first an apology. its been awhile, i know. midterms. my schools owns me. anyway. my head is still aching from cramming it with random, useless facts, so if you dont mind, i'm just gonna keep this post light. yeah. cookies 'n' landmines lite. i like that.
so, i have a bit of an internal conflict bouncing around in my head at the moment. its actually always been something i've fought with myself over, but recently its been on my mind a lot. i wonder sometimes (when i have enough energy to care) about whether or not music should sometimes come with a message. you know, like advertising a cause, trying to change the world, all that good stuff. there's basically two sides to this debate:
the extreme purist in me says **** no! (please excuse her. she gets very testy about this issue) her argument basically goes like this:
"stop turning music into an effing telethon! music should be intrinsically good. it doesn't need a message attached to it! it should be subjective; open to interpretation. not cut and dry. if you want to spread awareness, go make a tee-shirt or get out and protest something. leave the music alone! let music be music. don't exploit it to advertise your cause. don't weigh it down!"
she's a very angry young lady. anyway. so, theres this whole other side of me that thinks there's nothing wrong with getting out a message through music, and that, in fact, its a pretty noble idea. She says:
"music is a VERY powerful medium. why not use it to help get out an important message. a song can stir up much deeper emotions than could any tee-shirt or protest. and a song that supports an honest cause that could change things for the better is EXTREMELY powerful. why not go for it then?"
i mis-spoke earlier. there are actually three sides to this debate. the third side always ultimately wins. she's the one that says "eh,whatever" and goes and listens to her message-less music in apathetic bliss (come to think of it, that girl wins most of my internal conflicts). However, both of the former two sides have very good evidence to back up their arguments. Case in point: the We Are the World epic. this song somehow provides sufficient evidence for both sides.
now, i realize "We Are the World" was this ground-breaking, revolutionary thing back in the 80's. in fact, if you ask me, it was probably the only good thing that came from the entire decade. Fine. it was a great thing to do. Point for team 2. im just not so sure its recent revival lives up to the original. now, when i decided to take a few minutes out to watch this video, i was truly tempted to critique the video/song solely on the basis of the "artists" in it. it was my full intention to watch the video on mute. but once again the masochist in me prevailed. and so i turned up the volume.....and WOW, did i pay for it. first of all, who the f*** decided that it was a good idea to open with justin effing beiber? barely in minute one and already i've lost all respect. another epic moment at 1:44. at hannah montana's big entrance of "woooaahh!"i actually paused and began screaming and gagging. seriously. that was my reaction. im not trying to be clever. i literally gagged. and i dont think i even need to explain my reaction when wyclef entered with his.....whatever that was. what sound was that he made? GOD! it sounded like this weird toy i had as a kid that made this awful gurgle sound when you shook it. and weezy and T-Pain with the auto-tune? brilliant. now, dont get me wrong. im not at all saying that a cause is only worth the individuals supporting it. no. its perfectly fine that t-panini supports the Haiti relief fund; i just personally cant seem to take it seriously when you gather this very random, very odd clusterf*** of "celebrities" and "singers" together. maybe im thinking too much again. maybe i should just shut up and respect their efforts. its far more than i've done for Haiti, after all. Maybe i should just.......wait......wtf? Jonas brother at 4:37! ha ha. screw it, this is trash.