This Is Me--2024 A to Z Theme

My A to Z Themes in the past have covered a range of topics and for 2025 the theme is a random assemblage of things that are on my mind--or that just pop into my mind. Whatever! Let's just say I'll be "Tossing It Out" for your entertainment or however it is you perceive these things.
Showing posts with label Why we like things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why we like things. Show all posts

Monday, September 5, 2016

What Is Your Favorite Kind of Music? (Question of the Month)

       Why do you like what you like?   This is not always an easy question to answer and sometimes there is never one answer that will be consistent throughout ones life.  In my case I've gone through many stages of preferences.  What we like can change throughout our lives.  The quest in this post is to consider questions like "why do our preferences change?"

         For this month's Question topic I'll be discussing musical preference.  However, before you go on, if you haven't voted on my most recent Battle of the Bands post then I hope you will go back to do so.   The song that I've used is one that I like a great deal performed in two styles that I also enjoy.   Listening to this song doesn't answer the question of this month as it applies to me, but it offers a clue.   Well, maybe it does, but then again maybe it doesn't.

        After all, the question of preference can be a complex one that is not easily answered in a few words or paragraphs.   I'll try to keep my answer somewhat brief.

          Did you vote on my Battle?   It's here if you didn't visit yet.

           Now let's move on to the business at hand...


Question of the Month


The Question of the Month is hosted by Michael G D'Agostino from A Life Examined. The first Monday of each month I'll be answering a question posed by Michael prior to event day. Click on the link to his blog for more participants. 




This month's question

      Suggested by Alex J. Cavanaugh, here is the question for this month:

“What kind of music best speaks to you?”

         The subject of preference is one that I've explored many times with no absolute conclusion ever drawn.  Even when it comes down to the specific topic of music I can't name just one specific kind of music.  My ears perk at just about any kind of music since I'm a musically inquisitive person by nature.  Music was a integral part of my upbringing and has played a huge role in my life.  

          Some of my earliest memories involve music and music has been a soundtrack of my life.  Place, time, and circumstance play a role in whatever music I might be listening to.  The company I am keeping or what I need to feel within me can determine what music I am listening to at any given time.  Even an arbitrary intrusion of music will cause me to pause and listen--and ultimately decide if I like what I'm hearing or not.  Rarely do I associate music with any bad memory.  

          Taking for example, as referenced in my current Battle of the Bands post, I have an affinity for Latin flavored music--especially the music of Mexico.  When I was a child my parents often played Latin style music around the house.  I can recall often listening to an album of bullfight music.  My mother used to do housework listening to Perez Prado.   My father was on a continual quest to find catchy fast-paced juggling music which typically would contain lots of Latin style percussion.  Part of my musical fabric was dyed with music from South of the Border and now hearing any of that style of music catches my musical attention as well as takes me to some comfortable emotion within me.  

          Similarly classical and pop music is something I was weaned on from an early age to the extent that listening to either style is now a steady part of my musical diet.  Years of listening to rock music has instilled within me a deep appreciation for all forms of that style and other related styles of music.  Now I long for music in the same way that I feel a need for food, air, and a comfortable place to sleep.  Sometimes the music sets my mood while at other times I decide the playlist. The music is almost always there.  And when the music is not there in the physical realm then it is often playing in my mind.            

            So what specific type of music speaks to me best?  This is a case where superlatives are variables.   The music that speaks best to me depends on me at the moment.  There are times when I don't want to hear any music at all--a rarity, but it has happened.  But then one might argue that this is when the music seeps through the silence--the wind, nature, street sounds, industrial clanking, or even the beat of my own heart and the blood coursing my veins.  

            The music that speaks best to me is whichever music happens to be speaking at the moment.

             What types of music are you most drawn to?    What is the most specific part of music that appeals to you?   Did you ever or do you now play an instrument?  

Friday, February 27, 2015

Do You Enjoy Music?

English: One of the sled dogs listening to mus...
 One of the sled dogs listening to music coming from a gramophone. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


        Another Battle of the Bands is coming up this week-end--on Sunday March 1st to be precise.  A number of my readers regularly participate in this music appreciation event and seem to enjoy it or at least tolerate it.  I'm always pleased when I get enthusiastic comments indicating people have enjoyed the Battle that I've presented.  It's even fine when I'm offered intelligently reasoned comments that tell me what they didn't like about a musical piece.

