When I think of celebrities that have been portrayed negatively in the press, there are many names that come to mind for a variety different reasons. Celebrities are under the microscope constantly. Any move a celeb makes is recorded and analysed. No one is perfect so when celebs make a mistake it is broad-casted like crazy. The celebrity that comes to my mind first when being exploited in the press is Britney Spears.
When Britney Spears first started out she appealed to the younger "bubble-gum pop" fans. She sang innocent songs and acquired a young fan base. As she started to grow up her songs started to change in content as did her actions in her everyday life. Many parents were upset by this change in character because she was a role model type to so many young girls. Her "growing up" period was just the start to her downward spiral in the public eye.
She married a sort of "wanna be" rapper and became classified as a sort of "white trash." Her behavior was classless and controversial. The press capitalized on her odd behavior changes and blew everything out of proportion as is common in the press. The blow up of her behavior ended up making her actions get more and more strange. It was as if she went crazy from being watched so closely by the world. Everyone remembers her hospital stays, 911 calls, rehab visits and hair shaving escapade. Her odd behavior gave the press tons of room to exaggerate and analyze. At the end of the day the press loves having something to talk about to keep the people entertained.
I don't think Spears was as bad off as the press tried to depict her to be. I think the harshness of the press pushed her to be more mentally sick than she really was. With that said, when embarking on fame, one has to be able to endure the harshness of the press because it isn't only the craft that the people become entertained and obsessed with, it is the every day lives of celebrities.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Warning Labels by Record Companies
Warning Labels became mandatory on music containing controversial or risky lyrical material in 1985. Why were they originally created? What effect did they have on the industry? Should they still be mandatory on music? Who should be responsible for issuing these warning labels? Are the requirements for these labels effective?
Warning Labels were originally put into effect in hopes of turning people away from certain music that was said to be improper in nature or inappropriate for certain ages. The main rubric used was the use of curse words in the lyrics of the songs. It was also to warn parents of the nature of the music their child could be listening to. It's purpose was to push "bad words" and inappropriate subject manner out of the popular, mainstream music scene. It was intended to bring a divide in the music you "should" listen to and the music that was condemned by the older generations of society. The warning labels were to turn people away, but the opposite occurred.
When the warning labels started to be issued on records the younger generations turned this into a way to tell if music was cool or not. Instead of turning people away, it intrigued America's youth. Many saw it as a way to rebel and act out against conforming to their parents "uncool" ways. Album sales sky rocketed for those that had a warning label. This proved in a very loud way that sex sells, as does risky subject matter in songs.
In today's scene, much of the music purchased is online. There are clean versions and "explicit" versions of almost every song. The clean versions are those that are able to be played on the radio. That explicit "warning" is always the one I personally buy and that is because I feel that that is the way the song was originally intended by the writer and for an fellow artist, that matters. I always want to hear a song the way it was originally meant to be heard and cussing doesn't bother me.
Although the "warning" doesn't turn me away from the music, or any other people for that matter, I do think that it is important for the record companies to do. Signs like those on an album or on a song give the listener an idea of what kind of song it is or what kind of album it is. It is the record companies responsibility to represent the music in the true way on the cover or "digital booklet." It is just a way of preparing the listener for what they are going to hear.
One thing I would change would be what calls for these labels on music. I find a lot of the time the warning labels are only issued for a word that is considered inappropriate instead of the overall message of the song. I think the radio should be a free airway and should be allowed to play songs the way they were intended but I think there should be more strict rules in what calls for a warning and what doesn't. One bad word isn't as important to be mindful of as an entire song about the glories of drug dealing or the glamor of prostituting yourself for rap stars. Many songs that are considered a "clean" version still have the same message as the "explicit" version and that is of a provocative nature. Though I don't mind listening and singing along to a song with an "inappropriate" message, I wouldn't want my 4 year old cousin listening to it and I would like to be warned of its nature before playing it with a little one around.
