung S. Kim is how speech and self-expression are correlated and how they are expressed differently through distinct two cultural contexts. Kim’s main concern is related to, in the “more collectivistic cultural contexts” such as in the East Asian society, how speech and self-expression are not considered to be important to the same degree as in the U.S. Kim explains that it is because these East Asian cultures more value the thoughtful and self-disciplined silence. In other words, what the writer wants to tell the readers is that these different cultural assumptions affect how people express their thoughts and feelings, and then, how ways of expression influence both psychological and biological results. To further explain this, the article focuses on two things which are “the influence of speech on thought and the use and effects of social support.” Two studies are conducted on two different cultural groups of participants to discover the influence of speech on thought. The first study, which examined cultural influences on cognitive problem solving, instructed the participants to solve problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices. The outcome of the study reveals that the speech works as a primary means to express and clarify one’s thoughts in the Western cultural context while it works as a significant distraction to thinking in the Asian cultural context. The second study is conducted using the participant’s saliva examples for cortisol analysis along with the first study. It turned out that remarkably higher cortisol levels, indicating a measure of biological stress responding to the task, were shown for Asian American participants than European American participants. Then the participants did surveys about how they had coped with recently experienced stressors. As a result, Asian Americans/Asians answered that they were less likely to seek social support for coping with stress than European Americans were because they concern that seeking social support would cause them to interrupt group harmony, cause them to be embarrassed, and receive criticism from others. As a conclusion, the writer warns that “high levels of stress and other problems may arise when institutional practices expect a particular cultural meaning of speech from people who do not share the same cultural meaning” since they are based on Western cultural assumptions in terms of education and health practices and the society would only favor the cultural majority.

Do you believe that the institutional practices, which expect a particular meaning of speech from people who do not share the same cultural meaning, that are based on Western cultural assumptions in terms of education and health practices would be solved somehow not to only favor the cultural majority in the United States? Then, which cultural context do you think should try to develop their cultural practices?