Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
FROM DEATH, BACK TO ME
Fantasia Barrino’s “Back To Me” album is the most consistent album released this year. The album is flawless! I didn’t say its perfect but rather flawless because it delivers everything one expects from a soulful singer like Fantasia and more.
From track 1 to 12 Fantasia takes you on a journey of bittersweet love with gospel undertones. She effortlessly move from one ballad to another emotionally. Now what more would you want from a soul singer?
Vocally Fantasia is on point and her vocal abilities is at its peak in the track “The Thrill is Gone” which also features Ce-Lo Green. She starts you on this journey with “I’m Doin’ Me”and leaves you panting with emotion with “I’m Here”.
Fantasia comes off as a reborn and matured artiste in this record. She outperforms herself in her previous albums. And a very good comeback this album is. I mean if you are an artiste and you don’t improve then you should be dumped in a trash can.
If am forced to choose a favorite track inthis album, I would go for “Collard Greens and Cornbread”, “Man of the House”, “Falling In Love Tonight” and “Even Angels”.
Truly Fantasia is a vocal beast! Her rough-hewn vocals drags at your heart begs you to fall in love with her and surely i tell you, you can’t resist. If you dont go cop a copy of this album then it simply means that you dont know good music.
Oh and Dear Fantasia please in this wilderness called Hollywood, you have to be vicious, learn how to spin bad publicity to boost your image. You need to develop a tough skin and dont be going ahead attempting suicide cos u are having an affair with a married man and cos of a sextape scandal. Go ask Miss America 1998 and Kim Kardashian for tips.
Oh well how i wish you would read this. SMH!
BREAKING POINT
Keri Hilson’s Breaking Point to me is a lyrically awesome song that is performed over classical and yet mediocre beats. Like her first single “Energy” off her “In a Perfect World”, i dont see Breaking Point breaking its way through the charts. The lyrics are strong but the composure is very “safe”. In this musical era where acts like Lady Gaga and Rihanna are defying sensibility to create masterpieces, there is no room for a safe work from any artiste.
The song has very great soul anecdotes and is very reminiscent of a Lauryn Hill record. But Keri failed to pull it off. The extra ooomph factor seen in her hits like “Knock You Down” and “Turnin Me On” is lacking.
This song could have been much much better. But hey its her first single. I hope she comes up with something better in the future.
The song has very great soul anecdotes and is very reminiscent of a Lauryn Hill record. But Keri failed to pull it off. The extra ooomph factor seen in her hits like “Knock You Down” and “Turnin Me On” is lacking.
This song could have been much much better. But hey its her first single. I hope she comes up with something better in the future.
 |
| Single Cover Art |
If Today Was A Fairytale, Taylor Swift and Kanye West would Kiss and make up.
ell the feud between Kayne West and Taylor Swift might be over now. Whew! What a relieve. I can now go back to being a Kayne #Stan. Well you wouldnt have gueesed it but Kanye West said on his twitter page today that he has written a song for Taylor Swift and that he is sorry for being an A-hole!
Seems Mr. West is quite on a role this afternoon and he has been tweeting profusely like a remorseful child. So does this means he has said bye bye to his BIG ego? His huge ego? I’d rather ya’ll answer that.
So Kanye took to his twitter page and tweeted “I wrote a song for Taylor Swift that's so beautiful and I want her to have it. If she won't take it then I'll perform it for her”. (How sweet!) “It is distasteful to cut people off as a general rule. What's the point of dressing tastefully if I'm going to act the complete opposite?” (You tell me Kanye).
I mean i couldnt stand it when he did a song with Beyonce but to diss the adorable and awfully sweet Taylor Swift? I mean who does that? That ws it for me. Thats when i started hating.
Well for his own sake i hope he is the one tweeting and that this is not the result of sum white substance that has taken him to cloud nine.
I would love to see these two do a duet.
 |
| Add caption |
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
USES AND GRATIFICATION THEORY! A CRITICAL LOOK
The Uses and Gratification approach focuses on why people use particular media rather than on content. In contrast to the concern of the 'media effects' tradition with 'what media do to people' (which assumes a homogeneous mass audience and a 'hypodermic' view of media), Uses and Gratification can be seen as part of a broader trend amongst media researchers which is more concerned with 'what people do with media', allowing for a variety of responses and interpretations.
