Guitar: a Musical Phenomenon

Man! I just do not get what people see in electric guitars. How those sounds are constantly appealing to so many people I can hardly fathom. On a few rare occasions I can find them an interesting addition to the music, but on the whole I would not feel I had missed anything if I had never heard one in my life.

Indeed I wonder at the obsession with guitar at all. Even acoustic guitars do not rank in my list of most pleasurable sounds. Oh yes, occasionally they can be nice, the same as almost any other instrument. I certainly wouldn't want every song I listened to to contain flute, or trombone, or clarinet, or marimba. So why, I wonder to myself, do so many people seem to feel that all songs require guitars? Indeed it sometimes feels that people believe that ALL music requires is guitar and drums and someone singing, giving barely a thought to any other instrument. Why is this? It seems to me almost absurd.

My speculation is that a hand-held plucked-string instrument has become so popular because it is relatively accessible to anyone with fingers, isn't particularly loud and grating when played wrong, and is light and portable. Of course there are plenty of other light and portable instruments, but the woodwinds require learning to control one's breath and can be rather piercing when played by an amature. Likewise violins are known for being atrocious in inexperienced hands. Trumpets tend to be loud and raucous, not to mention requiring powerfull lungs. Cellos and tubas and harps and pianos are all large, and the latter two at least can be extreemly expensive. Thus, it seems most likely that for purely pragmatic reasons the guitar has gained unprecidented popularity. Why particularly the guitar, and not the banjo or ukelele or some other small stringed instrument I cannot say.

But while I can understand why the guitar has come to be the most frequently owned, experimented with, and experienced among the general population, I still do not understand how it could have such an appeal as to enjoy the exclusivity that it does, being in most cases the only necessary and required instrument, the primary instrument which people expect to hear in every song. What would modern/popular music be without the guitar? It would practically cease to exist. Try to immagine the last half of the 20th century without the guitar. It seems impossible.

Of course the same could probably also be said for the modern drum set, yet it seems that there is a bit more variation in the realm of percussion instruments used in popular songs. But I think one would hard pressed to find a song on a popular radio station that does not include guitars -regardless of whatever other instruments or synthesized sounds have been incorporated. The guitar is promenent across 'genres' and in both quiet and upbeat songs, and when there is a bare minimum being used, you can count on it being guitar over drums in almost every case, and even over voice.

So I sit here in all my alienity asking Why? Why is the 'western' world so enamoured of the guitar? What is it about this sound that is so universally appealing, so captivating as to make it practically synonimous with music itself? Why do so many people accept it as a given in all the music they listen to without questioning it's ubiquity? Why does no one seem to grow bored of hearing it in every song of every band they listen to?

And Why have I never caught this bug in spite of constant exposure?

I cannot buy the simple answer of 'you didn't grow up with it in your home' because in spite of listening to little music aside from classical at home, I have listened to guitar based music everywhere else - in stores, in cars, at friends homes, in restaraunts, at the movies, in commercials on TV, on hold on the phone. If I haven't gotten familiar with this type of music by now I don't know what you would call familiar. Yet it has never come to feel comfortable to me. Had I the slightest inclination toward this instrument, or the general popular style of music, I would have had that interest sparked long before now by all that I have heard of it, and would have very easily been able to seek out and feed the guitar obsession that so many others seem seiezed by. So how have I missed it? Am I the only one? Is it just a crazy phenomenon? Mere happenstance or convenience that has caused the omnipresence of the guitar? Or is there something about this instrument that connects deeply with most people's souls?

I find myself continually and increasingly baffled and perplexed, not to mention turned off, by the constant barrage of guitar + voice + drums that the majority of the population subjects themselves to.

Slow Reader

I've always been a 'slow reader' but not in the sense of having a hard time understanding things. As a kid I had a better vocabulary and reading comprehension than most kids in my classes. But my eyes just don't go over the words fast. I was never really able to 'skim' textbooks like other kids talked about. Somehow for me, reading takes my all. It feels like I get locked in with blinders up and dive deeply with my consciousness....or something like that. I'm not really sure how to describe it.

I think part of it for me is my immagination. It wants to fully picture everything. So I think I tend to pause over things a lot more in order to picture them in detail in my head, and it's not just pictureing, it's feeling and smelling and experiencing the emotions as well. Of course that is with Fiction.

I think with non-fiction I do a lot of visualizing as well. But I also have a lot of ideas sparked. I don't just take in what it's saying. My thoughts are constantly bouncing off the concepts in front of me into speculations about whys and hows and effects and all of that, or to other related topics. It's like my mind is busy incorporating what I'm reading into everything else that's floating around in my brain, or perhaps rather that it's incorporating everything else into the thing I'm reading about, as if trying to provide extra context and insight so that I can have full understanding.

What I find particularly interesting about my reading is that although I become completely unaware of the world around me while I am reading, and while I am not a good speller, I am constantly noticing where someone has used the wrong word, or where the phrasing is awkward. These things trip me up and I pull out of my mind for a moment and notice the printed words. I seem to find at least one wrong word in every book, and I find them constantly online on proffessional sites. I'm also rather amazed at how bad many seemingly otherwise intelligent people's writing is. Using completely wrong words, or horribly awkward phrasing, or mispeling the simplest words in ways that are obviously not just typos. It's just so strange to me to see how much difficulty other people have with explaining themselves in writing. It makes me wonder if I'm actually terribly awkward as well and just can't see it in spite of re-reading something over and over before calling it done? I assume other people must skim a lot more, filling in words with their minds rather than taking in each word. I don't know. It's interesting. As much as I wish I could read faster so I could be able to read more overall, I'm not sure I really do want to read faster. Im not sure I'd be able to enjoy it as much. I don't know....

good chocolate

Earlier today I ate part of a good chocolate bar, you know, a fancy expensive one with dark chocolate. It was lovely, and it felt good. Then later I ate part of one of those regular candy bars like you can get anywhere and I felt so gross afterwards. It really makes a difference. While good chocolate may still not be health food, it's certainly not as junky feeling as the common stuff.

This Halloween I was reminded of childhood and how I used to be able to eat so much candy. I've never been able to eat as much all at once as many of my friends were, and I would save and stretch out my candy for months waiting to enjoy it at just the right moment rather than simply filling up on it, however, I've definately felt a switch as I got older where now I tend to feel sugarsick a lot sooner. I remmeber all kinds of candies I used to like and now they sound repulsive! All those sugar-coated jelly ones? Jolly Ranchers? Tootsie Pops? Blech!

