Continued: Parents Leniency With Teens

I did not mean to imply that the parent exposes their child or children to alcohol. I am talking about leniency from parents to children. Or teens in this case, really.

When teenagers go out with their friends and go to parties, a parent would like to assume that no drugs or alcohol will pass by their child's eye, but that is life. No matter what, alcohol is not an illegal drug, but it is illegal for minors to consume it, why? Because the majority of minors can't handle the responsibility of drinking responsible. So there is an age limit, so teens cannot drown themselves with alcohol. Understandable, agreeable.

There are parents out there that will not let their teen go to ANY parties, NEVER hang out with friends. When you hang out with friends, you experience, whether the experience includes alcohol or not. Without these experiences, the teen may encounter similar ones at college and not know how to address them.

I never said in my blog for parent to allow their children to drink, or provide it for them. What I am saying is when a teen is not given enough leniency, freedom, they are become more fragile and more fragile to society, and when they are let out into societies biggest circus, "college" (according to what school you go to, ass many have heard UMASS be called, "ZOO-MASS"), they have no experience, no strength built for the peer pressures they will encounter.

My point is that teens should be allowed to go to parties, my mom let me out at 12-13 til 1am and I am an honors student, get college paid for, for good grades, do community service for fun-- Water Watch, volunteer helping homeless animals, and do not have a drug or alcohol problem, and both I have experienced. If I were not to have experienced my teenage years as I did, the parties I have been to since I have been 18, I would not have been able to handle.

Some people's brains at age 21 are at the same exact place others brins are at 18. Everybody is different, the law of 21+ tried to average out everybody. Which had to be done I understand. At 15 I could handle, not just alcohol, things that 21 year olds cant even handle now.

By the way, do the research, Marijuana was originally made illegal because hemp was going to destroy the paper industry. Hemp, made from the non-THC male Cannabis plant, THC is what makes it illegal "supposedly," and it is not present in the male plant. One acre of hemp makes the same amount of clothes as FOUR ACRES OF COTTON!!!! Why waste the room and probable production growth. I have done all this research, so as I am up for challenges about these statements, facts to lie, and I am setting out facts I have found. Male Cannabis material can build sustainable homes as well… yes sound ridiculous- but it happens in Canada. The cost to move such materials is ridiculously lower that any other building material- key reason why Canada allowed such building. And it is proven that marijuana help chronic pain and fatigue syndromes. Exactly what I was diagnosed with at 14 years of age, Fibromyalgia. Residents with Fibromyalgia in California are prescribed --- LEGALLY PRESCRIBED --- marijuana. I cannot be prescribed such medicine because of the law. I must suffer because of the law? Fibromyalgia does not morph and change over three thousand miles. No one takes this seriously until they have the disease that can be helped by the illegal medicine. My point was educate your children so they know the laws and know why the laws were put there, educate what's in street drugs, that’s what my mom did and I never used them, why alcohol is illegal til your 21, all these things, and let them go to parties and socialize. If you did a good job educating them they will make wise decisions, and if not will learn from it.

Music, Fans, and what's "in."

Thoughts on Sarah's and Abby's blogs about music and fans and what's "in".

Musicians are artists, and art breaths, it changes by the hand of the artist. When an artist has fans, musician, whatever artist really, the only thing the artist owes their fans is to continue creating... what and how, is up to the artist. If particular fans do not like the new art, the consistently changing art and how its created, then they can find a new artist to be a fan of. As long as a musician creates music, I do not think they owe their fans anything. They are putting themselves in the spotlight to be criticized and taking the risks, the fans get to sit back in their home, secure and unknown to consistent camera exposure and enjoy the music. Fans do not know what the musicians go through and I do not think can complain unless the musicians ceases to create music.


