The other day I got into an argument with another republican. I think I've found the major flaw in their capitalistic economic theory. At the core of their economic argument is the idea that all people have the opportunity to work, and if they have a good work ethic, they will succeed. This leads to a lot of contempt towards the lower, impoverished classes. They seem to think that those people are all lazy asses that refuse to work and enjoy sitting in disease ridden allies and eating out of the trash. They don't seem to acknowledge all the factors that come into play in the issue of poverty.
Most people are poor, not because they don't want to get a job, but because they can't get a job. They are the worst possible candidates because of the past history of employment, their economic record, debts, and sometimes criminal record. They can't get jobs because when they walk into an interview, they don't have "nice" clothes to wear and walk in wearing the only tattered clothes they have. Imagine you're a manager at McDonald's Are you going to hire the smelly guy in ripped up clothing, or the high school student? Companies have an image they want to uphold, and that image is destroyed as soon as someone sees the hobo flipping burgers or at the register. Their reputation would be destroyed if they hired someone like that. They can't get jobs anywhere because their resume is a mess. They can't improve their resume because they can't get a job. Poverty is literally a trap. Once you fall in, it's near impossible to climb out. Even if there are people willing to hire the homeless, they're so few and far between that they'd never be found without some sort of advertisement, which they don't do anyway. The entire Republican system is based on the ability to work, they disdain the impoverished because they don't work, never realizing that poverty is not laziness, it's a real economic problem.
A similar argument goes for illegal immigrants. Many of these people are families trying to survive, to escape the starvation of never having a job by fleeing to the US where they might get a job. Their dream is the same dream of the Republicans that treat them with such contempt; the American Dream. The people trying to cross the border do so because they know that if they can work, they have the chance to succeed. Most of them work harder than most middle class Americans and for much worse pay. They are normal people trying to live their lives, trying to provide a better life for their children, and their children's children. The only difference between an illegal immigrant and a hardworking American is that they're from Mexico. So if you're against illegal immigration, Oops! You're racist. Maddox makes an extremely valid point. If companies were forced to pay illegal immigrants the same as normal Americans, any incentive to hire them would be destroyed. The fact that they're willing to work for less makes them harder workers than anyone working the same job for more. Furthermore, illegal immigrants don't "steal" people's jobs, the only jobs they're taking are the lower class, supermarket dead-end jobs. The jobs that nobody really wants. If you get fired from a law firm, and a Mexican takes your place, it's not because he's an illegal immigrant that just took your job, it's because he had better credentials, or was a better at your job than you were.
The arguments against welfare and poverty, saying that poor folk are just "lazy asses" is ignorant and just plain wrong. There might be a tiny percentage of the lower class where that might be true, but for the most part they are normal, honest people down on their luck, trapped in this noose of poverty, with no money or support or ability to get a job. That's why welfare is so important, it gets those people back on their feet, it allows them to get jobs and contribute to society. That's why free public education is so important. That's why jobs in the USA are so important. They are the thing that keeps the lower class of the economy running, it reduces the poverty rate, it allows people the opportunity to work and provides the netting to catch them if they take a financial risk and fall. It gives everyone a more equal opportunity to live the American Dream.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Moderation Systems
As part of trying to find material for this blog, I go on a lot of chat sites, forums, imageboards, ect. This has exposed me a a wide variety of moderation systems, some good, some bad, and some downright fucking awful. But by far, the stupidest system I have ever seen so far the current system of ChatRoulette. The creator of ChatRoulette decided that in order to get rid of all the half-wits fapping on there, he would put the moderation in the hands of the users in the form of a "vote" function, along with some other stupid requirements. Here's how it works
First you have to create an account. New for Chatroulette, but it's a step in the right direction, and not too annoying to do. Second, you have to have at least 3 ten minute long conversation before you can turn on your camera. I imagine this is the point where people say "okay fuck this I'm going to Omegle". Not me. I was determined, I was on a mission to meet some stupid people so I could blog about them. Two hours later, I was visibly pissing people off with caustic sarcasm and scathing insults. However, that proved to be my downfall. The third feature ChatRoulette implemented was a little vote instead of the "next" button. There are two buttons, above the buttons it says "Should this person be allowed to use CR?", and the buttons themselves say "Yes" and "No". If your yes/no votes reach a certain ratio, your account has its "registration declined" and you have to make a new one, therefore having to go through the entire "3 ten minute video" process again.
