Doesn't everyone say they listen to "all kinds of music"? I suppose I like a variety of music, but I have a definite type that I like. My husband sometimes calls me "music Nazi" because I can be very opinionated about what I'm in the mood to hear. A lot of the contemporary music I like is moody British rock or singer-songwriter stuff. I really like classic rock; growing up, I would listen to anything my dad liked, which was mainly 60s and 70s rock. These days, I'm trying to do a better job of keeping up with contemporary music. Probably my favorite band at the moment is Muse, a British rock group. I went to a concert of theirs a couple months ago, and it was epic. With all music, vocals are really important to me; I was in choir for many years and always have to pick apart the singing. I tend toward real epic belt-it-out songs, not those ones where it seems like the singer is mumbling with no purpose.
The stuff that really gets to me are songs that seem to have some history behind them, a timeless sound. "Old Man" by Neil Young is one of my all-time favorite songs; it's no wonder I've been accused of having the musical tastes of a 60-year-old man. I think this song is incredibly profound. I'm not really sure what it's "about," but I love it anyway.
Old man, look at my life I'm a lot like you were
Old man look at my life Twenty four and there's so much more Live alone in a paradise That makes me think of two
Love lost, such a cost Give me things that don't get lost Like a coin that won't get tossed Rolling home to you.
Old man, take a look at my life I'm a lot like you I need someone to love me the whole day through Ah, one look in my eyes and you can tell that's true.
Lullabies, look in your eyes Run around the same old town Doesn't mean that much to me To mean that much to you
I've been first and last Look at how the time goes past But I'm all alone at last Rolling home to you
Old man take a look at my life I'm a lot like you I need someone to love me the whole day through Ah, one look in my eyes and you can tell that's true
Old man look at my life I'm a lot like you were I looked around online and found this quote, which is how Neil Young explained this song in live performance:
About that time when I wrote "Heart of Gold" and I was touring, I had also -- just, you know, being a rich hippie for the first time -- I had purchased a ranch, and I still live there today. And there was a couple living on it that were the caretakers, an old gentleman named Louis Avala and his wife Clara. And there was this old blue Jeep there, and Louis took me for a ride in this blue Jeep. He gets me up there on the top side of the place, and there's this lake up there that fed all the pastures, and he says, "Well, tell me, how does a young man like yourself have enough money to buy a place like this?" And I said, "Well, just lucky, Louie, just real lucky." And he said, "Well, that's the darndest thing I ever heard." And I wrote this song for him.
I had always gotten the feeling that through this song, Young was talking to a particular man; I thought maybe it was his father. The song sounds almost bitter in parts: "Twenty four and there's so much more"--given that Young found wealth and fame at an early age, it suggests he still needed other things ("someone to love me") to make his life meaningful. That is one thing that a young person and an old person would have in common.
I definitely have a thing for the singer-songwriter genre; this song is part country, part folk. It was written in the 70s, and although this song isn't really political, I'm fascinated by the music of the 60s and 70s and the anti-war songs. When I taught English 11 two years ago, the required text was The Things They Carried (one of my absolute favorites), and I did a short protest-music unit with it. One song I used was "Ohio" by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, a song about the shooting of college students by the National Guard during a war protest. I also used "Fortunate Son" by CCR and a few others. If I teach English 11 again, I'll definitely expand upon this mini-unit. Students could find a song that protests something and share it with the class: what is being protested and why, and how is the message being delivered.
Brandon Flowers (album title Flamingo) I have been obsessed with this album lately. Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of The Killers, a band I was never that into. But I heard an interview with him on NPR and was intrigued by the concept of his solo album, which came out in summer 2010. Brandon Flowers grew up near Las Vegas, and the album is sort of a tribute to his hometown. He explores all sides of the city: the excitement, the excesses, the people who are down on their luck and can't get out of that town. I really connected with this album because I love Vegas and its mythology. I bought the album just before our trip to Vegas in October. Now, this album reminds me of being on that trip, which is why I literally couldn't listen to anything else during my three or four weeks of post-Vegas vacation withdrawal. (Yes, it took that long. I needed another break, apparently).
This music video is for the major single off the album, "Crossfire." It's not my favorite song, but since the music video came with it, I thought I'd watch and analyze it.
