On January 31st, 2018, our HIST 390 class discussed the topic of “selves” and how the concept of “selves” has changed over the years.  To summarize, everyone has multiple selves within them, whether they truly realize it or not.   When you are partaking in a job that you do not particularly enjoy, there are technically two selves that you can consciously acknowledge: there is the self that hates the job and then there is the self that acknowledges that you agreed to the job in the first place.  Neither are more legitimate than the other, but they are conflicting parts of yourself that you can acknowledge both exist.  It is the same with reading silently to oneself, as there is a self that is reading silently and there is a self that is trying to listen and absorb what is being read.  You’d think that you would do either one action or the other, but both are existing simultaneously regardless of one might think.  People having multiple selves is nothing new, but what was discussed in class was whether different generations and eras had different selves than those present in the current generations’.  As proof of this discrepancy, the professor showed us a clip of a movie from the past where an entire squadron of fire fighters went to go save a woman and her children from a burning building, the major takeaway being how it was directed compared to how modern films were directed.  Compared to a movie like, say, “Saving Private Ryan”, where the perspective of the viewer continually jumps around to show the viewer many different perspectives of the scene, the clip shown to us first showed the scene of the fire fighters saving the woman and her children from their perspective, showing the woman panicking as she sees the smoke all around her and running around in terror until a firefighter breaks into the room and leads her and her children to safety.  The movie then shows the same scene, but through the point of view of the fire fighters in front of the house.  At the time this particular movie and scene was made, it was believed that it was impossible to see all aspects of a story at the same time, and so they showed all of the different perspectives one at a time.  On the other hand, modern movies such as “Saving Private Ryan” showed various points of view, some being quite impossible if one actually took the time to think about it.  The movie even took a moment to show you the scene from the perspective of the enemy forces!  Surely, this is proof to the belief that people’s understanding of self has changed over the years.

In an attempt to explain this difference in attitude to the concept of “self”, I would hypothesize that the reason why modern movies such as “Saving Private Ryan” show so many perspectives at the same time throughout a scene is because the birth of the digital age has made our generation more used to information overload, and because of that, movie studios choose to take advantage of this and essentially give the viewer an information overload of their own for any or all particular scenes in their movies, and because we are used to absorbing so much information at a time, it doesn’t bother us as much as it probably should.  If anything, we are at our most comfortable when we are given information overload, especially when we know that we aren’t going to be tested or quizzed on said information.  With portable phones and with the internet at our very fingertips, this generation is constantly bombarded, by their own volition, with a heavy influx of information.  We just can’t get enough.  In fact, if you look at movie reviews nowadays, a common complaint is that the movie did not explain enough about the plot, scene, or character motivation.  When we are truly invested, we crave the information, whether it is even really important in the big scheme of things or not.  Perhaps in the simpler and more primitive times of the old movie clip of the fire fighters saving the woman and her children from the burning building, all of the information that we absorb now would be far too overwhelming for them to handle, at least all at once.  Whether the current environment of information overload is a blessing or a curse, however, is another topic altogether, and it might not even have a true correct answer in the first place.

On January 29^th, 2018, our HIST 390 class discussed the topic of technology molding, controlling, and changing our perception of time and how exactly it managed to get away with it over the years.  To summarize, as technology within the U.S. slowly continued to advance and improve, many things about everyday life slowly began to change along with it, whether people realized and approved of it or not.  For example, with the creation of railroads came new possibilities for the sake of luxury, comfort, and livelihood, as trains made transporting food from across the country easier, and therefore, more readily available for those on the opposite side of said country.  Suddenly, if you were living in a region that couldn’t readily grow carrots and carrots just happened to be your favorite food, then you had nothing to worry about as the food is now more readily available and accessible to you than ever before due to the wonders of railroad and storage technology.  And fret not, for those carrots will now forever be easily accessible and available to you, as because of the wonders of this technology, your local supermarket can continue to sell you these carrots as long as the trains continue to be functional and as long as they continue to deliver them to you.  All of a sudden, the concept of days of waiting for a delivery of carrots or making the long and hard journey towards those carrots is turned into a distant fantasy.  Your concept of time has been changed because the things that you used to have to devote so much time to has now and will potentially forever be made much faster.  To stay on the topic of trains and railroads, it is because of their ability to transport and reach locations so quickly that time zones had to be made.  Back then, vague statements such as, “We close at night,” were no longer enough.  With trains having to move at a tight schedule to get the most out of their usefulness and benefits, a much more specific system for time had to be crafted in order for everything to work out, and because the trains had to adhere to such as system, everyone else, for the sake of simplicity and consistency, had to adhere to these times as well.  Now, instead of, “We close at night,” it had to be, “We close at 9:00 P.M.”  Technology, in a sense, had found a way to control, mold, shape, and bend time to its mercy.