Chocolate candies seem to be just about the only thing I can handle these days, the plain sugar hard or chewy candies all seem sickening. Now, Caramel and Toffeee are still good. Nuts are nice in candy as well. As for chocolate, I really love it, but it's really only the dark chocoalte I like, and the more expensive fancy chocolates are almost always much better than the regular kinds like hershey's. Milk chocolate, and white chocolate make me feel sick.

I do like Sees a lot, even though their actual chocolate is only so-so. A lot of their fillings are very nice, and their pieces are good sizes for a bite or two. I don't tend to just eat a whole box at once like some people, and find the small portions a lot better than something like a normal candy bar. A lot of times I feel obligated to finish a whole candy bar just so that it doesn't sit around open being messy and drooling caramel on my desk. Sees is much neater :)

Spoilers

Yes, I like them. Very much actually. I think a big reason why this is is that I rarely read to find out what happened. Well, yes I do, of course I want to know what happens, but that is not why I stick with a book, or why I pick it up in the first place. What I want, what I enjoy is the execution, the description, details, world, development, the immages conjured in my mind, the use of words. That is why I Like a book. I actually do not like reading to find out what happens. I hate it when things are too tense that I rush past the words to get to the climax. When it's like that the reading is no longer fun. It is annoyingly compulsive, but not fun. Thus I like knowing the basics of what is going to happen and how things are going to turn out. Then I don't have to have indigestion from unessessary stress over a book while reading it and am instead free to enjoy the author's turn of phrase and way of going about unfolding the characters, world, and plot. I don't really enjoy wondering what will happen, but I do enjoy wondering how the author is going to bring it all together and make it happen, just so long as I'm assured of the right outcome. Then seeing all the twists and turns that will somehow lead to that point is quite entertaining.

I have to be pretty certain things are going to turn out the way I want them to before I'll invest my time, attention, and emotional energy into a book. I really hate putting so much into reading something, liking the characters, world, or writing style and then not liking how it ends. That is incredibly annoying and makes me very sad and bitter. Therefore, I like spoilers. They make reading ever so much more fun for me.

People Watching as an Alien

Not to keep harping on the same thing, but after that horrible bus ride yesterday it's hard not to keep thinking about how strange the human race seems to me. Sitting there on the bus looking around at all these people and listening to them is usually a rather mind-boggling experience. I rarely actually people watch because I have little idea what to think about them and sense in them so little of anything I can identify with that instead of being drawn toward watching and supposing about them, I am confused and repelled and thus retreat rather into my own mind.

There are the businessy people with their tailored suits, their phones in hand, their serious expressions, their mundane conversations with their coffee drinking colleagues. I can hardly comprehend being into business like that, wearing the stiff clothes, upholding the current economic system with earnest interest in sales, advertizing, bottom lines, etc. I look at them and wonder, what kind of person is interested in that life? What kind of person finds fullfillment in desks and files and promotions and I-know-not-what?

There are the bums with their tattered miss-matched dirty clothes and rickety cart. And I wonder what brought them to that place. And why, even if they can't afford things, don't they comb their hair with their fingers and try and arrange their clothes to the best advantage they can. I pity them, wish them well, but yet wonder how they could seem not to even try with whatever they have? I wonder, what do they do all day? What do they talk about? Are they simply crazy? Are they unloved? Is no one, not even themselves, able to picture the bright healthy version of them? What would they even want to do or be in life? I have no idea.

There are the highschoolers in their jeans and Ts and hoodies, swarming in packs, talking, laughing, shoving, flirting, eating junk food, planning to hang out. They all look so much the same. They sport various logos, which I don't recognize though I know they must mean something to them, but that seems to be nearly the extent of the variety. They all seem to be talking mostly about other people, or things they saw or did that are supposed to trump someone else's story. I wonder what on earth they think about and do. I can only suppose. It seems like they mostly just hang out with other people their age - whatever hanging out means. It seems to mean just sitting or standing around talking. About what? I have no idea. I guess that they talk about celebrities, sports, movies, music, their friends, their teachers, their families, games they play, their relational issues, their impressions of other people they don't really know. I suppose all in all that's not toooo different from my friends, we do talk about movies and people we know, sometimes anyways, thought it seems to me that the specifics of the various interests such as movies and games and music that I could talk about would be very different from most others. I certainly can't comprehend just spending all my time talking with other people. How boring! I wonder if they do have any other hobbies or tallents that they develope or find joy in.

There are the very common looking ladies in their sweater sets chatting with girlfriends or attending their baby or small child. They look kind and friendly overall, but again I wonder, what do they talk and think about? Their friends? Their family? Their diet? Their fitness center? Their dog or cat? Their plans for the holidays? Their hairdresser? Their interior decorating plans? Their relationships?

There are the Sporty looking guys in their brightly coloured spandex clothes, large waterbottles at hand, helmets, sunglasses, and bikes. I suppose they mostly like to be active, feel the wind in their face or something? Go places, feel the rhythm of their movement, the energy of action? I wonder what they think and talk about. Probably sports. Who knows what else. They seem utterly foreign to me.

There are the 'hard core' looking young people with their crazy coloured hair, piercings, tattoos, patched and torn black, camoflage, plaid, and neon striped clothes, heafty looking boots, and various insignias pinned and glued on all over their bags and jackets. Cigaretts in their hands, '4 letter words' spewing from their mouths. Most of them seem to have a bitter sort of attitude toward life and other people. They always seem to look rather dirty, and their skin and faces often look worn. Do they mostly just sit around with others smoking, drinking, complaining about the world, and possibly doing other drugs? Do they listen to loud screaming music which feeds their angry attitude? Do they talk about movies and music? Do they talk mostly about other people or experiences they've had? I really don't know.