Lets take a little bit of a closer look at this. This guy is putting the moderation in the hands of the users. The shallow, moronic, biased users. That means the moderation system is biased against people with ugly faces, annoying personalities, and assholes. At least the last one makes sense to try and ban, but the first two don't. The site now has a forum for complaints exactly for situations like these, but you have to be a registered user to post on the forum. So if you get railed by this biased system, you're not allowed to try and fix it either. You'd have to go through all the extra trouble of making a new account and getting it registered, just because you're ugly.
Speaking of moderating systems, I've had the idea for a moderating system that would create a community similar to that of 4chan /b/, minus the morons. Here's how it would work. You have a chat website, there's one room where all of the anons and first timers would go; the main room. There are no word censors, and people are allowed to talk about anything they want, sex, politics, whatever. The moderators would watch the main room for two reasons; kick or ban spammers or bots, and to choose the smartest people in the room to get actual accounts. People with actual accounts would have access to the rest of the rooms where they would be again, no censors, no restrictions, no nothing. This would (hopefully) result in a community of intelligent, similar people, and create enough of a hivemind to create a culture similar to 4chan /b/, minus the stupidity. It probably has some flaws I've overlooked, but it's an idea, and I would like to see how it would work out.
First you have to create an account. New for Chatroulette, but it's a step in the right direction, and not too annoying to do. Second, you have to have at least 3 ten minute long conversation before you can turn on your camera. I imagine this is the point where people say "okay fuck this I'm going to Omegle". Not me. I was determined, I was on a mission to meet some stupid people so I could blog about them. Two hours later, I was visibly pissing people off with caustic sarcasm and scathing insults. However, that proved to be my downfall. The third feature ChatRoulette implemented was a little vote instead of the "next" button. There are two buttons, above the buttons it says "Should this person be allowed to use CR?", and the buttons themselves say "Yes" and "No". If your yes/no votes reach a certain ratio, your account has its "registration declined" and you have to make a new one, therefore having to go through the entire "3 ten minute video" process again.
Lets take a little bit of a closer look at this. This guy is putting the moderation in the hands of the users. The shallow, moronic, biased users. That means the moderation system is biased against people with ugly faces, annoying personalities, and assholes. At least the last one makes sense to try and ban, but the first two don't. The site now has a forum for complaints exactly for situations like these, but you have to be a registered user to post on the forum. So if you get railed by this biased system, you're not allowed to try and fix it either. You'd have to go through all the extra trouble of making a new account and getting it registered, just because you're ugly.
Speaking of moderating systems, I've had the idea for a moderating system that would create a community similar to that of 4chan /b/, minus the morons. Here's how it would work. You have a chat website, there's one room where all of the anons and first timers would go; the main room. There are no word censors, and people are allowed to talk about anything they want, sex, politics, whatever. The moderators would watch the main room for two reasons; kick or ban spammers or bots, and to choose the smartest people in the room to get actual accounts. People with actual accounts would have access to the rest of the rooms where they would be again, no censors, no restrictions, no nothing. This would (hopefully) result in a community of intelligent, similar people, and create enough of a hivemind to create a culture similar to 4chan /b/, minus the stupidity. It probably has some flaws I've overlooked, but it's an idea, and I would like to see how it would work out.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Miracles
The other day I was browsing Youtube, and eventually I got to that part of youtube. The part filled with stupidly addicting videos of useless machines, cats stuck in boxes, massive trash compactors, and the worst of the worst, perpetual motion machines. Overbalanced wheels, self filling funnels, magnetized turbines, the comments of these videos are filled with people claiming "scientists lie to us!", "Do your own experiments!". As soon as anyone mentions "thermodynamics", rage ensues from the pseudo-intellectuals; the people trying to be open minded but too stupid to realize that the basic principles of science are proven facts. The point of scientific laws is that they've already been proven so we can build on them, developing new theories instead of moving backward and trying to disprove something that you can't disprove. Those morons hide behind the excuse that "we have to challenge ideas to move forward." Well they are right, but they misinterpreted. Scientists challenge new ideas. Ideas that haven't been scrutinized, that haven't stood the test of time, the point of challenging ideas is to see if they stand up to the scrutiny. The Laws of Thermodynamics have already withstood centuries of scrutiny. That's why they are scientific Laws. Scientists don't just tack on the "Law" title on to every hypothesis that sort of makes sense. Scientific laws are facts that simply cannot be disproven, no matter how hard you try.