There’s a still in the street outside your window You’re keepin’ secrets on your pillow Let me inside, no cause for alarm I promise tonight not to do no harm I promise you baby, I won't be no harm
And we're caught up in the crossfire Of heaven and hell And were searching for shelter Lay your body down...
Watching your dress as you turn down the light I forget all about the storm outside Dark clouds roll their way over town Heartache and pain came pouring down like Chaos in the rain, yeah They're handing it out
And we're caught up in the crossfire Heaven and hell And were searching for shelter Lay your body down...
Tell the devil that he can go back from where he came His fire he airs all through their beating vein. And when the hardest part is over we'll be here And our dreams will break the boundaries of our fears
The video is pretty interesting and not at ALL what I expected. In short, it features Charlize Theron repeatedly saving Brandon Flowers from various ninja attacks. It's shot like a mini-movie with different scenarios: in each one, Brandon is tied up, bloody and bruised, and Charlize Theron appears out of nowhere to kick ninja ass. She is dressed in pants and a tank top that's somewhat revealing but not overly so, and she's wearing minimal makeup. Throughout all this, Brandon is the man-in-waiting. He needs her to rescue him, and he smiles appreciatively at her when she does, but they never kiss or anything. They exchange some meaningful looks that suggest these "characters" have a history, but none of it is shown in the video. At the end, they drive off in a car together.
"Crossfire" is a love song, but it seems this video has turned things around by making the male the one who is waiting to be found and loved. Brandon's character is very passive. The song starts by the male promising to do no harm, and that's the only part where he is singing along. Even though I think this video is a little goofy, the idea intrigues me. Brandon Flowers is known for being a flamboyant showman with The Killers (wearing eyeliner, the whole bit), but in this video, he's dirty, helpless, and beat up. Perhaps he's trying to show a more vulnerable side? (Swoon!) This video seems like an attempt to create a softer image of the lead singer of a rock band. Since this is his first solo album, it's trying to set him apart from his image with The Killers.
I think it'd be fun to have students analyze a music video like this that tells a story. (Another one that comes to mind is "The Scientist" by Coldplay). They would watch the video on mute first and infer the relationship between the characters. Then they'd follow along with the lyrics and see how they contribute additional meaning to the story being told in the video.
Several years ago, I taught a unit around the film Super Size Me, and it was incredibly successful. I would love to repeat it sometime.
-Students watched the film and recorded important details about Morgan Spurlock's health decline as he trudged through his month of McDonald's. -Students went on the McDonald's website and analyzed the nutrition info for various foods. (This part required them to do some math, which made me feel very multidisciplinary!). They also looked at how easy/difficult it is to find nutrition info while at McDonald's in person or using the website. -I would also want students to analyze the message of the film and its possible limitations. For starters, it follows one guy's experience, and his consumption of McDonald's was extreme; there is the McDonald's-only diet on one extreme and veganism (his girlfriend) on the other. Students could look into recent changes in fast food offerings and see how they are improving.
I am analyzing the documentary "It Might Get Loud," which features three gods of the rock guitar world: Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, Jack White of the White Stripes, and The Edge (David Evans) of U2. (Personally, I think Jimmy Page is the only one who deserves Rock God status, but don't get me started on that). These men have made millions on their distinctive guitar sounds, and the documentary puts them together in one room just to see what happens. On the surface, this movie seems to have no agenda: rock music is supposed to be everything that politics is not. But having no agenda IS having an agenda in itself, isn't it? And looking deeper, I found that even though this movie seems to have no real purpose other than to drool over guitars, it does make a statement about the music industry.
This is truly a documentary for rock geeks (if such a contradiction can exist)--people who want to understand where the music comes from. There is extensive footage of The Edge messing with guitar effects; he admits he's not an amazing player on his own, but his gift lies in manipulating the sounds coming out of the speakers. He knows how to engineer certain sounds from his guitar and uses those sounds to create the feeling of the song. The documentary takes The Edge back to his old high school, where he and the other guys used to rehearse in a classroom.
