In the grim and dark future of the music industry, there are only memes. I bemused before about the potential effect of the fear over plagiarism is that musicians are now held up to a far higher standard in both craftsmanship and ethics. Since nobody wants to be caught dead plagiarising, using the public domain has become the safest and least suspicious route.
That way, one can get away with not writing their own material without flouting the law and their craftmanship doubted. Should it ever occur en masse, pop songs will function very much like Internet memes. It’ll go viral and everybody will latch onto it for as long as they can grab a hold of it. It’ll even go hand in hand with growing advancements in Internet technology and accessibility.
Every time a certain work goes public domain, pop stars will take advantage of it and popularise it for better or worse.
Aristocrats, the people who’re born wealthy and exert immense sociopolitical and socioeconomic power, bound by hierarchy and tradition, associated with monarchy, chieftaincy and empire. They’re still around but in places where republic presidency’s the norm, these are practically and legally marginalised and can sometimes be socioeconomically cumbersome.
At least with some chieftaincies, there’s a desire to have more spouses and children but it’s increasingly not enough to support those. Such nobility are more likely to be humbled or scattered and continuous associated with tribal communities and antiquity. Businesspeople are historically regarded as lowly but once capitalism came they rose to power much to the chagrin of actual gentry.
Yet the latter successfully displaced and replicated the former so much so that contemporary businesspeople are often stereotyped as rich. Yet nobility still carries some appeal, especially when it comes to inheritance and being born to rule with money.
Given that the Bible doesn’t like things what secular or non-practising Christians enjoy, whether if it’s open homosexuality or animal idolatry (it seems to dislike dogs and pigs a lot but could be applied to any other animal) or belief in the supernatural should there be a compromise these could be done within reason to avoid violating Biblical principles.
One could be open about loving other people of the same gender whilst striving to avoid certain sentiments or have dogs without being too sentimental about them. Given that God gets jealous, many Christians of whatever sect would have to restrain themselves to focus on who or what matters more. One can’t serve God and Mammon, you have to dedicate to either deity but face the consequences of your choices too.
Not that it’s wrong to be infatuated with something but not too much to avoid competition even if you want certain things to be granted, you should prioritise God even if you want things your way.
I bemused about what an asexual rockist popstar would be like, given the potentially sexist implications as women get damned for their sexuality (and sometimes singlehood at the expense of motherhood and being a wife). The asexual rockist popstar, if female, would seem near-perfect and be the near-perfect muse.
She’s practically untarnished, free to be immortalised in the media in a way other muses can’t and will never be. Elizabeth Siddal’s a Victorian muse who’s also an aspiring artist as well as somebody’s troubled wife. Sometimes said muse gets married to somebody else. At other times she turns out to have bad taste or wastes her motherhood on something else.
That isn’t to say that this hypothetical creature is perfect but rather her asexuality gives a curiously saintly air to it. Unable to experience sexual desire herself instead of deliberately controlling it, she becomes the true unrequited love of many. That’ll trouble other women who feel unworthy of her.
That’s the curse of being an asexual muse.
For several centuries, aristocracy ruled in Europe and now that it has dwindled due to various factors like changing ideologies, warfare and the like it’s practically marginalised in most countries. Not that aristocrats and their scions are entirely gone as much as they’re practically, if sometimes legally humbled.
The descendant of any former aristocratic family could still be rich but never legally regaining it, let alone inherit the throne anymore. Some of them are even middle class by now. Others strike a balance through business, which businesspeople are coincidentally considered to be the new aristocracy. It makes sense given the growing socioeconomic changes that some other group would have to fill in.
Moreso in republic countries where a marginalised aristocracy gives way to an ennobled business class. Certain businesspeople, like aristocrats before, tend to marry similar people. That children born to both aristocrats proper and businesspeople tend to inherit their wealth undermines the similarities.
Given there are growing plagiarism scandals, the biggest one yet to occur would change both musical production and critical evaluation forever. Plagiarism becomes the new lip-synching, a mark of inauthenticity albeit more literally because it aspires to be the real thing. Now it’s not enough to write your own songs but to also be your own individual or be better off not writing your own songs to avoid plagiarism.
The latter’s also dubious but could become increasingly excusable to avoid plagiarism by either resorting to the public domain or old copyrighted catalogues. Many more professionals would resort to the public domain because they can get away with not writing their own material without having both their craftsmanship doubted and flouting the law.
That can’t be said of plagiarists who’ll always be regarded as fake and inauthentic, anti-rockist even. As ironic as it sounds, the musician that doesn’t write its own songs is pardoned for as long as it doesn’t plagiarise. As long as it’s derived from old catalogues or public domain, that’s fine. Yet it also validates rockist authenticity way more than plagiarism ever would!
I read there somewhere that both Spain and Italy have like almost a million dogs but the number could be larger if you include both wolf-dog hybrids and owned dogs that roam at will. Especially if you take farmers’ feelings and experiences with the latter into account, which these dogs cause far more damage to both wildlife and livestock than wolves do.
There’s a relatively larger number of free-roaming dogs in the countryside which skewers things and seems to get under reported. Not that there’s anything wrong with owning dogs but it’s either that the statistics sometimes fail to take the dogs’ individual niches and idiosyncrasies into consideration or the differences in what constitutes as a stray dog.
Is the stray dog truly ownerless or an owned dog that roams at will, acting wilder than usual? Some have identified truly different niches of stray dogs, which can be applied to cats to a degree as the line between owned and unowned gets blurred depending on the degree of socialisation to humans.
While there are those that beg to differ, it could underscore the problems with statistical reporting in which an owned dog could go stray not just because it’s not heavily socialised to people but have a desire to follow its instincts at the expense of others.