Provocation!

I just found out today that the church I attend, Rivertree, has created some controversy recently through media, and media has exacerbated the scandal.

To the best of my knowledge, the church put up a billboard that had a picture of feet underneath some sheets, and the phrase "puresex." This was done to promote a new series the church will be launching this Sunday.

The Billboard sparked interest from television stations in Cleveland, and this further created a buzz on the national level - so much so that the "Today Show" will be at church tomorrow filming and interviewing people.

I happen to know someone who will be interviewed tomorrow, and she asked me to pray for her that she might present the message that the church is truly trying to convey. The gimmick is not what the message is about. The message is about the healthy sex life God designed humans to have.

It is my personal opinion that this could be a very true instance of Christians using media in an effective and ethical manner. This provocative billboard does not represent entertainment in the sense of a manipulative or mindless transmission of ideas, but rather represents a creative and startling image that will compel people to know more about the message Rivertree is trying to communicate.

Christ was constantly using images to convey his messages. Trees, mountains, fish and wheat, images the common people were familiar with all became part of his teaching. He wasn't using actual images, because technology prevented him from doing so, but I believe that if he were in the 21st century, he would be using various media to communicate his messages.

He was relevant in his ministry, so the Church ought to be relevant as well.

We need to use images to draw people unto Christ.

I commend Rivertree in their efforts at doing so.

Now, it will be interesting to see what the sermon says tomorrow...

Control

This Thursday, I attended a concert at the House of Blues in Cleveland featuring the band Jars of Clay. The music was amazing, the ambiance was groovy, and I saw technological determinism right before my eyes.

Yes, that is what I said - technological determinism.

There was a girl close to the stage who was watching the band, and at the same time she was either taping the band on her digital camera or she was taking pictures. It struck me that the way she conducted herself in regard to this technology shaped her experience. She couldn't flail both her arms about or clap to the beat, because she was preoccupied with capturing the experience digitally.

This would never have happened 60 years ago at an Elvis concert. No digital camera got in the way of the girls becoming completely engrossed in the experience of watching Elvis. I don't know, maybe this whole idea of being able to "capture" the experience makes the encounter with our most cherished stars a little more manageable.

We all want control, right?

Sanjia

So, I have not been following this season of American Idol, but while in Florida with my family, I had a chance to see a little bit of the show.

There is this guy named Sanjia on the show who is not particularly vocally talented, but he has a reputation for changing his hairstyle every week. America seems to love him, and as a result of the voting outcome, he keeps surviving on the show. While this is somewhat amusing, it seems to undermine the purpose of the show...

The incredible part is that this element of the show has affected other media sectors...

There is a website right now called "Vote for the Worst" which is encouraging America to vote opposite of what would be logical.

Extending into the world of radio, Howard Stern is now advocating for this website.

All of this is media attempting to shape media consumers who are trying to shape media.

And the issue is of utmost importance. It ranks up there with U.S. foreign policy and global warming.

I reek of sarcasm.

Feliz Cumpleanos a Mi

This past week, I had quite a few emails in my Inbox on Thursday March 29, 2007.

The reason?

I had been sent notices that friends had added posts to my Wall on Facebook.

The reason?

They wanted to wish me Happy Birthday!

How did they know it was my birthday? Well...
Facebook told them that it was my birthday.

Now, I am not saying at all that I am unappreciative that my friends sent messages on Facebook. I love them very much and cherish their words.

What I am saying is technology has shaped how my peers and I interact with each other. Rather than having to keep track of a friend's birthday by making up some crazy cue (Like "John is severely immature and acts like he is 8...Ah yes, May 8, that is John's birthday."), we are free from some element of personal responsibility and come to rely more and more on technology.

Now, if you have read any of my previous blogs, you might know that I am actually an advocate of the "meaningfulness" of Facebook.

All I'm saying is that we ought to be cognizant of how technology shapes our personal interactions.

Trekkies

Maybe I ought to be mature.

Maybe I ought to say that the video on Friday was just ethnography and not a freak show.

I probably should do both of these things...even though I am not inclined to.

It's just that the content of the video boggled my mind. A Klingon mask sold for FOURTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS!

Its interesting how media affects its audience. I think most of us are much more tied to media than we would like to think. We just don't express this as extremely or outwardly as do the trekkies.

Many people have "their show." People reserve time out of their busy lives to sit down week after week, and shall I say, religiously watch a TV program. People schedule their activities, and even meals around the TV guide. Social interaction within family units is hindered, sedentary lifestyles set in, and people are indulged with messages that are not rooted in truth.

Is this not a bit freakish?

The New Pornographers

In discussing the concept of The Uses and Gratifications Approach to Media in class on Friday Dr. Rudd brought up the oh-so-controversial topic of pornography.