As a senior college student, I can honestly say that the concept of technology controlling our lives is a bit too real for me.  As a senior student in college, I already have to compile a basic school schedule for myself, which already tells me how I am supposed to spend a good chunk of my day, but add that to all of the homework and exams these classes demand their students to prepare for, and suddenly, you need to start worrying about how much time you spend devoting yourself each of these tasks, and then another, and then another, and then so on and so forth.  If you laze about, which I must admit I am very prone to doing, then you are “behind”, whatever “behind” really means in the grand scheme of things.  All of a sudden, you’re trying to “catch up” even if it isn’t really necessary to.  It doesn’t matter if the assignment and the exam is a good amount of days away, you’ve been slipping on your schedule, and thus have to find a way to fit in everything that you’ve missed out on into the even smaller time interval that you’ve gotten yourself into.  The stress, the hair pulling, the anxiety, it’s all building up, and for what?  To get the assignment done by 11:59 P.M. at midnight?  To study for that test that is going to start at 9:00 A.M. and if you are late for it then you bring on the risk of not being able to take it at all if someone manages to leave the room before you enter it?  It is very telling that activities that are considered fun, relaxing, and leisurely are seemingly never associated with such troubles as you “need” to be done and you “have” to be done by a certain predetermined time or else some perceived consequence was going to happen.  And the irony is, I get it.  I really do.  It would be so troublesome for both the bar owner and you if you came to their bar the moment they were about to lock up and the both of you began to argue on the technicalities of, “We close at night,” and whether the sky was a clear indicator of it being truly night or not.  All I’m saying is that a life with clear timetables while also being a bit more flexible on its deadlines would probably be nice is all.

During one of our classes, the concept of idealism vs. realism was brought up as the professor questioned why the current generation doesn’t go out of their way to demand that their music be better instead of settling for what the Loudness War and compression has done to it, as both have made it, in his opinion, objectively worse as a result.  He then explained the difference between idealism and realism, stating that idealism and religion go hand in hand as all who adhere to idealism believe in there being a higher or perfect standard for everything and that it is our duty as humans to strive towards reaching such standards.  Realism, on the other hand, is based on the belief that this so-called, “higher or perfect standard” does not exist and that, basically, what you have is as good as it is going to get.  Throughout the class discussion of these two topics, an example made to help distinguish between the two was that a realist would not care if they saw a replica of the Mona Lisa or not.  After all, a painting is just a painting, no matter if it is a copy or not.  Opposite of that, however, an idealist would insist that you would have to see the actual Mona Lisa in order to truly experience seeing it.  The idealist stance is admittedly a bit elitist, but as pointed out by the professor, idealism is unapologetic in this regard.  If you truly want to experience something, one must put in the work to do it, otherwise, what is the point?  The ideal standard is a struggle to reach.  An idealist would never deny that, but then there are the realists who have no standard to strive for and that is where one should seriously consider where they are in terms of the idealism vs. realism scale.

