Save the purple tree worms

Alright internet you win, I give up. I’ve tried playing devil’s advocate. I put up a good fight against Malcolm Gladwell with Jaron Lanier on my side. I tried to take on Markos Zungia’s system. But maybe after all my heckling and skepticism there is something to this whole new media thing.

I first exposed my reluctance to accept online journalism while discussing Dan Gillmor’s “We the Media.” I am first and foremost an English major, before I knew how to craft a news story using an inverted pyramid structure, I knew how to analyze a poem or strip a novel down to its underlying themes. The first few semesters as a double major were rough, my brain was confused. It didn’t like having to compartmentalize writing styles and switch from one to the other daily. English was flowy and prosaic, while journalism was sharp and concise. But I forced myself to adapt, simultaneously learn different techniques and apply them during the appropriate circumstances. I become content in my world of books and newspapers. Then the print industry died.

Sure this death began well before my college career. Print journalism has been critically ill for years, but it wasn’t until recently that I came to terms with my future not involving paper. A lot of that was thanks to this class. It force fed me the truth I had been avoiding by sticking to what I knew. I was able to avoid writing online by making myself an asset to the print version of The Brown and White and getting an internship at a struggling publication known as The Morning Call. I thought Twitter was only for egotistical celebrities and blogs might as well be personal diaries thrown into the cyber black hole. I don’t say this much, but I will say it now: I was wrong.

The internet is an incredibly powerful tool that anyone can put to good use with the right techniques, and according to Clay Shirky author of “Cognitive Surplus,” with means, motive and opportunity.

The tools a.k.a. means are infinite today. If someone wants to spread the word about endangered purple tree worms, they can do it dozens of different way: A Facebook page supporting the worms, a twitter feed distributing information about the worms, a blog sharing stories about the worms, and the list goes on. Decades ago the endangered worm enthusiast would be limited to word of mouth and print to spread information, which worked, and was more effective than centuries ago when even print was a luxury. The internet revolutionized communication. The world is at our fingertip, and even better: It’s free!

Next is motive, for Mr. Purple Worm Man the endangered species is his call to action. He recognizes the plight of the worms and wants to help. If his efforts are successful and the worms go on to live another purple day, he will have a sense of fulfillment for doing a good deed.

Opportunity is the tricky part. The lone activist cannot save the worms by himself. He can shot his heartfelt pleas as loud as he wants into cyberspace, but they won’t do any good unless someone is listening. He needs support from fellow worm lovers. This is where some of the other lessons from this class come into play. A stick message would help his cause: a personal anecdote about the worms, a dire need they need to be saved, or a catchy tidbit that makes the purple tree worms stand out in a crowd of regular-colored worms. Once the activist’s message is sticky others will gravitate to it and spread it, join the purple tree worm bandwagon. This collective force has exponentially more influence than the lone activist did. Combined their connections can reach around the globe, and that is how change happens.

The internet is powerful, but it is nothing without the people using it. The cognitive surplus exists in all of us. We watch TV instead of reading a book, scan social media sites to put of work, and take a morning nap even though we woke up three hours ago. There is so much wasted brain power out there and so many opportunities on the web to put it to good use. A slight change, and a bit more focus from each of us would have a whirlwind effect that not only could save the endangered purple worm population, but do something even more significant.

Now excuse me while I go refresh my Twitter.

Believe in the Beat

I remember sitting in the car with my mom a few summers back when Jason Derulo’s “Whatcha Say” came on the radio. I put up with the offensive lyrics about a guy begging his girlfriends to come back after he cheated on her, because I enjoy the Imogen Heap song “Hide and Seek” that it covers. Derulo was singing, “Cause when the roof caved in and the truth came out I just didn't know what to do,” when my mom turned to me and asked, “What does this song have to do with a tooth coming out?”

I sat for a minute, trying to control my laugher and figure out the best way to correct her error. “No, Mom, he said truth not tooth.” Clearly there is a disconnect between her musical preferences and mine. Not to say that my taste is better or more valuable than hers because I can understand the lyrics of rap songs (fun fact: I can remember the lyrics to almost any song after listening to it two to three times). Jaron Lanier, author of “I am not a Gadget,” would probably argue that my music taste is actually inferior because it was founded in a world dominated by synthesized beats and auto-tuning.

It’s not my fault though. Lanier traces the digital music world, or even broader – all digital sounds, to the Music Instrument Digital Interface or MIDI. MIDI translates notes produces by instruments to translate into a digital language that can be understood by and shared between electronic devices. The problem with MIDI is it is over-simplified, and captures sounds as data instructions rather than sound waves, therefore reproducing flat tones. Basically instead of the emotional pull of a violin or the resonating trill of a flute the MIDI user’s music is one-dimensional. MIDI was designed over a decade ago with the keyboard in minds, however, the programs spread to accommodate all sorts of instruments, some it was not designed for, and was adapted to a variety of programs. The digital music world got “locked-in” to MIDI, and since it is everywhere users are forced to accept a less than adequate system that is too integrated to replace.

“How can a musician cherish the broader, less-defined concept of a note that precedes MIDI, while using MIDI all day long and interacting with other musicians through the filter of MIDI? Is it even worth trying? Should a digital artist just give in to lock-in and accept the infinitely explicit, finite idea of a MIDI note?” (Lanier 10).

Lanier says hip hop is the best example of a genre growing up in the digital era. While it was introduced before the domination of the web, it was defined by it. Hip hop uses the convenience of technology to mass produce songs. There is less need for creativity or even talent when music is produced mostly by computers rather than human beings.

