My Acolyte Journey: 2014.16

Elastic Heart

Sia. I've actually engaged with this song before now, which is just fine. It just means that my month-long hiatus wasn't because I hate the song. On the contrary! I think it's decent. The first Sia I remember hearing was Chandelier, but I know I've heard a few others. Titanium, for one. I've liked them, I suppose, but they weren't explosive enough to kill me and make me pay attention. She's not an artist like Lana Del Rey, who draws me in and makes me search for articles about her.
[Sorry for the break in posts and all. Life is rough. I originally broke the post up so that I wouldn't feel so pressured by it, but I guess I went the opposite direction for a while.]

So, let's look at Sia. I've heard from a billion places (read: three) that this song is about warring Sia-Self States trying to gain mastery over the external Sia. But I read the song lyrics and I think otherwise. Due largely to "Then another one bites the dust" being a repetition and "I might have thought that we were one" obviously referring to an external person, I don't buy it. I look at this song and I see loneliness and depression. I see what a close friend experienced when the guy who was into her/she was into turned out to have been dating a girl in another city the whole time. To her at the time, it was a moment of clarity and dread: I lost another relationship. I really thought that we could make it work, but I just can't hold on to anyone. That's what I read here. I mean, look how obvious the second, separate party is.

And another one bites the dust
Oh why can I not conquer love
And I might have thought that we were one
Wanted to fight this war without weapons
And I wanted it, I wanted it bad
But there were so many red flags
Now another one bites the dust
Yeah let's be clear, I'll trust no one

The bold words appear talk about external forces. There's nothing explicit here, and the video is pretty obviously Sia-Self States (SSS).
So let's talk meaning. I can't understand Sia. Ever. When she sings, her words turn into mealy vowels and only choice sharp consonants. The song, therefore, benefits from the Weeknd, because I can actually understand the words without reading the lyrics. Seriously once I thought the line was: "I've got thick skin, and an eclectic heart." I just can't hear the words out of Sia.
Because I can't understand her, the video is the extreme meaning dominator for me. No matter what I read in the lyrics, I still think Maddie vs Shia is the true meaning. I think that two halves, battling for dominance in a contrived cage is the message Sia was hoping to deliver. I think that the inequality of the halves true abilities but their perception as equal is important. I think that Maddie as a powerhouse and innovator has a lot to say about the way Sia sees herself and her aggressive/dominant masculine side. I think there's nothing intentionally sexual at all about this video. I think most people are idiots.
Exhibit one: people think this video is sexual. I give you a direct quote from an article that someone was paid to spew out:

One Facebook user wrote: 'I understand that everyone thinks this is a piece of art, but I find it a little too sexual because why is a full grown man in a cage with a 12 year old and both wearing nude suits and making funny faces at each other.

Foolish children. If you're willing to NSFW it up, allow me to learn you a thing or two. David is not sexual. Olympia is. Leibovitz is not sexual. Mestes is. I could go on. Sex is not desire, and desire is not dirty. Nothing in the Elastic Heart video has to do with sex other than your confusing lust for a twelve-year old and a washed-out crackpot. If I stretch for it, I see him crawl over her as she lies down: a sexual posture that the dancers slide from within two seconds. There are some genuine emotions, yes. They are male and female, yes. They are wearing nondescript nude tights, yes. But the camera does not linger on their skin. Heck, it doesn't even flatter. The dance is not tight or provocative. The story is not of desire. No. A thousand times, no. This video is not sexual. If you think a grown man making funny faces at a twelve year old is sexual, I invite you to meet literally any twelve year old on the planet and somehow not make funny faces. It's practically a reflex.

I think this song is great, and I like it. But I've had enough of it for a long time. Delight plays the radio when I'm in the car and I've had too much Elastic Shake it Black Off Widow Heart. I'm done.

Sidebar: this is legitimately the best, most realistic, most passionate expression I've seen on an actor in months. Who knew Shia LaBeouf could act? Nobody. Sidebarbarside: Who knew Shia LaBeouf was dirty? Well . . . she is twelve. Which is awful.