In conclusion, I think that the warning labels are important and should be issued by the record companies. I also thing the what constitutes as "explicit" should be re-examined and changed based on the message not a single word in the lyrics.
Warning Labels were originally put into effect in hopes of turning people away from certain music that was said to be improper in nature or inappropriate for certain ages. The main rubric used was the use of curse words in the lyrics of the songs. It was also to warn parents of the nature of the music their child could be listening to. It's purpose was to push "bad words" and inappropriate subject manner out of the popular, mainstream music scene. It was intended to bring a divide in the music you "should" listen to and the music that was condemned by the older generations of society. The warning labels were to turn people away, but the opposite occurred.
When the warning labels started to be issued on records the younger generations turned this into a way to tell if music was cool or not. Instead of turning people away, it intrigued America's youth. Many saw it as a way to rebel and act out against conforming to their parents "uncool" ways. Album sales sky rocketed for those that had a warning label. This proved in a very loud way that sex sells, as does risky subject matter in songs.
In today's scene, much of the music purchased is online. There are clean versions and "explicit" versions of almost every song. The clean versions are those that are able to be played on the radio. That explicit "warning" is always the one I personally buy and that is because I feel that that is the way the song was originally intended by the writer and for an fellow artist, that matters. I always want to hear a song the way it was originally meant to be heard and cussing doesn't bother me.
Although the "warning" doesn't turn me away from the music, or any other people for that matter, I do think that it is important for the record companies to do. Signs like those on an album or on a song give the listener an idea of what kind of song it is or what kind of album it is. It is the record companies responsibility to represent the music in the true way on the cover or "digital booklet." It is just a way of preparing the listener for what they are going to hear.
One thing I would change would be what calls for these labels on music. I find a lot of the time the warning labels are only issued for a word that is considered inappropriate instead of the overall message of the song. I think the radio should be a free airway and should be allowed to play songs the way they were intended but I think there should be more strict rules in what calls for a warning and what doesn't. One bad word isn't as important to be mindful of as an entire song about the glories of drug dealing or the glamor of prostituting yourself for rap stars. Many songs that are considered a "clean" version still have the same message as the "explicit" version and that is of a provocative nature. Though I don't mind listening and singing along to a song with an "inappropriate" message, I wouldn't want my 4 year old cousin listening to it and I would like to be warned of its nature before playing it with a little one around.
In conclusion, I think that the warning labels are important and should be issued by the record companies. I also thing the what constitutes as "explicit" should be re-examined and changed based on the message not a single word in the lyrics.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Music's Negative Influence
Music is very influential in the lives of many. Previously I have discussed that in most cases, music isn't the sole reason a teen or child is "bad." There is a part that music plays in everyone's life tho. If a child or teen is acting out it isn't BECAUSE of the music but I'm sure it inspires them to do what they want. In other words, if a child has bad intentions the music he/she will chose to listen to will match their intent.
There are millions of different types of music and even more songs created every day. There is a song to fit every mood, ever occasion, every situation, every feeling. When we're young, things are constantly changing in our lives. Most of these changes are internal. As a child goes through puberty, and growth spurts they're bodies and hormones are constantly changing. Each young person takes these changes differently. Some are calm and stable with the changes and some are shaken and react in a rebellious manner. Music always understands.
For a teen that stays on the straight edge and doesn't act out against authority and start experimenting with the idea of freedom, one song isn't going to change the way they carry themselves. Music isn't going to "brainwash" a good kid and make them into a hell train by any means. On the other hand, that straight edged teen probably won't be looking to crazy music to understand their anxiety. A confused teen that feels misunderstood or lonely is more likely to turn to music that hates on the rest of the world. For example, punk rock has been most known to reach out to that teen audience but that isn't the one and only genre that promotes bad behavior. Rap music almost glorifies drug dealing and promiscuous women and reaches out to the lower income areas. It almost makes the kids in gangs feel like a big celebrity like Snoop Dogg would be proud. Pop music has been known to also promote promiscuous behavior amongst younger generations. These genres and the artists that exhibit them are making this bad behavior, by many definitions, "cool." This is not beneficial, I agree. It is also to important to keep in mind, music may be condoning the behavior but it isn't going to "ruin" a good kid. If your kids are gang-banging and drug-dealing, there are bigger problems to be dealt with than their musical selection. If a young girl is renting out her body for sexual matters she has much bigger issues than watching Britney Spears shake her butt on a music video, such as her lack of self-respect and dignity and that goes much deeper than any song or TV show. If a kid is drinking at a young age and worshiping the devil, they either don't KNOW what they are doing or they have had more reference than some screaming song about hating life.