I wouldn't have a clue how to approach or engage any of these people, though I suppose I have the most practice with the ordinary looking ladies. Whenever I am out about in public it is continually driven home to me how foreign it all seems, and how little interest I have in being part of whatever it is that most people experience life to be like or whatever it is they fill it with. I am always rather jarred when people actually try to talk to me, and I suppose considering how much I don't pay attention to the world around me and live in the worlds of my mind, you could say for a normal person it would be rather like a three headed man just dropping out of the sky in front of them and asking whether they think brown or grey gryphon eggs taste better. First it is startling, then you have to process the alien standing in front of you, then you have to try to answer something which you don't really have any experience with beyond a vague idea by way of association...well you don't eat gryphon eggs, but since brown chicken eggs don't taste any different from white ones you suppose it really doesn't matter with gryphons anyways....wait, they have eggs? ok whatever. The best answer seems to be a smile and nod under the circumstances. Then you wonder why it was even asking you in the first place.


Yes, that is pretty much what it's like. They are all aliens. :D (or I am)

Wannabe Wierdos

Let me preface this by saying I believe that in general everyone is 'normal' in some ways, and 'wierd' in others. Although by the very deffinition there must be fewer 'wierdos' in any particular realm than there are 'normal' people. In any case, just because someone appears normal doesn't mean he has a lot in common with the general populace. Likewise, just because someone looks different doesn't mean that they aren't in many more significant ways than appearance, 'just like everyone else.'

I was reminded this evening of a line I wish I could quote properly from my friend Joi's days in the dorms. I think it was something like "I thought I/you were wierd, and then I met your roomate!" This is something that has happened to me numerous times in the past. It seemed I would often meet people who thought of themselves as wierd, different, odd, 'the creative type' because they came from families of especially 'normal' people, yet after my first excited 'fellow wierdo' conversation with them I was frequently disappointed. The things they thought were 'wierd' seemed like very common things to me, or they had only a mild interest in less popular interests we shared.

I fancy that perhaps because of my lack of the obvious symbols of rebellion in our culture, my conservative old fashioned preferences in some areas, and my soft-spoken shyness and reserve, people with whom I may have shared a deeper outlook on life in common with, aside from the variance in some of our fashion tastes, overlooked me as a possible friend because they assumed I must be of a very 'ordinary' persuasion personality-wise.

I was recently reminded of a conversation which I have had all too often with others. Somehow music comes up, and I mention that I don't like any popular music. Or I may even use the word 'rock'. To which they emphatically agree. Oh yes, they don't like any of that stuff either. However, the inevitable shows up shortly thereafter: I discover that once again the way I use the words pop/rock and the way others use them are very different. I fully admit that I use those terms in a very awkward unwieldly sort of way, having the barest knowledge of all the sub-genres that have cropped up since the 1950s and even less of an idea what that limited muscial vocabulary actually refers to. In my book, anything beating out a one-two backbeat on a snare drum, and featuring primarilly someone singing backed by guitars is rock/pop, because I experience all such songs as the same. More often than not they start going on about things called "Alternative", "Indie", "Cybertrance" and other names I can't remember. And there they have lost me. I have nothing to contribute to this music conversation afterall, and I smile and nod and move the topic along as quickly as I can. If I let it out that I haven't heard any of these people I will be subjected to samplings. And if it further gets out that I really have no idea whatsoever what they're going on about, well then, they just stare at me flabbergasted.

Of course bringing up one's taste for classical music usually gets one of two responces, either they regard you as a neanderthal who they have just realised doesn't actually speak their language, or they kind of think you're a snob. A less common responce is enthusiasm, after which, again, I am disappointed because it becomes clear that they consider turning on a "soothing classics" CD for studying or sleeping a love for classical music, and any actuall discussion of it is, similar to my case with the "Alternative" people, completely lost on them. They don't like it for the same reasons I do, and thus haven't taken note of any of the same pieces I like, if any at all. They have a vague feeling they like Mozart and Beethoven, because well, everyone admits those two greats, but mention, say, the Moldau and they think you are talking about moldy cheese. Mention it with a earnest passion and they realise you are an alien.

I have very similar experiences when mentioning that I like soundtracks and musicals. They instantly start naming modern musicals, many of which contain songs of a very 'rock-pop'-ish bent. And it turns out they don't like the symphonic scores to movies, but rather the colllections of popular type songs that have made appearances in movies set in modern-day-times (most of which, naturally, I haven't seen so the nature of their 'soundtracks' may not come out right off.)

It does have an interesting psychological affect, I think, being found odd time and again by the people who thought they were unusual. To be the thing that blows the mind of the odd-balls puts one in a very lonely place. It drives home a sense, not of being an eccentric, those places are filled, but of truely being an alien dealing with a world and language a universe apart from one's own. One can't help bringing to mind all those sci-fi movies where the humans have to debate over whether to treat non-humans humaely, or if that word only applies to the specific species of Earth. It certainly does not incline one to be optimistic in one's approach to engaging with others. Yet, I sometimes actually forget this vast difference within my little circle of like-minded aliens and the worlds of my mind in which I spend much of my time. And when I come in contact with one of these relatively normal people I can't help feeling a little like a scientist on another planet trying to discover if the creatures there, first of all, are sentient, and second how on earth to communicate with them (or even if they are disposed to communicating with you at all).

I am not trying to make any kind of wierdo-elitist claim to status by this observation, being fully aware that there are others just as strange and stranger than me out there. And recognizing that I may have some core traits in common with 'the masses' which span tastes and interests which would yet allow me to relate better with people in general than many others may find themselves capable of. I cannot really know how normal I am, I suppose, without knowing all the span of different people. So I make this observation only from my very limited experience, and make it purely as an interesting comment on life and the experience of the few who are truely different.

It seems that many of the mildly different people who consider themselves wierd, particularly enjoy the idea of being 'counter-culture' or rebellious, and they relish the exlusiveness of being in a minority. An interesting thing to note is that often, as Joi also once pointed out about fellow art students, their claim to uniquness is betrayed by the motto they seem to live by: "be different like everyone else!"


