You can’t ignore Taylor Swift. Whether it’s having her mic snatched by Kanye, hosting Saturday Night Live three years ago, or having her hit “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” play as you flip through radio stations [yes, some people still listen to the radio] she’s become a public pop culture icon and she’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
Yes, she’s loved by millions, but also derided by a sizable number. While many of the judgements stem from her seeming inability to hold down a relationship, this more often than not seems like the public concentrating on an aspect of superstardom that they tend to turn a blind eye to when it comes to their respective favourites. What Taylor Swift really receives a lot of flak for [and for better reason] is the content of her music.
I first came across this idea on a blog post by Shelby Fero that has since been taken down. Recently I managed to dig it up again since it had been replied to on another tumblr, and you can check it out here. [EDIT: That has since been taken down as well] There’s a four-minute video you can watch, but if not, Let me recap it:
It’s a follow-up to another post on tumblr where she says, in one line without profanity, “‘Mean’ by Taylor Swift pisses me off so much.” Which is fine. The video goes on to elaborate her point, and is largely about the music video. In essence Fero says that it’s fine to have a song about those bullied because of their sexuality or poverty [both seen in the music video], but you can’t marry or compare that to your own problems about being told you’re not a good singer; you can’t put yourself into this song and still have it be about these other bigger problems.
For those of you who don’t watch a lot of American TV, The CW is a television network that hosts a lot of show featuring attractive young people, like The Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, America’s Next Top Model, et cetera. Last fall they decided that what they didn’t have enough of was game shows, and thus the idea of Oh Sit! was born. Watch this:
Oh Sit! is essentially a combination of two things that I quite enjoy: musical chairs and the gameshow Wipeout. Knowing that, it should have been nothing but pure, unadulterated entertainment. Unfortunately, much like shrimp and pumpkin pie, not everything you love should be mixed together.
“…a fun, high-stakes, high-octane musical chairs competition, in which 20 thrill-seeking daredevils race head to head through five physically demanding, obstacle course-style eliminations as they each compete to claim a chair, to the sounds of a live band.”
I am not going to pretend I have watched even a full episode of the show. Thoroughly reading the above review has convinced me that it is not worth my time, and that I would probably not enjoy it. Gordon also said, in coming up with the Shame Day/Fame Day feature, that these would be short posts, so I strongly recommend just reading what they wrote.
The main reason I write this is because a little bit of browsing on Wikipedia has revealed that Oh Sit! was actually renewed for a second season. That’s at least ten more episodes of a show Variety‘s Brian Lowry described as feeling “like more of an ordeal than fun.” A second season of what the A.V. Club calls “yet another reality show that’s so depressingly static, so devoid of imagination, interest, or anything redeeming beyond a slightly promotable logline and a punny title.”
Over the past couple years, the issue of regulating the internet has repeatedly arisen, and while there have been many issues contributing to this, there is perhaps none more well known than the contention over copyright infringement and piracy.
Now for a brief disclaimer.
I am a Marxist. I do not believe in “property” as the word would be recognized today. Every written work, every film, every piece of art belongs to every human being living. The Godfather series is just as much a part of our legacy and inheritance as the Mona Lisa, and as such, access to it should be enjoyed by all.
This is all to say that I don’t view “copyright infringement” as constituting any true offense. On the contrary, it’s simply the people taking back what was rightfully meant for them to begin with- but I’m not here to talk about that.
No, I’m here to talk about how the music and film industries’ witchhunt for media pirates is doing them (and everyone else) far more harm than good. Let me break it down for you.
I. Some People Will Never Buy
It’s a strange statement, but a true one. There may be a slim minority of people who pirates actually are keeping from the major industries through their cheaper/free service, however it ought to be fairly safe to say that there are plenty of people out there who would not otherwise listen to certain artists or watch certain shows. We’re living in tough times, and with your average movie ticket running at about twenty bucks (to say nothing of the gas getting to the theater and back), for many of us piracy is the only way we’ll see new movies and shows. Assuming there’s a segment of the population who will never, ever pay to see The Godfather, stamping out free avenues- namely piracy- doesn’t save the industry any cash. On the contrary, it just means that those people who don’t get to see the movie because they won’t pay for it aren’t talking about it, and generating buzz that might well attract people who will pay to see the movie. And speaking of them…
II. Some People Will Always Buy
Just as some people simply can not or will not pay (such outrageous prices) for entertainment, you will find people who will spare no expense when it comes to it. There are plenty of people who want to see movies on the big screen. There are plenty of people who want to see their band live in concert.The Mona Lisa is a perfect example of this.