Just because you hear your children singing along to the music and dancing to the beats, doesn't mean they are going to start worshiping the devil or prostituting themselves or become a drug dealing pimp. Most of the kids that listen to the music on the radio aren't listening to the words in most cases anyway. Another point I want to make is if a young person has been raised on a strong foundation of morals the chances of them hearing a song and changing everything they have come to believe is a 1 in a million chance. Does it happen? Yes. Sometimes there is nothing a parent can do to stop their child from rebelling and acting out in extreme manners but keep in mind if they are going to act out they are going to do it with or without music's inspiration. Music has the power to inspire some acting out and has the potential to put a few bad ideas in kids heads but at the end of the day it is about who the youth is and how they have been raised that is going to determine whether they embark on bad behavior and gear their life the wrong way.
There are millions of different types of music and even more songs created every day. There is a song to fit every mood, ever occasion, every situation, every feeling. When we're young, things are constantly changing in our lives. Most of these changes are internal. As a child goes through puberty, and growth spurts they're bodies and hormones are constantly changing. Each young person takes these changes differently. Some are calm and stable with the changes and some are shaken and react in a rebellious manner. Music always understands.
For a teen that stays on the straight edge and doesn't act out against authority and start experimenting with the idea of freedom, one song isn't going to change the way they carry themselves. Music isn't going to "brainwash" a good kid and make them into a hell train by any means. On the other hand, that straight edged teen probably won't be looking to crazy music to understand their anxiety. A confused teen that feels misunderstood or lonely is more likely to turn to music that hates on the rest of the world. For example, punk rock has been most known to reach out to that teen audience but that isn't the one and only genre that promotes bad behavior. Rap music almost glorifies drug dealing and promiscuous women and reaches out to the lower income areas. It almost makes the kids in gangs feel like a big celebrity like Snoop Dogg would be proud. Pop music has been known to also promote promiscuous behavior amongst younger generations. These genres and the artists that exhibit them are making this bad behavior, by many definitions, "cool." This is not beneficial, I agree. It is also to important to keep in mind, music may be condoning the behavior but it isn't going to "ruin" a good kid. If your kids are gang-banging and drug-dealing, there are bigger problems to be dealt with than their musical selection. If a young girl is renting out her body for sexual matters she has much bigger issues than watching Britney Spears shake her butt on a music video, such as her lack of self-respect and dignity and that goes much deeper than any song or TV show. If a kid is drinking at a young age and worshiping the devil, they either don't KNOW what they are doing or they have had more reference than some screaming song about hating life.
Just because you hear your children singing along to the music and dancing to the beats, doesn't mean they are going to start worshiping the devil or prostituting themselves or become a drug dealing pimp. Most of the kids that listen to the music on the radio aren't listening to the words in most cases anyway. Another point I want to make is if a young person has been raised on a strong foundation of morals the chances of them hearing a song and changing everything they have come to believe is a 1 in a million chance. Does it happen? Yes. Sometimes there is nothing a parent can do to stop their child from rebelling and acting out in extreme manners but keep in mind if they are going to act out they are going to do it with or without music's inspiration. Music has the power to inspire some acting out and has the potential to put a few bad ideas in kids heads but at the end of the day it is about who the youth is and how they have been raised that is going to determine whether they embark on bad behavior and gear their life the wrong way.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The ONLY thing that matters to ALL YOUNG PEOPLE is music?
