-
February 21, 2014 by Daniel Friedland
Throughout your life, you have probably been told to “Just be yourself!” Individualism is something which our society praises (for the most part), and it something that a lot of people work towards. Individualism in the context that most people think about it relates to finding yourself and expressing who you are as an individual separate from all others in some distinctive way. And while we strive for this sense of individualism, we seldom think about how to achieve individualism or how to qualify it at all.
When it comes to finding one’s individualism, two schools of thoughts come to mind. One, which is supported by both Plato and Emerson, states that individualism is a solitary concept in which the individual must be removed from society in order to find oneself. Emerson, specifically in “Self-Reliance”, advocates for solitary individualism because he qualifies individualism as a term synonymous to self-certainty. He believes that society hinders self-certainty because it conforms a persons beliefs by its very nature. In other words, he is saying, “How can someone be sure of themselves when other people oversimplify and impose customs and values on each blossoming individual?” This is certainly a valid question, but it pertains specifically to the conception of individualism as self-assuredness. Other conceptions lead to other questions.
The second school of thought asserts that individualism must base itself upon societal entities. John Dewey argues this point in “The Lost Individual,” claiming that things like religion, politics, and other institutions are essential in terms of individualism because they provide the basis for all the values and other ideas we could have. Dewey appears to qualify individualism as association. Based upon this assertion, it makes sense that individuals should not be solitary. If individuals are not exposed to the ideas that societal institutions provide, then they have no basis for any ideas. In an argument with Emerson, Dewey might assert that self-assuredness risks narrow-mindedness. Without exposure to diverse ideas, individuals rely only on what they perceive personally, severely limiting their potential understanding of the world from other perspectives.
Although these two means of attaining true individualism seem to counter each other, both means make sense following each person’s definition of what individualism is:
Emerson’s Individualism = Self-assuredness
Dewey’s Individualism = Association
Which is the correct definition? That is hard to say because I believe the answer depends on the person and their circumstances. As a college student who is immersed in society in a variety of ways, I find it difficult to fathom solitary individualism because I cannot imagine who I would be without the influence of others. For that reason, Dewey’s idea of association resonates more with me. I believe that it is important to be exposed to ideas because in order to be the fullest and most genuine individual possible, one must realize other perceptions. The saddest and most frustrating thing for me is that I only have one narrow perspective on the world, which limits my understanding of it. But if I can get a glimpse into other perspectives, I feel that I can grow as an individual and assimilate those ideas with my own to the degree I see fit.
Remember, this is all my opinion, which is ever-changing so feel free to disagree. Which quality of individualism resonates with you?
Category Passion | Tags: 1314,138t,babich,blog,dan,daniel,daniel friedland,dewey,emerson,english,friedland,individualism,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,oh man it's dan,passion,penn state,philosophy,pisani babich,psu,rcl,rcl1314,wk13 | 3 Comments
-
February 7, 2014 by Daniel Friedland
The American education system is something to which I can easily relate, as I take part in it by being a Penn State student. Unfortunately, many people do not question the current quality of public education because it is taken as an immoveable precedent which essentially serves its purpose. Currently, articles, debates, and other forms of media and communication explore a variety of subtopics and controversies within the broad scope of the American public educational system. Some of these issues include the debt accumulation for college students, the role of the teacher in education, and the relative autonomy shared between the variety of administrators and instructors in the educational setting. However, we first must ask, “What is the purpose of learning?” I do not mean public education, nor do I mean the institution of education in any form. I am referring to the purpose of learning as an entity completely separate from education.
To me, the purpose of learning is to explore one’s consciousness through the acquisition of experiences. Learning certainly does not refer to the accumulation of the knowledge it takes to operate in American society, although the vast majority of people (on both sides of the aisle) seem to agree to this very conception. One of the most basic arguments of public education involves the value of learning, specifically, if learning is meant to be a personal exploration of the mind and the world or a standardized method to produce proper, hard-working citizens of the American economy. Regardless of my preconceived notions of what learning is, the institution of public education closely follows the latter conception of learning.
As a public institution, education must be working towards the improvement of society, rather than the improvement of an individual, which is perfectly logical if we accept the fact that humans are social creatures who depend on societal entities and other associations to influence and shape who they are. Moving past all of the philosophical hullaballoo, the fact remains that public education is here to stay, and that is the basis for the rearing of young and adolescent minds in the United States.