To address the people that claim they've already disproven the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Magnets do NOT stay magnetized forever.
That's right, your self-spinning magnet wheel is not a perpetual motion machine. Those magnets will eventually run out of charge, because the energy it takes to work against the friction of the air and the axle has to come from somewhere. The energy in your magnet was put there in a factory. Remember in 2nd grade where you rubbed a paper clip on a magnet, and then the paper clip was temporarily magnetized? It's the same concept, but with electromagnets that use a lot of energy to magnetize those chunks of metal. Your magnets didn't magically appear on earth, they were created, and their charge artificially generated.
Speaking of magnets, fuck Juggalos. Seriously, they need to shut the fuck up.
Sure science can seem miraculous to the uneducated mind, but in the end, it's science, not miracles, and you're still an idiot.
Another thing that really pisses me off about people who argue against the validity of science is the "It's just a theory" argument. This argument is the one used mostly by christian fundamentalists and creationists, especially when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. Let me make something perfectly clear. Your concept of a "theory" is not the same thing as a scientific theories. A scientific theory isn't "just an idea", it's an idea supported by heaps of evidence and scrutinized countless times. It's still not a perfect theory, but that's the point of science. Right now, it makes the most sense with the evidence that we have, and it's probably going to stay that way. As we discover and learn more about the world, we will iron out the kinks in the theory and we will have a solid understanding of the origin of life. Science is fluid, constantly changing as we learn about the world around us. The more we learn, the more accurate our theories will be. If another theory arises that makes more sense than evolution and has more evidence and fewer flaws, then evolution will be replaced as the leading theory of biological development. This is however, extremely unlikely. And no, creationism does not make more sense than evolution. I'll go more in depth on the evolution versus creationism argument some other day, I'm pretty much done ranting for now.
To address the people that claim they've already disproven the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Magnets do NOT stay magnetized forever.
That's right, your self-spinning magnet wheel is not a perpetual motion machine. Those magnets will eventually run out of charge, because the energy it takes to work against the friction of the air and the axle has to come from somewhere. The energy in your magnet was put there in a factory. Remember in 2nd grade where you rubbed a paper clip on a magnet, and then the paper clip was temporarily magnetized? It's the same concept, but with electromagnets that use a lot of energy to magnetize those chunks of metal. Your magnets didn't magically appear on earth, they were created, and their charge artificially generated.
Speaking of magnets, fuck Juggalos. Seriously, they need to shut the fuck up.
Sure science can seem miraculous to the uneducated mind, but in the end, it's science, not miracles, and you're still an idiot.
