Response to Michelle Webb

Michelle Webb asked "Why is it that music is so important emotionally?  Why is it that music has a special role in helping people with their emotions?"  Music certainly does help people cope with their emotions.  In fact, there is a whole industry based on this: Music therapy.  Music therapy is used to help alleviate the symptoms of mental, physical, or emotional problems.  It should be no surprise to learn that music is used to treat emotional problems.  After all, I think everyone can safely say that music has the potential to alter his or her emotions.

A particular song can make you feel sad, happy, angry, silly, etc.  The possibilities are endless.  A lot of people look to music for validation.  Music tells them that it's okay to feel what they're feeling and sometimes encourages certain emotions and behaviors.  So if it can be agreed upon that music can affect people's emotions, can't it also be said that music can alter people's behaviors?  After all, I'd say people's actions and behaviors are largely influenced by their emotions.  For example, I'm more likely to get in a fight if I'm in a bad mood.  But if music is what put me in a bad mood, can music be blamed for the fight?  I do believe in personal responsibility; however, I also think it can be said that music influences behavior.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not about to blame Marilyn Manson for the 1999 Columbine shootings.  But I do believe that violent music can make a person more inclined to commit violent acts.  Similarly, music with positive messages can influence people to have a more positive outlook.  

Listening to music can alter people's emotions; pretty much everybody can attest to this.  Lyrics obviously communicate a certain emotion, but so do other components of music such as tempo, key, pitch, rhythm, etc.  Music can also influence behavior.  My question is, can music be blamed for people's actions, or is it personal responsibility?  Or a combination of both?

Live Music

Last Monday, we discussed live music versus recorded music in class.  This is something that I feel strongly about, considering amount of time I spend on Youtube watching live versions of my favorite songs.  Obviously a recorded song sounds more polished and perfected, but there is something about a rough, imperfect version of a song that appeals to me.  The song sounds more meaningful and true to me when I know it hasn't been cleaned up in a studio.  I feel as if I am right there when the song is being played.  When I listen to a studio recording I feel like I could be a million miles away, or even in another universe.  

I don't even mind it when you can hear the crowd cheering or singing along.  To me, that just adds to the authenticity of the performance.  I am aware that some people don't like a noisy crowd when they go to a concert.  Their argument is, they paid to hear the band play, not the people around them.  They think that everyone should sit in silence and watch the band.  While I can understand the frustration of excess noise when you are trying to listen to a concert you paid a lot of money to see, I believe a live performance is an experience everyone should participate in, not just the performer.  If the audience is having a good time and they want to cheer or sing along, than that is their prerogative.  They also paid to be there; therefore, they should be allowed to make the most out of their experience.  This ties back into my previous entry, where I argued that music is about participation, not just listening politely and simply applauding once the song ends.  Any reasonable performer would want their audience to have a good time with them, and as long as it's not distracting, they should welcome audience participation.

Although live versions of songs often sound rougher than studio recordings, I believe that listening to the same studio recorded version of a song gets boring.  Listening to a live version has many advantages.  You can hear a more true version of a song that means a lot to you.  You can get closer the experience of a live performance without actually being there.  My question is, what is the difference between hearing a recorded live performance and actually being there to hear it?

Intro to This Is Your Brain On Music

Daniel Levitin's introduction to This Is Your Brain On Music raised a lot of interesting questions.  The question I was most interested in was about the distinction made between performers and listeners.  He points out that in other cultures, everybody sings and makes music, regardless of whether they are thought to be "good" at it or not.  I've noticed in my own experiences that people are very shy about singing in front of others unless they know they are good at it.  It seems that there is more emphasis on the audience's reception of music than on how the person feels when they sing or make music.

Everybody likes to sing, whether they will admit it or not.  Singing just feels good.  It's happy!  But then why do so few people sing openly, whenever they feel like it?  My own roommate, who has a great voice, wont sing when I'm in the room.  I wont play my keyboard if she's in the room.  I wont even sing in the shower, for fear of somebody overhearing me.  This is because we are all too preoccupied with how our audience is perceiving us.  Singing and playing an instrument has become something done to please other people.  If you can't do it well, then don't do it at all.  But music is such a fun thing to participate in that it's unfair to ban certain people from doing it just because they aren't "good" at it.  As much as I like to listen to music, I'd rather play my favorite song than simply hear it.  

Music is an experience; it is something that people want to be involved in, not just observe from the sidelines.  However, people's insecurities prevent them from singing or playing an instrument openly.  Our society seems to think that making music is all about pleasing the audience.  But I think it should be about the musician pleasing him or herself.  Music can make people happy and release tension.  It is even used as a form of therapy.  Nobody should be deprived of such a useful tool just because they may not be "good" at it.  People need to be a little more selfish and just make music for themselves, not for their audience.

Question:  Why does our society place more emphasis on the audience's reception of music, instead of the musician's satisfaction?

Response to Krystal Maynard

This post is a response to Krystal Maynard's response to Amy Rosvally's entry.  When Amy asked if our superficial society will ever change, Krystal pointed out that not only does our society's standard and emphasis on beauty need to change, but many other things as well, such as gender roles.  As a feminist, I have to agree with her.  Krystal concludes her post with the question, "Why in a world that is obviously far from ideal are we still holding on to these romanticized ideals?"  I believe that the answer to this question can be found in Amy Rosvally's post.  Amy points out that we are conditioned to buy into the "fairy tale" lifestyle starting at birth.  However politically correct and progressive our society may try to be, we are only slowing ourselves down until we get rid of sexist, counterproductive and corruptive media.  

When I tell people that I am a feminist, I am often met with the question, "Why?  Women already have equal rights; feminism is no longer necessary".  But just because women have gained the right to vote doesn't mean they are treated equally in society.  Despite the women's suffrage movement, anti discrimination laws, and sexual harassment laws, women and men are still stereotyped.  As Krystal pointed out, certain career fields almost seem designated for one sex or the other.  Women teach or care for children and men do math and science.  But if society has accepted men and women as equals, then why do we still segregate ourselves in almost every aspect of society?  Because people are still striving for that fairy tale life that they were influenced by when they were children.  What women never once dreamed of being swept off her feet by Prince Charming, getting married, and raising a family?  And what man never once felt it was his responsibility to support the women he loves, along with her children, simply because he is "the man"?  These ideas have been ingrained in us literally since birth.  Baby girls get a pink blanket, boys get a blue blanket.  Girls play with dolls; boys play with trucks.  These seemingly harmless traditions lay the foundation for a lifetime of gender conformity.  

 Krystal makes a great point when she says that a women venturing into a man's job is considered honorable, but a man taking on a women's job is embarrassing.  Our society seems to think it's okay for women to do masculine things, but they have a hard time with men doing feminine things.  This is because women are still looked down upon.  We tend to think that femininity is silly and stupid, and something to be ashamed of.  This is deeply disturbing to me, especially when people can claim that feminism is no longer necessary in our society.  

No matter how progressive our society gets, we still have very traditional ideas about gender roles.  This is because we live in a world that draws a very clear line between what is feminine and what is masculine.  Movies, TV shows, and books aimed at children teach them to adhere to specific gender roles if they want to live happily ever after.

Question:  Why are typically masculine jobs viewed as more valuable and honorable than typically feminine jobs?