Even so, the question of personalization vs. standardization continues to play into today’s form of public education in this country. If the goal of public education is to produce responsible citizens of a nation who are devoted and willing to work towards its goals and defend its founding principles, is it better for students to all be taught the same thing? Or would it be better for each student to be taught differently according to his or her determined needs and (possibly) interest?
Both standardization and personalization have obvious pros and cons. Standardized education allows for every child to have a completely equal opportunity for “success” in society because what each student learns is essentially the same, promoting the sense of equality on which this nation was based. Also, students who share the same educational background are more likely to relate to another and unify due to their shared experience, and unity is an essential aspect of the “ideal” American nation. Unfortunately, standardized education does not guarantee that each child will adequately acquire and apply the education he or she needs to thrive in American society. Some students learning quicker than others, as well as more effectively, and standardization within the context of public education merely ignores this blatant issue.
On the other hand, personalization does allow for different students to learn in different manners and at different paces. This is certainly effective in producing productive citizens that are able to fulfill the variety of roles within a society. However, personalization does not generate citizens with similar mindsets, necessarily. The more diversified an education system becomes, the less likely it is to produce equally prepared students in terms of their relative preparedness for entering and thriving in society. Also, personalized education is not practical in that it is expensive and requires diverse teachers and learning equipment.
Upon considering the pros and cons of each education method, it becomes apparent that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Legislators are currently debating WHERE in the middle public education belongs. Before exploring the solutions to the cons of both methods and prior to synthesizing them into one uniform methodology, it is important to recognize what the issues are so that they can be methodically resolved.
I look forward to exploring the complexities of public education this semester and possibly deducing some sort of answer for myself regarding the vast issues encompassed by the topic. Thanks for reading!
Stay fly and goodbye!
-Dan
Category Civic Issues | Tags: 138t,babich,CI blog,Civic issues,daniel friedland,english,mother of all blogs,music,oh man it's,penn state,pisani,psu,public education,rcl1314,wk2 | 3 Comments
-
February 6, 2014 by Daniel Friedland
All philosophers seek wisdom in some capacity, even if they do not believe it can be achieved. Wisdom in its broadest sense is the quality of being knowledgeable or using good judgement in regard to all things, and although absolute wisdom probably doesn’t exist, knowledge is certainly attainable. (We could discuss what qualifies knowledge, but I’ll save that for another time). For thousands of years, people have been searching for this quintessential form of wisdom and considering what it really means to be wise.
Most historians and philosophers credit Plato as one of the most essential philosophers of all time, so it is no wonder that most people recognize the name. Plato dedicated most of his life to the exploration of wisdom, and he came to the realization that wisdom can only be achieved through the loss of perception. Perception is anything that we can percieve through our bodily senses, so it follows that Plato placed a heavy emphasis on the “soul” as a form separate from the body.
In fact, Plato articulated his conception of wisdom in a number of his writings, including Euthyphro and The Apology. Wisdom (from Plato’s eyes) can be best seen like this:
All of the things we see and act upon are a mere product of our senses, which, according to Plato, is the lowest form of wisdom. This is because we cannot judge what we see or hear to be true at all because images, smells, and tastes are not something we can know to be true to ourselves. We have conveniently made them concrete in our minds so that we accept them as true, but in reality any “knowledge” acquired from such perceptions is not concrete at all.
Taking a step up in the “ladder of knowledge” lies mathematical objects, or more simply, rationality. Plato asserts that if we think rationally about the things we experience and quantify them, we are getting closer to the true form of wisdom. Rather than merely taking our sensory perceptions for what they are, we can be more wise if we rationally think about the things we perceive.
Both forms of knowledge or wisdom previously discussed are not true wisdom, at least in terms of Plato’s conception of wisdom. True wisdom can come only from intellect, in which we think, rationalize, and operate in terms of our mind only. In other words, we must completely ignore what we experience through our senses and focus only one what we know to be true irregardless of perception. To me (and to most others), this state of wisdom seems unattainable. Our sensory experiences shape who we are, what we do, and how we think. We cannot merely ignore our senses unless we have none.
Interestingly, Plato goes into death as a release from the burden of bodily perception. He asserts that death can be one of two things. If death involves the loss of life from the body and the death of the soul along with it, then there can be no perception, as “all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night” (The Apology 40e). In this form of death, we would have no perception because our death would be absolute and our senses would be excised.
In the second possible form of death, the soul moves to another location upon the death of the body; however, this is just as causal of wisdom because this death perpetuates the soul’s ability to question reality and get closer and closer to true wisdom.
