Favorite Lyrics....Ahhhhh....love!

Cryin' lyrics
There was a time
When I was so broken hearted
Love wasn't much of a friend of mine
The tables have turned, yeah
'Cause me and them ways have parted
That kind of love was the killin' kind
Now listen
All I want is someone I can't resist
I know all I need to know by the way that I got kissed

I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm tryin' to forget you
Love is sweet misery
I was cryin' just to get you
Now I'm dyin' cause I let you
Do what you do - down on me

Now there's not even breathin' room
Between pleasure and pain
Yeah you cry when we're makin' love
Must be one and the same

It's down on me
Yeah I got to tell you one thing
It's been on my mind
Girl I gotta say
We're partners in crime
You got that certain something
What you give to me
Takes my breath away
Now the word out on the street
Is the devil's in your kiss
If our love goes up in flames
[| From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/a/aerosmith-lyrics/cryin_-lyrics.html |]
It's a fire I can't resist

I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm tryin' to forget you
Your love is sweet misery
I was cryin' just to get you
Now I'm dyin' cause I let you
Do what you do to me

'Cause what you got inside
Ain't where your love should stay
Yeah, our love, sweet love, ain't love
If you give your heart away

I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm tryin' to forget you
Your love is sweet misery
I was cryin' just to get you
Now I'm dyin' just to let you
Do what you do what you do down to me,
baby, baby, baby

I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm tryin' to forget you
Your love is sweet misery
I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm dyin' cause I let you
Do what you do down to , down to, down to, down to
I was cryin' when I met you
Now I'm dyin' to forget you
Your love is sweet
I was cryin' when I met you

First week of school...

Hello Everyone....
It feels great to back to school after a long, but relaxing, summer vaca. The first week of school flew by, which I expected. There are many new names to learn and believe it or not, I'm still working on it. Back to work!

Aerosmith Doomed?

The news has been flying around for a few weeks, Joe Perry and Steven Tyler of Aerosmith aren't talking. However recently news has popped up claiming that Tyler wishes to pursue a solo career. Perry claims to know nothing about it, saying that "Tyler's lack of communication" is to blame. He seems pretty cool about the whole situation stating in so many words that he doesn't know how long Tyler will be out, but the band must go on. There is talk about Tyler's solo career and the band moving on without Tyler and getting a new lead singer.

This made me think about the film we viewed in class a while ago, "Money for Nothing: Behind the business of Pop Music". I guess that Aerosmith is technically Rock, however, I think that some of the same rules apply. I'm guessing that the rock music industry is still fueled by the thirst for money, money, money. Aerosmith won't make as much money without Steven Tyler as the lead, and vice versa, Tyler won't make as much with out his band members. He was practically the whole show anyway, so why he would want to quit blows my mind.



Aerosmith has been a big band for media synergy. They've been featured in many food commercials, including Pepsi. Tyler's daughter, starred in the movie Armageddon and therefore Aerosmith dropped Don't Wanna Miss A Thing, which was unreasonably popular. Their song Dude Looks Like A Lady was also featured in the movie Mrs. Doubtfire. The theme park, Universal Studios has a roller coaster ride devoted to their song Sweet Emotion. The have also been featured on video games such as Guitar Hero. So, it's clear to see that Aerosmith has brought in a good deal of money throughout the 40 years they have been together, but who wants one or the other? They won't be as popular if they aren't together and they won't bring in nearly as much money. Is this the end for Aerosmith?

Hopefully it isn't. Hopefully they get over their lover's tiff, get some rehab, and get back to business.

DVDs and Extinction

This weekend, during a black friday shopping spree, I heard a lot of hallabaloo about which TV's were the best and do I want a DVD player or a Bluray player? I got to talking with my husband about how crappy it would be if DVDs were almost obsolete, because I still haven't switched all of my VHSs over DVD and if I had to convert all of my DVDs to microbytes or something, that would suck! My husband told me then that Bluray was already on it's way out, I don't know if I believe him or not, but that's neither here nor there. To the point, he said that Directv and Comcast were taking over and so people don't go out and rent movies anymore. It's sort of true. If you can rent it on the TV and not have to leave your house, why wouldn't you?

Another thing that I thought about was the rental boxes that are popping up everywhere, like Redbox. It's so cheap to rent movies from there, so I vowed never to rent from Blockbuster or Hollywood ever again.

Amazon also provides opportunities for movie lovers. You can buy used movies for really cheap, in most cases, if you wait long enough, you can get movies for cheaper than renting them at the local movie store.

The only issue I have with these alternative ways rent videos, is that many movies never make it to the rental 'floor'. For example, Redbox has only a number of videos and many times it seems to me that they are high budget films or films that have big actors in them. So were do independent films fit in? Will they lose business? Eventually, won't the film industry start losing business too then? I think it's sort of a far fetch, but I think it will be more difficult to get independent films into people's households.

We still have the theatre, but once again, you have to go to a theatre that is all about independent films to see independent films.

Overall, I'm sure that this is a stupid fear because people will find a way to let their art be known. Eventually, Redbox will most likely carry more movie options and Netflix already does carry the lesser known movies.

What is Twitter?

Maybe I'm oldschool, but I have no idea what Twitter is. What I do know about it is that it's pretty much a way for people to let the public know what they are doing at all times. I remember at the end of the spring semester last year, there was a contest on the radio that followed Twitterers. The jist of the game was to see who tweeted the most and who's tweets were the most interesting. After a few weeks the contestants were narrowed down and radio listeners voted for the final winner. I thought it was dumb that somebody would need to tweet what they were doing at every moment. I guess they were bored. So this is an investigation to see if there is something more to Twitter than a detailed daily schedule.

