I’m still not sure how I feel about garage band. While I think its great for people who wouldn’t otherwise have access to instruments to be able to make music, I also feel like it takes away from what music is. Making music should be about heart and emotion. I feel that garage band takes away from that entirely. Making a song on garage band after being a musician myself was an interesting experience. I knew what everything was supposed to sound like to get what I want but I was also “using” instruments I had never played. I think garage band can be beneficial, however, I think it takes away from what music is supposed to be.

Prof. O’Malley’s point of the dislocation of space and time is one of my favorite things we’ve discussed in class. The idea that things are displaced through time and space is not something I ever thought about. When something is recorded and then played at a later date, time doesn’t exists for that recording. Last night I was listening to Elvis Presley. Elvis has been dead for 41 years but, last night I was listening to him sing as if he was right there with me. I thought it was interesting that the first time this really happened was with Bell and his telephone. He used a dead persons ear drum to record vibrations. That is the most insane genus thing I’ve heard. To use a dead persons ear breaks so many walls of time because in a way, that person is hearing something and they never should have again. The idea of displaced time and space is an interesting one that I did not expect from this class.

As students, I don’t believe we owe anything to historical accuracy. When we are making songs for our projects, our use of midi files don’t matter. However, I believe that musicians do have a responsibility to historical accuracy. When making music for the public, artists should create truth and not publicize lies. Especially when music has become so political in recent times. Take Childish Gambino’s new song “This is America,” in the music video multiple references were made to mass shootings, police brutality, and to minstrel shows.  Because of this Gambino was sure that everything was historically accurate because he knows he is influencing people and how they think. When large amounts of people are going to be listening to your music and influenced by it, you have a responsibility to historical accuracy.

I decided to make two posts on the same class because, while the MP3 discussion is relevant to the class, what makes a good song is relevant to me. As I stated in class, I believe what makes a song good is how it makes the artists and the listener feel. The beat and the lyrics and the soul the artist puts into the song is what creates the feeling. I have listened to songs with great beats and meaningful lyrics but if the artist isn’t feeling it than it’s not a song I feel I can fully enjoy. What makes a song good is not just about musical rules and lyrics and beats separately, its about how all those things make the listener feel. If a beat makes you feel like bopping, and the lyrics make you feel something, be it happiness or sadness, and if you can feel the artists energy, if you listen to a song and it provokes an emotion that is in someway enjoyable to you, then it is a good song.

I really liked the way Prof. O’Malley began the discussion of Jefferson and Hamiltons positions on how the country should be set up. He began with the question; “Which is freedom?” The debate between Jefferson and Hamilton directly impacted the U.S. and how it is operated today yet I feel that most people never thought of it this way. Jefferson believed that freedom was everyone being a farmer so that they are self sufficient. On the other hand, Hamilton believed that freedom lies in industrialization and specialization. While I understand where Jefferson was coming from, because being self sufficient is indeed freedom, I believe he was entirely wrong.  With specialization comes the freedom to be whoever/whatever you want. I strongly believe that that is what America is about, being able to do and be whatever you want.

The creation of MP3’s is surprisingly more interesting than I thought it would be. One thing that sparked my interest was that in order for the songs to fit, the redundancy is removed. That aspect caught my attention because it doesn’t mean what I originally thought it did. When I think of redundancy in music I think of the repetition of lyrics and musical themes. But, the redundancy that is removed is on a deeper level, the sounds we don’t even hear. This way, the song sounds exactly the same but is electronically smaller. Another fact that I found interesting was that originally the MP3 was not going to be finalized. Witt describes that, after years of dreaming and hard work, the patten for the MP3 was not approved because of money. Witt described that the idea of something like it had been running through peoples heads since the 70’s and then when Brandenburg had done it, the men in charge didn’t want it.

What interested me most about class today was the topic of Harmonious Buildings. It makes complete sense that instruments would be created in harmonious proportions but I never thought of that being applied to buildings. Room sizes and the shapes of buildings are created with an almost musical thought process. One question asked stuck out to me; “Are there rules for the way things work for proportions?” While of course there are physical rules where if things aren’t a certain way the building will fall. I don’t believe there are rules for the way things should be made. Architecture has become an art form and the fact that a crucial idea music has been applied to the physical art is amazing.

Sampling began as an underground art mainly used by rappers; however, when it became more popular, companies started realizing that this broke copyright and they could get money for it. The laws then came that said “if you sample it, you have to pay for it.” This became a real problem for historians. My plan is to be a history teacher so, when this point was made, I got a little nervous. In order to teach history you have to be able to play the music from it to your students. I have heard that if it is for educational purposes, you don’t have to pay. But, as corporations get more and more money hungry, it concerns me that the free usage might go away.

While discussing copyright there was one thing I could think about, Taylor Swift and Apple. When Apple first came out with their Apple Music streaming service, they offered the first month free. However, this caused the artists whose music was being played to not get paid for the use of their work. Taylor Swift publicly stated that that she did not agree with this and that her music would not be on Apple Music until Apple would pay the artists. Apple trying to not pay musicians at all is direct violation of copyright.

Because of the internet, no one has authority over what you can see and how you see it. However, museums hold onto that authority very strongly. Museums hold their authority in various ways; first, they don’t let patrons touch anything. This preserves the thing as it was, keeping it in that time period. This is both a good and a bad thing. Not touching the artifacts and props helps people learn about history and how things used to be but, by letting people touch things, they understand it more and, create history in it. Every person who writes “Liz was here” on something has just created history and has made an otherwise unimportant moment, memorable. I’m still not sure which one I think is more valuable. While, as a history major, I want to teach history as it actually was but, I also see the importance of created history and a gaining a deeper understanding, both of which would come from touching things.

Going back to how museums have authority; one example we talked about in class really stood out to me. A museum got a lunch counter from the civil rights time period that was used for a sit in. When placed at normal level, the museum noticed that people didn’t think about the civil rights movement, they thought about lunch counters. The museum then placed it on a podium and then people saw the message that the museum was trying to get across. This is interesting to me because all that had to be done was change the angle in which people saw the bench and it changed their whole view.