Worst songs ever? (Yeah, I'm bringing this to TOK now)

OK, this may not be overly TOK-ish but here it goes:

What is your least favorite song of all time?

This was inspired by a heated discussion on the Current's website today and I just wanted to hear a sample of what my generation hates (and loves) musically, just to compare with that post. And furthermore, what about any given song makes you hate it?

My bottom picks (debate away):

"Don't Stop Believing" by Journey (sorry, but it's a sugarcoated "inspirational" tune that was ruined before Glee even considered it)
"Video Games" by Lana del Rey (don't even bother with this one, it's just sad)
"She's Country" by Jason Aldean (I don't mind country but this pathetic attempt at "rock" is sleazy and borderline sexist)
"Sugar, We're Going Down" by Fall Out Boy (pretentious and not even emotional for being "emo")
"Modern Love" by David Bowie (a great artist but this number is droning and too poppy)
"We Are the Champions" by Queen (cliched and unoriginal, ditto with "We Will Rock You")
"The House that Heaven Built" by Japandroids (obscure, yet poppy yet abrasive and obnoxious)
"Only the Good Die Young" by Billy Joel (hey, let's all abandon our religion and be lascivious punks!)
"Jack and Diane" by John Mellencamp (have heard it for too many years and holds no nostalgic value)
"Brown-Eyed Girl" by Van Morrison (who has a chorus that lame with a voice that annoying?)
"Sweet Caroline" by Neil Diamond (if anyone sings the "bom-bom-bom" trumpet hook I will scream)
"All Summer Long" by Kid Rock (way to rhyme "things" with "things" and ruin Lynyrd Skynyrd for the rest of us)

And that's probably way too much to still be for educational purposes. But I want you all to ponder: what makes a certain song popular? Is it really that it has enjoyable musical qualities? Or is it because radio stations are paid to overplay it? Is pop-sensibility inherent? Or is it simply, well, populist?

Star Stricken: A Momentary Lapse of Reason

How many people here have been "star struck"? This is a strange condition in which people will behave oddly, often maniacally, when in the presence of someone famous. This can happen on many levels, often manifesting itself in nervous giggling upon sighting the "celebrity" in person, either expected or not. A historical severe pandemic of starstruckness was the infamous 1962 "Beatlemania" outbreak, in which four highly "infected" British musicians spread this crazed obsession for themselves across the unsuspecting American continent. (LOL see what I did there?)

I want to know: what is it about "fame" that sets people apart so badly from others that it causes others to behave shy or quirky around them? Why is there such a cultural obsession over "famous" people? And why are most famous people entertainers? Well, the latter is kind of obvious.

Honestly, though, famous people often have the ability to drive some people literally crazy. In fact, one of the aforementioned pathogen-carriers (a John Lennon) infected one man to the point of psychopathic delirium which led to his death. (are you getting the reference?)

Has anybody here been star-struck to any degree? and Why does fame set celebrities apart from the rest of us in the media's eye?

PS: I once acted somewhat starstruck at the State Fair this year, when I saw 89.3 the Current DJ Bill Deville broadcasting live. He was rather shy and didn't talk much to the audience, and I didn't actually get him to sign anything, but I hung around the windowed broadcasting booth for around 20 minutes, hoping to get his attention. I normally would not act this desperate to talk to someone, but even this minor celebrity caused starstruckness!

Do I need my MP3 player? (not as shallow of a post as you'd think)

In case you don't know me well, I thoroughly love music. Specifically, popular music of the past 50 or so years is my forte. I think I have perfect pitch (almost) but my main point is my ability to remember songs that I like well. If I enjoy a song, I might hear it only twice before having it memorized. First of all, how do I know that I actually "know" the song? My memories of pitch, tempo, and some more abstract sections (ie, guitar solos) may be imperfect, but I remember the exact structure of the tune. Is memory an adequate way of knowing for this?

Secondly, I find that if I hear a song that's halfway decent more than once a day, I suddenly like it, or at least memorize it. For example, I bought a song yesterday that I had heard on Rock Band that I liked, and I have listened to it three times today alone. Each time I listen I like it more. That was more of a comment.

Finally, if I remember melodies so well, why do I need my MP3 player in the first place? My memory serves as a solid way of knowing, doesn't it? Why do I need to reuse perception? My answer to this is: pleasure. For some reason, actually hearing the song outside of my head is more pleasurable than just remembering it. Does this occur to you? Thoughts.

Back to TOK 1

Remember Absurdism?

That's right: the sub-branch of the existentialist philosophy that dictates that everything in the life is meaningless outside of the scope of human definition, and that the conflict between trying to find meaning and the actual non-meaning of everything is known as the Absurd (with a capital A).