The first thing that I realized is that, like other SNS sites, Twitter can be used by celebrities and politicians to connect with their fans or followers. Celebrities can now be their own paparazzi! I actually learned that some celebrities have 'ghost twitterers' who write the messages for the stars, in the stars own words, of course. This helps celebrities drop to a more personal level with fans.

Another thing that I learned was that Twitter was more useful in times of need, for sending messages. For example, if somebody was dying, one could put up a post on Twitter to explain to everybody that they are at the hospital with this person and that they are in need of support. Of course, people are more technically advanced and sending and receiving messages via SNS or SMS is much more quick and easy than the phone or letter.

Twitter has also been used to rally. In 2009 Iranians used this as the only way to gather and rally against their government, since text messages were blocked.

Overall, Twitter really isn't that bad. I can see why celebrities would want to use it, because it's free publicity and fans want to use it because they can hear first hand what's going on in their favorite celebs life. I can also see how it might be useful in times of need or to bring groups of people together. I still don't understand why some people go way overboard and tweet their whole life, though. I still believe in privacy.

Sources:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

New Moon...Love it? Hate it?

It wasn't until last year, I was sitting in Dance examining this girls shirt that had printed on it, "Edward, I'll be your vampiress." I throughout the next month or so, I had no idea what the hell that meant! I just thought the girl had some weird inside joke with her friends and they all had T-shirts made a Valleyfair. Then one day, I was at work and the topic of some vampire movie came up, my place of employment was just beating the pulp out of this movie "Twilight". I made the mistake of asking what they were talking about. That's when I got an earfull. I worked with an English/Theatre major who did a study on the books that the movie was enspired by, for her Popculture class. She explained to me that the books were about this girl, Bella, who just can't seem to get herself out of this abusive relationship with a vampire, Edward. She said that Bella was absolutely stupid, because she was so unbelievably in love with Edward who just kept jerking her around and who didn't treat her very well. Then others started joining in on the conversation. The next girl mentioned that these books were sending really bad messages to girls, like "go ahead and be miserably infatuated with a vampire (boy) and let him be mean to you, just whatever you do don't leave him!" I forgot about it, until I had plans to go to the movies and saw that it was playing, intrigued by all the hoopla, I dragged my husband into the theatre to watch Twilight. After leaving the movie, all that I really thought about it was that the actress was really bad and I felt like I missed a lot of information. I had to read the books.

After finishing the books, I agreed, the books really did portray the character of Bella being treated quite badly and the girl definitely wasn't someone who you would want your child to look up to because she displayed really low self esteem. On the other hand, I thought maybe my friends were being too feminist. Go ahead and hate the books because there were many spelling and grammatical errors, but we all make mistakes and why didn't people previewing the books catch these glitches? Setting my feminist self aside, I could see how it was so easy to fall in love with Edward. He was sweet and smart and of course, good looking. I also thought that maybe Bella was somebody that these girls could really connect to, maybe they needed to have somebody they could really compare with considering society today is ruining self esteem and body image. I also thought that Edward was a little pushy and numb at times, but he always had a reason, which was that he knew it wasn't right for him to be with a human and he didn't want to risk her life.

I have a really hard time choosing a side, so I don't. I'm neutral!

Electronic Readers VS. Books

Amazon just released the Kindle 2, just in time for the holidays, and other electronic companies like Sony and RCA are making sure to get their feet in the door too! The question is, are electronic readers better than books? More popular than books? Will they ever replace books?

Electronic readers, like the Kindle, hold many books that are downloadable from the Internet. Some of the pro's to having this device start with convenience. The Kindle is easy to carry with you where ever you go and now that it has been updated, you can download books anywhere at anytime, all you need is 60 seconds to load the book. The Kindle supposably reads like a book too, the screen does not illuminate like a computer screen and the words are supposed to look like ink on paper, all that's missing is the paper! Books aren't the only thing that one is able to download, newspapers and other print materials are also availabe via electronic readers. For those who prefer to listen to stories, many of the electronic readers offer an audio option for the story. The Kindle may also help with the amount of paper waste produced. Fewer trees would need to be cut down to produce books, newspapers, and magazines.

The cost for an electronic reader varies a bit, but the Kindle is somewhere around a few hundred dollars. Which brings us to the beginning of the con's. If your Kindle is stolen, it costs much more to replace it than would a book. Also, Kindle books maybe less expensive over hardcover books, but more expensive than paperback. So it may or may not save you money. Although books use up paper, the feel of the pages in one's hands is priceless. People love feeling their books in their hands. I feel like it's a sense of accomplishment when the pages to the left start stacking up on a long, but enjoyable book. I also like to have my bookshelves filled with books, because it makes me feel smart. Another thing that Amazon offers is used books, so you can find books for as cheap as a penny, with a little shipping and handling. Plus, you are recycling a book, meaning you aren't wasting new paper.

As far as libraries go, many of them can't afford to replace lost Kindles, they can hardly afford to replace regular books.

I would love to see a Kindle and test it out. I believe that there are some really cool reasons as to why you would want one. I still prefer to read actual books. I'm tradition I guess.

Sources:
Rocki, Vikki: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2009/02/25/news/news/news718.txt