Because death, in any sense of the word, results in the loss of perception, Plato believes that it will lead to wisdom. Only when we are separate from the illusions of the world can we reach wisdom. In this way, wisdom equals truth. If everything around us is a lie or a distraction from reality, than the only truth must lie within us in an abstract entity that we can only find ourselves.
This is certainly a lot to synthesize and take in, but I have one question. If death is the only way to achieve wisdom and everyone lives to achieve wisdom, why does everyone cling to life so fervently?
That’s all for now!
Stay fly and goodbye!
-Dan
Category Passion | Tags: 1314,138t,babich,blog,dan,daniel,daniel friedland,death,english,friedland,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,oh man it's dan,passion,penn state,philosophy,pisani babich,plato,psu,rcl1314,wisdom,wk12 | 3 Comments
-
January 31, 2014 by Daniel Friedland
With the advent of a new semester here at Penn State, the glaring reality of the so-called “real world” becomes evermore pressing. But what is the “real world?” Is my perception of what is real the same as yours? Does the world even exist? Is there a such thing as reality? Am I real? Do I have a purpose?
These questions lie in the dark depths of the back of most peoples’ minds, yet very few attempt to answer them. But why? Why don’t people care about their purpose or about the “big questions” of the universe? Probably because it is easier to just accept reality for what it is.
When people think of philosophy or the prospect of studying philosophy, their sentiments probably resemble something like this:
Of course, this is only a generalization, but there still seems to be this widespread societal idea that philosophy is some abstract, worthless, and laughable subject. And while I would disagree, I can certainly understand the reasons someone would make that argument against philosophy.
The vast majority of people, myself included, live their lives through their own perspectives, for their own purposes, and by their own set of values. This seems all well and good for most, but this method of life is unequivocally dogmatic. By this, I mean that a person sets a standard of beliefs for himself/herself and believes that this particular way of living is undeniably “right” or “good.” Dogmatists do not take into account other perspectives or pieces of evidence because they are content in their ways.
Do not get me wrong, though! Dogmatism tends to have a negative connotation to it, but the underlying idea is extremely attractive to us. Life would be surreal if we could be certain of ourselves and take our personal truths as law. I, for one, will be the first to admit that I would love to be set in my ways with no curiosity or regard for any other perspective because I believe that true and absolute ignorance is bliss. However, dogmatism, despite its allure, is not relevant.
All people, no matter how dogmatic, realize to some degree that they cannot truly be certain that their truths are valid or that their self-defined purpose is intrinsically good or valuable. Deep down, everyone is plagued by the same questions, some of which appear at the start of this blog post. Living by certain values and basing one’s individuality upon certain societal entities (i.e. religion, politics, business) that one believes are meaningful is still a mere guess at what the “universal truth” is. Humans naturally question in an attempt to find meaning in their lives, and philosophy provides an active outlet for unconventional thinking.
In the opinion of an amateur enthusiast who has taken a staggering one introductory philosophy course (me), philosophy first and foremost is the attempt to broaden perspective. It can be frustrating because there are no true answers in philosophy, which is probably a reason people tend to stray from it. However, looking at a question or situation from all conceivable perspectives allows a philosopher to heighten his/her intellectual imagination and find new ways of thinking about all aspects of life and the universe. In a world where we attempt to make the unknown into something concrete, philosophy seeks to turn that so-called concrete into a mystery.
Throughout this semester, I will be examining philosophy through a variety of means, including the arguments of prominent and not-so-prominent philosophers, as well as my own musings and interpretations. Feel free to disagree with anything I say here because after all, nothing I say is necessarily true. Plus, I am always looking to broaden my perspective!
Here is the link to an excerpt I found really interesting! Give it a read if you are not convinced of the value of studying or thinking about philosophy: Russell: The Value of Philosophy
That’s all for now, so until next week…
Stay fly, and goodbye!
-Dan
Category Passion | Tags: 138t,a,babich,blog,dan,daniel,dogmatism,english,friedland,mother of all blogs,new,oh man it's dan,on,passion,penn,philosophy,pisani,psu,rcl,rcl1314,state,wk11 | 3 Comments
-
November 8, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
I know what you’re thinking. It is far too early to be listening to holiday-themed music, but since this will be my last post this semester, I wanted to talk about Christmas music. Without getting into my own religious beliefs, I would like to first point out that Christmas music (to me, at least) is less of a religious thing and more of a societal tradition.