Tracy and I were recently discussing the affects of being not just the odd one, but the one people can't comprehend in social groups. We are both naturally introverts, but feel that this is greatly reinforced by the fact that even if we did wish to connect with people more, we simply wouldn't be able to find anything we could talk about with them and actualy manage to relate. Thus the possibility of developing more social confidence was never really an option with any attraction. It would seem that our shyness is actually not illigitimate immaginings of insecure minds, but the result of endless try-and-fail experiences where it's not just timidity jamming up the conversation, as opposed to a more normal person's fear of not fitting in, when in fact they do have all the common knowlegde they need to forge conversations and relationships with others. It's not just that we immagine people don't like us, but that they actually don't understand us.

some thoughts on music and the 'many'

In reading Lewis' analysis of the 'few' and the 'many' in regards to appreciating various art forms, I think I have found some further insight into popular music. I find myself quite incapable of understanding how so many people can like this stuff....all this popular stuff from about the 1950's untill today. As quoted in my earlier post, he mentions that what the many want in music is a tune they can hum, a beat they can dance to, and a starting point for their immagination or feelings.

While for myself I have rarely found it difficult to remmeber and hum the tunes from symphonies and other things that weren't written specifically to be sung, I suppose it would follow that songs written primarily for voice would be more easily hummed by other people.

I also noted in his discussion of how the 'many' read, that he mentioned them liking books which have just the right ammount of words. They do not pay much attention to the words, but they also need enough of them so as to not tax their immagination with coming up with all the details on its own. He described their approach to wording as reading hieroglyphs. They look for certain phrases, often clichés, which put them in mind of specific bits of....stock immaginings, I suppose you may call them. They want the wording to be familiar, short, quickly interpreted into immages and emotions, and tend to prefer overstatement because anything less doesn't capture their attention.

These ideas suddenly translated themselves into the context of music in my mind and suddenly all the popular rock music (and hundreds of subgenres thereof) made more sense to me. The idea behind readers liking overstatement has a striking resemblance to my experience of music with a strong beat. I find drumbs beating out the rhythm to feel like extreem overstatement of somthing that is entirely obvious - it feels like being talked down to, or like over-enunciated words. It feels as though these bands have never gotten past the need for a metronome. In addition to that aspect of overstating the beat, there is of course the dance aspect mentioned by Lewis. For whatever reason (and this I still don't entirely get) people seem much more compelled to move their bodies with a beat than with a melody. So they need a strong beat to first grab their attention, and to secondly to induce them to dance - to engage in the music through bodily movement.

The almost constant presence of words in popular music also plays into the need for overstatement, as well as the desire to use music as a starting point for the mind's activities. If the sounds of the music communicate some emotion or 'story' the addition of words (on top of what is already stated) clearly spelling out what the music wants to evoke in you is a most extreem form of overstatement. The words also provide a much more specific, concrete direction for the mind so that it doesn't have to come up with it's own immages and events to go with the sounds of the music.

The note that the 'many' want familiar hieroglyphic type phrases and not too many words makes me wonder if this desire for the easily recognizable might explain the frequently small number of instruments usually employed in popular music, both in actual number and in type. It might also explain my impression that it all sounds alike - because a certain form (with plenty of repetition built in) is generally used, as well as the same basic beat drummed out over and over across songs, bands, and subgenres.

I will grant of course that while having been subjected to a great deal of this popular music in my lifetime, I have not made much of a conscious effort to really 'get into it' and thus my observtions cannot be said to be in depth. I am certain that the 'many' would accuse the music I like of 'all sounding the same' as well. My guess at why they would think this is that 1) they have trouble connecting with any music that doesn't have words because they simply do not know what it wants them to think about without being told by the words - so it has no affect on them, 2) without a strong beat to grab them and force their feet to tap they do not feel like they are a part of it and thus find their minds easily wandering away from the music, 3) without specific recognizable instruments playing designated parts and a simple familiar form they do not, in a sense, understand the words or phrases spoken by the sounds of the music, and thus find themselves unable to engage and follow along with it.

The need for repetition in music, I think must be partly because of the desire to be able to hum the tune, and repetition makes it all the more memorable. You can listen to the first verse and then when it comes around again you can whistle along, and after the first time you can actually sing the chorus each time it comes up after. But another possible reason presents itself in Lewis' idea that the 'many' use any art form as a spring board for the immagination or emotion, focusing not so much on the art itself, but what they do with the basic idea it presents in their own minds. If their attention is only periferally taking in the artwork while their minds focus on their own reactions to it's ideas, then a listener who catches the begining of the song and then is lost in their inner impressions for a few moments, if he turns his attention back to the music and doesn't find what he first heard becomes confused and nolonger knows where he is. Is this the same song? What happened to it? He wants to hear the part that got him thinking again in order to maintain the particular reverie he was enjoying, but instead finds himself being thrown into a different set of thoughts entirely. Furthermore, this can explain the overall similarity between the general sound of all the songs on a particular album or by a particular band, or indeed on a particular radio station. The overall similarity allows one to tune in and out as much as one likes without becoming disoriented in what the music is directing you to experience.

The drastic changes in tune, emotion, intruments, and style even within one classical piece, one symphony, concert, or classical radio station could, I immagine, seem to the marginally attentive to be like trying to understand a TV program where every 3 minutes the dialogue switches to a different language. Of course people listen casually to classical music as well, but those who are well aquainted with it and often do pay it full attention will find themselves more at home, more able to recognize a particular section of a piece, or more able to predict how an unknown piece will proceed. Others who listen to it casually do so precicely because they do not know how to fully engage it and thus use it as background noise when they do not want to be tempted to dance or sing along. It is my impression that one need not ever attend closely to popular music or have many songs stored away in memory in order to feel in familiar territory when turning on the radio and being plunged into the middle of a song at random. The basic beat is almost always exactly the same (and even if not it's being hammered into your ear so it's hard to miss), so you can immediately begin tapping with it, and the singer is there telling you what it is about. The tune is probably short and catchy and you'll probably hear it at least once more before the song is over.

It seems to me that while there are indeed patterns in classical music, they tend to span a much longer time frame than is normal in popular music, and therefore demand a longer attention span to understand what is going on and grasp the pattern. Often, especially in soundtrack music which is less structured by rules, being guided rather by the actions occuring in a film, the main theme may only be stated in it's simple form once, and after that one hears only snatches of it, or variations upon it. Such a structure could hardly be understood if one was not attending to the whole of it.

A hypothetical illustration of how the forms of popular vs. classical music require different levels of attention.

Immagine, if you will, an art gallery and people walking through it. In one room they encounter a series of 6 paintings, the same two alternating. Both of them depict the same subject in two different poses, and both use nearly the same color palate. When they leave the room the people are asked to describe the paintings they saw. Having seen each of them 3 times, they will probably be able to recall them with relative ease, or if they saw the first and last while breezing by the rest, they will still have taken in all there was to see.