        Occasionally, someone who stops by will comment that they decline to vote.  I'm glad that they let me know they stopped by, but it also indicates that my Battle posts could have an effect on their future visits to my site when they see a Battle of the Bands post.  If it's only a matter of not liking the genre of music I've used or not liking the song or artist then I feel that those readers will continue to return.  Others just might not like the Battle of the Bands and my continuing to do them could lose them as readers.  I hope that's not the case, but it's a risk I take.

       The biggest item of puzzlement for me though are the occasional comments from people who say they don't listen to music or those few who have said they don't like music.

        Say what?   Are there really people who don't like music?  At all?  Any kind?

         That's the one answer that I really would like to know more about.  Maybe it's the nature of any kind of aural stimulation and the effect that it has on those particular people.  Or something about their upbringing or sociocultural influences.   Perhaps the music hurts their ears or discombobulates their mental faculties in some way.   What exactly could it be?

          Are you one who doesn't like music?  Have you ever known someone who doesn't like music?  Do you know why some people don't like music or never listen to it?  If it's merely a matter of limiting the types of music you listen to, what are the types of music you do listen to?


        Please be sure to join me on Sunday March 1st for my next Battle of the Bands.  I'll be featuring two versions of a very classic piece of music by one of the greatest of all composers.  Then on Monday the 2nd I'll feature an interview with a member of one of the bands with some special photos.  On Wednesday March 4th I'll be joined by the other competing BOTB artist for a very special Insecure Writer's Support Group post.   This should be an interesting week so please show your support for BOTB and the featured artists by voting for your favorite version of a piece of music that you undoubtedly know.

Monday, February 9, 2015

Perfidy Valence

European bull in thought
European bull in thought (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why Perfidy Valence?

      One afternoon last year I woke up from a power nap with an odd term on my mind--"Perfidy Valence".   I accepted the term with a fleeting moment of clarity as though it was something completely natural to me and made perfect sense.  Then, as I became more fully awake, the phrase continued to stay on my mind while losing any significance to my real world of thinking.   However I felt compelled to write a blog post regarding the phrase and to use "Perfidy Valence" as my blog post title.

      The advice most often given to bloggers in regard to increasing site traffic is to use titles that will draw readers.   Commonly the tactics include using a question that interests many people or presenting an idea that will appear useful to others.  Overly technical or obscure titles typically do not attract readers since there is nothing in the title for them to connect to.

What Attracts You to a Blog Post?

      Perfidy Valence strikes me as a blog title that would attract few visitors.   You who visit this particular blog post will most likely be regular readers who are visiting out of habit, reciprocity, or just to see what I had to say.  Those of you who have dropped in might have have done so without even noticing the title of the post while others may have read the title and thought little of it since--well, because I sometimes come up with weird stuff and this was just another one of those things.  

      Then there will possibly be those who drop by because they were intrigued by the title.  Perhaps the phrase had some sort of actual significance for some.  For others the pairing of these words evoked a sort of puzzlement that attracted them to the post out of curiosity.   If there were any of you who fell into these categories, I hope you don't feel scammed that you were lured here under any sort of false pretenses.  For that matter I hope regular visitors aren't thinking something like, "What an idiot!  There Arlee Bird goes again with some oddball notion."

It's a Legitimate Question

      From my view on this topic of blog titles, it's not so much the words "perfidy valence" that are the real focus here.  Some readers may have expected something about a villain from a movie western or a post about science.   There are many things the title could suggest since the word "valence" has a range of meanings and "perfidy" is a word that is somewhat charged with emotion and negativity.

      In the past I used another term derived from a dream on this blog--Dynamic Flow,  After googling the term I found that others had actually used it, though I had no recollection of ever having heard it before.  I ended up with the post Dynamic Flow: The Dream as well as Dynamic Flow:  A Guest Post By Halina Goldstein.   Later I recycled my dream post as Deja Vu Blogfest: Dynamic Flow.   I can't say that any of this took on viral post proportions, but I did get some interesting reactions on all of these posts.

       However I do think legitimate questions are raised in regard to using obscure blog post titles.  Can a title of this nature increase readership?  Might using this sort of title cause a new visitor to feel ripped off after reading the post?   In this present post I think my topic is a fair one, but could my title be construed to be a deception?    