2.9

[Interlude]

Her social signifiers are intentionally mixed. To us, she needs to be professional. She must be more knowledgeable than we, more intelligent. Glasses. Suit. For herself, she needs to be easy. She must not struggle against herself. She must be functional. Rubber watch. Cotton socks. For others, she wants to be attractive. She would love to be beautiful. She desires your eye. Jewelled pendant. Coordination.

So: tell me why she has destroyed these three obvious pillars of her practice by accidentally or intentionally forcing, demanding, requiring us to view her as young. She has a voice that nicely evokes youth. There's an adolescent whine-moan in her vowels. There's a childish amble to her sentences. She has an non-threatening manner. She's approachable and yet I know she has a doctoral degree and enough departmental weight to drag two doctoral candidates and a graduate student forty miles with her so they can sit and hand out papers.

My Acolyte Journey: 2014.17

Feel the Love
Rudimental. This song is sung in the middle of a passionate moment. That's the start and end of the lyrics: a word picture of someone's brain when everything is hype. This isn't the sort of song where the words are important.

The music video looks like Pittsburgh or Chicago or Saint Louis or Philadelphia--some sprawling city slowly ruining itself by misuse and disuse. It's certainly far enough north for people and horses to be used to snow, so I know it's not Atlanta or New Orleans. However, the video is full of people riding horses. I'm constantly reminded of the West, where horses are still useful for more than just pets. So I'm guessing Denver.
I'm wrong. I should have known; Denver isn't flat enough. I wanted to believe.
Now let's talk about the main premise of the video: black people riding horses. I worked at a summer camp in the Midwest and in the North. The camp in Missouri had very few African American campers until the Central States conference showed up to rent the camp for a week or two. Then that's all it had: black kids. It was strange and wonderful, but I would have preferred what we had in Massachusetts. There, we had a mix of kids representative of the demographics of the church in the area, because there wasn't a separation of white and black congregations. But at both camps, there weren't many black riders. If you look at the rotating photo reel on the top of the Winnekeag site, there's a picture of a riding class. Based on the demographics of the camp, I would expect 1/2 to 2/3 ethnic minorities on those horses.
So let's unpack the causes, shall we? I don't think it has anything to do with money, although privileged people will think that, especially if they're aware of their privilege. The problem with that hypothesis is that I have students who have horses in Moberly, Missouri, a town so poor that they nearly sunk themselves on a sucrose factory. If these kids can be on free and reduced lunch and simultaneously own a horse, money isn't the issue. I'm guessing that education and exposure have nothing to do with it. Unlike the heinous claims on Yahoo! Answers, I don't think any human of average intelligence has thought that milk "came from the store, instead of the farm." Kids know about horses because of films, if nothing else, where they are portrayed as machines to produce awesome chase scenes. And if you think a lack of exposure is what causes the disinterest, you don't know the first thing about shock. Horses are incredible on first exposure. I thought so when I was seven; I signed up for horsemanship every year (until I realized I really don't like horses, as a person). I was about ready to give up on debunking this Yahoo! Answer, until I scrolled down and saw the reason I had been ready to make myself.

Someone mentioned economics. I think that can play a role, however that's not the entire story. 

I think a part of the issue is stereotyping. Some people think of horseback riding as something "rich white people do". It's so sad. I am neither rich nor white. I have been mocked for, supposedly, trying to act white just because I ride horses. I've also been told, "You ride horses? Black people don't ride horses!". The sad thing is, both of those came from other black people. If people fear they are going to be mocked or fear they won't fit in, they are less likely to participate. 

Horses are not for white people. They aren't for blacks, Asians, or Hispanics either. Horses are for people who love horses. 