The theory has been criticized as being individualistic and psychologistic, tending to ignore the socio-cultural context. As a theoretical stance it foregrounds individual psychological and personality factors and backgrounds sociological interpretations. For instance, David Morley (1992) acknowledges that individual differences in interpretation do exist, but he stresses the importance of subcultural socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which people interpret their experiences with TV (via shared 'cultural codes'). Uses and Gratification theorists tend to exaggerate active and consciouschoice, whereas media can be forced on some people rather than freely chosen. The stance can also lead to the exaggeration of openness of interpretation, implying that audiences may obtain almost any kind of gratification regardless of content or of 'preferred readings'. Its functionalist emphasis is politically conservative: if we insist that people will always find some gratifications from any use of media, we may adopt a complacently uncritical stance towards what the mass media currently offer.
Also some degree of selectivity of media and content is clearly exercised by audiences (e.g. choice or avoidance of TV soap operas. However, instrumental (goal-directed) accounts assume a rational choice of appropriate media for predetermined purposes. Such accounts over-emphasize informational purposes and ignore a great deal in people's engagement with media: TV viewing can be an end in itself. There is evidence that media use is often habitual, ritualistic and unselective (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988). But more positively, TV viewing can sometimes be seen as aesthetic experience in which intrinsic motivation is involved.
References:
1. Barwise, D. & A. Ehrenberg (1988): Television and its Audience. London: Sage
2. Morley, David (1992): Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
The theory has been criticized as being individualistic and psychologistic, tending to ignore the socio-cultural context. As a theoretical stance it foregrounds individual psychological and personality factors and backgrounds sociological interpretations. For instance, David Morley (1992) acknowledges that individual differences in interpretation do exist, but he stresses the importance of subcultural socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which people interpret their experiences with TV (via shared 'cultural codes'). Uses and Gratification theorists tend to exaggerate active and consciouschoice, whereas media can be forced on some people rather than freely chosen. The stance can also lead to the exaggeration of openness of interpretation, implying that audiences may obtain almost any kind of gratification regardless of content or of 'preferred readings'. Its functionalist emphasis is politically conservative: if we insist that people will always find some gratifications from any use of media, we may adopt a complacently uncritical stance towards what the mass media currently offer.
Also some degree of selectivity of media and content is clearly exercised by audiences (e.g. choice or avoidance of TV soap operas. However, instrumental (goal-directed) accounts assume a rational choice of appropriate media for predetermined purposes. Such accounts over-emphasize informational purposes and ignore a great deal in people's engagement with media: TV viewing can be an end in itself. There is evidence that media use is often habitual, ritualistic and unselective (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988). But more positively, TV viewing can sometimes be seen as aesthetic experience in which intrinsic motivation is involved.
References:
1. Barwise, D. & A. Ehrenberg (1988): Television and its Audience. London: Sage
2. Morley, David (1992): Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
CRITICISMS OF THE AGENDA SETTING THEORY OF MEDIA EFFECTS
The Agenda Setting Theory is a mass communication effects theory which states that the mass media has a huge influence on their audience by selecting the issues or stories they consider newsworthy or important to be discussed. This implies that the mass media transfer salient issues that sets the agenda of public discussions. This theory assumes that the issues the mass media lays emphasis on are the ones that the audience would consider as important and therefore pay attention to.
One criticism against this theory is that the mass media is that people are not the same as the theorists assumes. However some individuals may not pay attention to what is being covered by the media and therefore miss important details. Such a person may discuss issues but they might not be the ones that are propounded by the media. People who are conservative or partial to a particular issue may not be moved by the effect of the media agenda setting. This is due to the fact that such people have already made up their mind about a particular issue and may not be swayed by the agendas set by the media.
Also, the environment in which the media sets this agenda can be a factor that makes it ineffective. If there is unrest, strife and other factors that weakens the media's ability to set agenda, this theory becomes baseless. For example in a conservative Islamic society, the media in an attempt to promote a Christian value would fail drastically as the environment is not condusive enough.
