So for this entry of the blog, I decided to briefly put what I found on the topics that interested me for the scavenger hunt. I decided that putting it here would be more convenient for me to look back on before heading to class.

The first term that I researched was “country music”. According to Google Ngram, the earliest time that the phrase was even hinted at was 1872. Which is somewhat surprising, but I decided to do some more research with the ProQuest Newspaper site. The earliest I found was The Sun ad, but that covers a wide range from 1837 to 1992. I decided to keep looking through the results, since they were apparently classified ads. Unfortunately, the words were mostly separate, and the earliest example I could find was in January 4^th, 1970. “Who’s Got the last Hee-Haw now?” as a title to a New York Times article. I think I could have found more, but I don’t know ways that I could have narrowed down the search to make it easier. I hope that we learn how (or something similar) this upcoming class.

It’s nice to see that “Information wants to be free” is a consistent message in this class. It probably helps that there are more and more angles to this phrase that we learn as the semester goes on.

We were told to read over an article that deals with Wikipedia, a source that Professor O’Malley is surprisingly open to in comparison to most teacher that I have had. The article deals with the whole situation with Kavanaugh, mainly a bizarre claim that he made regarding a game called “Devil’s Triangle”. What’s interesting about this story is that Wikipedia took a stance against people who tried to edit the page on said game to mention Kavanaugh’s input. To quote the article, “We do not dignify such hoaxes with mention”.

This article is a good way to set up the discussion that we had during class today. Professor O’Malley opened up with a quick history lesson on the encyclopedia, mainly the founder of it, Denis Diderot, and how he managed to accumulate sources into one large pile that people could look to. He searched for experts and scholars to form articles that could be easily verified and researched by people for their own studies, and that would be the basis for other encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, which would be quite popular in the 20^th century.

Unfortunately, the internet quickly made Encyclopedia Britannica useless, mainly because our new age of internet means we can search for whatever we want, whenever we want. As we reached the subject of the internet, Professor O’Malley makes a claim that “The more information is shared, the more it innovates”. To continue on with this point, Professor O’Malley brings up Richard Stallman, an early computer expert and later computer hacker, who argued that “If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.” It’s an argument made for freeing the distribution of information.

Professor O’Malley builds up on this even more with the idea of Crowdsourcing. The idea is that if you have knowledge on a particular subject, you should be allowed to give your own thoughts and contributions on the knowledge of said subject. It sounds like Wikipedia, and in a way, it is, but Professor O’Malley gave examples of how this idea can get out of hand by using Wikipedia articles.

It through what he showed us that I developed my own thoughts on the matter. While I agree that information and such should be free to some extent, there are definitely outcomes of spreading information that is not the truth, or otherwise is more of a mouthpiece for certain ideologies. Professor O’Malley brought up the infamous “Pizza gate”, pointing out the spread of information lead to a dangerous man shooting up a pizza place, even though said information was completely ridiculous.

To me, I think that information should be looked over by experts. Sure, people can have their own opinions, but information should be verified by scholars and professors before some guy who merely looks over articles about a subject suddenly decides he wants to be a leading voice on it. Wikipedia doesn’t just let anyone edit their pages despite what some people tell you, and I think that should be the standard, especially in an age where information is easier to get than ever.

“Information wants to be free.”

I think that this was the first class that actually made me contemplate the meaning of this phrase, mainly because it deals with how the freedom of information can affect the way we perceive information going forward. It’s a nice reference to previous lessons as well, and it ties into a topic that is still politically charged to this day, mainly the Civil War.

Now, in my opinion, the North were the good guys in this war, even if only slightly more so in comparison to the South. It doesn’t really surprise me that Lincoln wasn’t completely open with having slaves fight for the Union, even if it was pragmatic, mainly because of how he wanted to still placate the South. Even if one takes into account the idea that the South was fighting for states’ rights, one of those rights was the ownership of other people, which is something that I can’t help but look down on.

