social media is ruining music

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 11:37pm  reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

this week I read a little about how social media affects music and music sales, and the information on this topic was amazing.  With all the new technology that’s literally in the palm of our hands, we never think to go out and buy a cd anymore, or better yet, actually buy music in general.  There was a research that music sales have been at an overall decline of 30% over the past ten years, making it harder to reach statuses like gold or platinum due to people streaming music as opposed to buying it.  Streaming sites such as Spotify, Apple Music, or Tidal have made agreements with billboard to include a certain amount of streams to equal one unit sale of music.  For example, 1 million streams equals 100 sales of that song.  The other problem at hand that makes social media and technology a difficult for artists music sales is illegal downloading and free music streaming that don’t count towards music sales.  Sites such as zippy share, lime wire, and soundcloud let you listen to music and download it for free without any consequence.  The quality of music my not head great as something that you paid for, but it’s free.  A lot of people have have argued that these musicians have money so why should we have to pay for their music? That’s not fair.  These artists pay for studio time and promotion and production and music video shoots and outfits and royalties, the least we could do is respect their creativity and pay for it as they have asked us to do.  Honestly, you aren’t a true fan if you illegally download these artists music, you aren’t supporting them, and you damn sure aren’t respecting them and their artistry.

Kids Rule

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 11:03pm  ideas, reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

The simplest answer is at often times is the best answer. As people grow they tend to split into more groups as they try to find a sense of identity in the world. From the time we are kids until we grow up, so much changes for us. Different schools, jobs, the dynamics of a family can change, and so much happens as we move through life. Sometimes all of this experience gives us a biased and highly sensitive mindset that is supremely subjective. Children are innocent. So many kids are born into the mayhem and terrifying places that exist on Earth, but for children raised in a healthy family environment really have it made. I decided to do some research into humanitarian projects that children have started. Giving success to a child who dreams of making our planet a better place to live is too inspiring to pass up. A young girl named Alexandra opened her first Lemonade stand for children with cancer when she was only 4 years old. Since she opened, her name has travelled to lemonade stands across the country. Shortly after basketball enthusiast Austin turned 9 years old, he saw a video that changed his life. It is a movie about children who have lost their parents to AIDS. Austin started his organization, Hoops of hope the world’s largest free-throw marathon, dedicated to raising money for orphaned children from across the globe and providing them with food, education, and health care. 12 year old Craig perspective was changed forever when he stumbled upon a tragic story of child slavery in the newspaper. He was so motivated to make a change for these children that he gathered his closest school friends to found Free The Children, an organization dedicated to empowering and educating kids all around the world about how to make this planet a better place for everybody. The list goes on and on, and there are articles all over the internet that boast the kind hearts of the children in our population. A society ruled by children may be far fetched, but everyone who has grown up in this world owes it to themselves to think back to when they were kids. If we all remember the time and effort people put in to help us grow up to be big and strong maybe we can return the favor by doing our part to do good, whatever that may uniquely mean for each of us.

Realities of Immigration

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 9:06pm  ideas, reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

It is crucial to the advancement of our society to look at the numbers that or trusted experts report. Roy Beck is an immigration journalist and expert. He teamed up with NumbersU.S.A. to create a visual representation of the effects that immigration is having on our country and world as a whole. To illustrate a point that our U.S. immigration policies are failing the world he uses the help of gum balls and glass jars of various sizes. Each gum ball represents one million people. Each jar is of portionable size to its given country’s population. According to the study, the United States has taken in one million immigrants a year from around the world since the year 1990. People are under the impression that by taking in more people the United States will help substantially in the fight to abolish the most impoverished people. The reality is in fact heartbreaking. There are approximately 650 million people in Africa living in the poorest sector of poverty in the world, which has been determined at an average income of under $2 per day. India has about 890 million people in this category, South America has 105 million, China is at about 450 million people, and the rest of Asia compiles to be another 890 million human beings. Combined there is roughly 3 billion people desperately poor in the world. The reality is that even a full 1% of people in these conditions will ever make it over to an affluent country, like the United States. So, the united States brings in a million people every year. These extremely poor people mentioned above will not likely be any part of this one million immigrants. The united States wants to take the best that they can get from these countries. Even when the united States does bring in a million people, the poorest areas of the world are growing rapidly, adding roughly another 5 million people to their population. The United States is really doing a disservice to all of thee people by enticing the greatest minds from anywhere on the globe to come live and experience it for themselves. The real heroes are the people who stay in their country and help advance the people there to a higher state of living. It is an extraordinarily complex problem. It’s easy to feel helpless when you know there is not much you can do about the death tolls that families experience every second of the day.