Jack White, despite his relatively young age, establishes himself as an opinionated old-school musician; he says that today's technology has destroyed a lot of musical creativity. He plays all sorts of busted instruments because he likes the challenge, and he makes weird instruments too. He is a purist. Growing up in Detroit, knew it was considered uncool to play an instrument; hip-hop and electronic music were popular, but they have no appeal to him.
Jimmy Page agreed that pop music in his age was crap, so he wanted to play the blues instead. Jimmy Page...where do I start? I'm a huge Zeppelin fan, so of course I'm all over any footage he's in. Apparently it was a total coincidence that he even started on guitar. His family moved to a new house and a previous owner had left a guitar behind. Oddly enough, in his youth, Page played in a nerdy sort-of blues/rockabilly band where all the boys wore collared shirts onstage; he never dreamed he'd be famous one day.
So what happens when Page, White, and Evans get together? Well, it gets sorta loud, but it's not as epic as it could be; mostly it's a music appreciation lesson. They listen to records of artists that inspired them, and they listen to each other play some well-known riffs, but since they all have such different styles and don't seem to be super close friends, it feels a little stilted. Near the end they have some cool stuff going on, though...I mean, how much can I really complain?
This is a documentary for, by, and about music geeks. Rock music lovers might be the most obvious target, but I think anyone who appreciates the technical aspects of music and recording could get something out of it. I think if this movie has an agenda, it's to prove that these guys are real musicians and that that still means something today. A lot of music now is electronic or fake in some way, but Page, White, and Evans actually play instruments, write their own parts, construct their own sounds, and have a sincere appreciation for the craft. These guys worship music and guitars themselves, and they want to keep music "pure." While not naming names, they take a definite stance against music that is not really authentic.
This documentary is unique because it mostly hides the spectacle of rock music. It showcases not the whole bands or the frontmen (well, Jack White kind of is) but the sometimes-underappreciated lead guitarists to show how integral they are to their bands' trademark sounds. It shows some footage of them onstage, but not much; mostly they are in natural settings with their guitars, just playing and doing what they do best. No costumes, no special lights, just music. Just guitars.
I'd have students start by discussing whether or not they watch the news and if so, if students or their parents have any "favorite" news personalities. Many people are loyal to their anchors and have ones they like and dislike. We would discuss the traits (personality and physical) that students believe are important in a newscaster. Students would then watch a few different local broadcasts and look at the anchors featured on each and take notes on what they see in terms of: -Style of speech, esp. moments when the anchors go off-script -Clothing/accessories -Race/gender/size/weight/other types of diversity Also, I have noticed that many news anchors use social networking, email, etc. to get in touch with viewers. Most of them at least have a Q&A profile listed on the news station's website. I would have students read some of these anchors' information and comment on their content. What sorts of information is given, and does it match with each anchor's TV persona?
I watched Fox 9 News at 5:30 on Tuesday evening for the first time ever. I'm not a big news watcher anymore, but I used to watch it all the time, the Today Show in the morning (to the extent you can call that a news show) and the 10:00 news most evenings. This was all before I started teaching on an asscrack-of-dawn schedule. Now I rarely watch the news on TV because I don't allow enough time in the morning and can't stay up until 10. Instead, I get my news from MPR and the internet, which I prefer anyway. I find those sources more reliable and in-depth and less annoying in terms of fake-news stories. Sometimes I do miss the ritual of watching the news on TV, but I stay well-informed through other means, as I check news websites like cnn.com at least once per day and listen to MPR at least once per day. I'm actually a lot more into news now that I don't just see it on TV; I feel I'm more engaged.
