On April 30, 2018, our HIST 390 class talked about various advancements in technology throughout history and discussed the impact that they had on society.  As technology slowly began to become more and more advanced, it seemed that jobs and occupations became more and more deskilled as a result.  Technology just seemed to further sever the connection between objects and labor meant to obtain said objects.  For example, 1905 – 1925 became the “Acoustic Recording Era”, or the “No Microphone Era”.  Back then, singing was instead done into a big cone that was supposed to capture all of the potential sound that was supposed to be recorded.  Eventually, electrical recording after 1925 with vacuum tubes and microphones replaced such practices, with the ribbon mic being fairly popular, as artists could swear that you could hear the difference.  It was then replaced by tape recording in 1952, which revolutionized the game completely, mainly because people realized that you could whisper and talk normally into it and the recording would still be heard loud and clear.  Frank Sinatra was an example of an artist who benefited greatly from this change, as he could get away with his whispery and low voice type of singing.  This, however, also had an effect on politics.  Before this time, politicians had to be loud in order to be heard, but with this new advancement in technology, politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt could initiate “fireside chats”, which were basically Franklin Roosevelt talking normally to the American public about issues concerning the country and what he was planning to fix such issues.  Technology didn’t stop there, however, by the 1970s there was multitrack tape, and by the 1980s there was digital recording, which connected sound waves and converted it into sampled information, with sampler sound typically running at 44,000 times per second.  The creation of mp3s then helped make sure that even more audio information was not “lost” in the process.

There is really nothing more to say other than what a marvel technology has become, especially when comparing everything in the past to today.  I can only imagine how hard it would have been for Frank Sinatra or Franklin Roosevelt to succeed without such technological advances to aid them in taking advantage of their own personal style of doing things.  They probably wouldn’t have been famous or even a singer or politician to begin with if these advances in technology hadn’t happened!  How lucky for the two of them, as well as many others just like them.  I can only imagine how much work it would have been to have made and recorded music back in the day.  It must’ve been a painstakingly long and annoying process just to get the sound “just right”.  Nowadays with autotune, however, I wonder if, in the future, technology will become so advanced that even those who are normally not very good singers will also become famous?  Yes, we can make jokes that that already happens today, but how far can we possibly take it in the future as technology continues to improve?  The celebrity scene may actually get legitimately exciting because of it.

On April 23, 2018, our HIST 390 class (as an extension of our previous April 18, 2018 class) discussed the complexities of the originalities of music and how GarageBand relates to such a mystery.  As discussed in class, Dan Emmett was a songwriter and entertainer who performed in black face and wrote the famous song known as, “Dixie”.  Supposedly, however, Emmett had a small notebook containing all of his songs, songs that were arguably written by the Snowdens, a black family.  It’s safe to say that this has caused its fair share of controversy.  This brings up the question if Dan Emmett was as musically creative as people had originally thought, even if he did not outright copy the Snowdens’ music and simply based his off of theirs, which brings about the argument that creativity needs limits, otherwise the infinite amount of sheer options would only overwhelm people if they ever attempted to be creative.  It’s one of the reasons why our professor encouraged those who did not know what to do for their original song to find another song and simply change the genre of music or change it around a bit.  Yes, it seems like even GarageBand has features that can help the creatively challenged be a little more creative, as midi files of original and well known songs can be found and used as a base for anyone who is in desperate need of inspiration.

While I personally don’t care about a possible conspiracy about a man and a family that existed a fair amount of time ago (even though I probably should), the discussion of limitations to creativity is an interesting one that certainly piques my interest.  While it is true that the possibilities of creativity are theoretically limitless, the fact remains that there exists no such person that can tap into all of it.  Humans each have their own little suspension of disbelief, and anyone that goes beyond that is either considered crazy or weird.  Let’s be honest, a guy flying on a pizza shooting eyebeams is technically creative, but there is certainly a sizable amount of people that would just shake their head and denounce the very premise as too stupid to be true or to put money behind it.  Heck, there are actual machines and programs nowadays that can arguably be more creative than a human can be!  I’ve actually heard about an A.I. that has been created that can actually create music indiscernible from human composed music, as creativity uses specific parts of the brain and, under the hands of the right programmer, computers can imitate such processes and make beautiful music all by themselves.  You honestly wouldn’t be able to tell the difference otherwise!  There truly must be limits to creativity, otherwise, computer programs that attempted to imitate our creative processes would simply crash under the infinite amount of possibilities, wouldn’t it?

