Art. According to Dictionary.com, art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. What is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance to me?
Coldplay's sophomore album A Rush Of Blood To The Head was released in 2002 to critical acclaim, winning three Grammy Awards, a Q Award, and a BRIT Award. It is ranked as the 473th greatest album of all time by Rolling Stone, and as the 65th most definitive album of all time by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
None of this mattered to me. Before 2008, I thought of Coldplay as a depressing emoband. That's what I was always told, anyway; Their only accomplishment was that complex piano song they had a few years prior, but that was all they really did. When I was a freshman in college, in 2008, I downloaded a huge file of music; it was easily accessible and I didn't want to risk not finding it all later. In that huge file, buried deep were three albums that I loaded into iTunes and completely disregarded: Parachutes, A Rush Of Blood To The Head, and X&Y. All Coldplay LP's. A few months later, a song called Daylight came onto my shuffle; the warbling guitar riff peaked my interest but the quirky bass line sold me instantly. I haven't questioned their artistry since.
A Rush opens with a swell of ambiance, followed by a pounding repetition of drums delivered by drummer Will Champion. The majority of albums begin with a song that should prepare the rest of the album, and in that vein, Politik prepared me for greatness. The slow-down of the bridge followed by the blast of energetic sound makes for an epic opener. The album slows down with the first single In My Place, a mid-tempo plea for a lover. The simple guitar melody carries the song amidst strings and cymbals. God Put A Smile Upon Your Face follows with a catchy guitar melody and a pulsating chorus that leaves you so high that that the next track, the easily-recognizable The Scientist, seems to be pulsating as well. The Scientist is depressingly beautiful, a track that I would have anticipated from Coldplay before I knew of them. Singer Chris Martin's vocals are often praised for this ballad. The next track is the track of the album. This track, along with 2008's Viva la Vida, is one of the band's signature songs.
The epic, awesome, award-winning Clocks pretty much floats through you. I don't think there is a way to listen to this song and not smile or tap your feet or hum a little. There honestly isn't a proper way to capture its "-ness" in words, in my opinion. The strings and keys are just...full of "-ness." This is a song that must be sung to the rafters. The aforementioned Daylight follows Clocks with the same sense of urgency. Daylight features a warbling electric guitar by guitarist Jonny Buckland that carries on throughout the song. Bassist Guy Berryman plays a diddly, almost sensual bass part throughout the song that is highlighted during the bridge. The following song, Green Eyes, is a nice guitar piece that slows the album down for a few minutes. I personally skip this song once I stop replaying Daylight in my head. The following song is one that Martin himself has said he wishes the band never recorded.
Warning Sign is my favorite Coldplay record, perhaps because it isn't an obvious tune of theirs. Perhaps that is why the band seldom plays the song live? Warning Sign is a pop/rock song at best, with the basic arsenal of drums, guitars, a piano, and introspective lyrics. It doesn't ask for too much deciphering and it doesn't have a dazzling piano melody or a synthy bass line. It's just a song. But it's basic pop/rock done by Coldplay; it has this quality of being so much more than a filler track. The up-down guitar that plays right after the chorus is so alternative and Martin's droning vocals push the song out of the mainstream and into the world of sappy-indie-kill-me music that just makes me smile. I wish Martin and the band would think twice about the value of this song. They recorded it for a reason.
A Whisper picks the album back up to a pounding number that eases from gentle edgy guitars to a resonating chorus with piano and drums. I find it forgettable like Green Eyes, but it doesn't disappoint. The final two close the album out with themes of sadness, regret, and foreboding. The album is named after track ten, A Rush Of Blood To The Head, which could be described as a tale of blind faith. The track never surpasses its soft level of assurance that what is being said isn't necessarily right. The chorus raises the volume to the point of acknowledgment, but not past that to pressuring the listener. Amsterdam, the final track, seems to be about a love that has ended on one side, and that one side is pushing the other to move on. The first two verses and chorus are strictly accompanied by Martin and the piano. The last verse builds up with the addition of the band and concludes again with the piano. The album ends with Martin's seldom-valued lower register.