We read that hilarious (if bizarre) play The Bald Soprano, which begins as a clever commentary on insipid middle-class life and devolves into the shouting of random phrases. This has no meaning, and an Absurdist would argue that neither does anything else.

Also within the scope of Absurdism is the fact that one can never be certain of anything because there is too much in the universe to ever know, and that bad things will happen to good people randomly.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of Absurdism, but I don't think that everything necessarily happens for a reason either. It's more fun this way.

What do you think about Absurdism?

Oh, the reality! or How I Stole Karli's Idea for a Blog Post

During the fire alarm today, I was telling Karli about a video game that a friend showed me called Final Fantasy XIII. For the  Playstation 3, this game has some of the best graphics quality ever. The design of the human characters is incredible, the backgrounds are breathtaking, and the fantasy elements appear amazingly depicted. It was like the Avatar of video games.

She proceeded to ponder how we can tell the difference between reality and a meticulously constructed animation thereof. FF13 and Avatar are both so realistic they appear like real life, but some part of you can tell it is computer-generated.

Other than prior knowledge, she and I wondered, how can we detect reality as opposed to animation?

I then proceeded to call "dibs" on this topic and that I would post it when I got home because she was working. Not to make fun of her; in fact this blog topic is brought to you in part by her.

But really: with everything from Photoshop to motion-capture animation, how can we detect what is real?

For the last time, do I look like a robot? (Please don't answer that)

One really minor thing to comment on: the "reCaptcha" security program.

Why must we type out an absurd letter jumble depicted a la Rorschach, along with a blurry photograph of random number stickers?

Obviously this is to prevent online spam through the use of mass distribution programs known as "bots", to which effect Google cheekily commands "Please prove you're not a robot".

As an established and prolific blogger, I find this to be a nuisance. At some point, there should be a loop counter that eventually auto-verifies any given user, but even then one could circumvent that...

My point is that bots are AWFUL. Any MMORPG players know this well. Online advertising (especially the "You've won the prize!" kind but also the "Get a FREE credit report now!" kind) is also an abomination. Heck, anything pertaining to people on the internet trolling around (including Trolls) and causing discomfort for everyone else is on the top of my million-things-that-bug-me list (don't ask for the whole list).

Furthermore, what's the deal with hackers? They seem to be the most dirty, no-good, rotten lowlifes of the 21st century. They learn the perfectly respectable profession of computer coding and use it to take down weak company websites, in their own words, "4 teh lulz".

The worst part is that there is no way to stop them. They are anonymous, which makes it fitting that the most notorious "hacktivist" group is called Anonymous.

Any opinions? Thoughts? Protests? Lolcats? (please none of the latter)

"In the first place, it's probably just paranoia...

...If there's a ghost in my room and he says I'd better run"

That was a song quote (my fave band and the subject of my MLI).

But anyways I feel like another conspiracy is afoot, tying into Karli's recent posts about how people would handle without technology.

Lately, it seems that a lot of people have been having their computers or technological devices go haywire or conk out. Christian reported that his computer finally died. My friend Alex just had his TI Nspire crash spontaneously. My computer has had a variation on the blue screen of death twice (it did not turn out deadly), and the list could go on.

My point is, why is technology seeming to all fail gradually but simultaneously?

I fear there might be a technology crash of some degree on the horizon, one that may or may not be foreseeable.

Or it could all be a coincidence.

This makes me wonder: at what point does a series of similar events become a coincidence? To what extent can we predict the future based on patterns?

Strike

I also wanted to mention the Chicago teacher's strike that has been going on all throughout the school year. I don't know exactly what they want, as apparently Chicago teachers make more money than the average teacher. Also, I want to know how they are dealing with the thousands of students who still need education. Are there substitutes not affiliated with the union? Are there picket-line-crossers who ignore the demands of the few and focus on the needs of the many (students)? What would WE do if this happened at our school?

Just throwing that out there.

A Conspiracy??? or: Wingnuts on the Loose

If anybody has read into the recent news of the violent global protests at American embassies, you'll know there is a fairly serious conflict situation here. The story is: some inflammatory American posted a video on YouTube that mocked and condemned the religion of Islam, particularly by its vulgar depictions of Muhammad (something forbidden by Muslims).

As a result, some angry fundamentalists in Egypt and Libya attacked the US embassies, killing some ambassadors and burning down buildings. Globally, a reaction took place among Muslim communities protesting the video; meanwhile the US government is taking two sides. At large, they agree that whoever posted the video was wrong in insulting a religion, but they also condemned the violence that resulted from it. These mixed sentiments from President Obama were interpreted by Mitt Romney as a statement of sympathy for the rebels.

