Tag Archives: #kingsclass

Darn You Auto-tune

autotune_meme_by_ultimaweapon13-d5hd150

Auto-tune, I may not know much about it, except that it sticks out like a watermelon in a cabbage patch because of it’s obvious electronic modifications of the vocals or instruments in a song.  This new technology has taken off and can be found in many songs today.  I have nothing against auto-tune but, like anything, too much of a good thing can be bad–an sound really fake. (cough cough Nicki Manaj)

After doing some research I found, not-surprisingly, auto-tune was created solely for the purpose of clearing out any off-tune vocals, hence the name.  Then the music industry slowly figured out they could also use it to mess with, change up, and experiment with the sounds in the music (which is actually really cool) I think auto tune usually doesn’t sounds good, in some cases it can, but most cases it can’t and doesn’t. Also it takes away any talent from the people who can actually sing. If anyone can use auto-tune to sound like an angel those who can sing well won’t get recognized.

So, I’m going to go over when I can and can’t tolerate auto-tuned music.  Generally I believe if the only contribution auto-tune makes is a fake sound, no.  But, if it’s maybe more subtle and enhances a certain feel the song is going for, then I can.  Such as in the song “These Streets Will Never Look the Same” by Chromatics: there use of auto-tune is successful in that it isn’t over done and imprints a lasting almost haunting feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hYPk5m6uuM

I know there are more examples, but an example of a song that has been beat dead by auto-tune (in my opinion) is a song most of us know “Tik Tok” by Ke$ha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP6XpLQM2Cs  I guess if she (or the record company) couldn’t achieve the sound they were going for without auto-tune, I guess I can slightly understand.  Who would ever want their voice to sound like Ke$ha’s I don’t know. She just doesn’t need to be that obviously auto tuned.

I guess, also one thing that bothers me is that these songs are the ones played on the radio often and I just don’t see the appeal to it.  Shouldn’t the songs with actual talent in them be play more often? Instead we are fed rigged sounds enhanced  by computers.

 

Cite:

http://top40.about.com/od/top10lists/tp/top10autotune.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/auto-tune.htm

 

 

Englsh 2 Netsp33k

text-message-cartoon

 

The spread of texting and netspeak, instant messaging (IM), and spell checks (like auto correct)  has transformed our competent language into an almost new language in itself–except there exists no boundary between English and this new language.  People, mostly younger people such as teenagers, often forget to separate texting lingo from actual speaking/writing.  Netspeak and texting lingo being found in kids’ school homework proves this mesh.  An article from “technologyandlanguage.weebly.com”, regarding this, reports,  “a girl in Scotland famously wrote an entire essay in lingo indecipherable even to the Internet-savvy: ‘My smmr hols wr CWOT. B4, we used 2 go 2 NY 2C my bro, his GF & thr 3 :-@ kds FTF. ILNY, its gr8.'” (Ward).   This could be the outcome of our frequent use of technology.  I know whenever I write an essay–or even this blog–red squiggles appear underneath the words I’ve miss-spelled, so I don’t even really have to think about spelling, it’s the same with auto-correct on Iphones; even though half the time auto-corrects corrects incorrectly it has conditioned many people with Iphones to not write as carefully and rely on spell-checks.  When you grow, or stop being, used to something it’s hard to prevent it happening.

In addition, the change in the way people talk/write (like the girl seen above) comes about by the convenience of texting lingo and netspeak: shortening words like “you” to “U” in order to save time and money.  Since this lingo has become so prevalent in our daily lives it eventually becomes natural for us to sometimes, even accidentally, write this way in a normal circumstance, which in the long run decrease our ability to separate formal English from informal English.  The decline of formal English to some people brings with it a fear of the destruction of the language as a whole.  In this article Humphrys, a full-fledged journalist, writes  “vandals are doing to our language what Genghis Khan did to his neighbors eight hundred years ago.  They are destroying it: pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences; raping our vocabulary.  And they must be stopped”  With the spread of new technologies come with it the spread of abundant errors and the possible diminishing of our language.

Now, with many people worrying about this change, is it really something we should be concerned about?  Some may say no but I believe, seeing the many people who aren’t worried about this, that our concern is valid and maybe we should do something about it.  We don’t have to go on a ban of Iphones, but maybe, just maybe, when we are texting we could use less lingo as to not get accustomed to it, and as well we can write more carefully, consciously aware of the differences between texting and not.  It’s our choice: do we want to risk the extinction of our language’s uniqueness?  Or will we sit by and watch it be destroyed?