I appreciate the way he dealt with it, because normally, the issue is oversimplified and shoved off on guys as "their" problem.

Women, they suffer from a normative social insecurity, but men...

they are primitive and thoughtless...with only one thing on their mind.

And what do they do to satiate their deviant desires?

They look at naked women.

This is the account that society would give us, but the truth is that we are all constantly making our own porn, devising ways to satisfy ourselves through various means, through media consumption not traditionally associated with porn.

One of the best examples I can think of that involves experiencing media in a "narrowly, self-motivated" way is the obsession that some people develop with video games.

For hours upon hours eyes are glued to the screen - social interaction is minimal and focus is entirely upon the self.

Now, I realize not all people experience video games in this way, but it can become a problem when video games are used in this specific, selfish way.

Conclusion:

Mario is porn.

Chris Tomlin is porn.

The Notebook is porn.

Star Trek is porn.

With a slight disclaimer:

If you view/experience them in a narrowly, self-interested manner.

Ruckus

My friend recently told me about this website called Ruckus.com and tonight, when I should have been working on a paper, I checked it out.

The program is designed for "poor college students" who are unable to afford all the music their hearts may desire. It is kind of like a hybrid between Facebook and Napster.

One creates an account by giving one's name and college e-mail address.

In this way, the company makes sure it caters only to its desired demographic.

You can download many different songs, sometimes even whole albums.

Here is the catch - with the most basic version of the program, you are unable to take the files off your computer onto an mp3 player or an iPod.

I created an account and downloaded some music. Relient K, Johnny Cash, Rage Against the Machine, and the Rolling Stones were some of the bands I sampled. At this point, I am not sure that it is an ethically-sound venture. It almost makes no difference that you cannot take the files off your computer. If you had the right cables, you could just hook your computer up to your stereo system and listen as if you were listening to a CD.

One of the biggest questions I have is this: How do artists give or not give permission for their music to be on this type of database?

Or

How do they prevent their music from being sold digitally?

I have a feeling that I will gain insight as we continue learning about the politics of production.

One thing I did notice was that the site was not devoid of commercialism. There were normal ads on the site, and once, one of those cheesy "Attention-Your-computer-will-explode-if-you-don't-click-OK" ads popped up. Also, when you viewed the song you wanted to download, there was also an icon that would take you to buy.com, so that you could purchase the song.

The premise of the site was that the music was free.

Nevertheless, the site was not completely free of all parties who were interesting in making money.

This is what my Saturday-night ruckus is all about.

Conflicted

This Friday we were afforded the opportunity to argue that media conglomerates were

a. Beneficial to society

or

b. Harmful to society.

I was on the team that had to argue that the conglomerates were more beneficial than harmful. This was the harder position to take because the negative aspects of media conglomerates are so apparent, and they appeal to very personal concerns such as individuality how money is handled.

One positive aspect I see in media conglomerates is that they are a testament to the power of free capitalism in the United States. The companies who control the media have gained this control through shrewd business and without the aid of the government. Now, I realize that not all that comes along with a free market is good, yet it would terrify me if the government was the institution that controlled the media. Totalitarianism is what would come of such a set-up.

The most negative aspect I see in media conglomerates has to do with their agenda-setting function. Whereas I am glad that the government is not in charge of the media, I am disappointed with the issues the media attaches importance to. More often than not, the shallow and the sensational replace issues that are of much greater importance and which require action on the part of the people of the United States.

The irony is that, as citizens of a democracy, we have been allowed the freedom to create a system that ultimately ends up controlling us.

The worst part is we think it is "just TV."

The Romans were obsessed with entertainment, and consequently, as a culture, they were rather intellectually stagnant when compared with other civilizations.

We are sacrificing intellect and our ability to think critically when we let the media make decisions for us.

I am just wondering when it will catch up with us.

I am wondering when the empire will fall.

A Favorite Media Text: Songs by Rich Mullins

One of my all time favorite albums is Songs by the late Rich Mullins.

What genre does it belong to?

That is a loaded question.

It really depends on who you ask...

Fans would probably say "Contemporary Christian Music." The majority of Mullins' fan-base came from within the Christian community during the 80s and 90s.

Critics would also be likely to say "Contemporary Christian Music." The reason they would say this is because of the formal conventions of lyrics. An artist who talks about "pimps in the crib" is likely to belong to the genre of rap. The artist who talks about "that red dirt road" could possibly be from the genre of country music. Likewise, the artist who talks about "God the Father" could possibly be from the genre of contemporary Christian music. Lyrics are a determining factor in genre, although they probably do not hold as much weight as the musical style does.