Record companies and those in control of putting music on the radio and on TV (MTV) and in CD shops around the Nation make sure the certain music has a certain look for money making. A lot of people especially naïve to music, all music, listen to the small percentage of music produced by these record companies, because they do not research other musical artists/groups that are not in the realm of popular music, because either the record companies do not want them or have not found them, they do not experience what they may really like, they experience what they are told to like. Of course some people truly prefer a certain music without the influence of record companies, I think music listened to can be more appreciated when it is discovered through searching rather than from passivily watchign MTV and it coming on. Especially in one-digit grade school, children thrive on the "popular" scene and if you do not partake, you do not belong. A good example is the Simpsons episode: Lisa goes to a new school… three populsr girls come up to her and ask her about a pop star, "Alaska Nebraska"- referring to Hannah Montana- famous pop-culture star especially for youth. Lisa did not know who that was. Lisa like Jazz music and classical, Lisa plays instruments and likes instrumental music, she doesn’t seem to be into a few beat chorus and verse with a bunch of lyrics, (many pop stars just sing or lip sink, they do not create the music-- of course there are good pop stars out there.) Lisa felt horrible when the girls made fun of her, because she did not parade after the popular road of music listening. Children get peer pressured into accepting music and I think half rebel later on, listening to heavy, more talented-induced music, a quarter actually like the music and continue listening to it and a quarter continue listening to popular music because they are trying to fill popular shoes. So I think to answer the question of who decides what's "in" for music, what's popular. The music industry makes what's in and makes it very available and repetitive. People and children listen to it because they like it or listen to it so that they can be "in", they can be popular, if they listen to popular music, what's "in". Same goes with clothes and brand names, some people like the brand names for a variety of reasons and some like them so that they seem with all their popular brand name apparel listening to what's "in", themselves to be "in", popular, making themselves feel better. Which is okay until they throw others out on the margins of respect because they are not within the realm of popular realms.
MY QUESTION: If peer pressure was not entangled within listening to whatever music, would music that is "in" have more range and variety. Would more music be "in", more types and styles of music.

Bach and Moby Dick

Kent Rockwell's Moby Dick illustrations are set to music by Bach. If you're into the story, Moby Dick, art, or music, it's interesting. Nice illustrations to nice music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uJMD5oGSn8

My Question: Have you seen other things like this, using book illustrations put with music?

quick thought o Michelle's blog

Here, I think that music within genres is critiqued. Comparing jazz, rock, metal, popular, country, bluegrass, experimental/improv +any genres, acoustics, funk, disco, jam band, Caribbean, etc. is not the point, and is of a subjective manor to whom prefers what. What is evaluated is each song within the genre. And an amazing song/ artist within the given genre may very well represent that genre in one's idea of the genre. Like when I think of the genres disco/funk/soul, I think of Aretha Franklin, for one. The range and strength of her voice makes her a 'top dog' for her type of music. I think when evaluating music, you don't necessarily need to like it. I do not like most rap songs and when someone is playing the music and I'm in the area, I listen to the beats and evaluate all different aspects of the song… If there is talent, uniqueness, like a painting that catches my eye for longer than a few seconds, I will appreciate it because I had found something to appreciate, putting my bias aside for the majority of songs I hear…. The term background noise is interesting… there is a genre of music, noise music, and the point of listening to music is listening, background from background noise implies the hearing not listening of the noise. What can one find from noise music they would not normally for neglecting and subordinating it's possibilities?

Children/Guidelines/Concequence

This is in response to Krystal's blog "Of Bad Words and Binks." [quick thought] Children are curious. People are curious, but especially children. If the parent is well educated themselves and understands the meaning(s) of what they are trying to teach their child then I think once a child starts speaking and copying language from their surroundings, parents should teach their child what that language means whatever may be included in the language the child is learning, even curse words. (teach all types of perceptions that could be taken from the word at hand or at least that there are many, especially between cultures). And explain it is not always the word itself but the context. One could stub their toe and say shit, not a big deal, but if someone called another person 'shit', that's a big deal. I definitely think the parents should consistently remind their child what words mean and can mean. And if the parents do not know the meaning/perceived meanings/or how to teach the child, then they should learn quickly. But I don't think just telling the child once or a couple times will do the trick.

and if a child uses a curse word, I do not think the parent(s) need to get pissed off or over protective to not educate the child, the child should know not to use those words because of how they make others feel and how by using the words, the child is giving off a negative vibe with the child's environment(other people), and could put the child in a situation where others are hostile because of the child's curse words.

I think it is ignorant to shelter the child from the knowledge of something the child is being exposed to whether the child is in control of it or not. Children will encounter things in the world, especially when they get older, and they can have knowledge about them to know how to deal with the situation at hand or have no clue because the child's been sheltered.

example: child over sheltered [a], child with a balance of shelter and leniency [b]

child b drank some beers during high school
child a did not

child b goes to college and is aware of how much they can handle

child a never had one drink and over does it, ending up with alcohol poisoning.

Obviously this is a mere example, but it happens.

Swatting a Fly

I agree alot with what Betsy has said in her blog "Roaming Reflective Realms." And what Emily is talking about in her blog "Response to Betsy."