Professor O’Malley did a great job with creating the debate however, by showing us documents that give the impression that black men served in the Confederate army. One of those documents were written by Doctor Lewis Steiner, who notes that black men were aiding the Confederate army during their march on Frederick, Maryland. He also showed us the photo of the first Louisiana Native Guard in 1861, which was used by both the Confederate and Union armies as propaganda.

What was surprising to me was when Professor O’Malley suddenly asked “Why do people fight in war anyway”? It’s a question that is focused on when he then tied to a photo of a black man dressed as a Confederate soldier. “Did he have a choice?” Professor O’Malley inquired. “If I’m a Confederate, I can use this as an excuse.”

I’ll admit that I was skeptical of all of these documents, as being a History major has taught me to go through multiple sources, and history has a way of being biased in one way or another. Professor O’Malley then said something that I have heard before as a History Major, “Total Skepticism.” He told a story of a fourth grade textbook in Virginia, one that claimed that thousands of black men were Confederate soldiers. Historians understandably took issue with this statement, and the person who wrote it said “I found it on the internet.”

To me, the internet is a blessing and a curse for us. As Professor O’Malley noted, documents that were previously difficult to go through or even find can now be brought up within minutes, whereas before it would take months for people to find what they were searching for. On the other hand, these sources can be dubious in quality and authenticity, and it requires us to know how to differentiate sources that are credible with those we accept simply because it aids our viewpoints. “It’s a hard job to navigate a world where the sources aren’t reliable.”

I think that as a History Major, this lecture was quite intriguing in showing how the internet has both helped our generation and hindered our generation. We can access so much information within mere seconds, but we need to know which source is reliable enough for us to use in our studies, especially in History, which can be controlled by the people that recorded it.

“People are capable of knowing what is best for themselves, to the best of their abilities.”

Professor O’Malley took the time to explain how this statement ties into our lesson for the day, but our discussions always seem to start with a fun call-back to our previous lesson. After learning a bit more about beats, particularly how cord progression is very similar in many modern songs, we turned to the book that we were supposed to have read by this class. Speaking personally, I think Miller had an interesting presentation of how he saw the folk music and how he compares it to country music, though I will say that I feel he wasn’t necessarily impartial. Maybe biased is the word I’m looking for, as it is something that we discussed in class.

Well, we discussed the Folk song aspect in class at least. When Professor O’Malley inquired what we consider Folk music to be, I didn’t really have an answer. I honestly considered folk music to be similar to country music, almost to the point of them being identical, but Professor O’Malley offered an explanation.

To explain, we discussed the topic of Romanticism. It doesn’t really apply to love, more like something that is not rational. Humans are not rational creatures, as we sometimes do things that are against our best interest, yet we romanticize aspects of the world around us even though it’s not logical.

Professor O’Malley tied this in to nationalism. Even though there is no rational explanation, we tend to think that our country has a collective “soul”, and we cling to aspects of our culture to represent this “soul”. Folk music is born from American’s desire to have something that speaks to their nationalist views of this country, something that is ironic, considering how most country or folk songs nowadays are attached to white people, yet a famous folk musician that Professor O’Malley talked to us about was a man named Huddie Ledbetter, a black man that was seen as a folk person, and even forced to perform barefoot and in a hillbilly outfit despite him wanting to perform in a more dignified manner.

While all of this is nice to learn, I think I am more looking forward to what we can learn about the United States from music, and how the development of music ties into the development of American culture over the years.

Listening to these class lectures and going over the notes for them is kind of like listening to music. There’s a certain flow to them, the content goes to places that are unexpected, and if you listen to similar styles you start to pick up patterns that you didn’t notice before.

We started class with an intro of Rare Essence, an NPR Music Tiny desk concert. Once class was mostly settled, Professor O’Malley discussed beats a little more, mostly showing a visual of four blue circles with a red circle in the center. He then showed us examples of songs that have the beat trail behind the actual pulse, such as the aforementioned Rare Essence and Al Green’s love and happiness.