The producers would have a tougher time determining the genre than these last two groups. The reason is they would have a difficult time is because Mullins employed several musical styles in his music. There are elements of pop, world and classical in his music. To make the album Songs, the producer would need an orchestra, a piano, drums, a keyboard, a hammered dulcimer, a huge drum, guitars, a bass, cups, and a choir. They would probably say that Mullins' music was pop, but this would not completely convey the uniqueness of his music.

Artists would recognize it as a form of pop with some world music thrown in. Any good musician would realize that the album is a true masterpiece. (Yes, I am biased. And yes, you will be too as soon as you hear the album.)

This album achieves a delicate balance between convention and invention. Mullins does follow some of the conventions of pop music. He employs verses and choruses, and there is a strong vocal presence. On the other hand, he also uses a ton of invention. An example of this is the song "Sing Your Praise to The Lord." The opening is a melodic line from Bach played by an orchestra, yet as the song progresses the piano comes in and then the drums start up. All of a sudden, you hear fresh guitar chords and Mullins has taken the listener from ancient classical melodies into a modern pop praise song.

I highly recommend this album. Mullins was both an excellent poet, and an excellent musician. Most people just know him as "the guy who wrote 'Awesome God'," but there is so much more to both his music and his life. If you are interested in his life, as well as his music, I would recommend the book An Arrow Pointing to Heaven.

I Am A Genrelist

A List of the Genres Within Music

Rock
Alternative Rock
Classic Rock
Nu Metal
Metalcore
Metal
Hardcore
Emo
Screamo
Punk
Power-Pop
Pop
Gangsta Rap
Bluegrass
Polka
Dixieland Jazz
Ska
Folk
Opera
Soundtrack
Techno
Inspo-pop
Country
R&B
Rap
Hip-Hop
Classical
Jazz
World
Marching Band
Gospel
Big Band

Sorting Through The List: Categories

Rock
Rock
Alternative Rock
Classic Rock

Hard Rock
Metalcore
Metal
Hardcore
Emo
Screamo
Punk

Urban
Gangsta Rap
Gospel
Techno
R&B
Rap
Hip-Hop

Horn-based
Dixieland Jazz
Ska
Jazz
Marching Band
Big Band

Rural
Bluegrass
Folk
Country

Other
Polka
World
Classical
Power-Pop
Pop
Opera

The Rationale

Splitting music into categories is problematic, as there may be several ways to approach distinguishing between the different types. Because of this, it is helpful to think through which perspective you will take when dividing the genres.

The category Rock is more or less based on what the Critics would think. Rock follows certain conventions, such as the use if distortion, a driving beat, and the use of guitar soloing.

The category Hard Rock is also based on this perspective. There are several formal patterns which separate Hard Rock from Rock. In Hard Rock, all the elements of Rock are taken to more extremes. The music can be more fast-paced, the singers are more apt to scream, and sometimes the soloing requires even more precision on the part of the guitarist.

The categories Urban and Rural are based on the Fans/Audience. People from Urban areas are more likely to listen to rap, whereas people from Rural areas are more likely to listen to Bluegrass.

Horn-based music is defined as a category of genres based upon the perspective of the Producers. To make Big Band music, for instance, requires that instruments like trumpets and trombones are utilized. These are the "materials needed to make" the music.

And there is the category of Other. The Critics are most likely to come up with a term like this. The reason these styles are included in this category is because they could either be a category unto themselves, or it is impossible to place them in one certain category because they rely on multiple categories and conventions.

Heavy Stuff

Recently, I have been reading a book by C.S. Lewis called The Abolition of Man. In it he attempts to defend traditional morality in the face of modernism, which encourages the rejection of morality in pursuit of the conquest of Nature.

Heavy stuff.

One of the topics he addresses is technology, an example of which is eugenics. Lewis contends that eugenics, prenatal conditioning and DNA testing all threaten to destroy human nature in the sense that in the future, man will create the species as he wishes (Floyd Notes). This will mean that any person who does not fit his physical or cognitive standard will be altered or aborted.

Dr. Floyd made the comment that media and science go hand-in-hand. In the future, under Lewis' theory, there would be "the Propagandist," who would convey what would then be desirable in society.

In a specific example, media can help form "socially constructed ideals of beauty" (Floyd Notes).

This connected extremely well with the idea of technological determinism, the idea that technology determines how we view reality.

It's not like the significance of electricity.

It's more like the images that are plastered on our eyeballs which show us what we ought to be like.

It's digitally-touched up women.

It's simplistic caricatures of tough men.

It's the idealized lives of the wealthy, the sexy, and the rebellious that we see over and over again in film and music.

We see these images, we hear these songs, we read these magazines, and we emulate.