On April 16, 2018, our HIST 390 class discussed different philosophies, ideas, and beliefs, with some concerning what an ideal U.S. should look like and some pertaining to technology.  The first thinkers whose ideas that we examined were that of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton’s.  Thomas Jefferson, when he was alive, had believed that the U.S.  must remain an agricultural nation of small independent “yeoman farmers”, and that being anything but would make the country corrupt.  He argued that a country and society of wage earners was hardly any different from a society of slaves.  After all, a society of wage earners will need to cater and grovel to a boss’ commands, and surely no one wanted that.  Alexander Hamilton, however, wanted the U.S. to be a diverse and industrial nation, arguing that freedom was realized in prosperity and individual diversity, not in land ownership.  Jefferson thought that the U.S. should properly utilize the space to the West of the country, and that if they obtained and realized the potential of that extra land, then the U.S. would certainly remain a nation of farmers forever; while Jefferson believed that the U.S. should ignore the extra space and move through time to the industrial future.  Jefferson believed that the U.S. should be surveyed in industrial 640 acre “nations” and believed that for the nation to survive, there needed to be a high degree of uniformity firmly established; while Hamilton equated freedom with market opportunity and with social diversity with the ability to specialize according to your talents under federal states.  Jefferson believed government should be weak and minimal in its influence and that, in order for a nation to survive, it had to establish its identity quickly and have a high degree of uniformity.  Individualism would lead to state control.  In the end, these two couldn’t have been bigger opposites!

The next ideas that we discussed were centered around technology and naturalism.  When one observes humanity closely, one can see that people tend to cluster, whether it is in reading or watching T.V.  Sadly, many can justifiably say that the local community has been destroyed by industrialization.  No longer do people meet up with one another at the usual rendezvous and hang out anymore.  Instead, everyone is much more transfixed and focused on their own personal interests and communicate through other means, such as phones and emails.  People no longer cluster physically anymore (or, at least, not as much as they used to).  The concept of anonymity one gains when surfing the Web has also altered people’s perceptions of honesty, as the more people seem to like you, the less honest you are with people you seem to be.  The pressure to meet other people’s unobtainable expectations has only worsened as the internet has gotten more and more advanced over time.  In a way, the Internet has destroyed the idea of mutuality, as now it has infamously become what everyone else wants with you either adhering to it or not.  There are very little compromises and understandings in this new and dangerous environment, and it is even worse for the self-absorbed and constantly needy.  Do you want to be raised by people in your life, or yourself?  Because if not the former, then the Internet gives you the perfect avenue to interact with those very much like yourself.  While it certainly isn’t “robots taking over the world” bad, it is still a horrifying concept that will make anyone think twice as to how much time they spend online.

While I can understand both of Hamilton and Jefferson’s side of the argument, I would have to say that, especially in both hindsight and retrospect, I would have to agree with Jefferson more than I do Hamilton.  I have nothing against diversity, and I certainly don’t want to turn America into a country of drones, but in defense of Jefferson, that’s not exactly what he is proposing, and even if it was, it would be waved off as ridiculous anyways.  Diversity of thought and talent was always going to happen, there would just be no way one could keep their talents and passions hidden and locked away for so long without doing something substantial with it; and despite what other people may say on the opposite side of the political spectrum, everyone would like minimal government in the long run.  People just don’t like other people, especially people put in power, to get in the way of their own personal lives, and if anyone says otherwise, it’s usually because the true magnitude of living under that kind of power hasn’t dawned on them yet.  The most notable thing about what was discussed about Jefferson’s beliefs and ideas were that of uniformity.  Let’s be honest, the country today has become completely divided based on political beliefs alone, and it doesn’t seem to be getting better any time soon.  Both sides, Republican and Democrat or Liberals and Conservatives, are arguing about what the original intent and meaning of what it means to be a “real” American has shown that, after all these years, America has still somehow not truly found or settled into its own identity.  All political parties are arguing left and right about how America should be, and that is because the founders of this country did not take the time to specify what being an American should be.  Yes, I agree that people should be who they wish to be, but when a club specifies that you need to be an adult and have an ID to even get in, then America is in some serious trouble in the future.  Some more specific guidelines that weren’t left up to interpretation could have saved everyone a lot of trouble is all I’m saying.  As for technology, I doubt that it is really technology’s fault for the shortcomings of today’s society.  I personally believe that humans and human nature are pretty stagnant in the grand scheme of things, and that if any new trends pop up about us, then it is simply because something new has come up that has finally found a way to draw that out.  Has technology made us more self-absorbed?  Maybe.  But am I honestly supposed to believe that without technology, people would be less self-absorbed?  Technology simply makes getting what we want easier, and therefore means that some of those pesky “middle-men” that we were forced to deal with before have just been removed from the equation.  The problem isn’t the inanimate objects, it’s the people who are using them.  Always has, always will be.