Another thing that really pisses me off about people who argue against the validity of science is the "It's just a theory" argument. This argument is the one used mostly by christian fundamentalists and creationists, especially when it comes to the Theory of Evolution. Let me make something perfectly clear. Your concept of a "theory" is not the same thing as a scientific theories. A scientific theory isn't "just an idea", it's an idea supported by heaps of evidence and scrutinized countless times. It's still not a perfect theory, but that's the point of science. Right now, it makes the most sense with the evidence that we have, and it's probably going to stay that way. As we discover and learn more about the world, we will iron out the kinks in the theory and we will have a solid understanding of the origin of life. Science is fluid, constantly changing as we learn about the world around us. The more we learn, the more accurate our theories will be. If another theory arises that makes more sense than evolution and has more evidence and fewer flaws, then evolution will be replaced as the leading theory of biological development. This is however, extremely unlikely. And no, creationism does not make more sense than evolution. I'll go more in depth on the evolution versus creationism argument some other day, I'm pretty much done ranting for now.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Connecticut Game Burning
Alright everybody, prepare for maximum facepalm. Remember that shooting in Connecticut? Well a town not far from there is hosting a protest of violent games and movies, by burning them.
Yes. Burning them
Like a book burning.
Let's go through all the things that are wrong with this situation.
Here's the big one:
There is NO link between violent video games, and violence. This study has been done several times, pretty much after every single school shooting. Every single time, the media hypes and stresses the "effect of video games on today's youth", and every single time, a study is taken out of context to try and support video game violence. This time it's the study conducted by Professor Christopher Ferguson of Texas A&M University. The study concluded with no evidence linking video games to violence. However, if you've ever seen this interview, the information this guy is quoting is basically the information from Ferguson's study, taken out of context. Ferguson was contacted by PC Gamer magazine and told about this improper use of his study. His reply was "they absolutely misused and misrepresented my meta-analysis in that report. My data should, in no way, ever be used to support links between video game violence and aggression. We have done a number of studies of video game violence with both children and adults and find no evidence to support links between video game violence and youth violence. Furthermore, youth violence has declined to 40 year lows, not gone up in recent years".
This story has literally been the same for nearly every shooting, and it hasn't been just video games that have been pinned. It's been movies, to music in the 90s and 80s, to books even before that. Yes, people blamed violent books for violent shootings. We're just repeating this cycle of looking for someone to blame. This is similar to that whole fiasco with the radio DJs that prank called a woman who later committed suicide. Maddox already wrote a whole article about it. While the DJs might more at fault than Maddox would like to admit, this business with blaming game companies is literally the same situation. People want someone to blame, whether it was the shooter's mother, to gun control laws, to fucking video games. The only person you need to blame is the shooter himself. The one who physically took the gun and slaughtered innocent children. Using this tragedy, like that woman's suicide, to guilt people into taking the blame is cowardly.
Besides, what is burning discs going to accomplish? Video game distribution platforms like Steam, uPlay and Origin (hah, Origin, what a shitpile) render this whole protest futile, because you're destroying discs that no one actually uses. Video games don't come on discs anymore, you're not really accomplishing anything by burning them (unless you're a dirty console gaming peasant). Same thing with movies. People don't go out and buy movies that often anymore, unless they're collectors or something, and even then they're not going to burn their beloved collection. People get movies from Netflix, or they just torrent them or something. Maybe they're just trying to send a message, but what does that message say when you're bribing people 25 dollars to burn their discs. I see no possible way that could backfire.
It's not like someone could burn 25 dollars worth in movies, then just go out and buy another 25 dollars worth in violent movie. That's just crazy.
All these idiots are really doing is polluting the atmosphere and shortening their lifespans inhaling the toxic fumes that are going to be created when they burn those discs. Your message is bad, you're doing it wrong, and you're really not understanding the reality of the situation.
The media is just fueling the misconceptions that all video games are violent, and that gamers are evil, heartless people, and all games are blood fests where the sole purpose is mindless violence. Once again, these misconceptions happened and still happen in the world of music. Metal, by some, is considered "satanic". While this is what it may appear like on the outside, if you dig a little deeper, you can find real art, real meaning, and really understand the falsity of those misconceptions. That's the real problem. People accusing video games of causing violence have only really experienced that shallow layer of games like the over-hyped Call of Duty franchise. Human subcultures are bottomless. This is especially true for huge subjects like gaming, music, wine tasting, movies, and books. There's a great XKCD comics about Joe Biden eating sandwiches and twisty straws that illustrate this concept excellently. Just because you've only experienced the top layer of that culture doesn't mean you know what lies underneath.
