Chariots of Fire and dog food

Continuing in the line of classical music and intertextuality, I would like to comment on an example of what I think is intertextuality that has become problematic: using classical music in adverts for mundane goods. I remember some years ago I was in the next room from the television when I heard “Chariots of Fire” by Vangelis beginning to play. Being rather a fan of this particular piece I ran to the television so as to feast my eyes on what I imagined would be moving, ethereal images only to be met with slobbering staffies with bright yellow collars racing in slow motion towards a finish line, after which they were rewarded with a soggy looking bowl of dog food. This unfortunate image will sadly always be associated with this once magnificent piece of work. Gone are the days when crowds would gather at an entertainment hall to appreciate recitals by distinguished composers. Now classical music has been reduced to selling cleaning agents and dog food. Advertising has turned outstanding pieces of art into mundane fragments of sound that are largely associated with comedy and moments of absurdity. I’m not saying that classical music should not be used in advertising at all, I’m suggesting that those intending on using a piece of classical music should carefully consider its origins and meanings so as not to degrade the piece in any way. Using O Fortuna for a British Airways advert I would say is appropriate, but to use the William Tell Overture for a anti-dandruff shampoo advert I would say is highly unflattering and debasing for such a piece of music.

High flyers... or Brain fryers?

Today I was driving behind a truck that advertised a company specializing in eliminating cell phone radiation, thus protecting your safety and life. It got me wondering about how safe cell phones really are, and whether the dangers and recurrent threats (and the subsequent quashing of them) really are warranted. Using a cell phone may be like cigarette use (and just as addictive it seems)…with one sms taking off a second of our lives... but we continue anyway.
Cell phones have irrevocably changed the culture in which we live – we have become marvelously skilled multitaskers… able to have a conversation with someone while smsing under the table, drive one handed while we chat to people over the phone, conference call with people across the world… etc. But all this is useless if you die of cancer from using your high flying technologically advanced radiation exuding cell phone!
All cell phones emit radiation, even if in small amounts, in order to function. To get technical – the radiation is generated in the transmitter of a cell phone, and then emitted through the antenna.
According to the Federal Communications commission, electromagnetic radiation is made up of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving at the speed of light.
Some of this radiation has to get absorbed by the tissue in our heads – since we hold our cell phones so close to them. There are 2 types of radiation : the damaging one, which is used in X-rays and is called ionizing radiation, and then the safe one, which has a heating effect, such as in a microwave, visible light, and radio frequencies.

Have you ever noticed how hot your ear gets when you are on the phone for a long period? This is caused by radiation…and is thought to be potentially damaging because our bodies are not designed to handle excessive amounts of heat.
There seems to be mixed evidence as to whether cell phones are dangerous or not, but some of the ailments that could potentially be caused or worsened by cell phones include cancer, brain tumors, alzheimer’s, parkinsons, fatigue and headaches.

It appears that the majority of the population is un-phased by possible dangers of cell phones, although it did become very popular at one stage to have one of those flashing stickers attached somewhere on one’s phone. It seemed more of a fashion fad than anything else though. Perhaps so few cell phone users are reacting to the speculation because today’s consumers are so used to being informed that something is bad, and then good, and then bad again, that they have decided to ignore threats and just make up their own minds.

It would seem that speculation is not worth acting upon when it comes to something as indispensable as a cell phone.

Photographic knowledge

Photography is something we see and use almost every day of our lives. It is used in advertising, on billboards, in magazines etc., and is an enormous means of marketing and sales in its adaptation to connect the consumer and the product. But the other very important aspect photography gives to the world is its means of providing knowledge and information to humans. Throughout my school career I was given photographs of certain things in order to help my understanding of the topic being discussed. If this did not occur I don't know what I would have done! Just imagine learning about the environment, or certain wild animals and insects without seeing their pictures, it is not always possible to go out into the wild just to view them. Learning would be so bland without photography.

Photography also has its grasps in entertainment, we all know of those startling photographs we see on TV and on the internet. It has allowed for the capture of extraordinary moments in history as well as memorable moments in the present. Seeing the first man on the moon gave me goosbumps, not to mention all the other historical moments in the world, all thanks to our little friend- the camera. We should be extremely grateful for photography and the ways it has provided us with the large amounts of information, and for the ways in which we can capture happy memories with our friends and families.

Capabilities of photography

New media technology has developed to such an extent that it has allowed for cameras to be able to take photographs from outer space. Although this was done years ago, cameras have developed enormously since then. We are able to swallow minute cameras so that they can take a journey through our bodies recording photographs and even live video feeds. X-rays and CAT scans help humans medically and photograph problem areas. The technology humans have developed in the years has been of great help to the world as well as great interest to the world.