Regardless of your religious background, almost everyone has heard Christmas songs/hymns like “What Child is This” and “Silent Night.” While many of these old classics have religious influences, they seem to represent feelings of love and peace, which are universal feelings among all religions. For example, “Silent Night,” my favorite of the classics, has obvious Christianity-based lyrics, yet the feeling I get from listening to it is peaceful and harmonious. In other words, I tend to focus on the mood and tone of the piece, rather than the lyrics specifically. Christmas classics are classics for a reason. They are timeless traditions which millions enjoy. Here are a few of my favorites:
“Silent Night”
“The First Noel”
“O Come All Ye Faithful”
On the non-religious side of things, there are the so-called “Santa Songs,” which are simply about Santa (who is real, by the way). Over time, Santa Claus has become an essential Christmas tradition. While many see Santa as a clever tactic employed by parents to make their kids behave during the holiday season, I believe that Santa has a much deeper significance. It represents childhood innocence and the belief in the “magic.” Children are meant to have wild imaginations, and the idea of a magical man bearing gifts to the world stretches children’s imaginations, allowing them to have a new, fun conception of reality. Here are some of the most common “Santa Songs.” Give them a listen!
“Here Comes Santa Claus”
“Santa Claus Is Coming To Town”
No matter your religion, the holidays are a time to enjoy the company of loved ones and take a much-needed break from the stresses of everyday life. Christmas songs bring joy to millions of non-Christians and Christians alike, so go out and enjoy hearing the songs we’ve all been bombarded with throughout our lives. Remember your roots and have a nice break!
Stay fly, and goodbye!
-Dan
Video URL’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_kb3kiO4Uo (Silent Night)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mItWsC8RtM (The First Noel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPPRtLZ-amc (O Come All Ye Faithful)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK60Cwwp_EI (Here Comes Santa Claus)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWv72L4wgCc (Santa Claus Is Coming To Town)
Category Passion | Tags: 1314,137h,babich,blog,dan,daniel,daniel friedland,english,english137h,friedland,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,music,oh man it's dan,passion,rcl1314,wk10 | 3 Comments
-
November 7, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
Until a few years ago, no one knew about trans-fat’s existence or its health implications. However, upon realizing the dangers of trans-fat, little was done until 2006, when the F.D.A. passed a law that food corporations had to list any artificial trans-fats on the food label. Since then, trans-fat is commonly known to be extremely bad for one’s health, and it is not as prevalent in many foods as it once was. This article from the New York Times discusses a new F.D.A. ruling that trans-fat is not “safe” to eat. If the ruling is passed, companies that utilize trans-fat would have to scientifically prove that a “certain amount” of trans-fat is safe to consume in order to continue using it as an ingredient.
The article does a great job of presenting and defending the argument that trans-fat is in fact unsafe through various forms of rhetoric. Right from the get-go, the article mentions the F.D.A.’s new ruling. The Food and Drug Administration is a valid federal agency, so by showing that the F.D.A. supports the argument against trans-fat, the article establishes ethos. Also, the article continually quotes members of the FDA and other related government agencies to further prove the validity of the negative affects of trans-fat.
In addition to its establishment of ethos, the article also includes numerous logos appeals that directly display trans-fat in a negative light. For example, the following statistic, “the rules could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year,” clearly states that excising trans-fat from our food supply can save thousands of lives and prevent heart disease among the public. This begs the question, “why not eliminate trans-fat entirely?” By making the audience logically conceive of trans-fat in a negative way, the logos appeals used are extremely effective.
As the article is primarily an informative article, there is little pathos appeal employed. Merely thinking about the health implications of trans-fat consumption brings images of “clogged arteries” to mind. Of course, no one wants to have clogged arteries or heart disease. Therefore, an indirect pathos appeal is employed in that words such as “clogged” and “lurk” cause us to adopt a disgusted feeling towards trans-fat.
Clearly, this article is not an ordinary piece of rhetoric, as it is a news article that is meant to be unbiased. However, behind the statistics and figures lies a hatred of trans-fat and an agreement that its affects can and SHOULD be remedied through its elimination. This perfectly defended bias emulates throughout the piece of writing.
Works Cited
Tavernise, Sabrina. “F.D.A. Ruling Would All but Eliminate Trans Fats.” New York Times. (Nov 7, 2013): A1. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Article URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/health/fda-trans-fats.html?_r=0
Category Rhetoric and Civic Life | Tags: 1314,137h,babich,blog,dan,daniel friedland,english,english137h,friedland,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,music,rcl blog,rcl1314,wk10 | 2 Comments
-
November 1, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
I have talked a lot about music as a means of influencing our emotions, but now, I would like to discuss the dual consequences of listening to music. There is no doubt that music “manipulates” our emotions just as any other form of expression or communication. I just never really thought of music in this negative sense before, but it is interesting to consider it that way. Are we becoming dehumanized by letting music influence our thoughts?
