Yesterday while I was driving home and listening to CBC radio, and this really interesting song was playing and I ran home to download it. The funny thing was by the time I sat down at the computer to search the song I forgot the name.
If you ask me what type of music I like I will most likely respond " I like all music". Instead my response should be "I appreciate al types of music". I genuinely do like all music.
Indie: Low self esteem, not very hard-working, kind or generous. However, creative.
Rock’n'roll: High self-esteem, very creative, hard-working and at ease with yourself, but not very kind or generous.
Hip-Hop: Class all on its own. There has been more controversy surrounding this music since the Watergate scandal. Excellent entrepreneurs, who are not givers. They are narcissistic. Not really creative, but are great pretenders. Nice!
Reggae: Pothead. Dreamer. Unrealistic.
Sometime creative, but typically eating and sleeping. They lack energy, and zeal. Excellent party goers
Techno: Hm. I don’t think it made the charts, although suffice to say repetition. Generally very bored, kind, realistic and witty.
Classical: High self-esteem, creative and at ease with yourself, but not outgoing.
Opera: High self-esteem, creative, gentle.
I actually found this on Danish National Television. A team of psychologists at the Heriot-Watt University in Scotland are behind a study linking people’s personality and their taste in music. I can’t really tell what I like most of the above seven categories of music, though I guess opera is my favourite.
From the above I can deduce that I’m certainly hardworking. Hm. Giggle. Creative. Somewhat really, you know! Not very kind? Oh my, and I thought I was such a kind person… Not outgoing. Hm, I categorically deny that and I know people who’d dispute that. Dreamer... Yes. I will never deny that, but I am awake and realising the dream. I always want to be Gentle. I’m totally at Ease with myself can’t you tell? Maybe not... Repitition is a good thing with respect to design. Keep in mind repetition with variation is interesting, without variation repetition can become monotonous. So I’m all for repetition. And so on and so forth. Also, I can think of a couple of people, mad about indie music and really, really hardworking!
The study also calls into question your intelligence (or lack thereof)? For example: If you're a fan of Beyonce, then you're probably kind of dumb. (I actually appreciate ‘some’ of her music, not all.) Just thought you'd like to know. Also, Madonna and Aerosmith listeners aren't the brightest lights on the Christmas tree either, so, if you're one of those, don't apply for Jeopardy. Ah now it’s all clear to me why they rejected me from appearing on the show. Just put on your headphones and accept the hard fact that there are some things - well, actually, many things - that you will never understand. The sooner you realize that, the happier you will be.
You see, a CalTech student named Virgil Griffith conducted a highly scientific study about how music tastes correlate with intelligence. By highly scientific, I mean he figured out college students' favorite music by looking at their Facebook profiles and compared that data to a college population's overall S.A.T. scores.
The New Yorker broke it down like this: Students who listened to pop stars like Beyonce and Lil Wayne are stupider than students who listen to Bob Dylan, Counting Crows, or Beethoven....
The list is an excellent instrument of provocation, especially because it seems a little, well, racist, or at least classist....
Interestingly enough, Billy Joel has the fifteenth-smartest preference population (average S.A.T. score of 1147), while jazz (that's right -- the entire genre) has the one-hundred-and-twenty-seventh (average S.A.T. score of 946). Led Zeppelin beats Weezer, and Weezer beats Ben Harper. The top three: Beethoven, Sufjan Stevens, and Counting Crows (hey, no one ever said that intelligence was the same thing as good taste). The bottom three: Beyonce, Lil Wayne, et al (hey, no one ever said intelligence was the same as popular success).
Griffith reveals the results of his research which includes a handy chart in which you can evaluate how smart you,your friends and family are.
However I totally agree with Lawrence Lessig (law professor at Stanford and Internet evangelist) that the music industry must find itself another leg to stand on, because the sharing of music on the Internet is the future and not even an army of lawyers will be able to stop it.
My own music tastes are very eclectic, so the chart tells me that I am simultaneously smart and dumb, which must be some kind of achievement in and of itself. Moreover if you are on this page reading this entry surely by now you might have figured this out. The music playing at the bottom of this page did not appear there by osmosis, I put it there.
The study doesn't really reveal what it means that I am obsessed with Prince (excuse me - I mean "SYMBOL"), but I can make assumptions. I'm kind of a stupid romantic kinky sexy pervert. But you see? I realize that; therefore, I am happy.
What about you?
Postscript...I'm going to download some Opera and Classical music this evening.
Apparently some porn agent really wants me to get back to blogging. KRYSTAL KANE/ADULT MODEL AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE WORK:
Let’s say, as Foucault did, that “capitalism” repressed all forms of sexuality outside of the context of procreative monogamy because sexual activity made use of energy that “capitalism” would rather have at its own disposal in the form of labor, and that procreative monogamous sexuality was only tolerated because it brought more labor power into the world. If “capitalism” has that kind of power (without having a central organizing/orchestrating force other than the shared interests of capitalists), then does it not stand to reason that “capitalism” reasserted its control over sexuality in the wake of the “sexual revolution” by coming to terms with the fact that humans were going to want to have illicit sex and creating a space in which that sex could occur, provided that it was commodified? Foucault made the argument that “capitalism” allowed illicit sex to occur only in the brothel, but I’m sure if he were alive he’d see the growth of the porn industry as capitalism finding a way to assimilate and mitigate the threat of the sexual revolution. My only problem with this whole formulation is the use of “capitalism” as a subject agent in a sentence, which makes the whole thing too simplistic. Maybe it makes more sense to say that “capitalists” saw their best interest in repressing non-procreative sex outside the marital chamber because the nuclear family did an excellent job of preserving the labor order that it needed to function in its original form, and thus that capitalists rather than capitalism saw the threat of the sexual revolution on the horizon and responded to it by trying to find a way to turn it into a product to sell to those who fomented it, thus sucking all of the power out of the movement and arrogating it to themselves.