The Poor Give More

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 6:13pm  ideas, reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

In researching my topic, I came across a comparison of statistics that holds tremendous value when observing the charitable world. In an archive found in an online magazine titled, The Atlantic, One of the most surprising facts of charity in this country is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the most rich Americans, those with make anywhere in the top 20 percent, contributed on average 1.3% of their income to charity. In comparison, One of the most surprising, and perhaps confounding, facts of charity in America is that the people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate the greatest percentage of their income. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans—those with earnings in the top 20 percent—contributed on average 1.3 percent of their income to charity. By comparison, Americans at the base of the income pyramid, those in the bottom 20 percent, gave 3.2% of their income. There is room for interpretation and debate as to why this is an absolute reality. Many potential psychological reasons for why these numbers appear the way they do. The most appropriate reason I believe is exposure. Many of the world’s wealthiest grow up in this affluential environment. They do not truly understand how most of the world is living. A study created to test this phenomenon finds that when the rich and poorer classes are exposed first hand to the overwhelming amount of poverty shows that most people all react almost identically.

It Starts With a Lending Hand

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 3:11pm  reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

When I was a kid I used to go to Catholic church service on Sunday mornings with my sister and mother. For thousands of years the Church has kept traditions alive that correspond with the events that take place in the service. The wicker baskets that make their way around the church allow the people a chance to donate their money to impoverished and hungry people. I wanted to do some research into the history of charitable organizations. When was the first “Charity” cause called into session. According to a study by Harvard, non-profit organizations really did not start until the mid 20th century. Over 90% of charitable organizations that still exist have been created since 1950. Non-profits are not easy to define because of the great range and scope of the glossary of organizations. There are so many different ways that they get their funding. Receiving revenue from sold goods, like a stuffed animal, contribute, as well as private donations received. The majority of non-profits receive money from the government in some way. Part of defining the very beginning of a charitable organization is determined by how we interpret the term, as well as how it evolves through space and time. Biblical times provide their services, but now we have hospitals and universities that are non-profit entities. This idea of a charity will continue to evolve for the next many years to come in ways hard to for see, but surely the term will continue to uphold as a synonym for hope.

article: By Peter Dobkin Hall. Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in The U.S.

Training to be an Idol

 Posted by on Sun, 12/11 at 1:27pm  reading  No Responses »
Dec 112016
 

The American music industry is founded on the principle that you have an ability to sing. If not then you ability to lip sync is greatly appreciated because then producers can use you as the image for the group/brand as was the case in C+C Music Factory. Zelma Davis was found out to have been lip syncing their hit “Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)” in the music video to Martha Walsh vocals. In South Korea the process is different. Children from a young age go to audition to train to be an idol. If they are selected then they spend the rest of their childhood and adolescent days training to debut. During this process, they must attend regular school as well as classes for handling the media, acting, dancing, singing and maybe even songwriting. If the trainee has a special skill such as playing an instrument, then they are encouraged to further develop this as it will become part of their image. If not then hopefully, they can find one before they debut as most of their TV appearances will ask about this in their early appearances. Apart from their training, the trainees have no say in how their image will be presented to the public until their debut. The company decides whether they debut as an individual idol or as part of a group. Most group members usually haven’t met each other until they start training as a group to debut. The company’s decisions do not stop there. They employ hundreds of song writers and usually picks and chooses the song in which the group has to sing for their album from them. They even pay for the music video that goes along with their title track. The idols themselves do not start making any serious money until well after they’ve established themselves. So the company pays for everything and in return the idol is under a strict contract with the company. Years of training and hard work is put on display when an idol debut. So the next time you see a k-pop music video remember that.