Bloom's statement relating young people and music is as follows: "It is their passion; nothing else excites them as it does; they cannot take seriously anything alien to music." I had a very strong reaction to this broad and over-generalized statement. To say that every person under the age of say 30 years old has a drive for only music and music alone is ignorant to say the least.
In my own life, yes, music is my core and my number one passion. If I could make a living singing, I would do it happily every day of my life, matter of fact I plan to. I love music more than anything. I can listen to different types of music all day long and never get bored or sick of it. I put on motivational tunes at the gym, inspirational tunes during homework, upbeat or happy tunes in the car, or just blast a ballad and sing my heart out at any given time. The difference between ME and the rest of the people my age is that not everyone is a singer or musician, and not everyone wants to make music their career in the long run. Not only am I a musician myself but I have been raised around music since birth. Most people in my family are musically inclined. Most of my time growing up was spent with my mom singing and listening to music and talking about music. Later in my life I've started really hearing and appreciating that it's such a beautiful art form. I was raised as it being a huge part of life but never realizing what an artistic expression all types of music are. Other aspects of this world "excite" me but music is my main love and passion. I also have appreciation and love for other art forms such as dance and photography as well as fields of study such as criminal justice and psychology. I am an extreme case of music obsession and not even I fit Bloom's statement.
Many of my friends are music lovers as well yet they don't fit into Bloom's broad over-dramatic statement either. One of my friends has the up-most love and respect for great lyrics and creative music but she is a photographer and is never happier then when capturing natures moments or just snapshots of people she knows. She would have a great time at a concert and would come anywhere I might be singing and have a blast but for her there is nothing more life fulfilling then capturing beauty in her camera lens. Therefore, she is another discrediting factor to the statement of Bloom.
In conclusion, Bloom was way off in judgement by making such an overgeneralizing statement about the youth as a whole. Sure, music is a large part of many peoples' lives of all ages but to say that nothing else matters to entire group of unique individuals that all happened to be born generally around the same time is absurd. By making this statement he has discredited himself in my eyes as far as other opinions he may put forth.
In my own life, yes, music is my core and my number one passion. If I could make a living singing, I would do it happily every day of my life, matter of fact I plan to. I love music more than anything. I can listen to different types of music all day long and never get bored or sick of it. I put on motivational tunes at the gym, inspirational tunes during homework, upbeat or happy tunes in the car, or just blast a ballad and sing my heart out at any given time. The difference between ME and the rest of the people my age is that not everyone is a singer or musician, and not everyone wants to make music their career in the long run. Not only am I a musician myself but I have been raised around music since birth. Most people in my family are musically inclined. Most of my time growing up was spent with my mom singing and listening to music and talking about music. Later in my life I've started really hearing and appreciating that it's such a beautiful art form. I was raised as it being a huge part of life but never realizing what an artistic expression all types of music are. Other aspects of this world "excite" me but music is my main love and passion. I also have appreciation and love for other art forms such as dance and photography as well as fields of study such as criminal justice and psychology. I am an extreme case of music obsession and not even I fit Bloom's statement.
Many of my friends are music lovers as well yet they don't fit into Bloom's broad over-dramatic statement either. One of my friends has the up-most love and respect for great lyrics and creative music but she is a photographer and is never happier then when capturing natures moments or just snapshots of people she knows. She would have a great time at a concert and would come anywhere I might be singing and have a blast but for her there is nothing more life fulfilling then capturing beauty in her camera lens. Therefore, she is another discrediting factor to the statement of Bloom.
In conclusion, Bloom was way off in judgement by making such an overgeneralizing statement about the youth as a whole. Sure, music is a large part of many peoples' lives of all ages but to say that nothing else matters to entire group of unique individuals that all happened to be born generally around the same time is absurd. By making this statement he has discredited himself in my eyes as far as other opinions he may put forth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)