It's the first time I've actually been able to sit down and write something long about the fact that I didn't win. If I don't sound like myself here or if something seems wrong, don't ask.
There are so many reasons why I should be thankful - it's almost my birthday, I'm a contributor for what's probably the biggest K-pop directory ever, I'm writing a ton of stuff right now, I got to ask the Sugababes a question before Amelle left, I have blogger friends from both sides of the world and I'm surrounded by a ton of amazing music. I've also been told that I'm a good writer, something I can hardly ever agree with.
The one thing I've never been able to do in my entire life though is win a big award by myself. For years I was held back from an academic award by a close friend, I didn't know what I REALLY loved doing and I was way too young. I wanted to prove to everyone around me that I was capable because I feel so inferior in front of even my closest friends. They all have their niches and they're all known for being good at them - it's like I have to prove to myself that this writing thing is actually worth pursuing.
Older batches in school have had Palanca winners and they were younger than me when they won - what does that make me now?
It's easy to say I can join next year and that it's just an award or that it's not known as a very credible award but I've never won anything big for myself before and to writers in the academe running a blog is not enough to be called a good writer. I need solid proof to myself and to the people around me that I'm in this for the long run and that this is not just some fun because I want to do this forever and I need measured, academic proof that I am and can be damn good at this.
What hurts about this the most though is the fact that I sacrificed to much for this and literally put my life story into that essay - I killed myself to make that essay. I want to be a powerful writer with the ability to make or break an artists' career. If I can't even move a panel of judges now, how much more will I be able to make an impact on the gigantic music industry? I'm doomed.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What Pop Music REALLY Is.
To me, at least.
Music class this year is theory and history-based and the one important thing I learned from it was the completing piece of my definition of pop music.
I've taken from numerous sources, learned from listening and right now I can cohesively and completely compile my concept of the genre.
Pop music is two things first - it's pop, short for popular or pop as in sweet, aimed at people 20 and under.
Pop as in popular is any style, any nationality as long as it's widely played, heard, listened to and nowadays bought. Pop music is what people are listening to at any given time - it's what's POPULAR.
Pop as in sweet is particularly aimed at teenagers and pre-teens - silly lyrics, simple melodies and hardly any jumping through hoops and walking through fire musically. It's a genre you don't have to really, really, really critically listen to if you don't want to. If you want to, who's stopping you? I do.
But the genre has one final description. It's got clean lines, it's processed, partly manmade, and it's like all the other modern art forms. You see how architecture in the 21st century uses manufactured materials - steel, concrete and is square, angular but built by people. How literature these days is catchy, edgy and has bite and popular visual art is mostly made on computers these days - they all mirror how pop music is.
So, pop music is literally a reflection of every other present art form - it has the qualities that literature, visual art, architecture and every other field has.
Which brings me to an external point. I HATE it when people separate 'art' from music and think that 'art' are the paintings you see in galleries and the sculptures lying around. Art is music, literature, painting, architecture, filmmaking, broadcasting, those billboards and advertisements around you - THEY ARE ALL ART FORMS.
Music class this year is theory and history-based and the one important thing I learned from it was the completing piece of my definition of pop music.
I've taken from numerous sources, learned from listening and right now I can cohesively and completely compile my concept of the genre.
Pop music is two things first - it's pop, short for popular or pop as in sweet, aimed at people 20 and under.
Pop as in popular is any style, any nationality as long as it's widely played, heard, listened to and nowadays bought. Pop music is what people are listening to at any given time - it's what's POPULAR.
Pop as in sweet is particularly aimed at teenagers and pre-teens - silly lyrics, simple melodies and hardly any jumping through hoops and walking through fire musically. It's a genre you don't have to really, really, really critically listen to if you don't want to. If you want to, who's stopping you? I do.
But the genre has one final description. It's got clean lines, it's processed, partly manmade, and it's like all the other modern art forms. You see how architecture in the 21st century uses manufactured materials - steel, concrete and is square, angular but built by people. How literature these days is catchy, edgy and has bite and popular visual art is mostly made on computers these days - they all mirror how pop music is.
So, pop music is literally a reflection of every other present art form - it has the qualities that literature, visual art, architecture and every other field has.
Which brings me to an external point. I HATE it when people separate 'art' from music and think that 'art' are the paintings you see in galleries and the sculptures lying around. Art is music, literature, painting, architecture, filmmaking, broadcasting, those billboards and advertisements around you - THEY ARE ALL ART FORMS.