Here is my timeline of the 5:30 Fox 9 news:
FOX NEWS 5:30 on Tuesday 11/9 Anchors: Jeff Passolt, Marni Hughes, Jim Rich (sports), Ian Leonard (weather)
-Tire slashings near Lake of the Isles (lead-off story) -Hit and run in Bloomington 5:32 -Charges against nurse for assisted suicide 5:34--short story, the nurse is from MN but the suicides took place in Canada and England -House explosion in WI 5:34 -Fridley High School donkey basketball game/conflict with PETA 5:35 (more at 9) -Weather report outdoors 5:36 -Stories up next before commercials: grandma tries to sell grandchild, flight prices going up, Joe Mauer winning Gold Glove -Holiday travel, flights cost 17% more this year (with travel expert, extensive conversation and Q&A and graphics)--started at 5:40 -Increasing # of senior citizen drivers 5:45 -Woman in FL tried to sell baby 5:45 “What is wrong with that lady?”--Marni Hughes -Minnesota Wild update 5:46 -Devoe Joseph (Gopher bball, wooooo!) did not play in last night’s exhibition 5:47 -Joe Mauer won 3rd Gold Glove 5:48 -Timberwolves lost 5 straight games 5:48 -Sunset pic sent in by a viewer 5:48 -Ian Leonard reporting on weather from a bar in St. Louis Park (mingles in crowd, sits down with a group of people, awkward conversation); 7-day forecast; ends at 5:51 -Stories up next before commercials: “Betty White’s new job” -Mentioned after commercials: donkey basketball game AGAIN, story following a mom who’s a recovering alcoholic -Betty White is a forest ranger 5:55--last story
Most of these stories were of local interest. The first few stories centered around crime; the leadoff story was about several cars in Minneapolis that had their tires slashed overnight. The longest story by far was about the increasing cost of holiday travel. They had on a travel expert who talked with the anchor for several minutes, giving advice on how to find good deals despite the higher prices. This consumer news/info piece lasted about 4-5 minutes.
Then there were several local sports stories, only about a minute apiece. They provided a quick update on how our local teams are doing and showed brief footage of each.
The weather took 3-4 minutes because Ian Leonard was reporting from a bar in St. Louis Park and was determined to mingle with the crowd and make new friends, despite the awkward reactions of the customers. He explained the week's forecast for about 20 seconds but spent the rest of the time chatting it up with people (and not even chatting about the weather).
A story that got 2 mentions, even though it wasn't going to be on the air, was the controversial donkey basketball game at Fridley High School. They did it as a fundraiser or school event of some kind, but PETA got up in arms about it, so the controversy was to be reported on the 9:00 news, yet the story was mentioned twice during the 5:30 broadcast.
Near the end of the broadcast, the top story became Betty White's new job--she is now a forest ranger. This was the last story , suggesting that apparently they try to end on a positive note.
Content-wise, it was about what I expected--mainly news and some ridiculous fluff thrown in. Betty White and the donkey basketball game definitely didn't need to be in there, but the rest of the stories contained at least somewhat legitimate news. All in all, I found this broadcast to be pretty lighthearted and informal compared to, say, NBC Nightly News. This broadcast had a community feel; it was laid-back and not very high-tech. It seemed like the anchors were trying to be "regular people"--they showed a bit of their reactions to the stories, like when Marni Hughes editorialized on the woman who tried to sell her grandchild, and they expressed sympathy for the people whose tires were slashed. Some might see those comments and the weatherman's schmoozing at the bar as unprofessional. I don't really have a strong feeling either way, but it's definitely a tactic that would appeal to viewers who want a more relaxed style.
For the genre analysis, I decided to analyze cooking shows. I’m a lover of anything to do with food and cooking,, and I have my favorite shows on both Food Network and the Cooking Channel: Jamie Oliver, Barefoot Contessa, Giada DeLaurentis, Nigella Lawson, and David Rocco, to name a few. When I first started watching these shows, I had just gotten married (and getting cable came with it). I had always enjoyed eating, but as for cooking, I was a complete novice. Watching shows on the Food Network made me a quick learner, plus having someone else to cook for was a motivating factor. I soon learned all about ingredients and techniques, and I could figure out where I’d been going wrong before. Watching these shows is valuable to me because they involve a lot more than just following recipes. The hosts explain the techniques step-by-step, and viewers can follow the progress visually. Hosts explain which ingredient combinations work together and how to avoid common problems. Some hosts encourage experimentation or variations on their recipes. Overall, they need to have some entertainment value beyond just the recipe. Anyone can find a recipe, but cooking shows walk people through the process, which is especially helpful for beginning cooks. Even so, cooking shows need to be more than just instructions. No one would watch a dry show where the host simply went through the motions. Each “celebrity chef” has his/her own persona that attracts viewers just as much as the food does.
By watching a lot of cooking shows (and also reading cookbooks as if they were novels), I learned not just how to make some dishes but, more importantly, to trust my instincts as a cook. The cooking shows’ mixt of entertainment, information, and instruction got me hooked. Now if only I could figure out a way to meet the Barefoot Contessa...