Now they walk into the next room and encounter a series of 4 paintings. Each of them is different, though in some ways similar. The first and last are particularly similar to eachother, but not quite exact copies. While the subject of the last is the same as the first, the colours are slightly different, the lighting is brighter, the background is more busy, and many of the details have been changed. The second is a contrast to the first, and the third seems to be a contrast to the seccond. When the people leave this room they are again asked to describe each of the paintings they saw. Having seen each of them only once they are less likely to remember them as well, and they may only be able to recall the first and last as a combined immage. The middle two may even be almost completely forgotten.

I Think I should note that, while I do not personally experience much in the way of depth while listening to popular music, there are people who do insist that it does have depth and variation, and being more avid listeners I will believe them. I think, however, that the overall rock/pop genre of music is more designed with the 'many' in mind, designed with what that type of listener looks for as the center or formost criteria. It is created first for the 'many' and anything extra that might please the 'few' in it is an extra bonus. I think that, on the other hand, classical/symphonic music is designed to be listened to and understood by the 'few' and if the 'many' find something in it they can connect with that is simply a bonus.

Pie

The point of Pie, in my world, is the crust. The object of eating pie is to eat crust. Crust is wonderfull, but on its own, it is rather bland. So the filling and the whipped cream or ice-cream put on it, is like the jam or butter you put on toast. The filling exists to enhance the crust. :D

Background Noise

I think some music is designed with a kind of "somebody else's problem" field (rememebr Hitchiker's guide?) which continually directs your attention away from it so that it is impossible to actually listen to it. It is, actually designed as complete background noise. Yes. I am convinced of this. How else could I try so hard, so many times, and still not know what I've been listening to!
I keep trying to listen and pay attention to this one album and it all keeps sounding the same so that my mind wanders and I never actually find out if it is indeed the same tune over and over.

This is a problem common to new age music and also some soundtracks. You have a sense of liking the album and it creates a nice atmosphere or mood, but when you try and actually pick out tracks you particularly like it defys all attempts to distinguish one from another.

Wonder-full Music

This evening I started reading An Experiment in Criticism again, and I noted Lewis' mention of the other arts as well as literature, and his suggestion that we could evaluate them with the same method as he was suggesting for books. This got me thinking about music in particular.

"Many people enjoy popular music in a way which is compatible with humming the tune, stamping in time, talking, and eating. And when the popular tune hasonce gone out of fashion they enjoy it no more. Those who like Bach react quite differently." (Lewis)

I had also watched a movie about Beethoven earlier this evening and the one line that stood out to me went something like: 'What is music? What does it do? It has the power to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer.'

So tonight as I listened to some of my favorite music, I thought I'd write a little concerning a brief observation I'd made to myself a few days ago: That I like music that sounds Grand. I am not really sure if there is any better word for it.

I was thinking to myself the other day, 'what is it that I like about the music that I like?' and the answer that first came to me was the sense of Grandure. I don't like only Grand sounding music, to be sure, but it struck me that my favorite music, the music that stirrs me most, that I most would not want to live without is the symphonic music that has a kind of swelling to it, usually with an optimistic flavor, though not always, which brings to mind a sense of something immense, soemthing great, something that evokes a sense of Wonder. This sense of wonder can also be found in the 'magical' sounding music that I enjoy. It is not large scale wonder, but wonder at a mysterious beauty.

What exactly do I mean by wonder? I think that wonder is.....delight in something that is beyond one's grasp or understanding. It does not usually have a negative connotation, though it often includes the sense of being very small or insignificant in comparrison to something else. But wonder does not focus on one's smallness, nor cause one to be fearfull because of it. The state of Wonder is focused on the apprciation of something amazing, and in this appreciation one's small self is draw out and uplifted so that it too, for a moment, feels so much larger, so much greater than one normally feels.

I love music that gives me a sense of grandure, wonder, enchantment, and beauty. I also enjoy music that sounds urgent and exciting, or triumphant. On the quieter side, I like music that has a feeling of tenderness, of sweet emotions, of being quietly reflective, as well as magical and having a sense of quiet awe.

I think much of the sense of gandure in the music I like is communicated through the quality of the sounds of the instruments - the aural texture. My favorite component is always the entire string section of an orchestra playing together their individual parts - they seem to add so much space and depth. I also really enjoy the deep round sounds of some kind of horn (not sure which of the brass instruments is my favorite) - not so much when they are played high and brassy. I also very much like the shimmering sound of small chimes.

The sense of grandure is also contributed to by the apparent layers to the music, the number of instruments playing and the number of varying parts they play which make up the whole. I am never very gripped by small scale music, such as quartets or solos. A solo embedded into a piece in which many more instruments join it can be nice, but I generally find that I enjoy the moment that everyone else joins in and we at last have the fullness of the music much more than a solo part, however lovely it may be. A good analogy, perhaps, would be the kind of illustrations I like. I love pictures that are so full of details that it seems like I could find something new every time I look at them. So too, do I like a lot of details in music. I like to be able to listen to a song many different times and each time tune into a different layer, notice different details. It must be full enough, detailed enough, deep enough so as to always inspire wonder, never coming to the point that I feel completely familiar with every bit of it. I like the mystery of a myriad of sounds blending together, so that I cannot know exactly what is going on.

I tend to like music that seems to be building up to something, which has a grand finnish, or a climactic moment before dwindling back down to restate a calmer earlier theme. As suggested by this, I like a song to have a kind of landscape or plot. I like music that isn't the same volume texture or mood from start to finnish. Along with liking progression and variation in a piece, I dislike too much repetition. I enjoy restatements that have some kind of variation to them, but music that repeats itself too closely, or repeats even with variations too many times just about drives me mad.

I seem to really like when the rhythm is communicated through instruments other than just drums, or when the underlying rhythm isn't blatently stated. I'm not sure if this ties into the Grand feeling at all, but it is my feeling that a constantly rapped out beat somehow makes the music feel flatter to me, and I tend to find it distracting from the other sounds. Since it is the textures of the instruments which I beleive most captivates me, I suppose it is no surprise that I should dislike having my attention drawn away from that. Why exactly it does so isn't clear to me though. One thing that I think is fairly true, however, is that music that has drums prominently keeping the time tends to be less likely to have a varied landscape, as I mentioned above, and is more likely to maintain a constant volume texture and mood.

