Writer's Cramp
Written by johnleemk on 10:02:02 am May 27, 2005.
Categories: Random Musings
Again, having writer's block (in addition, I'm also typing on a keyboard with a malfunctioning "a" key), so I figured I'll write about something that troubles me when I'm not using a keyboard: writer's cramp. It's like this dull muscular pain in the bottom part of your palm, and I pretty much get it whenever I write an essay with pen or pencil.
It's really annoying, especially during tests with a time limit when you're stuck between the extreme discomfort of continuing to write or the possibility of failing. It's probably the biggest (if not only) downside to being able to just pour your thoughts out on paper.
There must be a way to prevent writer's cramp. Exercise/practice doesn't work; I can attest to that. Good thing we have computers nowadays, though. I don't think I could write creatively without them.
The funny thing is, writer's cramp seems to have less of an effect when it comes to taking notes or some other form of writing that does not necessarily involve much thinking. Is there some correlation here?
Here are the most popular articles in Random Musings:
If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "What do we pay modern popular "musicians" for?": | |
|---|---|
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 949 IP Logged | Posted at 2:57:08 pm Oct 29, 2005
I think it's a given that although a lot of modern popular (not just pop, but popular, as in anything that charts) is crap. Even so, there's no denying that a substantial portion of such music is actually *gasp* enjoyable and entertaining. (Yes, even posers like Ashlee Simpson and Linkin Park occasionally manage something listenable.) Now, you'd think this would answer the question that is this thread's title, but I don't think that's satisfactory. After all, when you pay for something, you expect value (or in economic jargon, "utility" don't you? In the early days of modern music (generally the 60s and 70s), you not only paid for a good time, but for actual talent. Perhaps the Who, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Queen, the Eagles, etc. are all outmoded, but the fact is that they knew how to play and write good music. Of course, you also paid for their image, whether you went gaga over the so sexy-and-yet-wholesome Beatles or the rugged-rebellious-bad boys of the Rolling Stones. The fact is that even then, musicians built their reputations and fortunes on image. That isn't to say image was the sole building block of the foundation of a successful artiste. As I said, talent, especially in songwriting, was important as well. You can't say the same for modern music nowadays. After all, the few musicians that actually write (not co-write like lip-synching Ashlee Simpson; I'll return to this later) their own music either churn out crap that I could write or produce largely meaningless and pedestrian music. Most musicians I would deem talented date back to the 80s or early 90s at the latest. Still, a convincing argument can be made that if it's enjoyable, its good enough to buy (or download, if you're that kind of guy/girl). After all, as economists say, you're still deriving utility from the good being purchased. However, I would argue that significant utility (an aggregate of all the good things about the product being purchased) has been lost since the 60s/70s, due to diminishing talent involved in producing music. Even playing instruments, which was once a hallmark of talent, is largely degraded. Most popular musicians just sing (such as the majority of pop musicians), and singing is, IMO, a hardly distinctive trait. In the Beatles (or any other successful rock band of the 60s/70s), vocal, instrumental, and composing talent came together with a bit of imagery to create a successful band. Today (let's take Simple Plan), you throw in a few sexy boys, give them guitars and drums (perhaps with a few lessons), and add a couple of guys with synthesisers (who then receive zero credit). Mix all this up with a bit of appropriate imagery, and you've got millions of teenagers/pre-teens dieing to lick these kids' boots. I'd venture to say most purchasers of music are paying just as much for those guys with synthesisers to unf*** the "music" as they are paying for those "musicians" to write some lousy tunes, throw in a few words, and scream "shut up, shut up, don't wanna hear you" into a microphone. Nowadays, it's almost impossible to distinguish true talent from technology (if you ever bother to look into the Beatles' recording history, it's amazing what they did with their outdated crap equipment that was actually a decade behind what everyone else in the 60s was using). If you think you're paying for songwriting, think again. Often, songwriters write a song and then cast around for someone to sing it (who then gets the credit while the songwriter remains largely anonymous). True, different singers imbue different traits onto the song, but its fundamental structure otherwise remains largely the same. Or, you might find a singer (such as Ashlee Simpson) collaborating with co-writers to write their music. (Just take a look at the huge number of writers Simpson credited for her debut album, Autobiography.) In this case, it's often that the song's structure is written by the co-writers, and then the singer makes a lyrical suggestion or two. In this case, what you're paying for is not necessarily lyrical talent (I bet most of these retards don't have enough words in their vocabulary to string a whole song together) but personal experiences that are added to a particular song. Is this value? Perhaps, but it's not as much value as was once available. In rare cases, such as with Simple Plan, the band is the one that receives most of the songwriting credit. Even so, looking at the crap (or in some cases, mediocre songs) churned out, it's hard to believe this is worth paying for. At least when other writers are involved, there's some real talent behind the song, even if this talent is uncredited. Often the tunes with original homegrown music are uncompelling, and the lyrics hardly inspiring. Nowadays, more and more, utility is largely built up of image. Image is all that drives the majority of musical acts these days. If Britney Spears were to suddenly turn into a nerd who couldn't shake her booty to save her life, or Mike Shinoda unable to sexually arouse his legions of underaged female fans, much of the significant value from their music would instantly disappear. The simple fact is that music videos and other aspects of how artistes present themselves now play much more important roles in music sales than talent or aural entertainment per se. Indeed, it is music videos more than anything else that drive music sales and downloads. Radio and old-fashioned aural stimulation are no longer good enough when it comes to music. No, you need a music video, preferably featuring some good-looking background characters or dancers in addition to the principal artiste(s), along with some sensual or emo (depending on the genre) stimuli. And simple music videos like those reminiscent of the 60s and 70s are rarely good enough; there have to be a lot of things (preferably pelvises, although often the abdomen is an acceptable substitute) moving on screen. It's better to go over the top than remain restrained; despite its incredible lyrical and musical beaty, Coldplay's "Yellow" with its slow-motion and nature-themed music video failed to top the charts in either the US or UK. So, what the hell are music consumers paying for? Generally, it seems to be a lot of uncredited talent, a bit of actual performing from the principal artiste(s), and a whole lot of proper public relations management from the latter's manager(s). There may be some utility being derived from modern popular music, but they definitely don't make it like they used to. (Just in case you haven't noticed, I've been randomly typing bulls*** with big words. Perhaps I've made a coherent argument; perhaps I haven't. It doesn't matter. I'm bored.) |
| Last five replies (0 comments not shown): | |
|
Reubinho
Official Sports Writer Member Posts: 264 IP Logged | Posted at 10:45:31 am Nov 21, 2005
We support piracy so we dun really pay em. Itz not our fault our currency is so low... |
|
chickster
Member Posts: 168 IP Logged | Posted at 4:36:56 am Nov 22, 2005
lol ya...even in jb d singaporeans cum over 2 buy all d stuff... |
|
melissa
Member Posts: 73 IP Logged | Posted at 7:34:40 am Nov 22, 2005
indeed.. |