We already have a Propaganda system in place for understanding what we ought to be like. We are delving further into biogenetics. I only hope that Lewis' prophecy does not come true. I hope we will never see the day when the mentally retarded, the disabled, and those with learning disorders are valued less than everyone else because the Media and Science have told us so. That day may be approaching, however. Some signs?

The death of Baby Doe.

The death of Terry Schiavo.

Babies that are aborted because they will develop a handicap.

Talkin' 'Bout My Genre-ration

Everyone loves to laugh, but nobody likes to learn.

(Out of textbooks that is...)

So, it would be a wonderful invention if someone could come up with a TV genre which would meld educational and comedic television elements together...

As a disclaimer - this show would be similar to something Steven Colbert might take part in if her were trying to educate the masses...

The producers would be happy, because this show would be relatively inexpensive. Sets will not be created. The host will narrate on site (i.e. museum, battlefield, etc.), and stock footage will be used, as well.

As to the formal patterns that will be used, the topic will be presented to the audience by a single narrator, who will guide the audience through the topic as it develops chronologically. Interviews will be used as deemed necessary, and stock footage and images will be used to convey ideas or events which cannot be explained in the present time. Dry and sometimes inappropriate humor will be used to liven up topics. The narrator will perform all of this under the guise that he or she really cares that the topic be presented accurately to the audience.

The fans will most likely have an affinity for dry comedy such as The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and The Office. They will be slightly nerdy, however, because they like to learn about new things.

PBS meets Comedy Central, and what do you get?

ComEDy.

Fruitless

There is something Pharisaic about Dogme 95.

It appears as if in the process of trying to preserve the thing they cherish the most - art - they are killing it.

The primal motive the members of Dogme 95 have is noble: they wish to save the art of storytelling from unnecessary, and often harmful, technological tricks.

However, in creating all the "rules" of film making, they severely limit an artist's potential. By applying the naturalism they call for to film, filmmakers will only be able to elicit a limited range of responses and emotions from the audience. It is comparable to telling a painter to make a picture, but only allowing her to use the colors black, white, and red. It will be impossible to create certain colors from these three colors, and thus it will be impossible to create certain connotations.

In addition to creating stifling rules, these filmmakers are also choosing to ignore and discard a large part of the history of film. Much of the film that has been created has been created with the intent of taking audiences away from reality (even if reality is only tweaked slightly), not to show them an exact reflection of their own reality. I am speaking on limited knowledge, as I have never seen any of these films, so perhaps I would be better informed on the issue of reality in these films if I were able to watch one of them.

The one thing I am puzzled about is in relation to the identification of the director. Rule 10 says that the director must not be credited. How do we know, then, who the directors are who are creating these films? Perhaps I am just confused about terminology, but if I am not it seems as if these Dogme 95 directors are being hypocritical as we can associate them with their work.

As I read about this group I am reminded about something C.S. Lewis said in The Abolition of Man: "They castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful." It seems as if the members of Dogme 95 are demanding genuine art, and then removing the tools needed to create it.

The Cross

Definitions: Denotations and Connotations

The Cross is a universal symbol. Its denotative meaning may be described in the following manner: the cross is an instrument of death, traditionally connected with the death of Jesus Christ.

However, there are many connotative meanings that come along with this denotative meaning. We automatically make associations when we see the cross. The following ideals and images may come to mind:

Sacrifice

Suffering

Redemption

Martyrdom

Blood

Agony

Salvation

Slippage

Meaning has shifted in this sign. When the disciples watched Jesus die in agony upon the cross, they certainly felt that they were experiencing defeat. Thousands of years later, in the aftermath of the bloody death, yet in the light of the glorious resurrection, many Christians use this symbol with pride. To many modern-day Christians the cross represents not defeat, but victory.

Moving outside of the Christian semiotic domain, we see that the cross has taken on other meanings, sometimes in a negative way. For instance, in the 20th century, the Klu Klux Klan put burning crosses on the properties of African-Americans in an attempt to intimidate them and warn of future violence. For white supremacists, the cross meant something very different than it did for a Christian. Some of these white supremacists were convinced that they were Christians, but that is another story...

In the semiotic domain of rappers, the cross represents a movement from economic suffering to astronomical wealth. It retains its connotation of suffering, yet it is usually diamond studded and swinging from the necks of vulgar poets.

How about satanists? They simply turn the cross upside down, and we automatically understand that the set of ideals to which they hold are completely opposite those of the Christian.

The cross is an example of a time-bound symbol (as it represents an ancient form of execution), yet it has also gained new meaning throughout the course of thousands of years.

With Honors

Once upon a time, I was in a very poorly taught high school sociology class.