We then trailed off to migration, and once again discussed how migration has more influences on genres of music than we think. While we previously discussed how African Americans had migrated from the rural south to the urban north, it was interesting to hear about how whites had a similar experience, mainly how Country music had mainly been a way for white people who migrated to reminisce over the life that they had left behind, much like how African Americans did with their own music.

Professor O’Malley also called back with a quote. “Political culture is segregated, popular culture is something else, more complicated.” It’s something that he tied into the current lecture by showing us Jimmy Rodgers. A country singer, he appealed to both white and black listeners, but his work was marketed to white people. It’s an interesting situation, one that Professor O’Malley expanded on by talking about Louis Armstrong, who would sing a Minstrel Song called “Dinah” and had some similarities to Minstrel Shows, to the embarrassment of fellow black musicians. We also discussed other singers like Charlie Christian and Buck Owens, both of whom showed how music, particularly country music, had more influences from other cultures than people would expect at this time. We also talked about Elvis, which is always an interesting topic, along with listening to songs and dissecting them, such as Honky Tonkin’, which the class had mixed feelings about because of its racist and sexist implications.

It’s almost as if we’re going back in time, listening to these songs and discussing how they developed. For my part, while I think they are a curious piece of history, I can’t really bring myself to enjoy or listen to them, and I’m more interested in hearing about what effects these songs had in the culture of America at the time than the contents of the songs themselves. Only time will tell if I change my feelings on the matter, but so far, I can confidently say that it’s the historic elements of these songs that interest me more than actually hearing them.

“White people clap on the wrong beat.”

It probably doesn’t speak well of me that some of Professor O’Malley’s lessons still catch me off guard even though we’re well into a month in the class. Still, when I read earlier this week that the topic for today would be “History of Genre”, I didn’t expect to hear about the clapping to rhythm and beats that white people get wrong.

To Professor O’Malley’s credit, he actually segued quite nicely from topic to topic. After showing us many examples of music with a beat like Sousa-Semper Fidelis and “Green Onions” by Booker T. and the M.G., he proceeded to clarify what exactly he meant when he said that white people clap on the wrong beat. For European music, we tend to clap on the one and three of the one-two-three-four beat, such as the aforementioned Sousa-Semper Fidelis or in a marching tune. But music derived from African tradition focuses on the two and four parts of the beat. The most interesting thing about this is how Professor O’Malley tied it to a previous lesson, and explained how our modern music and the formation of genres such as the Blues comes from the displacement of people, much like how Hawaiian music and instruments such as the banjo comes from the American colonization of Hawaii.

We turned the conversation over to some more historic lessons, mainly with African Americans. Professor O’Malley discussed the “Great Migration”, where African-Americans left the south due to the racism that they suffered, hoping to find a new life. Professor O’Malley also tied back to the Minstrel shows that we learned about before, along with how blatantly racist the society of the time was, showing us quotes from Senators Ben Tillman and Carter Glass, with the latter in particular outright saying that he wanted to disenfranchise black voters.

Which ties into why African Americans wanted to move from Mississippi to Chicago. Chicago was hardly a racial paradise, as Professor O’Malley explained, but you could vote, and voting your own political gives you real political power.

Then the topic turned again in an interesting direction. Professor O’Malley showed an example of how African-Americans that had already lived in Chicago were worried about the rural newcomers, but he also mentioned how this ties into the development of the Blues.

“Race” Records began to appear in the late 1920’s. Professor O’Malley described them as being from white producers (barring the Black Swan), but sung by black artists, mainly for a black audience. What interested me was two of figures that were brought up, mainly Bessie Smith and McKinley Morganfield, the latter also being known as Muddy Waters. Bessie Smith was called the Queen of Jazz, and her lyrics were surprisingly brazen for their time. Morganfield was born in 1913 and lived a Stovall Plantation, where you couldn’t even leave without permission. Which makes it interesting that when he made his first song outside the Plantation, the lyrics were actually made in reference to wanting to go back. Professor O’Malley then explained how many of the Race Records would appeal to the nostalgia that many African-Americans had for Mississippi or other states of the south, even though they had just moved away for a better life.