If anything in the world is art, A Rush Of Blood To The Head certainly is. To me, music is the best kind of art. It can leap so many bounds to reach people. Coldplay and A Rush Of Blood To The Head shattered my perception of what is good music and has forced me to start anew, and I couldn't be happier to do so.
What television show/website/musical performer best reflects American culture?
Initially, I was going to discuss how Bob Dylan has shaped American culture. There were too many television shows to choose from (and too many that I wouldn't bother to watch, no matter how culturally relevant they are), far too many films to choose from, and far too many artists to choose from. Everything that came from this country is essentially reflective of the culture at some point or another. The band Nirvana set out to make music, and in popularizing a genre, also created a fashion craze with plaid and torn jeans. Britney Spears made people feel comfortable enough to bare their stomachs. Bob Dylan not only inspired so many singer-songwriters, but he was socially aware and strove to make changes, two aspects of his fame that have been widespread. I thought him to be the perfect candidate.That was, however, until I saw this:
Christina Aguilera has an amazing voice. She is a great talent. I'm not particularly a fan; I leaned more towards Britney myself. But there is no denying her talent.That's not what I'm going to discuss, though. Let's discuss, instead, how insanely desperate and reused this entire video seems to be.
Aguilera has said numerous times that she is a sexual person and that she doesn't shy away from expressing her sexuality. Cool beans. That would explain her raunchy 2002 video for single "Dirrty." If anything, that video defined Aguilera as the risktaker among her pop star colleagues. But while she is all about the sex, she also has integrity and talent. It makes one wonder why the hell she would make a video that is so quick and bright and glaringly a rehash of several other videos. The white backdrop that the video uses is oddly reminiscent of Lady Gaga's recent epic video for "Bad Romance." As is the fire and the hair and the red lingerie and the sunglasses. Several scenes from Aquilera's video seem to be pulled straight from Madonna's 1989 video for "Express Yourself." Considering that I was born in 1989, I didn't catch the older inspirations, but the more recent ones stuck out like sore thumbs. It was almost comical, considering how Aguilera has publicly denounced the comparisons between her and Lady Gaga.
In addition to the video feeling like a mashup of so many sexually-charged ones before it, it just seemed SO sexually-charged. The making out on the bed was uncomfortable. The product placement was awkward. The ball-and-gag number was, albeit pretty cool, so very forced. Everything about this video seemed forced. Frame 1 was "Look, it's me,"; frame 2 was "Look, it's me again, but sexier"; frame 3 was "Wow, can you believe how incredibly sexual I am?" So many controversial scenes were forced into three minutes and nine seconds and it showed.
At times, America baffles me. This country often boasts about its reputation as the "land of the free," but it also rationalizes its blatant discrimination with the idea that the nation has a one-dimensional morality.
Less than sixty years ago, there was a legitimate law called the Racial Integrity Act that, among so much more, outlawed interracial marriage. Could you imagine living in a time when you couldn't marry someone if you were white and they were any other race? Could you imagine that being the norm? Could you imagine not being able to go to school with your best friend because you were white and they were any other race?
Today, to a hopeful majority of people, that kind of discrimination would be blasphemous. Yet, it is still happening. What once used to plague American people who weren't white is now plaguing American people who aren't straight. Non-heterosexuals (which encompasses homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgendered) are not equal citizens in this country. There are several classifications that can chock you down in terms of equal rights in this country - you can murder someone. Murderers aren't allowed to just roam the streets once they have been deemed guilty; even after they serve their time, they aren't allowed full freedom. People who break the law are not given their access to the endless possibilities that life has to offer. But they have done something to be less than an average citizen. They have literally done something. What has a bisexual done, other than come to terms with themselves and their sexuality? What has a homosexual done? What have these groups of people done to be denied the same rights as every other law-abiding citizen of the country?
