I stumbled upon this blog post by Dynomight: Things to argue about over the holidays instead of politics. It’s a list of questions to discuss with your family members instead of the “normal” stuff. But most of the relatives and friends in my hometown would rather talk about other things (politics included - not saying it’s a bad thing), so I talked with myself instead 🤷♂️
Below are my thoughts on some of them.
Is the existence of the Guinness World Records a positive or a negative for humanity on net?
The Guinness World Records consists of 2 things:
- the Guinness World Records book, that recognizes and honors unreal human achievements
- the organization behind the book, which handles marketing, logistics, etc.
Let’s talk about the book first
There are records that were achieved by people who didn’t optimize for those records. What drives them isn’t the chance to get their names written on the book. Examples: Malala Yousafzai as the Youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner, Simone Biles with the most medals won at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. This kind of recognition may inspire others, and give people a better, positive outlook on humanity. 👈 this is a positive
There are achievements purely for entertainment values: tallest living man, longest fingernails on a pair of hands, etc. Some might be pointless and vanity, but at least they entertain us 👈 still a positive
But there were some people who set the goal of establishing a world record, and in the process caused harmful effects (internally and/or externally). Examples: sword swallowing record, attempting to create the biggest food item causing food waste (e.g. a company called Juicys Outlaw Grill attempted to create a record-breaking 770-pound burger in 2011, their initial attempt failed when they were unable to cook the 600-pound beef patty they’d made) 👈 Not entirely the book’s fault (and the Guinness World Records organization did change their policies to prevent those negative effects). But this is still a negative.
And I guess in the process of attempting to set a record, people find joy in doing so. The determination and the practice that went into it are valuable, even if the goal could be vanity. 👈 a positive
About the organization
The Guinness World Records organization had been making money by selling the book. But with the rise of the Internet, book sales declined. So they changed the business model: Would-be record breakers that paid fees ranging from US$12,000 to US$500,000 would be given advisors, adjudicators, help in finding good records to break as well as suggestions for how to do it, prompt service, and so on.
To me, this makes record-breaking become less “pure”, as celebrities and companies have been using Guinness World Records as a way to gain publicity. Worse, the organization partnered with dictatorial governments to polish their images (John Oliver talked about this in his talk show). 👈 quite a big negative
Conclusion
Well, how should I quantify the good and the bad, so that I would get a positive or negative number? Anyway, I think Guinness World Records causes a net positive effect.
Why do most people seem to hold poetry and poets in high esteem yet have approximately zero interest in reading any poetry ever?
I think the people mentioned in this question can be categorized into 2 groups.
The first group is people to whom if you asked, “Do you like poetry?”, they probably would say “No, I don’t.” But if you asked “Do you think poetry is important?”, they would answer “Yes, definitely.”
What I mean is that these people would admit poetry is not their taste, but they know poetry has meaning, that the art is subtle and not easy to apprehend. They may regard poets as the ones who have a relatively rare talent and are brave enough to pursue this not-popular, very-hard-to-succeed-financially art.
They don’t experience the art, but associate certain values with it, and come to the conclusion that “poetry and poets must be held in high esteem”. I think most people belong to this group.
By the way, the same pattern can be found in other places in our lives. For example, I’m not religious, I haven’t actually read the Bible, or done Hinduism’s rituals,… but I (and many others) know these religions are valuable (they teach people to do good, they help people find hope,…), so I respect and appreciate them.
The second group has a belief that is along the lines of: “Most people can’t apprehend this esoteric art, therefore someone who can appreciate it must have good taste.” So they act (pretend) to admire poetry to signal that they are cultured and different.
Why does the West insist on “authenticity” in popular music where the performers are the songwriters? Why not specialize? Or why not insist the artist masters the music and creates the album art? Does this tradition give Western musicians more bargaining power than, say, K-pop artists?
Why does the West insist on “authenticity” in popular music where the performers are the songwriters?
Haven’t come up with a convincing answer for this. I think I might need to dig quite deep into the culture of each society (i.e. Western—mostly the US, versus Korea), and their history of music.
However, I have a hypothesis that part of the reason for the existence of music markets where it’s not important whether or not the performers are the songwriters, is the behaviors of the record labels, as well as decisions made by the government.
Take K-pop as an example, record labels treat artists as products to be designed and manufactured.
Through highly competitive auditions, starting around ages 10 to 12, music studios induct talented children into the K-pop regimen. The children attend special schools ****where they take specialized singing and dancing lessons; they learn how to moderate their public behavior and prepare for life as a pop star; they spend hours in daily rehearsals and perform in weekend music shows as well as special group performances. Through these performances, lucky kids can gain fan followings before they even officially “debut.” And when they’re old enough, if they’re really one of the lucky few, the studios will place them into ****an idol group or even, occasionally, launch them as a solo artist.
— How K-pop became a global phenomenon - Vox
[When forming a band,] companies look for a set of distinct yet cohesive personalities so as to appeal to as large a fan base as possible, while not generating unnecessary internal conflict.
They “design” the songs:
[…] a song’s ****performance elements — how easy it is to sing live, how easy it is for an audience to pick up and sing along with, the impact of its choreography, its costuming — are all crucial to its success.
And even “design” the artists:
[…] performers are regularly signed to long-term contracts, known as “slave contracts,” when they are still children, which closely dictate their private behavior, dating life, and public conduct.
— How K-pop became a global phenomenon - Vox
K-pop artists are not just singers. They are brands—the results of market research, deliberate designs, calculated promotions, etc. The industry has figured out how to manufacture a product that appeals to the mass audience. When every day, what gets your attention and affection is this, you gradually shift your attention away from what the Western audience called “authenticity”. You associate music with “idols” rather than “artistic statements”.
But why are those companies exist? Why the Korean music industry is so different than, say, the US music industry? From several sources I found on the Internet, I guess it began around the early 1990s when the Korean government decided to use entertainment as their cultural export. They increased the cultural budget, and formed a new Ministry of Culture, even including a department dedicated to K-pop. They don’t let music just be… music. Instead, K-pop is a mean to achieve certain goals.
Why not specialize?
To be fair, US pop artists sometimes use ghostwriters too, just not as much as their K-pop counterparts. I think when compared to other genres, the need to stay relevant is stronger in pop music: artists need to engage with fans a lot more, and most importantly, the hits need to keep coming. But when you’re constantly doing promos and being on tour, you don’t have time to write. It’s necessary to be efficient, hence letting others write songs for you.
I think fans tolerate the practice because they mostly seek pop music for entertainment.
Why not insist the artist masters the music and creates the album art?
Music mastering is more engineering than art. It consists of compression, equalization, stereo imaging, harmonic distortion and saturation, etc. I don’t think the audience requires artists to have sound engineering skills.
Regarding album art, I don’t think the audience demands music artists to be skilled at drawing either.
Does this tradition give Western musicians more bargaining power than, say, K-pop artists?
I think so.
K-pop audience wants idols. And to be idols, artists would have to rely so much on the record labels.