As for these disc burners, the ignorant will always shout the loudest and tell you that their way of life is better. I love the way Phil Savage of PC Gamer describes them. "Of course, there’s no mention of books being collected. Only crazy people burn books."
Yes. Burning them
Like a book burning.
Let's go through all the things that are wrong with this situation.
Here's the big one:
There is NO link between violent video games, and violence. This study has been done several times, pretty much after every single school shooting. Every single time, the media hypes and stresses the "effect of video games on today's youth", and every single time, a study is taken out of context to try and support video game violence. This time it's the study conducted by Professor Christopher Ferguson of Texas A&M University. The study concluded with no evidence linking video games to violence. However, if you've ever seen this interview, the information this guy is quoting is basically the information from Ferguson's study, taken out of context. Ferguson was contacted by PC Gamer magazine and told about this improper use of his study. His reply was "they absolutely misused and misrepresented my meta-analysis in that report. My data should, in no way, ever be used to support links between video game violence and aggression. We have done a number of studies of video game violence with both children and adults and find no evidence to support links between video game violence and youth violence. Furthermore, youth violence has declined to 40 year lows, not gone up in recent years".
This story has literally been the same for nearly every shooting, and it hasn't been just video games that have been pinned. It's been movies, to music in the 90s and 80s, to books even before that. Yes, people blamed violent books for violent shootings. We're just repeating this cycle of looking for someone to blame. This is similar to that whole fiasco with the radio DJs that prank called a woman who later committed suicide. Maddox already wrote a whole article about it. While the DJs might more at fault than Maddox would like to admit, this business with blaming game companies is literally the same situation. People want someone to blame, whether it was the shooter's mother, to gun control laws, to fucking video games. The only person you need to blame is the shooter himself. The one who physically took the gun and slaughtered innocent children. Using this tragedy, like that woman's suicide, to guilt people into taking the blame is cowardly.
Besides, what is burning discs going to accomplish? Video game distribution platforms like Steam, uPlay and Origin (hah, Origin, what a shitpile) render this whole protest futile, because you're destroying discs that no one actually uses. Video games don't come on discs anymore, you're not really accomplishing anything by burning them (unless you're a dirty console gaming peasant). Same thing with movies. People don't go out and buy movies that often anymore, unless they're collectors or something, and even then they're not going to burn their beloved collection. People get movies from Netflix, or they just torrent them or something. Maybe they're just trying to send a message, but what does that message say when you're bribing people 25 dollars to burn their discs. I see no possible way that could backfire.
It's not like someone could burn 25 dollars worth in movies, then just go out and buy another 25 dollars worth in violent movie. That's just crazy.
All these idiots are really doing is polluting the atmosphere and shortening their lifespans inhaling the toxic fumes that are going to be created when they burn those discs. Your message is bad, you're doing it wrong, and you're really not understanding the reality of the situation.
The media is just fueling the misconceptions that all video games are violent, and that gamers are evil, heartless people, and all games are blood fests where the sole purpose is mindless violence. Once again, these misconceptions happened and still happen in the world of music. Metal, by some, is considered "satanic". While this is what it may appear like on the outside, if you dig a little deeper, you can find real art, real meaning, and really understand the falsity of those misconceptions. That's the real problem. People accusing video games of causing violence have only really experienced that shallow layer of games like the over-hyped Call of Duty franchise. Human subcultures are bottomless. This is especially true for huge subjects like gaming, music, wine tasting, movies, and books. There's a great XKCD comics about Joe Biden eating sandwiches and twisty straws that illustrate this concept excellently. Just because you've only experienced the top layer of that culture doesn't mean you know what lies underneath.
As for these disc burners, the ignorant will always shout the loudest and tell you that their way of life is better. I love the way Phil Savage of PC Gamer describes them. "Of course, there’s no mention of books being collected. Only crazy people burn books."