The Typical “Storyline” of a Cooking Show (specifically Rachael Ray’s 30-Minute Meals) -Before the show’s intro song, Rachael begins with a hint to the show’s recipe(s) using a catchy “hook.” (For example: “Want to impress the crowd at this year’s Superbowl party? Today I’ll show you some fun dishes that will wow your friends, and they’ll be ready in under 30 minutes!”). Depending on the show, there’s always some kind of theme that ties the menu together: she’s done date-night dinners, budget dinners, finger foods, breakfast-for-dinner, kid-friendly dinners, etc. No matter what the theme, the same message is clear: it’s rewarding to cook for yourself and others, and you should make time for it because it’s really not that difficult.
-Rachel gets all the ingredients out of the fridge and pantry (usually making a joke about how many things she can carry at once) and explains in more detail what she will make during the episode.
-She starts preparing the recipe and explains it step-by-step, giving hints and tips along the way. While chopping, sauteing, and stirring, she talks directly to the audience in an encouraging manner, as if the viewers are welcome friends. She often sidetracks to a story about how she first learned about the dish or a bit of trivia about an ingredient. This type of banter gives the show its character and makes it more than just instructions.
-Given that the show is called 30-Minute Meals, the food is always done right at the end of the show. Rachael finishes by showing off the completed dish, oohing and aahing over it, pointing out all the yummy last-minute features (melted cheese, sprinkle of herbs) and taking a bite, loudly exclaiming its deliciousness. It always turns out perfectly.
Assumptions/Limitations of Cooking Shows I feel I’ve learned a lot from cooking shows shows, but I do think the cultural phenomenon of cooking shows and TV networks is pretty odd. As Michael Pollen points out in a piece for the New York Times, more and more people are watching cooking shows but not taking the opportunity to cook for themselves. Instead, people are eating restaurant food or processed, ready-to-eat meals. Few people cook from scratch on a regular basis; with busy lives, few are willing to devote much time to cooking, no matter how appealing the end result might be.
Cooking shows operate under the assumption that you have both the time and money to apply to cooking (but it doesn’t really matter if you don’t--they make money just by having viewers and fans). I think the money issue is significant. Rachael Ray will say that pasta makes a cheap dinner, but then again, the fresh basil on top can cost a lot and/or be difficult to find for people lacking access to fresh ingredients. The hosts of these shows are working in clean, well-equipped kitchens with sharp knives and fully-stocked pantries and fridges; given these situations, of course it’s easy to cook something great. The fact is that it’s challenging for lower-income people to find and afford quality ingredients, and even middle-class people would need to stretch their budgets to cook a Rachael Ray recipe every day. On cooking shows, the ingredients and supplies are just magically there.
I think the point of cooking shows may be to encourage people to cook, but really, the shows are profitable whether people cook or not. TV chefs are celebrities, and “food entertainment” is a big industry. As Mario Batali has pointed out (he’s quoted in Pollen’s article), each of these celebrity chefs has his/her own persona. Rachael Ray is the cheerful, family-friendly cook. Nigella Lawson is the sexy one who turns each episode into food porn. Jamie Oliver is the quirky, homebody, nature-loving type. Ina Garten is the elegant yet casual one who loves to cook for her husband. It seems everyone has a favorite they latch onto and identify with. These personalities are crucial to the success of their shows. These people need to be able to connect with an audience and explain things in an easily understandable way.
Cooking shows can also mask some of the gender inequities that persist in the cooking world. The Food Network seems to have a good mix of male and female hosts, but in real-life kitchens, few women hold top positions. I’ve noticed that on the competitive shows that recruit real-life chefs (such as Chopped), almost all are men. I think it’s so ironic that while cooking has long been viewed as “women’s work,” men still dominate the high posts in most restaurants.
Cooking shows also glorify the food industry while ignoring the difficult reality of a typical chef or cook’s daily work. TV hosts never have to sweat over the burners or work the line in a bustling kitchen; some don’t even chop their own onions. It’s important to remember that cooking shows really are for entertainment. If the show was boring, no one would watch it, no matter how great the food is.