Struggling to Identify with the Profile Description

I am quite curious to know what some other INFPs are like.

There is a lot in the type description that completely fits me, but there are a few things which I feel a strong reaction of not identifying with (which I'm not going to adress here). I also find myself annoyed every time I read those descriptions by the over-emphasis on focusing on people. Maybe I'm not the only one who feels the analysis is unballanced? Maybe I'm extreemly introverted?

It feels to me like in the case of IFs they totally throw out the Introverted traits and focus only on their natrual empathy and care for others, blowing out of proportion their desire to make a difference in people's lives. In my experience Introversion wars with Empathy, it doesn't just sumbit to it.

For myself, while I care deeply about my friends and family and have great empathy with people around me, I find that rather than feeling a drive to focus my life on interacting with people and doing everything I can to better them, it feels as though this is an urge which I do daily battle with. I seem to have at least a slightly greater drive to not pay attention to people or put off interacting with them than my drive to show my care. I feel like this care for other's well being is a secondary thing which is persued instinctively in a periferal setting. I feel the bulk of my attention is directed toward my personal creativity - reading books, immagining, writing stories, creating/enjoying beautifull surroundings, and my persuite of understanding - theorizing and philosophizing about the nature of the world and why things are the way they are. Granted, much of my thought does involve people-related theories, like understanding personalities, as well as understanding society. And I do feel I have an intuitive understanding of how people work both on an individual and group level, and I long for the ability to run tests and surveys to prove or disprove my theories. But my intellectual interest is not limited to analysing people, and is not over-ridden by a desire to connect with them. I connect warmly with those close to me, but I tend to approach people at large as alien beings to be avoided or analysed.

I feel general good will toward people, and if my writings about the things I contemplate can be of use to others, all the better. But I don't have a sense of specifically setting out on any of my endeavors for the purpose of helping others. That is where my issue mainly lies. I'm not obsessed with serving the common good as the profiles seem to imply. My interests are mainly wrapped up in things other than people. Or at least, I have little interest in connecting with people in general beyond an abstract theoretical level - they are out there, and they are interesting specimens to study and try to understand.

When I encounter people I am generally only drawn out to connect with them for two reasons - 1) they are in need of comfort, 2) they are interested in the same topics I am, such as fantasy and fairy tales, the value of forrests, symphonic music, historic culture and art, tea, analysing all those other alien people out there, etc. When face to face with human-kind at large I tend to retreat and prefer to love them, in theory, and from afar. I would much rather devote my thoughts to writing fairy tales, than taking care of people in general, and have almost no interest whatsoever in persuing a career that brings me into contact with lots of other people - particularly needy ones. I care about them and have a hard time resisting, but I do feel an inner resistance because they can be very draining, and most of them are very uninteresting to me.

Just listening to myself talk here doesn't sound like the people-oriented gushing-with-care-for-humanity and ploting-the-salvation-of-the-world-at-large person that I feel is portrayed in most INFP profiles. I am naturally empathetic, yes, but I do not actively persue connecting with others and influencing their lives. If the opportunity happens upon me, I am more than happy to encourage and comfort others, but I'm not out there looking for people who need me or trying to refine my ability to help people and put it to constant use.

I do have strong impluses to help the emotionally distressed, which I do act upon if I can do so within the realm of social tact - I'm not going to butt in where I don't know I'm wanted. But I also try to stay out of the way of potentially needy people because I know I am likely to feel leeched if I allow my empathy to involve me. I'm afraid this all sounds a bit harsh - which I certainly am not in person. I am very kind hearted, and find pleas for help nearly irresistable, but it is never-the-less true that I haven't chosen to make my life a quest to help others. I hope I do positively affect the people I do have contact with, and heaven forbid I should ever turn away friends in need! But I have no great humanitarian cause driving me in everything I do as the profiles seem to always suggest. My interests in immagination and theory will never be forgotten on the back-burner for the sake of persuing a people-helping crusade. The very thought of such a thing is tantamount to loosing my very self. Though I also cannot immagine myself ever being uncaring toward my family and friends, I can easily immagine myself living with very limited contact with people other than one or two very close friends, and would feel no disappointment if I didn't manage to make a difference in the world beyond the very small and immediate circle around me.

So my question is, am I unusual among INFPs? Have I continually minunderstood the profiles? What are other INFPs like out there? Are they all obsessed with helping people? Or do many of them, like me, find helping people to be a sidenote to their most intense personal persuits?

Impossible Hair

I love animated hair! You can give ridiculous ammounts of it to people with small heads, and it somehow never weighs them down or gets in the way. It never catches on the cuff buttons of passersby nor collects twigs and leaves when it's longer than the person is tall. When sat upon it just magically grows an inch or two to accomodate neck movement. sigh....and it Flows! It's almost weightless so it ripples and tosses as you move your head and billows behind you when the wind blows. It it silky and flows around itself without tangling and matting up. Sometimes it even defys gravity completely and swirls dramtically around you, or stays up in impossible styles with just one tie. Oh! to have hair like that! I love my long hair, but all those amazing hairdos in animes and cartoons are pretty much impossible. You'd have to have WAY too thick of hair to accomplish a lot of those things, it would just weigh your whole head down! alas alas.....

Two Animated Characters whose hair I've always adored are Thumbelina and Megara (from Hercules).

I really like their huge thick pony-tails and the way they stick up behind them. I think I like hairdoes that extend the back of the head *shrug*. I realised today that the impossible huge thick mass of hair sticking way out behind one hair tie is totally possible! Only it's not also possible to have soft swirling waves falling from it. Dreads actually do that same big-animated-pony-tale thing where they stick out behind the head when tied back.....but then they are dreads afterall so they don't exactly flow and swirl in smooth waves. alas!

Needless to say I'm excited to see all that animated hair in the upcoming Tangled (Rapunzel) :D

prospects

I often find myself very excited and motivated by the prospect of accomplishing a number of different things. But being equally enticed by all I end up unable to focus or get fully involved enough in any of them so that none of them actually gets done. I feel stuck in a state of anticipation and unrealised potential. I really want to do all these things, but somehow actually doing them seems to elude me. I end up wasting time in less interesting, though apparently quite engrossing persuits such as sorting and re-organizing things on my desktop, or doing dishes.