In this sociology class, I did not enjoy myself very much. I would prefer to forget my time there.

However, there is one good thing that I gleaned from the class - a great example of "The Wisdom of the Rustic"!

My teacher showed us movies, and one of the movies we watched was With Honors.

The Text

With Honors is about a Harvard government student named Monty, played by Brendan Fraser, who loses his only copy of his thesis when he drops it down a grate by the library. A homeless man named Simon Wilder, who lives in the basement of the library, comes into possession of the paper and agrees to give Monty back one page for every day he receives food. As much as Monty resents this at first, he comes to learn a lot from the relationship that he forms with Simon. It is only after his time spent learning the deeper truths of life from Simon that he is able to graduate with honors.

One of the most significant signs (ha!) in the movie is the thesis paper that Monty loses.

The paper represents Monty's academic ambitions.

Syntagmatic Meaning

The sign gains its meaning from other things around it. For instance, when the paper falls down the grate, it is understood that it is not in its proper place. This creates an uneasiness on the part of both Monty and the audience, as it is obvious that his college career is on the line. Also, the fact that this was a paper on the Harvard campus sends the message that it is not the average term paper. We come to believe that it is something highly academic and important.

Paradigmatic Meaning

The writers could have chosen to use Monty's computer, his writing utensils, or his brain to convey the sense of academic ambition he possessed. However, none of these examples would have been sufficient because they are too impersonal.

The paper represented something extremely personal - something into which Monty had poured his soul. The loss of this paper meant something much deeper than if Monty had lost his computer, in which he had not invested himself so passionately.

Codes

This particular sign draws upon several codes.

Two of the most significant are explained below:

In the code of Academia, it is understood that a thesis paper represents the culmination of a considerable amount of research.

In the code of College Students, it is understood that writing papers takes a great effort on the part of the writer. This adds to the idea that the paper represented Monty's personal ambition and drive.

Second Order and Third Order Meanings

A Harvard thesis paper could also have the following connotations:

1. Diligence
2. Intelligence
3. Piety
4. Lifelessness
5. Legalism
6. Honor
7. Burden
8. Impracticality

Some, in desperation, might say "Everything is meaningless." (Take Jon Foreman, for example).

However, semiotics proves that everything is full of meaning...even a cheesy movie from the 80s that I was made to watch in a less-than-stellar high school sociology class.

The Diegetic World of "Survivor"

"Survivor" is a TV show that thrives on the idea of "other-worldliness."

Average people are taken out of their average worlds and made to compete with others on an island.

There is also a pretty hefty chunk of change involved...

The reason we are drawn to the show is because it is fascinating to see how humans interact in a "different world." Nobody (or very few people) would want to watch "Survivor" if it were staged in a placid, suburban town in Ohio.

So what is different about this world?

There are many elements that make "Survivor" its own distinct diegetic world:

1. The setting is a remote island.

2. Social grouping is based on tribe. This differs from the "real" world, where people are separated based upon many other things, such as gender, occupation, and ethnicity.

3. There are "tribal councils" to determine who stays on the island and who leaves the island.

4. Lighting is provided by tiki torches.

5. Food is cooked over fires, rather than being cooked in kitchens.

6. There are competitions for "tribal immunity" (this "tribal immunity" saves the tribe from having to kick any of its members off the island) that always contain primitive and rustic tribal elements.

7. Jeff Probst is the host who facilitates the activities on the island.

8. Tribe members show their loyalty by wearing colorful, tribe-specific "buffs."

9. The food that is eaten comes from the island and the ocean by the island.

The world of "Survivor" is, in many ways, differentiated from the one in which we live. It is not different in an extreme way, like in the diegetic worlds of sci-fi shows, but it is different enough from our common experience that we are compelled to watch the show to escape our everyday lives.

The producers love this, of course, because we are watching commercials along with the show...

Eminem the Messiah?

Eminem the Messiah.

Let me just get this out of the way: this sounds wrong.

This sounds sacrilegious.

And it would be, if I were referring to the Jewish Messiah...but I am not.

The Messiah figure to which I am referring is secular in the sense that he or she does not have to be tied to a religion to be "the Messiah."

He or she is the Messiah because he or she is the one person who can unite a group of people and liberate them from what is keeping them in bondage.

The music of Eminem portrays Eminem as a Messiah figure, one who has come to liberate and unite an angry mass of white middle-class youth. If one examines the lyrics of Eminem's music with scrutiny, one will find that he proclaims to have this mission.

Starting towards the beginning of his career, Eminem made the bold statement, "I don't give a f---, God sent me to p--- the world off" in his hit song "My Name Is." This is not exactly what one would call a noble mission, but nevertheless it is the one Eminem claimed. The craziest part is that this statement of purpose resonated with some and united a swarm of unhappy youth who saw Eminem as the one who best embodied everything they were feeling.

