Last class we talked about realism vs. idealism. I consider myself an idealist; however, I think this binary is lacking in the complexity that exists in real life. While I believe there is a G-d, I do not think They have created ideals for worldly creations (e.g. cars, houses, etc). In this sense, human creations are only capable of being preferred over others, not ideal. I furthermore believe that the idea that religion (even monotheistic religion) is inherently tied to being idealistic. One can strive to be like G-d in a moral sense, aiming for their best understanding of what G-d wants, yet one can never truly know what this ideal is. I also believe that the existence of a G-d does not necessarily discount moral relativism.

Last class, we discussed Carr’s The Shallows and whether or not younger generations are impacted by the internet in a way that makes us less capable of concentrating. We also talked about whether or not literacy is a crutch and whether or not illiterate cultures are more advanced because they have the capability to communicate and think within themselves. Personally, I think both have advantages and disadvantages. I do not believe that having access to literature means you are not capable of thinking for yourself. In fact, I believe literature can increase one’s ability to think critically. A superior civilization might find a balance between the two, understanding that written words do not necessarily make them true or superior.

Last class, we discussed more about the Loudness Wars and whether or not a lack of dynamic range has impoverished music. I agree that music contains less natural talent than older forms of music. However, I also believe that newer music has found new ways to innovate and entertain. There are new forms of talent and skill being cultivated as new types of music emerge. What matters to me about music–all art ultimately–is that it inspires, entertains, or sends a message to an audience. Technical pieces of music do not bother me much if this music is being enjoyed. Therefore, I think some of the argument about the Loudness Wars is a moot point.

On our first day of class, we introduced the concept of “Loudness Wars” –the phenomenon in which many newer songs are produced with little dynamic range, regardless of how that would actually translate into human voice. Part of me wonders if this is an adaptation to modern technology; does music remain the same volume for the comfort of somebody perhaps wearing headphones? The need for consistent volume is much more necessary if one has earphones in, taking public transit to work and trying to be conscience of people around them, rather than for someone listening to an album in their own living room. Perhaps because the first scenario is much more common, music production has adapted. Or perhaps younger generations need music to be exciting and loud at all times. This could again be because of their environment, or because of a perceived need for constant stimulation.

The conversation also makes me wonder what concerts of the same music are like on a production level. I would like to know more about variations between studio and live sound on the basis of dynamics.