So, basically anyone born into the cyber age is musically stunted. Our minds are tainted by booty shaking beats and thumping basses. We just don’t have the capacity to appreciate the subtle genius of a well-preformed concerto or intricately organize symphony. The one redeeming quality of rap, Lanier said, is its ability to express anger or lust though volume and explicit lyrics. According to Lanier, “Hip hop is imprisoned within digital tools like the rest of us. But at least it bangs fiercely against the walls of its confinement” (Lanier 135).

Another product of the digital age of music is the mash-up. Artists, who are essentially glorified disk jockeys, weave songs together to create a new song. Dozens of songs can go into a single mash-up track. There are a lot of legal ambiguities associated with this: are they stealing? Is it original? Can they put their name on it or must the credit the hundreds or artists who contributed? Do they need the artists’ permission before using pieces of songs?

Mash-ups are a direct product of the tools of technology, and while some are offended by the results, others see it as a unique form of expression requiring as much or more creativity than creating a work from scratch.

Is there a middle ground? Can the generation defined by mashing-up other people’s music into one collective mess of sounds still be creative? I think so (we may not make money from it, but creativity is far from extinct).

Let me introduce you to Peter Lee Johnson, a student at the University of Southern California, who is fusing popular music with classical techniques. He has played the violin since the age of four. He has made a name for himself in the online community, as well as the television and film communities by composing scores and playing accompaniments. Johnson’s covers of billboard hits from Kanye West’s, “Birthday Sex” with an introduction of Beethoven to Edward Maya and Vika Jigulina’s “Stereo Love” mixed with MGMT’s “kids” have gone viral on YouTube.
What makes Johnson so special, and gives hope to our generation, is that he is essentially reversing the limitations of music created digitally. Johnson takes the electronically defined songs and strips them down to the melodies that define them as musical and plays them on a violin, one of the most classically defined instruments.

Johnson is proving that we are not gadgets, well at least not yet.

Digital minions

This should be exciting: The internet is making it possible for anyone who owns a computer to become a celebrity, or overthrow a government or be elected president. But with all this talk from Markos Moulitsas Zungia about “Taking on the System,” I can’t help but feel a little weary.

The power of technology is undeniable, but how we harness this power is still unclear. Like Peter Parker’s, A.K.A Spider-Man’s, good old Uncle Ben said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” So, do we use it for good or evil?

One of Zungia’s “unlikely warriors” is Stephen Colbert. Recently Colbert has used his power as a multimedia celebrity to raise almost $100,000 for donorschoose.org in less than a month. How did he do it?

It all started with a pint of ice cream. Not just any ice cream, but Colbert’s very own Ben & Jerry’s flavor “Americone Dream.” Colbert was happy to announce that his flavor was selected to be featured in Ben & Jerry’s stores around the country, but less happy to announce that fellow late-night personality Jimmy Fallon was about to debut his own Ben & Jerry’s flavor “Late Night Snack.” The two engaged in an ice cream eating face-off and shortly after an ice cream induced musical hallucination announced a truce, and that they would be best friends forever – for six months.

Then things got interesting, Colbert in an attempt to raise money for donorschoose.org , Colbert auctioned off his famous portrait within a portrait painting for $26,000. On his show the next day he announced that BFF Fallon would be matching his donation, unfortunately Fallon had no idea.

"If you can't donate $26,000 of your best friend's money without asking him first, then what's the point of being best friends?" Colbert asked during a surprise appearance on Fallon’s show.

So what did Fallon do? He gave Colbert a taste of his own…well…ice cream, and promised that if viewers could help him raise the $26,000, Colbert would appear on the show that Friday to sing, what Fallon called “one of the most important songs of our time,” Rebecca Black’s hit single “Friday” accompanied by The Roots.

“And that is a promise I am making from him to you,” Fallon said.

Fallon easily raised the $26,000, and actually beat that goal by $60,000. Because Colbert is a man of his, or Fallon’s, word he followed through with the promise and delivered a stunning performance.

In chase you haven't see enough of this...

So Colbert used the power of the internet for good. He proved an imaginary friendship and promise of a “Friday” cover can raise money exponentially faster than a Sarah McLaughlin song played over the pictures of one-eyed puppies or that Santa Clause-looking man holding starving African children. The information age has created tactics more effective than advertising, public service announcements and political campaigns to influence people’s thoughts and induce behavior. Has this gone too far though? Is technology able to be even more effective than common sense?

Take Daniel Tosh, for example, his weekly show on Comedy Central features viral videos and Tosh’s commentary. One segment on the show challenges views to create their own videos in response to a prompt. These include “surprise trust falls,” “things never to yell when entering a room” and “sittin’ on the toilet.” These challenges get hundreds of responses, featuring people falling on strangers, screaming profanities at colleagues and performing monologues with their pants down. Who do all these people do these embarrassing, belittling things? Because Daniel Tosh said so!

So far most of these videos are harmless; a few bruised bottoms and egos in the name of humor. But knowing Tosh, he will push it further. And knowing his viewers, and the power of the internet, they will listen.

Through the internet, both Colbert and Tosh have gained power and a following. I prefer to see these people as minions. I’m sure thousands of those donating to the Colbert/Fallon project on donorschoose.org had no idea that the charity helped school teachers across America fund projects for students (I didn’t know that either until I just looked it up, but I also didn’t donate), and just blindly gave their money. Similarly to how Tosh’s viewers willing put up inappropriate or demeaning videos of themselves without thinking about who might see them.

They do this because the trust Colbert and Tosh, and look up to them as leaders. Zungia became a leader for an online political community when his blog was launched into popularity – a reluctant leader, but a leader none the less. According to “Taking on the System” anyone can become leaders with the right attitude, motivation, tools a techniques. But what about the followers? With this many possible leaders there are infinitely more follows, and surely some of these leaders will lead their naive followers astray.