Owlish

sometimes I feel that if it stayed dark all the time I would stay energized longer. I always seem to feel wide awake and feel like I could stay up all day early in the morning, but then shortly after it becomes light I start to feel that perhaps I am tired after all. In any case I find that I really do enjoy being awake at night so very much more than being awake in the day. I love the dim quiet hours, the cool sweet air. I like to sleep during the bright warm hours of the day, I hardly miss them. I thoroughly enjoy being nocturnal :D

facebook

I really want to enjoy it with my friends who do, but it always seems to make me irritated.

I like making profiles about myself, I like seeing other people's profiles about themselves, I like posting pictures and seeing other's pictures, I like being able to write blog-like entries and have people respond, I like sending people cute little gifts or whatever that let them know I'm thinking of them. But I just can't seem to enjoy being on facebook.

I think partly it feels too extraverted. All those random updates on the news feed and the wall about what people are doing and saying to other people on there feels like, well....... like a horribly cluttered room to a neat-freak. I feel beffuddled and overwhelmed, slightly dirty, and, moreover, uninterested. It feels like it's trying to make me a busy body, which is annoying.

I also dislike the sense I get that many people on there assume that because you have a profile your life ought to be an open book to them. Although I don't check it often enough myself, I feel like people I barely know are checking up on my status (or whatever) constantly. What? I don't even talk to them in real life.

Of course that's a BIG part of the problem, there's not a good distinction between actual friends and people who are aquaintances. It feels rude to refuse people you know in some capacity when they ask to add you on there, but they're not really asking to be your actual friend. They have no intention of getting to know you well, hanging out with you, being there when you need someone. They are merely an aquaintance. Furthermore, even if I don't add a lot of these periferal people as my friends, if they know some of my actual friends that I have added, they still get notifications of things my real friends have said or sent to me. They still see the new pictures my friends upload of me. So why even bother to not add them?

They also seem to feel the need to send you millions of notifications apart from the automatic newsfeed ones. Kill the Sith with me, Accept a gift of Strawberries on Farmville, Somebody Hugged you - do something back!, Someone liked the movie you want to see, Someone tagged you in some random note, blah blah blah. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of these activities are fun, or at least look like fun. But somehow they just don't seem to hold my attention long enough to get into them.

I know I know, there are privacy settings, you can turn things off, you can not share your info with applications. Yes, but it seems like all that is what Facebook is all about....so I wonder to myself, why even be on there?

Now, I love making profiles which is why I joined in the first place......but I guess I like them better when they sit there quietly and aquire comments about what I've posted/shared. All these other comments and, and... things just feel like a muddle to me.

The other big problem is the layout and those horrible adds. I hate the adds. Whenever I am on a page with adds I try to leave as quickly as possible - which is every page with facebook. I also hate the way everything is crammed together in narrow collumns with tons of white space all around it. Somehow for me it's just super hard to focus on anything. I don't feel comfortable on any of the pages. ....and I also don't really enjoy the blue.

One last thing I find really annoying about it is that it displays all the most recent pictures of you uploaded by other people first, so people aren't going to see the pictures you like of yourself. Most likely it'll be some awfull group shot where you've got red-eye or something. It's really annoying. And people can just upload pictures of you and tag you in them whenever they like and you can't do anything about it. But not only that - then everyone they know is notified that they've uploaded these pictures. bah!

I'm really toying with the idea of quitting it alltogether.....I don't know. Can I mass remove "friends" and pare it down to just the people I actually know well? - without insulting everyone?
Should I just remove pretty much everything on there, and then just not check it anymore?
I don't know. I really want it to be fun. It feels like it has the potential to be fun.....if it wasn't crawling with all those people I barely know, stupid notifications, and adds!

why I like kiersy best

Today I started some more research into what I hope to someday turn into a website - one that compares, links to, and brings together...synthesizes might be the word...different personality theories. I'm most familiar with the Kiersy Temperament Sorter/Meyers-Briggs theory, and I was wondering what other things are out there, and wanting to take a closer look at them. Yet it seems to keep being confirmed to me just why it's the Kiersy theory that I'm...well rather obsessed with. Finally I was provoked into writing a bit while starting to read (trying for probably the 3rd time or so) Personality Types Using the Enneagram for Self-discovery by Don Riso.

The problem I have with the enneagram, as well as many other personality theories (which I don’t see so much in the Kiersy books -Please Understand Me) is that most other theorists focus so much on the negative and make it sound like all these personalities are dysfunctional. The fact is that most people have their problems, it's a given, but it’s more usefull to look at the basic neutral personality, not nessesarily all it’s problems, at least not right up front. Of course it can be interesting or helpfull to note how different personalities may handle emotional/psychological problems, but that should be just one aspect, not the focus of the profile for any given type. Much more focus should be on the underlying traits which can be expressed either good or bad. The good ways that personalities are expressed ought to be emphasized because people will be impacted much more for the good by identifying their individuality in a positive light. Smacking people in the face with their faults is not a good way to make them open to understanding themselves and others. Reading a berating of your personality in a profile might help you learn something, but probably isn't going to make you feel excited about understanding the concepts, and reading a berating of other people's types will just make you more judgemental of others, rather than helping you appreciate their differences.

I also find, though I hadn’t specifically thought about it till reading a note about it on wikipedia, that I much prefer the personality theories which focus on individual traits and how they look when grouped in different ways, rather than the sets of supposedly all encompassing types. Those "type" ones all seem to have the same problem: you can identify a lot with some aspects of one type, and identify a lot with other aspects of a different one. They paint a picture of stereotypes, but don't allow for all the different variations, nor the degrees of different traits.

Looking at individual traits makes much more sense, and allows for the variety of unique people you see in real life, rather than stereotyping, or "pidgeon-holing". While there may be some very basic underlying characteristics which can be used to group people into relatively few categories, the "type" theories tend to offer much more detail about one group than can be applied to all of it's members. Looking at traits is also usefull in that it helps explain why different types act certain ways. It’s not just that you happen to be like this random type someone came up with, but you can observe individual traits in yourself as they affect different thoughts, motives, actions, and reactions.