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Spotlight on Games: Unmechanical
Unmechanical is a beautiful indie game available on Steam for ten dollars. As a a casual puzzle platformer, it can be beaten in about an hour. It uses Unreal engine combined with a unique art style to create a breathtaking gaming experience.
Plot
The plot is the weakest point of this otherwise excellent game. You play a small flying robot trapped in a vast underground complex. The main story line simply follows the escape of the protagonist. The story of the underground complex is murky at best. As the game progresses, the player finds that many similar flying robots are captured and harvested, but to what purpose is never fully explained. My best guess is that the complex is harvesting energy to keep itself running, but if the complex has any actual purpose is never revealed. The game also includes an antagonist "janitor" robot that happens to be kind of a jerk, sometimes hindering the progress of the player.
Graphics and Art
One of the main focus points of the game is its art style. The developers used the Unreal engine to its fullest extent creating an extensive underground world. The art style is primarily an eerie one, from the rusty janitor robot to the giant secretary robot, to the giant cyborg heart. The 3D environments in are incredibly detailed, creating a truly immersive environment, and adding a whole new layer to the experience. The textures are fairly high resolution, and suit the world well. The art style ranges from steampunk, to cyberpunk, and there is a noticeable progression of technology from gears and levers to cybernetics.
A quick word on Unreal engine; I'm so happy things like this exist. It allows indie developers to create beautiful looking games like Sanctum and Unmechanical. It's the perfect engine for almost any kind of game, and allows a huge range of unique games to reach the market.
Gameplay
As a puzzle game, the mechanics are hardly unique. In fact, many of the game mechanics are nearly identical to those of Portal 2. The game utilizes button-box mechanics, laser and bomb puzzles, and even momentum based portal puzzles. While there are several unique puzzles, such as weight puzzles, the similarity to Portal 2 puzzles can hardly be ignored. This, however does not make the puzzles any less challenging or interesting. Most of the puzzles are fairly self explanatory. There was only one puzzle that I had to consult a walkthrough for, and it turned out to be incredibly simple, and I was just over-thinking it. The game has very few glitches, only the usual places where you are able to trap yourself. The game solves those situations very simply by implementing an autosave feature that saves after every puzzle is solved. If they player ever finds themselves trapped, they need only load a save to reset the current puzzle without losing an annoying amount of progress.
Other Thoughts (Spoilers)
The game has a small philosophical choice at the end, you are allowed to either become the Janitor robot after he is killed or simply escape back to the overworld. The escape end implies that the entire facility will slowly shut down as things go wrong, as it seems the janitor robot was the only one that did any maintenance. The janitor ending gives the feeling of inevitability that there will always be evil down below, and eventually you become the very evil that you tried so hard to fight. The philosophy of the ending is very vague, and without a solid plot behind it, is not very meaningful.
Overall, I loved Unmechanical, the art style compensates for its lack of story, the the puzzle mechanics work very well with the other elements, matching the art style seamlessly. While the plot was limited by the lack of dialog, the developers could have done a little more to create a more coherent story line. I was very satisfied with Unmechanical as a game. It was worth the 5 dollars I paid for it, but there isn't enough gameplay for 10 dollars. If you do plan to get it, there's a demo available free on steam, or you can wait for another sale.
Plot
The plot is the weakest point of this otherwise excellent game. You play a small flying robot trapped in a vast underground complex. The main story line simply follows the escape of the protagonist. The story of the underground complex is murky at best. As the game progresses, the player finds that many similar flying robots are captured and harvested, but to what purpose is never fully explained. My best guess is that the complex is harvesting energy to keep itself running, but if the complex has any actual purpose is never revealed. The game also includes an antagonist "janitor" robot that happens to be kind of a jerk, sometimes hindering the progress of the player.
Graphics and Art
A quick word on Unreal engine; I'm so happy things like this exist. It allows indie developers to create beautiful looking games like Sanctum and Unmechanical. It's the perfect engine for almost any kind of game, and allows a huge range of unique games to reach the market.