My conspiracy theory is that a politician from either side of the American party system posted the video to incite a conflict, to either support or bring down Obama by testing his reaction. I do truly believe, however, that the violence was calculated by the Muslim fundamentalists and not totally random. The violence did start on September 11, after all. Coincidence? Maybe.

Any thoughts?

Time and Truth

A very basic post:

I noticed as soon as I started blogging that all the times of posting were exactly 2 hours behind. I am posting this at about 6:20 AM but it will show up as 4:20 AM on the post.

Someone may never have noticed this all along. Could this change in perspective be threatening to their reality? Not saying that it would be traumatic if someone always thought someone was posting at 9 PM when they were really doing it at 11 PM, but realizing certain things can really change your perspective.

What if we never learned the truth about some things? Would it be better that way? If we went our whole life assuming Africa was a country, and nobody ever told us otherwise as it never came up, would we be satisfied? Would we be different?

Anger and Hunger

Relating on the common topic of perspective and emotion:

I often have brief depressive/angry spells. I honestly border on violent rage and self-destruction and have a very short temper. I wonder why I even exist and know that everything is terrible. I want to lose my friends and pity myself.

Then I realize: I'm hungry.

It's pretty embarrassing when I rant on to my parents about how hopeless and miserable life is and then get something to eat and begin laughing.

One never realizes a chronic pain until it is relieved, yes?

So I sometimes forget to eat and then get irascible.

I'm like a freakin' animal that way. A bear or shark or something.

I mean, this isn't every time I'm hungry, I'm angry; it's that mostly when I'm angry, I'm hungry.

Why is it that primitive urges affect some of us so badly?

I should be able to notice when I'm hungry, but it's often too late. I'll walk into the lunchroom and complain to my friends, then eat and be perfectly fine.

My question: is our whole outlook on life really dependent on the amount of nutrients in our body/amount of sleep we have had/even the amount of water we drink?

Ways of Knowing: Art

It is likely we will discuss this question more later in this course, but anyways:

What ways of knowing are used to define what is "art"?

Or even more broad:

What is "art"? 

I ask this because I have encountered many examples of "controversial" art throughout my years of reading. For example, take the works of Robert Mapplethorpe. He became infamous in the 1980's for a series of, well, "sensual" photographs. (I won't describe them in detail here, you'll have to take my word for it) Supposedly he made these works with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a government program. Due to this, the NEA came under fire by (mostly) conservative politicians, claiming Mapplethorpe's works to be in bad taste.
Defining what constitutes "art" by a Senate subcommittee seems absurd in itself. I think it is a combination of sensory perception and emotion that defines art. However, everyone has different emotional reactions to something. As the cliche goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Other artists that challenge the definitions of "art":

• Marcel Duchamp: French Dadaist who presented everyday objects, unmodified, as art (eg: shovels, toilets)
• Andres Serrano: Photographer in the same era as Mapplethorpe; was also criticized for his works that defaced religious symbols
• Lou Reed: Musician; most works are normal, fairly accessible songs (if rather off the mainstream), but 1975 album "Metal Machine Music" was simply hours of grating, screeching feedback
• Andy Warhol: Famous "pop" artist, also delved into experimental films, including a 24-hour long film called **** (yes that is the title, not a censorship)
• E.L. James: Author of recent "Fifty Shades" trilogy. Need I say more?
• Trent Reznor: Musician, similar to Reed in that he utilized harsh, grating noise in his soundscapes, but also transposes lyrics of self-torture and violence into his music.

This list is just a sample and is by no means definitive. Some of these people have been critically lauded yet simultaneously generate controversy. I know of many other musicians specifically that have generated controversy, as music trivia is my forte, but if anyone else can find or knows of any controversial artists feel free to tell me.

The main question, though: what, to you, defines "art"? And is there a way of knowing what art is?

PS: I thought of this topic while remembering another musician that may challenge the definition of "art":

• My Bloody Valentine: Musical group, often cited as the leaders of the "shoegazer" movement in the late 1980's-early 1990's. Utilized layered, effects-woven guitar noises combined with indistinguishable, ethereal vocals-as-instruments to create a wall-of-noise feel; their 1991 magnum opus "Loveless" cost over £250,000 to record, nearly bankrupting their record label. Exemplary track: "Only Shallow", the most intense/strange song you may ever hear.

Never laugh at a hipster; they could teach you something new. (not saying I am one but still)

Basic Knowledge Issue: Post 1

At my work, my managers tell me to ask questions and never assume. I interpret this as a knowledge issue: the conflict between reason and language. Your own reasoning might deduce that you should do a certain task at a certain time, but your superiors may tell you to do otherwise. Is it better to do as you are told or to do as you think makes sense? Of course, if your supervisors do not tell you why, then they are not using language to the fullest extent that they could and should. Should you trust that they know better? Could your reasoning be incorrect?