You can see pictures of Mona Lisa anywhere; it’s one the most widely recognized images in human history. Because it’s available for free most anywhere, no one will actually go see it, right? After all, it’s been “pirated” to death. Yet that room in the Louvre is packed wall to wall with people who want to see the thing for themselves. Why? Because it’s the original. Doesn’t matter that it’s roped off, or behind glass, or barely visible, or that the guards usher you along after thirty seconds- it’s still wildly popular. The same is true of all media. Some people- plenty of people- will part with their cash to see Avatar in 3D, rather than watching some grainy, laggy version taken on a hand-held video camera in Thailand.
III. Anti-Piracy Hurts the Audience
You may not have experienced this in the states, but there was once a time when DVDs were listed by region codes, and could only be played on players that recognized that region. In other words, a DVD from America couldn’t be played on a DVD player from Europe and vice versa. You were granted a limited number of “switches,” but seeing as how you typically only got seven, it just put off the problem, rather than solving it. The goal (one of ’em, at least) was to prevent international piracy of DVDs through cracking down on how far away they came from, but all that just came down to it being a huge hassle for everyone, regardless whether or not their purchase was legitimate. Imagine all the time, money, and manpower that was invested in that venture that wound up solving nothing and quite possibly leading the industries involved to lose more money over that debacle than they would’ve lost to actual piracy. The same could be said for those hyperbolic ad campaigns comparing piracy to car theft
IV. Anti-Piracy Hurts the Industry
And while we’re talking about the industry shooting itself in the foot, let’s not forget the fact that preventing access to one film will very often lead to prevention of access to another. Quite simply, a person who doesn’t see The Godfather is not likely to go see the sequel, whereas someone who has seen The Godfather has a far better probability of winding up trying to see the sequel, either legitimately or through piracy. Is it a guarantee? No, but it’s still a better chance for the industry to make some cash than by preventing the person from seeing the first film at all.
V. Anti-Piracy Hurts the Environment
Lastly, I have to point out that we have free access to most films, music, and TV shows anyways- down at the local library. Only problem with that is when I drive to the library, I’m spending gas money, creating traffic, and spitting out exhaust fumes. Now I can get most anything down there for absolutely free, and no one complains. But imagine instead that I save on gas money, I keep the streets clear, and I reduce my carbon footprint by staying inside and watching the same movie I would’ve gotten free at the library. Suddenly, I’m a soulless criminal. Does that make sense to you?
What’s to be gained from all of this? Despite the doom-and-gloom prophecies of the industries, piracy continues on its merry path and yet we haven’t seen a decrease in the quality or production values of our movies.
We have more music artists now than we did a decade ago (at least, more access to them), in spite of piracy, and two of the most popular genres of our generation, techno and dub-step (I will never stop being ashamed of that) is heavily based on remixing and sampling other people’s work, i.e., piracy.
Look- I’m not asking the media giants to be happy about piracy, but at the same time, I have to question whether it’s really even worth it. All that cash being poured into anti-piracy gambits isn’t working– if it doesn’t already outweigh the revenue lost, wouldn’t all that time and effort be better spent elsewhere? Wouldn’t it be more profitable elsewhere?
It’s about two in the afternoon on a Friday, and I’ve clearly surpassed my self-imposed noon deadline. This is kind of an awkward place to be, because I’m clearly lacking the motivation to write, and all of the topics that I’ve been planning on tackling require a lot of research, so . . .
I’m going to talk about a topic that I know little to nothing about: music.
Last summer I wrote a post called “Holly Brook is Skylar Grey,” about singer/songwriter Holly Brook Hafferman, who took the stage name Holly Brook, released an album, and years after rebooted her persona as the current Skylar Grey.
If you really don’t have time to read the six short paragraphs that make up my first post, I hypothesized that her song “Dance Without You” was a clear indicator of her wanting to start anew without the baggage of her past self. With that being said, I was legitimately surprised when I discovered recently exactly where her new path has taken her.
I subscribed to Skylar Grey’s email newsletter a while ago for curiosity’s sake, and found a link in my inbox one day exclaiming that the lyric video for the song “C’mon Let Me Ride” had hit YouTube. Here it is:
It’s definitely catchy. It’s also a song that begins with the lyrics “If you got a sweet tooth / You can taste my watermelons.”
Skylar Grey began her career singing the bridges to rap songs such as Dr. Dre and Eminem’s “I Need A Doctor,” and Lupe Fiasco’s “Words I Never Said.” While not the best use of her songwriting abilities, at the very least they tackled common topics such as loneliness and regret. “C’mon Let Me Ride” is a song about sex.