Gameplay
As a puzzle game, the mechanics are hardly unique. In fact, many of the game mechanics are nearly identical to those of Portal 2. The game utilizes button-box mechanics, laser and bomb puzzles, and even momentum based portal puzzles. While there are several unique puzzles, such as weight puzzles, the similarity to Portal 2 puzzles can hardly be ignored. This, however does not make the puzzles any less challenging or interesting. Most of the puzzles are fairly self explanatory. There was only one puzzle that I had to consult a walkthrough for, and it turned out to be incredibly simple, and I was just over-thinking it. The game has very few glitches, only the usual places where you are able to trap yourself. The game solves those situations very simply by implementing an autosave feature that saves after every puzzle is solved. If they player ever finds themselves trapped, they need only load a save to reset the current puzzle without losing an annoying amount of progress.
Other Thoughts (Spoilers)
The game has a small philosophical choice at the end, you are allowed to either become the Janitor robot after he is killed or simply escape back to the overworld. The escape end implies that the entire facility will slowly shut down as things go wrong, as it seems the janitor robot was the only one that did any maintenance. The janitor ending gives the feeling of inevitability that there will always be evil down below, and eventually you become the very evil that you tried so hard to fight. The philosophy of the ending is very vague, and without a solid plot behind it, is not very meaningful.
Overall, I loved Unmechanical, the art style compensates for its lack of story, the the puzzle mechanics work very well with the other elements, matching the art style seamlessly. While the plot was limited by the lack of dialog, the developers could have done a little more to create a more coherent story line. I was very satisfied with Unmechanical as a game. It was worth the 5 dollars I paid for it, but there isn't enough gameplay for 10 dollars. If you do plan to get it, there's a demo available free on steam, or you can wait for another sale.
Monday, December 24, 2012
My Revised Opinion of Rap versus Metal
I created a post a while back, in the earlier days of the blog about my opinion of rap music. My views have changed a bit since then, and I felt it necessary to write out a post detailing my argument.
I can appreciate some aspects of rap, such as the poetic qualities of the lyrics and the skill it takes to mix a track. However, in general, genres like metal (REAL metal), ska, rock and punk take more skill to write, convey emotion better, and are generally of higher quality.
Here's a breakdown of some of the aspects of music, comparing rap and rock in each respect.
Instrumentals
The "instrumentals" of most rap artists aren't actual instruments, they're computer generated noises. They're mixed to a pretty simple rhythm, often just 4/4 time. The most variation you'll get is maybe adding on another (thin) layer of sounds every few measures and a change during the chorus. For the most part it's just a loop of the same sound while someone raps over it.
The instrumentals of rock consist of (commonly) electric guitar, bass guitar, and drums, all of which take a certain amount of skill to play well. And since each instrument is played by an individual band member, it also requires the skill to coordinate with the other band members to create a good sound. This is particularly true for Ska bands, since Ska also includes brass instruments such as trumpets, trombones and saxophones. At any given time, there are a LOT of people playing, and since it's Ska, they're playing very fast, and therefore rather skillfully. While some of the smaller bands usually use simple time signatures such as 4/4, bands like Tool use extremely advanced time signatures called polyrhythms.
Vocals
This is where rap gets the most credit, because this is basically all rap is. Rap gets points for rhyming lyrics and their poetic qualities, but that's pretty much all it gets points for. Rapping isn't singing, it's just like reciting poetry to a beat, so there's no need to have the skill of a good vocal range, only a decent talking voice. During most songs, their pitch stays pretty much the same as well, it's practically monotone. The emotion of the lyrics doesn't carry through into the music.
Unfortunately for rap, rock also gets big points in vocals. In terms of lyrics and meaning, rock is on par with rap, but in terms of emotion and vocal range, rock takes the cake. In rock, the singer is able to convey his emotion with the pitch and the volume of his voice, screaming out anger or agony, or smoothly singing out happiness or quiet despair. Rock conveys emotions that rap can never convey with its droning.