Eminem describes this group in the following excerpt from "Without Me":

"Little hellions, kids feeling rebellious / Embarrassed, their parents still listen to Elvis / They start feeling like prison is helpless / Til someone comes along on a mission and yells "b----" / A visionary, vision is scary, could start a revolution / Pollutin' the air waves a rebel"

As the "narrative" of Eminem's mission unfolds, these "little hellions" find so much inspiration from Eminem that they begin to adopt his way of living. This is what Eminem refers to in "The Real Slim Shady," when he says "and there's a million of us just like me / Who cuss like me, who just don't give a f--- like me / Who dress like me, walk, talk and act like me / And just might be the next best thing, but not quite me."

"White America," with its mix of inspiration and vulgarity, succinctly describes the culmination of his efforts to unite the angry youth:

"I never woulda dreamed in a million years I'd see so many mutha f--kin people who feel like me / Who share the same views / And the same exact beliefs / Its like a f--kin army marchin in back of me / So many lives I touched / So much anger aimed at no perticular [sic]"

This myth is not completely pure in that a) Eminem did not necessarily bring a group to a better place, and in that b) his lyrics can embellish the truth.

a) Although he did unite a group of angry white middle-class youth, it is difficult to prove that he released them from their hate simply by providing them with a common music.

b) Eminem has a knack for creating an image of himself, and this image is not always true to reality. Ego distorts his listeners from ever receiving a completely accurate depiction of his true self. It is difficult to understand how much of his uniting power was a reality, and how much of it was an illusion he created with his lyrics.

An egotist? Yes.

A genius? Lyrically, perhaps.

A Messiah? Not purely.

The Real Slim Shady? Of course.

Deeply True, Dangerously False

Eminem is genius and pure ego.

He says all the wrong words and pushes all the right buttons.

He appeals to and resonates with the masses of angry, white suburban youth.

Why?

Because he says so.

Take, for instance, "White America," in which he claims to be leading a revolution against traditional American values:

"So to the parents of America / I am the damager [sic] aimed at little Erica / To attack her character / The ring leader of the circus of worthless pawns / Sent to lead the march right up to the steps of Congress / And p--s on the lawns of the whitehouse [sic] / To burn the casket and replace it with a parental advisory sticker / To spit liquor in the faces of this democracy of hipocracy [sic]."

Or, examine the lyrics of "Stan," in which his "biggest fan" conveys the close connection he feels with Eminem:

"See, I'm just like you in a way / I never knew my father neither / He used to always cheat on my mom and beat her / I can relate to what you're sayin' in your songs / So when I have a sh---y day, I drift away and put 'em on / Cause I don't really got sh-- else / So that sh-- helps when I'm depressed."

How about "The Real Slim Shady," in which Eminem boldly claims that he is in everyone:

"In every single person there's a Slim Shady lurkin / He could be workin at burger king, spittin on your onion rings / Or in the parking lot, circling, screamin I dont [sic] give a f--- / With his windows down and his system up."

Whereas it is true that Eminem's music is extremely accessible to people who can relate to the rough experiences he had growing up, it is important that we recognize that Eminem purposefully reinforces his connection with his audience simply by claiming it is there.

The "deeply true" part of his music consists of the harsh conditions and anger about which he raps. Many youth are troubled and have large amounts of rage festering inside of them. Eminem speaks to this like no other rapper had been able to do before him. So, this is why the music resonates with his audience.

However, there is a "deeply false" part of his music. In his lyrics, Eminem appears to believe that because he beat the system on his own, he is now capable of leading and controlling the masses of angry youth in a cultural rebellion.

Some members of the "Eminem lovers" semiotic domain are able to separate these two elements. They connect with the rough imagery, but understand that Eminem is not calling them to join in a real rebellion of any sort.

Others are unable to separate these two entities, and see Eminem as an idol of sorts. They wear the clothes he wears, dye their hair, and apply his anger to their own lives. They are like Stan in Eminem's hit song, "Stan." They think that he is larger-than-life, and that he is actually leading them to something greater than themselves...

Certainly, elements of Eminem's music would present him as a...

Messiah?

Media Integrity: Pt. 2

Coming back to my original argument: It is important to realize that specific media seem more meaningful to the members of a semiotic domain than they do to others outside that domain.

A great real-life example I have that shows that individuals communicate in meaningful ways through Facebook involves someone who I am particularly close to at this point in my life. Last night I was talking with her, and we reminisced about the first message I had sent her via Facebook. Now, I don't think that particular message was ripe with deep meaning, but it did lead to other messages that were more meaningful.