During the class, another point was brought up about a man who came to America and was appalled at the low-quality bread being served there.  As one student questioned whether there could just be a manufacturing and economic reason behind it, the professor then informed the class that there actually wasn’t.  When the calculations had been made, it was found out that, if the seller had taken the time to make the better kind of bread, it would have actually been cheaper to produce than to produce the bread that they were currently selling.  This again brought up the question of why the sellers were not pursuing the idealistic standard for bread and why, when he informed others publicly of what he found, that no one made too much of a fuss over it.  I would personally like to theorize that this is due to what could very well be in the middle of the idealism and realism scale, that middle being nihilism.  To put it simply, nihilism is the belief that nothing truly matters in the long run, and that just might be what the buyers of such bread back in the day were probably adhering to when they ate their low-quality bread.  I personally theorize that nihilism is simply idealists being crushed by the reality of realism, which causes those to question if the quality and standards of bread or anything in general really matter in the long run.  Imagine being a person living back then, longing to taste what the so-called famous “bread” was like, and when it finally came you couldn’t get enough of it.  Finally, you are able to taste the delicacy that had been denied to you for so long… and then some guy comes out of nowhere and proclaims that the bread you loved so much wasn’t the quality product that you had previously thought it was.  Do you feel dejected, knowing that the bread you had long waited for is still well out of your grasp, or do you simply shrug your shoulders and accept that, while it isn’t the best, the bread that you have is as good as it is going to get?  The latter isn’t really realism, since you acknowledge that there is a better alternative to what you have, an ideal bread, but based on your current situation, you realize that it’s an experience that you will never realistically be able to truly experience, so you just take what you can get.  It doesn’t matter anymore.  You’ve accepted it, despite knowing that it could get better.  It could get better, but it most likely probably won’t.  As for the sellers themselves, it is probably a cynical marketing and business move, if anything.  First, feed everyone the bad bread, and then, when you see your business booming or slipping, reveal a slightly better kind of bread and repeat the process so that you never lose the public interest in your product.  Sure, it is a shrewd and dishonest method, to be sure, but why does it matter in the long run?  With this in mind, has nihilism touched the music industry as well?

On Wednesday, January 24, our HIST 390 class discussed the Loudness War and the concept of compression within the music industry.  The Loudness War was, from what I can gather, originally an innocent enough marketing ploy that came about alongside the new advances of technology at the time (more specifically, disc technology).  It was an attempt to have songs differentiate themselves from the competition and, as the practice has continued throughout the years, more and more critics of such practices have come out of the woodwork and voiced their concerns about it.  This is where the concept of compression comes along.  In songs, there are highs and lows.  Loud parts and quiet parts.  In songs before the Loudness War and due to the limited technology at the time, one could easily hear the highs and lows of a song whether they be the loudness and quietness of the instruments or the high and low notes that a singer would sing.  Compression is when the song’s audio is edited to become louder overall, thereby closing the gap between the lower and higher (quieter and louder) parts of the song.  It was initially believed that the louder the song, the better, but if you wished to play the song at a lower volume, then one would notice that the songs, in their entirety, sound more compressed.  By making the bridge between quieter and louder parts of the song shorter, compression sadly eliminates whatever little distinction those parts had, leading to a noticeably blander listening experience.  There needs to be “quiet” in order for there to be “loud” after all.  As a result of this practice, songs having been released recently have noticeably gotten blander and softer, despite the potential the singer or the instruments involved in the song can have otherwise.

Throughout the class, one of the questions posed to us, the students, was, “Why does it seem that our generation seems to like, prefer, or seem to be okay with, these kinds of compressed songs?”  Some theories ranged from simply being born, grown up, and raised in a generation of compression, and thus, the listeners of the current generation could not properly realize that they were being duped into a less cultured and less enjoyable musical experience.  We’ve essentially been tricked into liking something that did not truly deserve to be liked in the first place.  Another theory thrown around was that the current musical attitudes of those of this generation have changed; that now, no one has the time to truly experience the music that they listen to and so music has simply evolved with the times and has become thoughtless background music or music that we were not meant to listen or think too hard about.  The follow up question to this theory was then, “So you want your music to be thoughtless?”  This led to a theory that the professor posed himself, it being that, due to a decaying artistic culture, compressed music has become the new normal, and that those who live during this age of cultural artistry are being exposed to a lesser form of what it can truly be.