But, I think the main issue the lack of diversity itself. Which makes this a circular issue. Anyone can observe that the horse world is not diverse- at all. It is true that there is a clear white majority. One can go further and get into politics and history, but the bottom line is it's not diverse. The lack of diversity can be offputting to some people. If they don't feel welcome, they will not get involved. If they do not get involved, the issue of a lack of diversity continues and the cycle starts over. 

Thanks, Dreamer.

I really like this song. I wouldn't buy it. I know without thinking about it because it's not substantial enough. I would bump to it in the club and I would pump it when I wanted to get crazy, but I wouldn't buy it because it's a rental car: fun, fast, and ultimately not for me.

My Acolyte Journey: 2014.18

Be My Forever
Christina Perri. I'm looking for a word, and it isn't mantra, but it's like that. I want to have the word for (insistent) repetition to prove something to myself, as if by saying it I can make it true (if even for that one moment), so I'll extend that time again and again and again and again and . . .

That's how I feel Be My Forever takes care of this relationship. The phrase "be my forever" appears 16 times in the text. Maybe if the singer gives the command enough times, it has to have some effect (hopefully permanent). This, however, is a terrible plan.
Let me expostulate, using my own experience as a basic premise. I dated L for almost no time at all, in the grand scheme of things, but I was fully convinced we were perfect for each other. Our long-distance relationship was super spice and we never ran out of things to say or talk about or be interested in. Hindsight: I was a fool if I thought it would last forever. She had issues she wasn't ready or willing to abandon, and I wasn't able to honor that. I had and have a lot of growing left to do, but I still said stupid things and I wrote her name on my skin with permanent marker and we promised each other a multitude of ignorant long-term things.
This singer says "can I call you mine" because she's not even dating this guy (and I guess ownership is sexy). So just because of the euphoric high of first-blush relationship, she demands eternity.

And oh we got love, yeah/Darling just swear you'll stand right by my side

I guess he stands in abeyance, because he says forever right back. Again, I'll open up my past to (hopefully) expose this buffoonery. When I was in high school (Lord save us), I liked M. A lot. We were in the same grade, and every once in a while, we would work together on projects or sit together at lunch. But math--we sat in a pod together, in facing desks. Our knees might brush under the desk. That briefest touch was more than enough to match anything I have ever felt since. It was desire so pure and without direction that I felt ready to actually seize and die, my heart pounding an arrhythmic song of percussion only. I was not in love. I was not ready to say or even think the word "forever." I was not right for her. I would have destroyed the uncertain dinghy of my confidence on the rocks of her past long before I made my way past the breakers. But that is exactly what this song is advocating.

[I flip my hair back over my shoulder and when I do, I see him there in the desk up and up in the top row of the auditorium. He's not looking at me today. Crap. Well, I can't change, now. I'm on time and in sweats. Sandra tells me that he'll look if he wants to, whatever I wear, but I would feel a lot better about myself if I just wore something better. Okay, so I just want to be invisible today. That's my strategy for getting noticed.]
[Get out of your head, Nadia. I pull the long hair back over my ear and walk straight through the rows up and up in the top of the class and throw my books down next to him. He smiles. Oh, God.]

I didn't get much written because this isn't Stairway to Heaven, so it's fairly short. I don't think it needs to be longer, though. It's the right length to make me want to listen to it again soon.
This made me feel: satisfied? I have to be honest, surrounded by knockouts like Come with me Now and Elastic Heart, this song didn't stand out in my original listen-through of the top40. It's just too wonderful and not enough gut shot. And yet I love it. If I went back in time, I would play it at my wedding.

A word to regulars: the measure of whether I would buy a thing is tempered by a few things. First: I only buy albums, not songs. To stretch out and buy a single song means it is great or wonderful. Examples of this include Mika's Origin of Love and Toto's Africa, which I bought one day when I just needed to listen to it. Second: I haven't bought any music in a really long time, not even the latest OkGO album, which I already know to be incredible and right up my alley, because I guess I am a failure and a fool? But it's possible that I already consume so much media (that's what I'm listening to a lot lately?) that music just isn't so gut-wrenchingly important.