The culmination of these meaningful messages had to be a couple of nights ago when I sent her a message in a quasi-Socratic dialogue form. I wrote the whole Facebook message as a discussion between Socrates and Thrasymachus. This may seem bizarre (and it was, slightly), but it also had deeper statements strewn throughout the message. It was probably the most creative thing I have done for her, and it wasn't a very quick venture.

So did it lack meaning because it wasn't in a mailbox with a piece of candy?

No.

As Bob Dylan might say, "The Times They Are A'Changin'."

I am part of a new, young semiotic domain known as Facebookers, and we are able to communicate in meaningful ways via the Internet.

Media Integrity: Pt.1

I recently had a conversation with my mother in which we were discussing her relationship with my father during their college years. She told me of how he would leave her little messages in her mailbox (sometimes with candy), and how this communicated that he cared about her, that he was thinking of her, etc.

This whole account was in juxtaposition to my experience at college. I hardly ever write any type of message on paper, even to those I care about the most. Usually, I use the all-encompassing Facebook to communicate with my peers.

Now, my mother was concerned that if I only used this type of Internet communication (in addition to face-to-face communication), I might not send a strong-enough message to those whom I cared about the most.

This makes me question: Does a message lack meaning simply because of its form? Am I being relationally lazy when I use Facebook as a form of communication, or is using this type of Internet-based communication more closely related to the generation or the semiotic domain to which I belong?

I would like to make the case that I am not being relationally lazy when I use Facebook to communicate with peers.

I think that the form of communication I am using is more telling of the semiotic domain to which I belong than the integrity of the message itself.

So to what semiotic domain do I belong in this instance?

Facebookers.

Delving in further, I would say that the affinity group to which I belong is not necessarily semantically synonymous with the semiotic domain itself.

The affinity group to which I belong is comprised of all my high school and college friends I allow to view my profile, and all students at Malone with a Facebook account. Not everyone who is on the Facebook network can view my profile.

My fellow Facebook friends and I have a design grammar which we alone are able to understand without much thought. Examples of this grammar include being "poked," having a "friend request," viewing a "Wall-to-Wall," updating "My Status," and interpreting the "Heart Symbol."

The common texts we work with are wall posts, messages, photos, invitations, notes, and videos.

Whereas the argument I am attempting to make is that Facebook can be a forum for meaningful communication, I think it should also be recognized that the axiom "the media is the message" is still applicable.

Within the world of Facebook, different media texts carry different meanings. Wall Posts tend to focus mostly on day-to-day matters, and simple questions and statements. My Messages, however, leaves room for more meaningful dialogue as it functions like a private email account. Notes can either serve in a blog-like capacity or just as empty space for goofy messages.

This structure of meaning is understood by all Facebookers, so that if someone violates this structure it is apparent. Generally speaking, if you are interested in someone romantically, or want to tell someone something romantic, you do not use the Notes function to do this. I have seen it done before, and it struck me as odd.

Easy Listening

Perhaps one of my all-time favorite lyricists is Steve Taylor, a quirky Christian musician whose career began to take off in the 1980s. On his last studio album, Squint, there is a song called "Easy Listening" which serves as an example of the Myth of Eternal Return, albeit with a little twist...

The song is authored by an older person doling out advice to younger Christians in the year 2044. The song begins with the lyric, "Gather-me-grandchildren if you love a good mystery / Gather-me-grandchildren for a little church history / It's 2044 and you're avoiding our turn-of-the-century ways."

The lyrics serve as an extremely appropriate example of the Myth of Eternal Return, which holds that if things could only be like they used to be, everything would be much better. Under this assumption, the Myth of Eternal Return encourages that we strive to apply concepts from the past to the present in order to improve our quality of life.

In the song, the author is uncomfortable with the ideas of self-sacrifice and radicalism these new Christians possess, and therefore sees it fit to remind these young believers how Christians were able to attain success at the turn-of-the-century.

This is where the irony comes into play. Whereas the author subscribes to the belief that things were better "back then" in the world of Christendom, the listener is aware that he is terribly mistaken. The listener understands that his longing for the old days represents a regression toward a more shallow Christianity.

The author describes his position in the following question-and-answer format: "How did we strike it rich? / Kissing up to the powerful / How did we make our pitch? / Satellites by the towerful / Why do you young hotheads have to go and get caught up in a radical phase?"

He follows with more abrasive statements: "My conscience was clear and my wallet was full / I didn't hear none of this "sacrifice" bull / Tough times call for a backtrack / Gimme that old-time easy listening."

In summation, this song relates to the Myth of Eternal Return in two important ways:

First of all, it serves as an example of a longing for the past in the belief that things would be better or eaisier if the group (young Christians) would subscribe to values of the past (the superficial "turn-of-the-century ways" of the older author).