        Does using certain key words (such as sex, football, best-seller) or other names or phrases which have topical significance (for example Obama, ISIS, Kim Kardashian) in a blog post title constitute a rip-off if the blogger does not actually discuss to any great extent the word or name used?  

         Do you usually make an effort to formulate titles for your blog posts that you think will draw new readers?    Are there any particular titles that you have used that have had a particularly good response or even caused your blog post to go viral to some extent?   Are there any blog post titles that have backfired for you?

         What made you visit today's blog post at Tossing It Out?


Friday, March 28, 2014

How Much Do Your Blog Posts Weigh?

Even scales icon
Even scales icon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


        What kind of dumb unquantifiable question is this?   How much does a blog post weigh?  Who asks a question like that anyway?

          I do--who else?   When I've got a lot of other things to think about I might now and then toss out some outlandish question for readers to think about.    I've got A to Z blog posts to compose, social media to follow, family issues to be concerned about, and other fish to fry (I'm fixing tilapia for dinner tonight--that is Thursday night of the day I'm composing this blog piece).

          But concerning the weightiness of a blog post, I'm not necessarily talking about how many words it contains.  A long post can be a lightweight bunch of fluff.  A content laden post might have a lot to tickle your mind, but does it leave any lasting impressions?   A lot of pictures can make a post look heavy, but what do you take with you after you leave?

          A truly heavy post is the one that weighs you down and entices you to think about it for a while.  I'm not sure how often this happens.   Since most of us are busy with this or that we might not have that much time to ponder ideas from a blog post.  We might even need to watch TV or something.

         What I'm talking about is like the difference between lugging home a bag of gold bars and a big tote sack filled with fluffy cotton candy.  I kind of like cotton candy.  It melts in your mouth--you don't even have to chew it.   And it tastes sweet and good.   You can't eat the gold bars and it takes a lot more effort to carry them.  It can be a back-straining sweat-inducing effort.   Ultimately though the gold bars are an investment that can pay you back.

          Sometimes I enjoy some cotton candy.   Or popcorn.   Or pudding.    Such a pleasure to sit dully in front of the TV watching some mind-numbing show while pigging out on junk food.    Escapism in part I suppose.  Addiction of a sort from another perspective.

        I sometimes strive for blog posts that weigh lot.  Not long mind you, but something to chew on.   I'd like to think I'm occasionally writing blog posts that are more like the equivalent of a granola bar or a garden salad with a lot of fresh vegetables in it.   Something you have to chew on and might be getting some nutritional value from.

         Then again granola bars can be kind of like eating that composite wood stuff or maybe a cork bulletin board.   Maybe I'd rather write a Three Musketeers bar or one of those chocolate covered marshmallow bunnies they have at Easter.

            How heavy do you like your blog posts to be?   Would you rather read a cotton candy post or raw carrots and cauliflower?    Do you like a blog post that makes you think a bit and inspires you to leave a deeper comment than you typically leave?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The Eye of the Beholder (Part 1): My View of Two Films of 2012

English: Screen capture of actor George Reeves...
English: Screen capture of actor George Reeves as Superman in the U.S. government film "Stamp Day for Superman" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I Like This, You Like That

         It's all a matter of taste--why one person likes something and another doesn't.  There are probably a few people who think I have bad taste about certain things, while I've found it difficult to appreciate what certain others have raved about.  The variance of what people prefer makes for an expansive marketplace of interests and ideas.  It also makes for some interesting disagreement.

         I don't think I have bad taste, but for many things I might have uncommon taste.  It's rare for me to find someone who will share my anchovy and onion pizza with me.  Most of my friends don't have the same enthusiasm I have for certain music styles and artists.  I got a fairly lackluster response for my excited review of Veronika Carnaby's Bohemia.   My wife and anyone else I know refuses to watch a Fellini movie with me.

        Why would my interests diverge so extreme from the mainstream?   Perhaps in future posts I'll go into some of my reasoning about this, but not here in this post.   At some point on Wrote By Rote (my memoir blog) I'll discuss the topics of food preference and other things with which I seem to be enamored.  Recently on Tossing It Out I addressed the topic of reading out of the mainstream, so I'll save any further discussion of that for some future post on this blog.