 Posted by on Fri, 12/2 at 9:59am  reading  No Responses »
Dec 022016
 

http://time.com/76023/pay-gap-gender-kids-allowances/

 

 

This article elaborates on research done in regards to pay gaps… in children’s chores. In something strictly controlled by the guardian, we see that gender bias is deeply ingrained as to where it’s subconsciously taught to children that boys will earn more than girls. It’s wild. Girls are asked to do two more hours weekly of chores than boys, and this seems to be because of the biased tradition of women being domestically adept. And, according to the university of Michigan, boys are 15% more likely to be paid for doing chores. It seems like parents feel it’s an additional expectation for boys, yet not for girls. It’s maybe even seen as being part of a girl’s existence.

“The most damning survey comes from Westpac, which found that boys earned an average of $48 for spending 2.1 hours on chores per week, while girls only got $45 for working for 2.7 hours on household jobs.”

WHAT! $48, or even $45 a week for roughly two hours of chores is crazy. Adopt me. Regardless, Westpac’s data demonstrates the pay gap AND the time gap in the reward and expectation per boy and girl. This just reinforces the expectation that we’re trying to eradicate out of society.

The article touches upon the claim that women just naturally choose lower paying jobs (because they’re so nurturing blah blah blah) such as teachers or social workers (which in a whole other argument really deserves a tremendous amount more for all the effort both those professions take). However, they tie in the bls pay statistics averaged from professions all across the US and we see that only SEVEN professions have the same pay for men and women. Only seven out of over 400. And it’s always in the favor of men. It actually comes from the positions within companies.

 

let’s contour my booty pics with pink highlight

 Posted by on Wed, 11/30 at 11:19am  reading  No Responses »
Nov 302016
 

Every year it seems as if society revolves around a certain set of ‘fads’ that help (or maybe hurt) the advancement of our culture.  These fads that can be an article can be anything to a hoodie representing Black Lives Matter to clowns popping up scaring and trying to lure children into near-by forests or woods.  Again, these artifacts can hurt the advancement of our culture.  3 artifacts that can be said to represent my topic is butt augmentations, make-up/contour, and the color pink as a gender indicator.

First, butt augmentation surgery has increasingly sky rocketed in the past 3 years. Why? Because being a ‘thick’ woman has become a popular or cool thing.  Having a larger butt derives from the African-Smerican culture.  Many slave-owners would put big butt women on display and had people pay to see them as if they were some type of animal.  I read one article from a woman plastic surgeon who stated that women are undergoing these butt augmentations as away of cultural appropriation of the African-American community, however, these women aren’t facing the problems that African-American women face.  African-American were shamed into believing that having a big butt was an abnormality and were treated as if they were circus animals and put on for a show, but now it’s the ‘cool thing’ to have a big butt because men are finally accepting bigger woman and their bodies.

Secondly, highlight/contouring phase.  Make-up has always been a topic of discussion that women use it to hide their imperfections and to reach a flawless, pore less, ‘perfect’ looking face.  This year highlight/contour has taken society over by storm.  There are THOUSANDS of tutorial videos on youtube and discussions on ‘How to perfect your highlight’ online.  Highlight is used mainly by your cheek bones & nose area to make these areas seem more prominent in a women’s face.  However, many people take the use of highlight to change the appearance of their face as having plastic surgery.  Nicki Minaj was once asked if she had ever had nose surgery because sometimes, in certain photos, her nose looks more slim compared to other photos.  Again, people accused of her having plastic surgery, when in actuality it’s make-up.  She encouraged to watch Ru-Paul’sDragRace and understand that make-up can make your face look however you want it to.  This highlight trend has created funny jokes of taking women for a first date to a water park so that men can see the ‘real’ them.

Lastly, pink being a referent to the women gender.  Nicki Minaj has basically coined pink as a the symbol of her legacy not only in hip-hop but in anything she touches, instead of turning to gold, turns pink.  Pink has ALWAYS been the typical ‘female color’ whenever referring to females.  The irony of Nicki Minaj using pink to refer to her legacy is, she does it better than boys. She’s reigned the title as Queen in an male dominated industry.  Pink has always represented soft, easy, submissive women, but in reality Nicki is absolutely NONE of those characteristics. She’s one of the most foul-mouthed, unapologetic, HARD females to grace a stage to date.