 

Cite:

http://technologyandlanguage.weebly.com/destruction.html

RCL: Two Possible Topics for Rhetoric Essay

1.  My first possible topic I thought of was the GEICO “hump day commercial” being as possesses a memorable quality yet at the same time a slightly over-memorable quality–the memory of the humorous camel makes one forget the name of the company.  I remembered this advertisement almost vividly, quoting it frequently even–as many people do–, but I had to look up what company it was for; maybe it’s just me, I believe this commercial contains not only positive rhetoric within it, but some negative and/or wrongly used rhetoric which lower the effectiveness of the add.  Unlike some ads which contain a catchy jingle incorporating the company’s name into it, their ad focuses on the pathos filled humor of the camel and what he says as opposed to emphasizing the barely noticeable slogan of “get happy, get GEICO”.  As well, aside from pointing out the fact that this will make us happy, there are minimal facts ( barely any logos or ethos) to support their stance, though they use kairos well in timing the humor.   I could examine the positive and negative aspects of this ad.

2.

Or another advertisement–also a commercial– I could analyse is the dove “real beauty “sketch” which is about a true experiment (gains ethos here) where a artist had ransom people sit behind a sheet so he couldn’t (he had no clue what they looked like) see them and asked them to describe themselves to him; he drew a drawing of them based off of this.  Then he got the same people and had them sit without a sheet there and drew them as he saw them.  When the pictures were compared, the ones where the people described themselves appeared uglier than the ones drawn from actual life.  The point made here–one endorse by Dove–is that everyone is more beautiful than they think they are; this majorly appeals to pathos.  I think it would be also fun to write my essay on this on just because it’s very unique for a commercial and captures a true essence to sell the product.  I also could try to go against the positive flow of rhetoric and find some instances where the rhetoric could be  better and more factual. Either way I will be happy with my topic, though I’m leaning toward the first just because I think it will be the more fun out of the two.

They Probably Aren’t Talking to You (It’s the 21st Century)

It happens to everyone at one point or another: you’re walking casually down the sidewalk minding your own thoughts when you pass by someone who says, “Hello!”  Your head turns to view said person, a stranger to you; I don’t recognize them, you think, and they aren’t visibly talking on a cell phone .  Then the stranger proceeds to loudly proclaim some phrase such as, “What’s up?”  or “How are you?”.  As your gait slows again, you do a double-take just to be sure: still a bit confused.  It’s by this point you realize–because of the lack of eye-contact, or because of the unfamiliarity of the conversation (and person), as well as the assumption that they are mentally stable–the stranger is speaking not to you, but to an almost-invisible blue-tooth protruding from their ear.  Welcome to the twenty-first century; who needs phone booths when we have blue-tooths!

This form of mobile phone can–if used for good–be beneficial: like in cases where you cannot hold a cellphone because you’re preoccupied driving.  But other-wise, please, shake off the idleness and just hold the phone.  It’s much less baffling to fellow pedestrians and, for some reason, less loud.  Is it me, or do people who talk on blue-tooths seem to talk louder than people who talk on regular cell phones? Maybe it’s the extended distance from mouth to receptor?

Either way, open endorsement of  these devices by companies seem to have lead to an increase and acceptance of blue-tooth talkers in public, when in my opinion they can be as noisy and distracting as anyone on a cellphone. Oh but wait, loud cell phone talkers often hold conversations publicly too.  For example: once while shopping in a department store, I took a trip to the restroom with my younger sister and while I waited the sound of a cellphone ring echoed through the stall next to my sister’s, suddenly to stop.  No, she wouldn’t really answer it here, would she?  As I feared for the loss of society’s dignity, the lady in stall number 2 proved me wrong; she had answered the phone while in the midst of relieving herself.  She even continued–clear enough for everyone in the room to hear the conversation–talking through flushing the toilet; so if the person on the other end didn’t know she was using the restroom before, they sure knew now.

It may disturb you, but it remains true just as it remains a reflection of how some technology has lead to a decrease in the importance of social etiquette.  If someone on my contacts list answered the phone while in the bathroom, I’d question why I was friends with this person when they did not even have the decency to call back at a better time. (well, maybe that’s an exaggeration)  Also, I wouldn’t appreciate everyone in the same vicinity as the person I’m talking to knowing the details of our private conversation.  When talking in person with a friend you wouldn’t normally  project your voice to the extent of passerby’s being able to interpret every word.  For loud-talkers and blue-tooth users: sometimes maybe it’s better to wait to answer the phone, quiet down a little, or, find a phone booth (do those still exist?).

hscn1067l