Live Performances
Rap artists have the whole stage to themselves during a performance, and often they use that space. Rap seems much better live because the artist can punctuate the ideas he's trying to get across with his motions. In terms of effects, there are mostly colored lights, backdrops, and pretty standard things for any performance.
Rock effects are essentially the same, because there's only so much you can do on stage, but a rock band's stage presence is drastically different. The whole band is up there, dominating most of the space on the stage, and they're all active, able to show their emotion through the music and through their motions as they play. The singer's presence is often most dominant, depending on the way the band sets itself up onstage. Because of the way that rock is able to convey more emotion, the singer is far more active, and far more fun to watch onstage than a rap artist.
To finish this off, I'm not saying rap is bad, I'm saying rock is better, and that's why I listen to genres closer to rock than I do rap. Rock takes more skill and more emotion than rap, and an equal if not greater amount of lyrical ability. Rock is better. Period.
I can appreciate some aspects of rap, such as the poetic qualities of the lyrics and the skill it takes to mix a track. However, in general, genres like metal (REAL metal), ska, rock and punk take more skill to write, convey emotion better, and are generally of higher quality.
Here's a breakdown of some of the aspects of music, comparing rap and rock in each respect.
Instrumentals
The "instrumentals" of most rap artists aren't actual instruments, they're computer generated noises. They're mixed to a pretty simple rhythm, often just 4/4 time. The most variation you'll get is maybe adding on another (thin) layer of sounds every few measures and a change during the chorus. For the most part it's just a loop of the same sound while someone raps over it.
The instrumentals of rock consist of (commonly) electric guitar, bass guitar, and drums, all of which take a certain amount of skill to play well. And since each instrument is played by an individual band member, it also requires the skill to coordinate with the other band members to create a good sound. This is particularly true for Ska bands, since Ska also includes brass instruments such as trumpets, trombones and saxophones. At any given time, there are a LOT of people playing, and since it's Ska, they're playing very fast, and therefore rather skillfully. While some of the smaller bands usually use simple time signatures such as 4/4, bands like Tool use extremely advanced time signatures called polyrhythms.
Vocals
This is where rap gets the most credit, because this is basically all rap is. Rap gets points for rhyming lyrics and their poetic qualities, but that's pretty much all it gets points for. Rapping isn't singing, it's just like reciting poetry to a beat, so there's no need to have the skill of a good vocal range, only a decent talking voice. During most songs, their pitch stays pretty much the same as well, it's practically monotone. The emotion of the lyrics doesn't carry through into the music.
Unfortunately for rap, rock also gets big points in vocals. In terms of lyrics and meaning, rock is on par with rap, but in terms of emotion and vocal range, rock takes the cake. In rock, the singer is able to convey his emotion with the pitch and the volume of his voice, screaming out anger or agony, or smoothly singing out happiness or quiet despair. Rock conveys emotions that rap can never convey with its droning.
Live Performances
Rap artists have the whole stage to themselves during a performance, and often they use that space. Rap seems much better live because the artist can punctuate the ideas he's trying to get across with his motions. In terms of effects, there are mostly colored lights, backdrops, and pretty standard things for any performance.
Rock effects are essentially the same, because there's only so much you can do on stage, but a rock band's stage presence is drastically different. The whole band is up there, dominating most of the space on the stage, and they're all active, able to show their emotion through the music and through their motions as they play. The singer's presence is often most dominant, depending on the way the band sets itself up onstage. Because of the way that rock is able to convey more emotion, the singer is far more active, and far more fun to watch onstage than a rap artist.
To finish this off, I'm not saying rap is bad, I'm saying rock is better, and that's why I listen to genres closer to rock than I do rap. Rock takes more skill and more emotion than rap, and an equal if not greater amount of lyrical ability. Rock is better. Period.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Stupid Shit we do in Psychology Class
My psychology class is a fucking party. Just thought I'd share.
OBEY THE EYE
The being that haunts your libido
I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)