Secondly, this text shows that many times the Myth of Eternal Return is mythic in the sense that it is based on a falsity. The "good ol' days" can be a misguided view of history for older people who do not recognize all the things that were wrong during that time period.

In a society that thrives so much on progression, it is interesting that we still maintain an affinity for "values" of the past and the "good ol' days." As unlikely as it may seem, it is true and it is reflected in a wide array of media.

A Higher Revelation: Pt. 2

Throughout my high school years, I listened to an increasingly eclectic mix of music. I listened to everything from Relient K to Earth, Wind, and Fire.

Another Christian musician who had a large influence upon my life was Rich Mullins. Here again, I was attracted to his musicianship, but it was the life behind the music that fascinated me. The music acted as a bridge between myself and the intriguing lifestyle which Mullins adopted. He was a firm believer in humility and service to others, and was shaken to the core by the awesome love of God. A fan of Brennan Manning, his band was named "The Ragamuffin Band." I suppose that Rich Mullins taught me that as much as Jesus wants us to be holy, he also wants us to be "earthy," in the sense that we ought to be humble and compassionate to all, regardless of who they are or what they have done.

One of the styles of music that I came to love in high school was bluegrass. I have two bluegrass albums that I listen to quite a lot, with performances by Ricky Skaggs, Doc Watson, and Earl Scruggs.

In a sense, bluegrass music has allowed me to connect with my past. My grandmother was born in a "holler" in Kentucky. Her family members were descendants of Scotch-Irish immigrants who came to the United States during the potato famine. These immigrants brought over their Celtic style, which eventually evolved into bluegrass.

I'd like to think that some of the affinities we have are ingrained in our genetics, because I do have an internal attraction to bluegrass music.

A great example of this involves the song "Soldier's Joy." The version I have is on a CD with two banjos playing a duet. The tune has a Celtic tone, and the banjos' strings pop and roll. Sometimes it is difficult to catch the melody because the activity gets cluttered between the fast movement of all the strings. It sounds anxious and pulsating and joyful all at the same time.

Now this doesn't happen all the time, but once I was in the gym, listening to this song on my iPod, and I felt some weird type of energy swell up within me. I don't mean this to sound bizarre or cliche, but the music actually affected me. All I can attribute it to is the fact that it somehow ties me with my past. I am now busy conjuring up the spirit of Bill Monroe...just kidding.

As I enter college, music is still a very influential media in my life. I have become less concerned with listening to "Christian" music, but I still glean some truth from my listening selection. It will be interesting to see what new music I discover and how it will impact me as I progress through life. I just can't wait until I'm old and 50 cent is like disco...that will be hilarious.

A Higher Revelation: Pt. 1

Ludwig von Beethoven once said, "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." Perhaps he seems a little brasch and naive for making this kind of statement, but in his world this was a reality.

In my world, I have also found music to be of great significance. I started becoming particularly interested in music after a short stint of karate when I was 6. (My mother claims it was to boost my self-esteem). Being tired of sensis and boxing matches, I turned to the guitar as a past-time.

As I learned the guitar, I began listening to "grown-up" music. Up until this point, my musical repetoire was limited to Psalty the Singing Song Book and The Donut Man. Soon, however, I was listening to Christian pop/rock groups like dc Talk and Audio Adrenaline. At this point in my life, I was just glad to be listening to this new "rock" music, and I think my parents must have been happy that I was satisfied with Christian groups.

In middle school, I discovered "classic rock," an even further deviation from the Donut Man. Some of the bands I listened to included The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Led Zepplin, and AC/DC. I loved the sounds that these bands produced, and the groups became semi-iconic for me. I would wear t-shirts with their names on them, doodle their symbols on folders during class, and talk about them with my friends. The thing about this type of music was that, as I listened to it, I was not really led to anything but the musicians themselves. Whereas the majority of the music was free from vulgarity, it was not leading me to anything deeper, like some of the Christian groups I listened to may have done.

And then I came across a musician named Keith Green.

Keith Green was a piano-playing singer/songwriter who was extremely popular in the eighties in the Christian community. I became attracted to his music partly due to his excellent musicianship and partly due to his radical zeal for Christ. I read a book about his life called No Compromise, and was amazed at how he conducted himself as a Christian. I listened constantly to old LPs my mom had, and I also listened to the four-disc set I got for my birthday. I memorized the lyrics, I attempted to plunk out some of his songs on the piano, and I tried to adopt just a little bit of his passion.

Listening to his music literally signaled a change in my life. I went from being a potty-mouthed little teenager to someone who fell in love with Jesus Christ.