I grew up in an era where we did not or do not all watch the same three channels. In fact, I hardly watch TV at all anymore. The idea that America is all tuned into nightly television is an odd concept. However, clearly the shift away from creating products/entertainment that could appeal to everyone has led to individualized selection. We eat different cereals from each other, and watch different shows. One might contend that this predicates loss of national connection and emphasis on individual identity. However, was this national connection ever really real in the first place? Certainly the high censorship and political climate of the 60s meant that entertainment was highly sugarcoated, for better or for worse. Technology and migration away from sanitized entertainment has enabled us to see the world much less through rose colored glasses. Furthermore, who says we’re not all receiving the same news? Sure, we might receive world events through channels that fit our personal biases, but when something big happens, or a funny video goes viral, we all find out about it. It’s not like people didn’t know in real time when 9/11 happened or when Trump became president just because we don’t all watch the same three channels anymore. Other technology has compensated for the fact that we prefer certain individualized markets.

In his book How Music Got Free, Witt talks about how files of music mp3s were leaked, creating a huge challenge for the institution of copyright, and the question of “owning” music. The history of copyright is one that has always fascinated me, because intellectual property is such a uniquely capitalist idea. I always thought that things like science and art and philosophy were supposed to be used to ameliorate society. The idea of enclosing these things inherently leads to the opposite, because it restricts who can access and improve those ideas. This isn’t to say that people don’t deserve recognition or compensation for their contributions, it just suggests that maybe copyright is in the interest of the few, not the many. Especially considering how recognition has often escaped those who deserve it, if they are of the wrong demographic. This occurs despite copyright laws. Therefore, I think copyright laws, like most laws, are not morally driven, but come from a place of wanting to ensure benefits for a select few and bar out anyone not advantaged by said corporations.

In class, we talked about putting on blackface and what this means. It was questioned whether modern day rappers for example are able to wear both a tuxedo one day and chains the next, and whether this is black people participating in their own blackface. The answer is: no, absolutely not. Also what? Since when are black people not allowed to dress differently without having their “true” identity questioned? Apparently minorities are still not treated as individuals. I understand that many black people used to participate in minstrel activities to earn a living, but you really can’t criticize them for trying to survive in an industry which profits off the stereotypes of them it created. Strange? Maybe. However, minorities don’t choose to degrade themselves unless there’s a significant reward.

We’re starting a unit talking about the diasporic influences on music. I’ve just decided to catalog some of what we’ve been talking about, and the different examples relevant, and create a mass post.

Minstrel Show

The Minstrel Show unit/lecture was very uncomfortable to me. It truly reinforces the idea that one cannot study American history–literally any part of American history–without considering race. It would make complete sense that a country just ridden of slavery would seek other means to commodify blackness. No longer are slaves able to work in the fields, so they will be rebranded quite literally into sharecropping, or more abstractly into entertainment for white people. What Miller points out about American music’s history about becoming racialized is interesting. Originally, your music taste likely depended on what you were exposed to, not your racial or cultural background. However, this clearly shifted after the industry made conscious decisions to pander to certain demographics, creating clear racial divides in the music business. This goes to further show how the industry can make decisions about taking social aspects of music away by commodifying culture.

Hawai’ian Steel Guitar

The race to colonize and annex Hawai’i is another form of proof that mainstream white America loves to glorify and enjoy the “exotic” parts of one’s culture, while oppressing the actual human lives behind that culture. The colonization of Hawai’i was long, arduous, militaristic, and oppressive. Repeatedly, Hawai’ian rights and sovereignty were curtailed and Hawai’ian lives were lost because of European negligence. Hawai’ians underwent Christianification and the missionary culture in Hawai’i stripped Hawai’ians of a large part of their culture, religion, and language. Yet white Americans got to enjoy the romanticized beaches and musical innovations of Hawai’i while racism persisted. There is no way to justify the transaction of ideas if one party remained politically superior to the other. Colonization is not cultural dialogue or exchanging of ideas, it is stealing. Certainly steel guitar adds a very interesting and unique flavor to modern country music. Surely those who integrated it were creative and talented. However, this doesn’t justify or reconcile the pattern of white people taking from brown people while being agents of systems to ensure they will not be treated equally. Additionally, music holds great value for many of us of colonized cultures. We are normally happy to share in the meaningfulness and social value it has, but this cultural significance must be recognized and appreciated. Otherwise, it’s just another way to sell parts of our culture without caring about the humanity aspect.

Sampling

The concept of sampling is very interesting to me. In some ways, it is new and fresh and innovative. In other ways, it is used by people who come across as lazy. I think there is a lot of value in sharing and repurposing art/music, if it is done correctly and ethically. In most cases, I believe this is true for sampling. This also relates to the many examples of new renditions we looked at in class. For most of these, it reflected how contemporary influences could affect the way an artist repurposed an old song or melody. Personally, I find value in the idea that a culture owns its music, rather than an individual, and I think sampling shows how society can enhance the idea of one sound.

Lately, we have been discussing the idea of authority and how recent decades have reformed the way we think of authority when it comes to knowledge. Our discussion about how this generation views and must vet the internet reminds me of Carr more or less criticizing our generation for being lazy in The Shallows. However, our recent discussions in class are proving that proper use of the internet allows for everything but laziness. I think it is interesting who determines what is seen as authority and “correct” knowledge. For example, Carr clearly prefers an “older” interpretation of knowledge and information. His view of information is that the younger generations are inherently more lazy because the internet inherently implies instant gratification. However, the internet and more abundances of information and opinions mean that this generation has to have higher levels of critical thinking. We no longer feel that we can just read a book and accept it as intellectual authority. Our generation must be processing information at the speed of light and taking it all with a grain of salt, constantly evaluating, analyzing, and thinking critically. How then, can Carr be correct?