In a way, I believe we are. Music may be words or notes on a page, but it is through interpretation by a performer that it is brought to life. When we listen to music, we allow ourselves to be subconsciously influenced by another person. The obvious example that most helicopter parents give is explicit rap music. Now, I am not trying to generalize, but it seems like the majority of rap music is about sex, money, fame, or a combination of these. By listening to these ideas, we begin to see the fast-paced, “party” lifestyle in a more positive and exciting light. Of course, some people are more impressionable than others, but the fact still remains true that whether we like it or not, the music we listen to influences our thoughts and sometimes even our values and ideals.
While rap definitely puts certain images and scenarios in our mind, all types of music do this in some way or another. Even instrumental music portrays emotions that trigger certain impulses and bring back memories and musings. If all music subconsciously controls our emotions and thoughts, why do we blindly accept it as a beneficial entity? Looking at music from this perspective, one could see it as harmful because it asserts control over us without knowing it ourselves. In a sense, music could be a type of “mind control” that causes a loss of the free will of humanity. That is probably taking it a bit far, but the sentiment is still there.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that music is inherently immoral or evil, but it is definitely valuable (at least in my opinion) to consider all perspectives on an issue. Questioning is fun! In fact, I recommend you do it all the time. It makes life a lot more interesting.
That’s all for now. So stay fly and goodbye!
-Dan
Category Passion | Tags: 1314,137h,babich,blog,dan,daniel,daniel friedland,english 137h,english137h,friedland,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,music,oh man it's dan,passion,penn state,pisani babich,psu,rcl,rcl1314,wk9 | 5 Comments
-
October 18, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
SNL Parody – We Did Stop
Although the government shutdown is over, it lasted long enough for some very provocative propaganda to rise to prominence in the media. I witnessed this spectacle while watching Saturday Night Live two weeks ago. Miley Cyrus helps the cast of SNL to make a statement about the inefficiency of the government in a hilarious way. However, even though it seems like a mere parody video, “We Did Stop” contains plenty of rhetoric, as well as civically engages us by indirectly raising questions about the government and its status.
“We Did Stop” is clearly a parody of Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” song and music video, and while making a mockery of the stagnant United States government may be rather insensitive, it serves to bring awareness to a civic issue and place the blame. The video targets the Republican Party, blaming it for the government shutdown. Portraying John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann as manipulative, careless, and ridiculous figures discredits their images. The part towards the end of the video when “Boehner” and “Bachmann” are throwing money at “Uncle Sam” is especially effective because it subtly introduces the generalization that the Republicans as a whole are rich, selfish, and only care about their own assets (not the state of the government). The video actually diminishes the ethos of the Republican party, which is an underhanded, backwards ethos appeal.
The video also employs a logos appeal in the form of the lyrics. At the very beginning of the video, the deep voice says “This is our house, we can do what we want . . . vote how we want, defund how we want.” While this line is meant to be humorous and set the stage for the rest of the song, it impacts the viewer in a much more serious way. The line introduces the idea that the Republican party does control the house (of Representatives). They have voted against the budget bill and want to defund Obamacare. Regardless of the manner in which these facts or given, there exists some logical truth to them. They make the viewer of the video believe that the Republican party directly caused the government shutdown by voting against the budget bill and demanding that Obamacare be defunded. These facts are true; however, the makers of the video make it seem like the cause of the government shutdown lies solely in the Republican party, which is certainly a heavily left-leaning bias.
“We Did Stop” brings awareness to the government shutdown and its supposed cause through the use of humorous, shocking images, as well as cleverly written lyrics. Rhetoric is all around us, even in comedy sketches. Whether or not “We Did Stop” accurately portrays the Republican Party and its role in the government shutdown, it certainly leaves an impression through its intelligent use rhetorical devices.
Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1bdoufPt0
Works Cited
We Did Stop – SNL Highlight. 2013. Video. NBC. YouTube, New York, New York. Web. 18 Oct 2013.