The Agenda Setting theory is a great theory which is am improvement of the stereotyped Magic Bullet theory but like anything else it doesn't come without its weaknesses.
One criticism against this theory is that the mass media is that people are not the same as the theorists assumes. However some individuals may not pay attention to what is being covered by the media and therefore miss important details. Such a person may discuss issues but they might not be the ones that are propounded by the media. People who are conservative or partial to a particular issue may not be moved by the effect of the media agenda setting. This is due to the fact that such people have already made up their mind about a particular issue and may not be swayed by the agendas set by the media.
Also, the environment in which the media sets this agenda can be a factor that makes it ineffective. If there is unrest, strife and other factors that weakens the media's ability to set agenda, this theory becomes baseless. For example in a conservative Islamic society, the media in an attempt to promote a Christian value would fail drastically as the environment is not condusive enough.
The Agenda Setting theory is a great theory which is am improvement of the stereotyped Magic Bullet theory but like anything else it doesn't come without its weaknesses.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
THE HYPODERMIC NEEDLE THEORY OF MEDIA EFFECTS LAID BARE!!!!!
The hypodermic needle or magic Bullet theory of the media assumed that the mass media had a powerful, lineal and instant effect on their audience. The theorists argued that all mass media messages had a direct effect on the listeners and said the relationship between the mass media and the audience was like the hypodermic needle. This implies that behaviours and attitudes were injected into the people by the media. The theory suggests that the mass media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by ‘shooting’ or ‘injecting’ them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response.
Both images used to express this theory (a bullet and a needle) suggest a powerful and direct flow of information from the sender to the receiver. The bullet theory graphically suggests that the message is a bullet, fired from the "media gun" into the viewer's "head". With similarly emotive imagery the hypodermic needle model suggests that media messages are injected straight into a passive audience which is immediately influenced by the message. They express the view that the media is a dangerous means of communicating an idea because the receiver or audience is powerless to resist the impact of the message.
This model or theory however has a lot of flaws and gaps in its assumptions. It sees the society as composed of fragmented individuals who are subject to powerful and effective propaganda messages which they receive from the media and then reproduce them. However Audiences are not blank sheets of paper on which media messages can be written; members of an audience will have prior attitudes and beliefs, which will determine how effective media messages are. This means that the beliefs and attitudes of individual would determine the effects media messages would have on him/her. For example a child brought up in the strict traditional settings and cultures of Ghana who sees a child talking back to his parents on a TV program would not dare reproduce that action for fear of the consequences of that behaviour.
According to this theory, there is no escape from the effect of the media messages. The people are seen as a sitting duck: passive and waiting for media materials to be shot at them. It assumes that people end up thinking what they are told because the media is the only source of information. This is however far-fetched because school, religion and the society are compelling sources of information and attitude shapers. Most individuals’ attitudes and behaviours are based on the messages or propagandas from their culture, parents, and religious figures. So the mass media is not all powerful and therefore it can be escaped.
It is wrong to assume that just because an audience sees acts of violence in media, they would actually commit them. Of the millions of people who watch violent films, only a small number have carried out acts of violence as a direct result. People regularly exposed to violent media usually grow up to be completely normal people. If there are any effects from media, they only affect a very small number of people. Moreover humans are not copycats and can realize what is wrong and what is right. There are other social and cultural factors in behaviour in which the media are not the basic. People who are influenced by and reproduce violent images on the media usually are not mentally stable.
References
Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (1981). A History of Our Understanding of Mass Communication. In: Davis, D.K. & Baron, S.J. (Eds.). Mass Communication and Everyday Life: A Perspective on Theory and Effects (19-52). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
DeFleur, Melvin L. Theories of Mass Communication New York: Longman Inc., 1989
Severin, Werner J. and James W. Tankard, Jr. Communication Theories -- Origins, Methods and Uses New York: Hastings House, 1979.
Abercrombie 1996, 140
Barker, Martin, & Petley, Julian, eds (2001), Ill Effects: The media/violence debate - Second edition, London: Routledge