This round of questions obviously applies to the military. It's the freaking military. It's voluntary. If someone wakes up one day and decides they want to serve and protect the country, they shouldn't have to think twice whether or not their sexuality will be an issue. Blacks weren't allowed to serve in the military not insanely long ago. The rationale was that the white soldiers might not all be comfortable serving with people of color. It might be a distraction during battle. Lyndon B. Johnson bravely put an end to that bullshit with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against heavy resistance from the south. But he did it. And it stuck. Today the rationale for non-heterosexuals soldiers to serve in the closet is that...the heterosexual soldiers might be uncomfortable serving with gay men. It might be a distraction during battle. Men and women serving the country shouldn't have to hide a portion of their identity, especially a portion that isn't harmful or offensive to anyone.
Slavery and racism are black notes on America's lengthy report card. When will the nation look at the past and realize that Don't Ask, Don't Tell and civil unions are black notes as well? Separate but equal is a heinous way to live.
LOST has this magical habit of surpassing itself with each episode. The final season was destined to be memorable and I certainly haven't forgotten a single frame. This episode in particular had a revelation, two reunions, one meeting, and a whole lotta awesomeness.
Let's begin with the revelation. Locke revealed that he had been taking the form of Christian, Jack and Claire's father, for some time now. He said he only did it to show the survivors where water was back in season one...um, hows about no? Christian has appeared multiple times since then, and he even used Christian's memory to turn Claire into a squirrel monkey. Locke is obviously a bad buy up to no good, but his rationalizations for his actions make me wonder if he actually has a point or if he is legitimate crazy, as in evil and in need of a white jacket or a blow to the skull. Who knows?
One of the reunions take place between Jack and Claire, who were finally given an opportunity to talk. Claire seemed overjoyed at the prospect of having a big brother, especially one who was on her side. Jack, likewise, seemed to be excited to see her. Lord knows Jack just loves saving people. That's a big brother trait through and through, so hopefully he does that. Hopefully you wind up saving her once this season, Jack. Because you kind of left her behind three years ago and you blatantly left her behind at the end of this episode. Even I was hurt by that. Jackhole.
While Jack and Claire were reuniting, bonding, and losing faith in the original timeline, the alternative timeline had their first meet. Claire was going to a lawyer when Desmond, fresh off the "I-know-what's-going-on" boat steered her to an stranger's office. This stranger happened to be the dearly-smithereened Ilana who died just last week. Everybody is alive and well in this alternative universe. Claire unexpectedly gets pulled into the reading of her father's will, a father she never even knew. Jack shows up with this son David and the pair are stunned to learn of Claire's paternity. So stunned that they have to leave after maybe two minutes. They left, coincidentally, to go save Locke. What a small city.
I'm trying something here. I was going to simply comment on the flash sideways as if they were an independent series, but I love the actual LOST universe too much to do that. For now. I didn't decide to do it today because Sun and Jin FINALLY reunited after 29 episodes apart. That's three years. A season and a half. They are the couple that needs to stand the test of time for this show to really be about life and love. Jin has to meet his daughter and they have to all reunite as a family.
So hopeful, however. The writers will kill anybody.
NEXT WEEK: Repeat! Yay, what happened to no repeats? In two weeks, there are explosions and decisions are made. It is a must-see. I'm nervous. I'm nervous and scared.
Aside: Terry O'Quinn can make the angriest face . He just pulls it and I'm forced to look over my shoulder to see if he's watching me.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a marine conservation organization that uses "direct action" to protect sealife.That direct action includes intentionally damaging ships that partake in mass fishing, whaling, and netting, among other sealife infractions. The organization was founded by Paul Watson, a former Greenpeace board member who disagreed with the organization's nonviolent approach. His desire to attack resulted in his separation from Greenpeace and his creation of the SSCS.
The SSCS's tactics are extreme, to say the least. Their mission is to "end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species" by using "innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas." So...they will literally attack your ship to the point of it becoming inoperable. One one hand, their tactics is admirable. They are tenacious in the same vein as the better-known PETA. They have slight credibility over PETA because they aren't harming individuals, but rather individuals' means of harming wildlife; PETA will just throw a bucket of blood on you. It's actually ironic (and it really is ironic, not just a coincidence) that their official title is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, when they harass and assault individuals. Pot, meet kettle.