In my short life so far, I have witnessed the increasing development of photographic appliances, not to mention other technology, and it is astonoshing to think of how dramatic the changes have been. Just imagine, if cameras can take detailed photographs of outer space and photos of inside our bodies, with us still being alive, just imagine what they will be capable of doing in a few years.. Cameras have shown their adaptability of environmental conditions, in outer space and inside acidic environments, they still capture what they need to in the given time. The technology of photography, as well as the technology of the world is changing, giving us more knowledge of the world we live in as well as giving us the option to live an 'easier' life with all the capabilities of it. But will this ever increasing development change our culture? Will it ease the way of work and provide a more satisfactory path of life? We will see in time to come...

Taryn Brown

Computer obsessed?

Although some might use photography to capture people or happenings in order to earn a living, and in some ways create fame, others use cameras to express and show others things about themselves and their lives. Websites such as Facebbok and Flickr.com allow for this to occur, across a vast space, for a large audience. As I am sure, the mass of people reading this are either registered to one of these websites or have visited the site once before. Facebook allows for communication between people far and near but also permits them to post photographs of their choice on the site for millions to view. Flickr is similar, but more so for those individuals inspiring in photography, more 'professional' photos are posted and may be viewed by the site visitors.

I myself am registered for facebook, and it gives me the option to publish my photographs for people all around the world to see. Facebook is a very useful website, but one negative thing about it is that it is slowly turning the world into obsessed computer users. People sit at their computers daily on these websites, especially facebook, viewing photos of others they know, what ever happened to ordinary photo albums??

I am not saying facebook is horrible, it allows us to communicate with friends and family far away, it is just incorporating more technological activities into our lives, allowing us to become obsessed with the internet and our computers, tearing us away from the social world..

Taryn Brown

Copies of copies of copies...

Intertextuality in music today is immeasurable. Songs make reference to ideas, occurrences and subject from other times and places ad infinitum. But is it ethical to use melodies, lyrics and/or backing in some songs that are identical to an older song? Is right that parts of older songs are claimed and made into something different? I was watching television the other night when an advert for a bakkie came on, backed by a song originally produced by the Cardigans called “My Favourite Game”. This new version for me had turned what was a racy, funky, vivacious song into country-style sing-along. If producing a song is anything like creating an artwork, it takes time and precision distinct to that particular artist, and a reproduction of the work is never as good as the original. When I hear a song that contains some element of a song before its time I cannot help but compare it to the original, and the copy will always come off second best. But what is more concerning for me is that in this age where our world is saturated with copies of copies (otherwise known as what Baudrillard termed simulacrum) it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognise that which is an original and that which is not. For instance the first time I heard the song “Everybody Hurts” it was sung by The Corrs, and it was only later that I found out that the original artist was R.E.M., and the same goes for “American Pie” by Don McLean which was most unfortunately confused to have been originally produced by Madonna. This to me is a kind of legalised theft, where the reproduced song has been labelled the authentic version because the original has disappeared in time. While I realise that the copy of an original can be far more appealing and can bring an exciting freshness to the work for the audience, when the song is no longer associated with the original artist then that artist I feel has been robbed.

Another crazy crime prevention idea

There is something to be said about music and its effects on people. When I worked at Guess I tried a little experiment with the music that was played in the store: Timbaland’s “The Way I Are” vs. some tracks by Goo Goo Dolls. By far Timbaland outstripped Goo Goo Dolls in terms of the number of people that came into the store who were quite clearly attracted by the lively feel of the track. By contrast far less people came into the store whilst Goo Goo Dolls was playing, and those that did enter exited the store sooner and looked rather a lot gloomier, but this could also have been because of the price of a pair of premium denim jeans. Music that is not to people’s liking has the effect of driving them away. In the UK a supermarket chain tried playing classical music outside their shops for long periods of time to see if it made a difference with youth gangs. Surprisingly, reports of theft and loitering decreased significantly; classical music was obviously too much to bear for the young adults. My mother would often play classical music when I was younger and my immediate reaction was always “Who died Mom?” after which I promptly stuffed my fingers in my ears. Assuming that most crime committers are young and embedded in popular culture, and probably quite disinterested in classical music, is it then possible to say that if we pumped out loud classical music from our homes, work places, and shopping areas all day and everyday, crime would decrease? Could something as simple as playing dreary, unpopular music drive away a potential thief?