Category Rhetoric and Civic Life | Tags: babich,blog,dan,daniel,friedland,it's,man,oh,oh man it's dan,pisani babich,psu,rcl,rcl1314,wk7 | 3 Comments
-
October 18, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
I have been talking about classical music a lot lately, but I am going to do it again. I am in a string quartet here on campus, and we have just started looking through repertoire, which allows us to listen to a whole variety of styles within classical music. We ended up choosing two very different pieces, one romantic and one which is more classical (fundamental stuff, like Mozart, Beethoven, etc.). The beauty of chamber music is that it explores the different aspects of classical music in a whole new way.
The experience of playing in a chamber group lies somewhere in the realm between soloing and playing in an orchestra. Chamber music is similar to an orchestra in that a group of musicians are working together and playing different parts in order to portray some musical idea. The difference is that playing with, say, 3 other people, rather than 90 other people is that one is able to listen more closely to the individual parts and work off of each other more “intimately” than would be possible in a full orchestra. On the other end of the spectrum, chamber music is similar to soloing in that one is playing his or her part alone and exposed. There is no one else there to cover up mistakes or discrepancies.
With fewer people, the setting is perhaps higher-pressure, but it is also more musically intimate. Players make eye contact with each other, cue their entrances, and coordinate musical ideas through sound and movement. These characteristics of chamber music are what make it so fun and rewarding, yet also difficult at the same time. It is tough to be engaged with everyone in the group while focusing on your own self-expression at the same time. Even so, I find chamber music to be extremely exciting, and I play it whenever I can.
Here are some videos / recordings of the pieces my quartet will be playing this semester. Take a listen and see what you think!
Grieg – String Quartet Op. 27 in g minor – Movement 1 (part 1)
Grieg – String Quartet Op. 27 in g minor – Movement 1 (part 2)
If you only want to listen to one part, watch the last 30 seconds or so of part 2. They even use a fan to blow their music away. How awesome!
Mendelssohn – String Quartet No. 2 in a minor, Op. 13
I hope you enjoyed the clips! Stay fly and goodbye!
-Dan
Video URLs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS0QgOHiqM (Grieg Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj-W8i63fI (Grieg Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4yzZy-9Ps (Mendelssohn #2)
Category Passion | Tags: 137h,babich,blog,chamber,dan,english,it's,man,music,oh,passion,pisani,pisani babich,quartet,rcl,rcl1314,wk7 | 2 Comments
-
October 10, 2013 by Daniel Friedland
We know music in a variety of forms, but most songs today that play on the radio are formed by an instrumental and voice line. There are, as we know other forms of music, but it just so happens that this combination of an instrument and voice line predominates in current musical culture. Now, if we strip down these songs to their most basic forms, we get what is known as the instrumental and A Capella. Musical instruments or any other sound other than voice is considered instrumental, and any sound produced by the voice is A Capella. While these two forms are normally seen together, there are certainly some good instrumental songs and pieces, as well as A Capella songs and pieces.
Here is an instrumental song that stands really well on its own. The guitar is the only sound (besides the talking voices in the background), and it plays the melody as well as an accompaniment at the same time, making for an interesting piece of music.
Alt-J – Interlude II
Because instruments and synthetic sounds can play two or melody lines it a time, it is easier for an instrument to play an engaging piece than it would be for a singer (as a generalization). This is especially evident in pop songs because the voice relies a lot on the instrumental for creating interest in the melody line. I go to my scapegoat pop artist, T-Swift, to show us just how weak a single vocal line can be.
T-Swift – You Belong With Me
Not all A Capella is uninteresting, though. In fact, a lot of it is really engaging to the listener because voices can make lots of sounds that mirror percussion and other instruments. Take a listen to this A Capella version of Paradise by Coldplay. The singer uses his voice in different ways to produce different sounds that come together to sounds extremely similar to the actual song.
Cover of Coldplay’s Paradise
In the end, voice and instrumental melodies are very similar for the simple reason that the voice is an instrument. While the voice can only produce one melody line at a time, the combination of voices can add a really interesting twist to a song. It is the same way with instruments. Solo pieces are nice to listen to, but accompaniment and the inter-workings of a variety of instruments makes for a more exciting piece of music.
That’s all for now. Stay fly, and goodbye!
-Dan
Video URLs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbQ_y0dO4js (Interlude 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ZXoT9u5og (You Belong With Me)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2YSo8Z_-a4 (Paradise Cover)
Category Passion | Tags: 1314,137h,a capella,babich,blog,english 137h,english137h,friedland,instrumental,it's,man,moab,mother of all blogs,music,oh,oh man it's dan,passion,pisani babich,psu,rcl1314,vs,wk6 | 2 Comments