This calls into question the ethics of direct action. Direct action is not always unlawful. Some forms of general activity are completely legal and ethically sound. There is nothing improper or wrong about the idea of a protest or a strike. The execution is relative. The SSCS, in my opinion, is not ethically sound in terms of their direct action tactics. It is unethical to harm someone and their property, for any reason. It isn't frowned upon to do so all the time, but I would still say it is unethical. It must certainly be unethical, then, to ram a ship into another ship in salute to the whales and the fishes. I said before that their actions are admirable; it is incredible that people would go through such lengths, albeit dangerous, because of something they believe in. The idea is admirable. The actual execution of said idea is a tad bit unhinged. This...
...is ridiculous. I understand the desire to provoke change, but there should be a line. I'm pretty sure there is a line, and I think the SSCS crosses it.
1. an institution for receiving, lending, exchanging, and safeguarding money and, in some cases, issuing notes and transacting other financial business.
A bank is a financial intermediary used by the majority of Americans, and the world, to hold and protect their money. Banking in the United States is generally synonymous with retail banking, which refers to institutions that deal with customers directly. Examples of retail banks are Chase, Bank of America, and Wachovia.
Most retail banking institutions offer the same generic services:
Personal checking and savings accounts
Business checking accounts
Credit cards
Certificates of deposit (CDs) - Accounts that accrue interest over an allotted period of time; can be liquid, meaning accessible and able to be withdrawn, or can be fixed, meaning the only way to withdraw is to pay a penalty charge
Loans (personal, auto, mortgage, home equity, business, student, boat)
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)
Online banking is a feature that most banks have adopted in the new millennium. The Banking Act of 1933, also known as the Glass-Steagall Act, established a staple of the banking industry that is still prevalent today - the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC insures the safety of deposits made to banks that are members of the corporation. Since 1980, the FDIC had insured $100,000 per depositor per institution, which encompasses checking and savings accounts. In 2008, the insurance limit was raised to $250,000 per depositor to ease the public's fear of the banking industry crumbling around them.
Banks are incapable of going bankrupt in America; they would be taken over by the government and would eventually be sold to a stronger banking institution. The only downside of bank failure is the incapability of choosing where your account will be held next. Many people hold accounts at different banks to maximize on the insurance capabilities; each depositor is insured for up to $250,000 at each individual bank, meaning you can easily have a million dollars federally insured if spread across four different banks. Every banking institution is not FDIC-insured, though.
I sat down with with my grilled cheese sandwich and my Rockstar energy drink to finally watch MASH. I was already intrigued before it even began because the subsequent television show is so prestigious and well-renowned. I was fully prepared to laugh hysterically.
I think I laughed maybe three or four times. I laughed when Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland) and Duke (Tom Skerritt) arrived at 4077th surgical hospital. The overlapping introductions were amusing. I laughed when Major Houlihan was arriving and her welcome wagon was facing the opposite direction. I laughed when Trapper (Elliott Gould) punched Burns (Robert Duvall) in the face, mainly because I knew that I recognized Trapper but I couldn't place him for the life of me. When he punched Burns he let out a yelp and started talking and his high voice clashed with his appearance and it was hysterical. Burns and Houlihan having their sex broadcast throughout the hospital was so awful and so great. The long take after they realized what was happening was great cinematography.
The entire "Suicide is painless" scenario was my favorite part of the movie. Painless Pole's (John Schuck) dry plea for ideas on how to kill himself was perfect. The staff's vibrant ideas made it all the more enjoyable. And then the serenade combined with his suicide attempt was entertaining, mainly because of how long it lasted. The fact that you got to see how far their joke carried on make it funny.
Other than those few instances though, I didn't follow MASH that well. I can appreciate that it is a comedy. I can appreciate the cultural relevance of it all. I didn't laugh as much as I thought I would have but I think that if I watched it again, I would be able to pick up on the more subtle bits of humor.