The following is an acoustic session of Holly Brook performing the titular song from her album “Like Blood Like Honey”:
I don’t want to hammer this point, because I feel it’s obviously overstated after watching both videos. At the very least let me point out that both songs have their foundations in comparison, riding a bicycle, and blood and honey, and leave it at that.
According to Wikipedia, what Holly Brook was to indie-pop-rock, Skylar Grey is now to pop and hip hop. I definitely get that artists of every medium are going to grow and evolve in their craft, but have difficulty getting behind her choices. According to Rolling Stone the song is supposed to be satirical, and “a jab at ‘overly sexified music, media and the girls who try and imitate it.'” I guess I’ll leave it up to you whether or not that’s communicated well.
That same article also reveals that her original project under the Skylar Grey moniker, “Invinsible” is being reworked as “Don’t Look Down,” on which the aforementioned single about bikes will be featured. It just seems like a lot of image refinement in a very short period of time, and if she’s accurate in saying that the song is “about as far as [she takes the playfulness of her album]” I’m not sure what fans are supposed to expect, or how it will ultimately turn out.
What struck me was what exactly made this summer more heartbreaking than any other. Was it the suicide of Top Gun filmmaker Tony Scott? The passing of puppeteer Jerry Nelson? Moreover, was this summer any more “heartbreaking” than 2009, when Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, and Billy Mays died? Continue reading →
In the wake of the Aurora Shooting, the Sikh Temple Massacre, and a recent spate of gun violence across the country, the debate of the violence in media has once again reared its head. On one side, those who cite the saturation of film, music, and video games with violence and the glorification of violence as responsible for creating these monsters, or at the very least, pushing them over the edge. On the other side, the ranks of apologists, who declare that it’s ridiculous to blame movies and music for mass-murder. I’m not here to analyze the claims of either point, or to make an argument for one side or the other- that’s already been done better by The Escapist’s Robert Chipman (check it out here).
No, I’m here to address the subject of violence and its possible contributing factors outside of film and music.
When I touched on a complaints I had with movies like Brideshead Revisited and I Love You Man a few weeks ago, I briefly mentioned goth-rock-star Marilyn Manson, whose music was accused by many of being responsible for having influenced the Columbine shooters in committing the massacre. Interviewed by Michael Moore in his documentary Bowling for Columbine, Manson had this to say regarding violent influences:
And therein really lies the crux of the issue- when tragedies like this happen, the scope of our outrage is usually so small that we fail to take into account all the other possible factors. We can cite GTA or rock or rap or cartoons as being responsible and maybe- just maybe- there’s something to that. But what about everything else? If violence in media causes violence, surely violence itself should be cited here!
You remember this?
That’s Marine Corps veteran Scott Olsen, moments after he was shot in the head with a gas canister from close range. Part of the brutal crackdown by police on the Occupy Oakland protests last year- back when Mayor Jean Quan decided the best way to deal with a peaceful protest was by turning her town into a war zone.
But why talk about Oakland and countless other cities being turned into war zones when we can just talk about actual war?
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, this is the single longest war in American history. Year after year after year, it goes on, and with no end in sight. That’s got to be the single largest and publicized campaign advocating violence, yet where is the outrage against it?
And what about hunting? That’s all about guns and the glorification of killing things…
What about Civil War Reenactors?
What about the national anthem? That thing is full of references to bombs. What about the 4th of July? A day when we celebrate our victory in a war by setting off explosives!
What about the very way we talk about violence? Should the Mob Museum here in Las Vegas be shut down? Should we do away with anything related to pirates? Should we stop teaching about the war of 1812 in schools?
And so on…
You get the idea. Ours is a culture and history built on violence. It’s in everything– not just our media. While I’ve got my own views on what does and doesn’t cause or promote violence, my purpose here isn’t to take a side. I’m simply trying to demonstrate that if you do want to try to get into the causes of violence, you don’t get to be selective about who you put on trial.You want to find out if there was something in our world beyond the killer’s diseased mind responsible for death and destruction, you have to look at everything- anything less is just a witch hunt, pure and simple.
Let’s face it, half the time, tragedies like these are the platform from which we get to lynch things we didn’t like to begin with…
…I wonder if that kind of vicious and petty mentality might contribute to violence at all…
You can’t ignore Taylor Swift. Whether it’s having her mic snatched by Kanye, hosting Saturday Night Live three years ago, or having her hit “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” play as you flip through radio stations [yes, some people still listen to the radio] she’s become a public pop culture icon and she’s not going anywhere anytime soon.
Culture War Reporters 