Professor O’Malley ended the lesson with a call-back to the enclosure and free-distribution of information, applying it to music. Personally, I think that there should be free distribution of music so that we can see how different types of music mix together, as they had in the past, but as I’ve been learning for the past few weeks, many aspects of music have a rather sinister backstory, so I look forward to seeing how my opinion on this matter changes as we learn more.

One aspect of technology to me is that it is, in many ways, a symbol of replacement. There are machines that speed up the process of creating items and goods, computers that perform functions that the human brain is incapable of accomplishing, and networks that can send messages in what seems like an instant. It is something that we touched on in class today, with an analogy on shoe making. A shoe maker in the past could take the time to make his work distinctive, earn his money by being a hard worker. But by the time of the 1800’s, there were shoe making machines, and a shoe maker’s passion and craft was rendered meaningless. After all, why bother when a machine can make shoes three times faster than you with about the same quality?

It tied into our discussion today about GarageBand, but before that, we focused on the development of the steel guitar. The steel guitar is seen in country music, which is also seen as white music, but once again we learned that just because an aspect of music ended up in one sphere of culture, it doesn’t mean it was always in that sphere from conception. The steel guitar found its way to the United States from Hawaiian musicians, who became popular in the United States some time before World War One. The popularity of the Steel Guitar resulted in some variations of it being formed that is still used to this day, such as the pedal steel guitar, used by Robert Randolph. It was an interesting journey of history to go through, and we even learned a little bit about Hawaii on the way.

For the last segment of class, Professor O’Malley discussed GarageBand. While I was expecting a demonstration of tracks (which he did well in providing for us), the discussion took an interesting turn, one that I have alluded to in the beginning of this post. Does the instinct of workmanship exist in people now? Something like GarageBand makes music easier, simpler, to the point that it’s a question of why do people bother to learn how to play instruments. The development of technology has troubling implications for many careers, already doing some damage to the workforce of America. It’s worrying to me, considering my own uncertainties to what I want to work as when I leave college. It’s something to consider regardless.

When I checked the schedule to see what the topic of this class was going to be about, I thought it would just be a generic history lesson of what types of genres of music were popular and being developed in American History. So it goes without saying that I was surprised by the contents of the class lecture when we finally got started, mainly on the discussion of race and racism in America.

Now I’m not naive enough to think that racism doesn’t play a huge part in American history, or that racism is a problem that has gone away in the present time. But the class opened with an interesting parallel to political culture in America to the popular culture in America. American entertainment is actually racially integrated in weird ways, which is interesting considering how political aspects of America are so segregated to this day. One aspect of cultural integration that we discussed was the Minstrel Shows that were popular in the 19th to early 20th centuries.

What surprised me at first was how famous people such as Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain enjoyed Minstrel Shows, despite both being seen as prominent figures of anti-racism. Minstrel Shows are basically shows about white people performing in blackface, using black culture as a demeaning form of racism.

Now I dismissed this as a clear cut example of nonsense like white supremacy, but Professor O’Malley made interesting arguments that Minstrel Shows could be seen as a sort of forbidden show for white people. It was a way to see black culture for white people at the time, and to use it in their own form of entertainment.

While I could see some of his arguments, I feel that Minstrel shows are just examples of racism in America from white people towards black people. The way black people were oppressed to the point where white people needed to take their culture and use it for entertainment is quite disgusting to me. The posters that we saw advertising Minstrel Shows were also quite uncomfortable, with the odd expressions being off-putting to the point that I cannot imagine how they didn’t drive people away from Minstrel Shows.