        In this current post my focus will be on examples of two films of 2012 for which my opinion diverges from most in one case and in the other may be something more readers might agree with--or not.  I offer these examples as a prelude to a future post that will examine not what makes a film good, but what makes it preferred over another.

Marvel's The Avengers

        When a film starts off with some weird Darth Vader voiced guy talking about conquest of the Earth then we know we're in for some heavy nonsensical crap--definitely time to start suspending disbelief.  I didn't pay too much attention to this prologue since I didn't understand what the guy with voice distorter was saying.   But I probably wasn't listening that closely either since the voice annoyed me.

         Soon we are in some kind of massive secret facility like you always see in these kinds of movies.  Trinity, Morpheus, and Agent Smith from The Matrix show up except it's not really them and the Agent Smith look-alike is part of the good guys team.  Then "The Crow" materializes amidst a bit of flash and fanfare.  Except it's not really "The Crow", it's Loki from Asgard.  He's a real jerk, but after all he's from Ass-gard so what'd you expect.

          Thor and Loki are my biggest problems with this film.  I'm no fan of mythology brought into modern times or any depictions of so-called "gods".  And the pretentious talk!  Shouldn't they at least be speaking Norwegian or something?  "Shakespeare in the park" is what Ironman calls it at one point.  Yeah, I can go with that.  Stop with the haughty talk already.

           Captain America is cool enough.  It would be unpatriotic to speak poorly of him and he wasn't all that bad of a character.   Then there's the big green Hulk.   I like the way they kept Bruce Banner calm until it was time for the raging Hulk to be released, but no matter how you look at it The Hulk is a comic book character who becomes a CGI figure on film.  No Lou Ferrigno Hulk for us modern folk--he's got to be huge and ludicrous and bounce and jump all over the place.  As much as I've always loved the Hulk in the comic books, my eyes were starting to hurt from rolling so much.

            There were a bunch of other characters as well, but the real star of this film in my opinion is Ironman.  He had most of the best lines and Robert Downey, Jr. carries the film as far as I'm concerned.  I like the technology behind this superhero.  Still a little dumb, but fun dumb.

              Marvel's The Avengers is heavy on the front end with excessive set-up, way too prolonged in the middle with drawn out fight scenes and quibbling amongst our supposed heroes, and effuscient with effects in the climatic invasion-through-the-portal scenes.  And yes, I made up the word "effuscient"--this is about a lot made up stuff so I guess I have the right to make up words.

             And how about that battle scene?  Was that some of the same footage used in the abhorrent film Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon?   I swear that was the same undulating fishlike aircraft used in both films with the tail crashing through high rise office spaces.  The entire battle sequence was impressive to give the fx crew credit, but come on already.  I did like the visuals of the battle, but I guess by the time we reached them the earlier tedium of the film had worn me out.

            Where is the style of the George Reeves Superman of 50's TV?   Back then our hero was fighting common thugs and war criminals, not hordes of aliens unleashed through a portal by some false god.  Can we go back to some simpler fun?

             If you want more of my rantings you can read My Amazon Review of The Avengers.

Chronicle

         
          I liked this film a great deal so there isn't that much for me to say about it.  The basic premise of the story concerns three typical teen-aged boys who become exposed to a mysterious force that causes them to develop super powers.  There is a delightful innocence in their process of discovering and developing these powers.  Eventually things get out of hand, but in a logically explainable progression of events.

          Various issues that are relevant to many young people are introduced and explored in the story.  This movie is thoughtful and tastefully presented.  The "found footage" portions are not overly distracting like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield and add nicely to the film.  There are some excellent special effects, but they do not overpower the movie.  

           A sequel has been proposed but apparently has been stalled due to dissatisfaction with the script.  If they do make a sequel, let's hope they don't try to go too big, too ridiculous, and too Hollywood.  Simplicity can be an exquisite pleasure.

And That's What I Think...

          These are my opinions based on my own personal tastes.  I know that many of you liked one or both of these films.   I hope no one was offended with my having a bit of fun with the first review.  Sometimes there's no accounting for taste.   Or, perhaps, maybe there is.   I'll explore this in a future post.

            Do you tend to like things in the mainstream or outside the zone of popularity?   What did you think of these films if you saw them?   If you didn't see them yet, is there a particular reason you did not?   What's the oddest movie that you like a great deal that not many others seem to care for?

             

          

Enhanced by Zemanta