I couldn't imagine living with the constant thought of every step I take killing some organism or ant in the grass, etc. But I also do not walk around intentionally killing these creatures. There is the self-defense and instinctual reflex of humans to swat a mosquito on their skin, which of course I have done, but I have heard that if you let the mosquito fully suck the blood from you that when it's done it releases something that makes your skin not itch as if you had interrupted the mosquito. I actually tried this, I don't know the technicals or truth to the claim, but I tried it and it didn't seem to really itch. It was horrible resisting the urge to swat it away.

To quickly comment on Emily's question, is what is natural justifiable? I would have to say not always, intentions are natural and not all intentions are rightly justified, and instincts are also natural. Many things are natural and I don't personally see them in every case as being justified just because they are natural. The organisms and creatures on this earth are here for the balance, just because we are able to undo that balance does not mean we should. None of us are to say where the balance goes, humans are below the wonders of mother nature, and have no right pre-meditatively killing anything.

Speaking of intentions not justifiable/justifiable,

My Question: Do you think it is justified to torture people with the use of music? (I am thinking of the last scene in 'A Clock Work Orange.')

Response to Emily's blog "Music as Language"

This is in response to Emily's blog "Music as Language," which is a response [i believe] to Amy's question what is language in her blog "Music Vs. Language."


I do not think that language includes music (without human-voice, as we discussed in-class). I think that within the realm of communication, music fits, but not the realm of language, which is also found in 'communication'. The two could overlap if we were discussing music with words, and those words would contribute to the overlap between 'communication' and 'language:
[words/human voice - using interchangeably because of different languages I'm not aware of]



I like the definition of language, "a language is the use of voice or symbols to intellectually and linguistically communicate," and I agree sound can be a symbol. But from this definition of a language, music (w/o words) does not 'linguistically' communicate.

To clarify: Linguistics means: The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including
...phonetics -the science or study of speech sounds and their production, transmission, and reception, and their analysis, classification, and transcription,
...phonology -the study of the distribution and patterning of speech sounds in a language and of the tacit rules governing pronunciation.
...morphology -the patterns of word formation in a particular language, including inflection, derivation, and composition,
...syntax -the study of the rules for the formation of grammatical sentences in a language / the study of the patterns of formation of sentences and phrases from words.
...semantics -the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence
...sociolinguistics -the study of language as it functions in society; the study of the interaction between linguistic and social variables.
...pragmatics -the analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.

Languages contains words and letters and symbols [linguistically communicated], used to make concepts into specific messages. Music can not specifically show you a concept or tell you a concept.


Emily writes.. "I agree with you [Amy] that usually, music is only used to express general emotions, not specific messages. But that doesn't mean it can't express specific emotions." This is true. But here it seems you are admitting music doesn't express specific messages, which I think it does not. I think that is what Amy meant by specific 'messages,' the linguistic aspect, because I am sure that Amy as well as myself agree that music can express specific emotions (or specific emotions can be perceived from musical works), but messages and emotions are two different things.


These examples you gave I believe are forms of communication, within and changeably throughout societies, cultures, and communities, "the sound of a bell signals the end of a class period in high school. A firm alarm signals danger. The sound of crying represents sadness." But not forms of a language. A fire alarm signals danger... really a fire alarm signals a fire which [in this society, at least] signals danger, that's a form of communication, not language.

Within signification, there's a signifier(sound-image) and a signified (concept). The fire alarm is the signifier and the flames of fire and burning(danger) is the signified or concept. But they are not linguistically communicated in the example above.

Here's an example. The picture is the concept, that one is thinking, and the -word- 'arbor' is the signifier to what the concept is; that what the person is thinking of is an arbor tree. By writing down 'arbor' in the given language or verbalizing 'arbor' in that language or symbolizing it linguistically, one is communicating through language. you couldn't symbolize an arbor tree through music [unless the notes were made parallel to an alphabet].




We use languages to communicate between each other. A fire alarm signals a fire to me, the sound communicates to me a concept, and I would communicate that concept through language [say fire, write fire, to whomever]



My Question: When musicians communicate through music, it seems more peaceful than when some people communicate through language, if you had to choose, like we had fun with the thought of an absence of music, would you prefer music in the world or language? Would music create wars? But would music give specific instructions that bosses need to give to employees (whatever the job is) to create the society we have now? Why would you choose what you did? We are all music lovers so I guess I am just curious to see what you think the pros/cons of having just music and the pros and cons of havign just language.