We also listened to the music of the time, including the Yellow Rose of Texas. Aside from one song that sounded sad to us but was apparently supposed to be hilarious at the time it was written, songs like the Yellow Rose of Texas were used to illuminate how Minstrel songs kind of turned to examples of country music. Apparently there were many songs from Minstrel shows that were used by Confederate soldiers, and then turned into southern state songs, like how the Yellow Rose of Texas is used as a state song for the State of Texas. While the racist origins of country music and even some instruments (like banjos, which are seen as white people instruments despite coming from Africa) didn’t really surprise me, but it’s interesting to see how music that we find harmless has quite the disturbing history behind them.

This class was an interesting one, though the subject of racism in America is one that I struggle to truly understand, considering how I’m a white man who’s pretty well-off. I look forward to hearing about how aspects of popular culture in America change American politics, such as how blackface was actually used to separate people like the Irish and Italians from black people, making the “white” distinction much more wide spread. It’s little facts like this that catch my interest, and make me wonder what’s coming next.

Information wants to be free.

It’s nice when a class starts with a quote, because then it sets a clear standard for the rest of the lesson. It helps to have a topic to think back on if the class was discussing something that might have been too confusing for you, which is a problem that I often struggle with, but thankfully I was able to keep up with where the discussion was going for this class, at least for the most part.

So the idea of information wanting to be free is something that was passed around by computer experts. I will admit that the philosophical implications of this class interests me far more than the technical details, but that is mainly because of my own ignorance in such matters. The idea of information wanting to be free is that information should be shared, it deserves to be shared, and the sharing of information could benefit the world.

What was interesting was that we spent a significant amount of time discussing the history of the internet again, bringing up vacuum tubes and transistors that we discussed in previous classes, but here it was given a more streamlined presentation. We learned how vacuum tubes were quite primitive, generating heat and needing to build energy, while transistors were able to run on batteries and were smaller than the vacuum tubes. This not only helped with the development of computers, but other technologies such as television and radio. Transistor radios can be carried anywhere and run on batteries, two aspects that the vacuum tube radios lacked.  We also talked about how the transistors would eventually lead to microchips.

It’s interesting to see how the internet was born from ARPANET. The development of the Cold War lead to organizations needing to trade information quickly over vast distances, What’s interesting is how this tied into the idea of information wanting to be free. Professor O’Malley pointed out that information being free to share was preferable for a lot of people. The exchange of information between experts could lead to new ideas, or improving previous theories and such.

We ended the class with Professor O’Malley showing us examples of how the early internet was quite different from now, including how he worked the HTTP and similar matters for his classes. It was a nice look, mainly because it reminded me of my father’s old computer screens that I saw as a child. I am curious about what the next class will be about, considering the swerve Professor O’Malley mentioned as we left.

As somebody who grew up in an era where technology is commonplace, and becomes more convenient as time goes on, it is interesting to hear and see the perspectives of technology from people in the past. The development of technology is obviously something that we have discussed before in class, but we focused more on theories in this class, mainly the theory presented by Claude Shannon known as the Information Theory.

So we began class with a brief recap on Signal to noise ratio. The signal is everything that we want to hear, and the noise is everything else. It’s like when your parents are scolding you for something, and you block it out until they get to the end, which you immediately understand and respond to.

Having been required to finish reading the book describing Shannon’s life, I will say that I thought he was an interesting man. His information theory is something that I hoped we would delve into in class, because the finer points of it were unclear to me. Thankfully, we discussed how the Information Theory worked, along with being provided some examples.

From what I understand, the Information Theory is indifferent to meaning. Information only comes with uncertainty. If you there is a conversation that you have had with somebody beforehand, you aren’t really getting information so much as repetition. Information only comes from the unexpected, from things that you have not heard before. I don’t really understand how this means that supposed fluff, like letters in a language, are unnecessary, but I should probably do more reading on it.

It was certainly an interesting class, but I confess that my day and the coming week has been weighing too heavily on my mind for me to give an in-depth analysis, so I hope this will be enough for now.