I find that the Kiersy method of looking at several spectrums of traits individually allows for much more individual accuracy and deeper understanding of the inner workings of unique people. In the books, while there are 16 combinations of the 4 spectrums, it also makes note of the strength of each of the preferred traits. I think this alerts people to realizing that they are free to read the profiles with a grain of salt. No one is telling them they are exactly like this profile - this is a basic profile outlining different traits which they may identiy with to varying degrees depending on the strength of their trait preferences. It helps people understand better why they may be similar to different people in different ways, by recognizing shared or opposing traits. The trait method to personality theory presents people as unique combinations of many underlying traits - essentially presenting humanity on a spectrum, whereas the type theories present people in a segregated fashion - as being part of just one group, one type. In trait theories one can learn about other types of people while reading one's own profile, whereas in type theories the information is usually presented as only applying to your type and the similarities with others is not noted. Of course I admit to not having read other theories in as great detail as I have the Meyers-Briggs, so perhaps they do a better job in the details than I have seen.

Something I have been thinking about in regards to the Kiersy books is that I think it is also usefull to look at how trait preferences play out in different contexts. People may be more one way in certain situations, and more another way in other situations. It does talk a bit about the opposite traits in Please Understand Me II, but I felt like more discussion and examples of how being on a spectrum plays out would be usefull. I also think it would be interesting to read more discussion of how the different traits affect eachother. Such as - how does Thinking look in conjunction with iNtuition vs. how it looks when coupled with Sensing. Or how might Introversion look in a Feeling person vs. a Thinking person.

well, now I have typed much longer than I intended, but I feel a bit better and might be able to attempt reading more of the enneagram book, although I may be forced to write about my disapproval again. I'm certainly not looking forward to wading through the looooong negative profiles provided in it.

Trying to understand Sensing vs. Intution

This Kiersy personality aspect often seems hard for people to grasp and understand, I know it has been for me......I think I've got it down now a bit better.

An example of the difference between sensing and intuition:

iNtuitives stand back and look at a situation, and then comment on it - theorizing why it is the way it is, how it came to be that way, whether it is good or bad, how it affects other things, how it is related to other things, how it could be changed, why it won’t be changed, how it will continue to develope, and what other people may think about it and why they may think as they do. - They enjoy theoretical and analytical discussion and mental exploration of things and are satisfied when they feel they have fully understood something.

A Sensing person will most likely be in the thick of the action to begin with, but when they do stand back and look at a situation they'll say "This is how it is" and are content to leave the conversation at that. If they do any analysis they are likely to focus on discussing exactly how to impliment certain tactics and then get right back into action. Analysis in and of itself is of no use or interest to them - it must result in application. They believe that something cannot be understood untill the idea has been tested. Thus their analysis takes the form of experimentation. They do not think one can 'know' without physical experience of the conclusion. Becoming adept at something is a driving motivation for them, and the point of theorizing is to further their ability to do whatever it is well. They feel satisfied when they feel they have mastered some action.

The book states that this trait divides people more than any other. While I don't think I've had as many arguments or personality clashes with people because of this as I have because of Thinking/Feeling or Judging/Percieving, I think this is a trait that naturally separates people as they interact with others. INtuitives are much more likely to talk about abstract ideas and theories, and thus will more often find themselves talking with other people who also like ideas and theories. Sensing people are much more likely to be involved in activities and to talk about things they have done rather than the intagible or things they have not experienced, thus they will more often find themselves doing things with other people who prefer action to contemplation, and talking with people about experiences rather than theories. So just by a kind of 'natural selection' if you'll excuse my stealing the term, people will tend to find they are friends with other people of the same type in this regard.

It is this trait that most greatly affects what you do and what you talk about, which naturally affects who you meet and who you connect best with.

This is not to be confused with Extraversion and Introversion, which it often can be.

A Sensing person who is extraverted will seek activities with other people over solitary activities.
A Sensing person who is introverted will seek activities that can be done alone over social activities.
An iNtutitive person who is extraverted will seek discussion of theories and ideas with other people.
An iNtuitive person who is an introvert will contemplate or write down ideas and theories on their own, and choose to read books for extra insight rather than talking with others to gain more insight.

Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Percieving affect why and how you do or say things.

hmm, Kiersy Types in a Nutshell:
Sensing/Intuition = What.
Action, Experience, Skill vs. Contemplation, Analysis, Understanding
Extroverion/Introversion = With Whom.
Others, Community vs. Self, Individuality
Thinking/Feeling = Why.
Logic vs. Emotion
Judging/Percieving = How.
Control, Conclusions, Order, Duty vs. Discovery, Exploration, Spontinaeity, Play

grilled cheese

I was just making grilled cheese and remembered getting them from the Eagle's Nest at Biola and they had Mayonase on them! Eeeeeeew! that was sooo gross! can you immagine it? warm mayo ooozing out of a grilled cheese sandwich! blech! I remember being totally flabbergasted that anyone would think of doing such a thing!

a couple of thoughts on a sunny afternoon

I don't think it's so much that children don't know how to stay clean, as it is that they enjoy doing things it's hard not to get dirty at. And they don't particularly mind getting dirty. Afterall, what is so bad about that? Mostly, I fancy, it is the idea that we look ridiculous or incapable to other people. Practicaly speaking there are some things you can probably do a lot better if you're not fretting about how you look doing it, and there are few messes which one really can't clean up afterwards.

I've never understood why some people seem to like being scared - a totally unpleasant and inconvenient feeling if you ask me! But I suppose perhaps part of it comes from enjoying the feeling of adrenalin. I should rather get it doing things that make me supremely happy, but...to each his own...I suppose. It may also be because of the lack of real physical danger in modern society. (You know how people always seem to want what they haven't got). People, for one thing, usually persue the feeling of fear in ways that are actually relatively safe - such as horror movies and roller coasters. Thus they can achieve a sense of bravery even though the danger was never actually 'real'. Few people can, in these days, claim true acts of heroism, in anything beyond the inner battles of the mind and will. But you can win a kind of prestige from comrades by exposing yourself to all kinds of these safe dangers and showing that you are not terribly bothered by them. Whether or not this would actually prepare one for real dangers probably depends a great deal on the person, though I immagine it would help. So the honor may be to some degree deserved.

one fry short of a.....

I just typed in barking mad and it took me straight to Insanity

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