In the end, I have my own theory about why compressed music has become the preferred norm, which takes some inspiration and a few pointers from the decaying culture one.  I believe that it has something to do with the change in culture (and perhaps it is due to the decaying of it), but I feel that the part of our current culture that also deserves some of the blame is the current generation’s attitude of inclusiveness.  Deep down, we are all social creatures.  We want to be involved in things.  We don’t want to be the one signaled out or left out of something even if we kind of deserve to.  Let’s be honest, it never feels good to NOT make the cut for a sports team or NOT to be invited to a party or event with the rest of your friends, no matter how justified they are when they say that you’re just not that good at the sport and you’ll only bring the team down or that there was a limited number of invites allowed and you just happened to barely make the cut or that the rest who were invited barely know you anyway.  Those are all perfectly reasonable reasons, but they still hurt regardless.  This is where the music industry comes in.  They know about this feeling.  They know how bad it feels to be left out or kept out of something, so their response was to make songs more inclusive and accessible.  Musical compression shortens the gap between the quiet and loud parts, therefore creating a blander song… but also a more easily accessible song.  Back in the day, being a singer required a lot of skill.  With the limited technology they had, the singers had to have amazing, God-given voices and vocal cords and their songs showed such talents and gifts off, milking them for all that they were worth.  That being said, unless you wanted to be made fun of by your friends or didn’t care enough to be made fun of, chances were that it required a fair bit of talent for anyone else to sing them.  It was hard for anyone to “rock out” when the band or singer you were imitating or rocking out to was just so good at it and you so weren’t by comparison.  There was a reason why these singers were signed and became famous.  They had the talent and pipes to justify it.  It was a individualistic meritocracy back then.  Nowadays, however, with the birth of social media and social justice advocate groups, today’s culture is more about the feelings of the group.  Social justice advocates are constantly fighting for the rights of those that they believe have been mistreated and fight for the law and society to include these groups into their circle of privilege and whenever a somewhat important hashtag on sites like Twitter or Facebook pop up, people who believe in it immediately jump on board to show their support, the horrific downside to all of this being that if you do not support them then, if that group is aggressive and passionate enough, they will band together to confront you on why you don’t.  Today’s culture seems to be dominated on the belief that everyone needs to be happy, and if everyone isn’t, then something must be wrong about it.

Now, how does music compression come into this?  Well, simply put, the music industry realizes this and therefore use compression to make songs more accessible to the masses with it.  Think of any song from this generation.  The song is basically one dull and bland straight line in terms of loudness until it rises just a bit at the chorus before going back down to its original blandness in the second verse and then getting a bit louder again at the chorus.  Due to compression, the loudness of the chorus is no longer that high compared to the loudness of the regular verses… thereby making the song, as a whole, much more easy and accessible to sing along with.  Take Rachel Platten’s, “Fight Song” for example.  Chances are no one except those who truly love the song really know or care what the song is saying throughout its verses, and Platten sings the verses with just as much enthusiasm, with the same height of loudness with little to no change throughout.  It’s then when the song gets to the chorus that the song’s loudness goes up.  It’s not much, but it’s enough that it’s not too complicated for anyone to sing along with it when hearing it on the radio or live.  It’s the punch that anyone can feel hyped up to sing along to, especially when there are friends who enjoy the same song as you or if you are in a crowd at a concert where that song is being played.  It’s the part where the singer can simply shout, “Your turn!” before letting the crowd sing it in unison, be a part of something bigger than themselves, and give themselves a round of applause when it is all done.  Listen to “Fight Song” and really listen to the chorus.  You just want to sing out loud with it when it happens, despite it not being that much louder than the verses or other lyrics.  And you can, because the loudness has been compressed to the point that now anyone with even a modicum of musical know how can sing along with it.  The chorus is easy to jump into.  It’s easy for anyone, no matter how musically challenged they are, to jump into.  The other verses don’t really matter.  It’s the chorus that does and that’s enough to keep you coming back for more.  That’s why our generation likes these types of compressed songs so much.  It’s fast food.  Easily accessible, everyone knows about it, they acknowledge that it’s not THAT good, but the small amount of good that it does have has enough to bring you back for more.  Because we can easily be a part of it whenever we want to.  Because we know when the “beat drops”.  Because other people know when to jump into it too.  Because anyone, no matter how average their voices are, can sing along to it.  Because we can all jump into it and feel like we’re a part of something.