” ‘Why don’t I look like her?!’ ‘Well I’m a guy so…’ ” The negatives of social media

 Posted by on Wed, 11/30 at 10:56am  reading  No Responses »
Nov 302016
 

This article discusses the negatives of social media. The title of the article is “Why don’t I look like her?” And that’s a pretty serious question that social media users have when scrolling through beauty influencers’ accounts, celebrities’ accounts and that one ‘pretty’ girl they know. It’s also a question that I’ve asked myself before too, but then I have to remind myself that I’m a guy and men have different facial features than women do, BUT I see this as both inspiration and a challenge. Firstly inspiration to create their faces on my own but also a challenge by challenging myself to perfect my artistry to recreate their looks. I just thought that I should outline that before continuing given my stance on how I think social media is changing the beauty industry. I feel as though it is a space for users to teach and to learn, not a negative space for users to hate on each other.

The article says that, “no one wants to look bad on the internet.” I think this is a really powerful statement because it’s true. We create an online persona via Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, ect. and we always want to look our best. The article says that many users will edit their pictures before posting them, or take them at angles to hide their self perceived flaws. I think that it’s great that we have the technology to edit pictures and take pictures so quickly in the palms of our hands, but as social media users, we have to realize that what we’re seeing isn’t always reality. And sure, if you have a major pimple and you want to blur it out in your selfie, go ahead. But it’s when people go overboard with their editing and create an entirely new person, we create unrealistic standards of beauty. The article continues to say that in print media (which is being replaced by the digital) we know that the models have probably been edited in some way; we expect it. What we may not expect is that every day users are editing their own pictures in this same way. So, we see a model in a magazine or ad and think, “wow she’s gorgeous, I want to look like her.” And then we take a look around at the people we see in real life and think, “hmm, no one really looks like her, I guess that means that that picture is altered.” After all, we do expect pictures to be altered for campaigns. But when we see everyday people online look like the models that we see who we already know have been altered, we think, “wow this average person looks like that model, but they must actually look like that because they’re not a model and therefore can’t be photoshopped.” Although this is simplified, I think the message still shines through. Young girls (and boys) are seeing their peers appear to be unrealistic, which in turn diminishes their self confidence because they don’t look like their peers.

The positives of social media (and my thoughts about a negative thing)

 Posted by on Wed, 11/30 at 10:27am  reading, Uncategorized  No Responses »
Nov 302016
 

This article discusses both the positive and the negative aspects of how social media is changing how we see beauty. The standards of beauty are always changing, but with the help of social media, they’re changing even faster. I will focus on the positives that are discussed here and use another article to discuss the negative.

The first and I think the most major positive outcome of social media is that it has given a very large group of women a voice that they have never had before. There is finally a space for women of color to create beauty publicly. This article doesn’t discuss this as much as it should, but it is really important to note what social media has created. The beauty industry has always been white washed, and now there is a virtual space to allow for the coloring of the industry. Like I mentioned in an earlier journal, Lupita Nyong’o was signed with Lancome, a cosmetic brand who has been in business for over 80 years. It took them 80 years to sign a black model- 80 years! Now anyone can create an account on Instagram and teach people how to do makeup that works for darker complexions.

The article mentions something that I didn’t put much thought into: everyone working behind the scenes. We all know that when celebrities step out onto the red carpet (or just post a picture online) they probably didn’t do their own makeup, hair and styling. But previously we didn’t get to see who put them together; however, thanks to social media, we now can. Celebrities may tag their styling team in their selfies or post pictures with the teams. Or the stylists and cosmetologists may have their own following which is what landed them the job of doing whoever’s makeup.

One of the last things that the article mentions as a “positive” I don’t really think is entirely positive. It says that major fashion houses (like Dior or Chanel for example) are only hiring models if they have over 10,000 followers on Instagram. The reason that I don’t think this is a positive is because it objectifies the models. I understand that the nature of a model’s job does often cause them to be objectified as sexual objects and that they are immediately judged based upon their looks. The followers that one has on Instagram just isn’t a fair way to qualify as hirable. In order to gain followers some potential models may post racy pictures of themselves, and that’s fine if the potential model is open to doing that. But what if you’re not? What if you want to be a model without having to have your breasts exposed in order to gain followers so that you can land a gig? One other major negative I see with this is that the more followers you have, the more comments you’re likely to have on posts. These comments could be from “thirst” followers (i.e. someone who follows you because they think you’re hot) and these followers would more than likely leave sexually charged comments on the posts. Social media should create a more positive space to express one’s self, not turn potential models into “Instagram hoes.”

 Older Entries