Ruby Valdez on Spectacle

This reading was pretty interesting. At least what I understood about it. Apparently, the modernists believe that the public is only interested in spectacle. Only flashy fast things are important. In a modernist point of view this is bad for the public sphere because is "work[s] against a project of rational communication, and thus against equality and democracy." I'm guessing this means it makes society separate rather than trying to make it equal like most modernists would like it to be. Am I warm? Moving along, it was also stated that this flashyness makes the consumer lazy. Basically, "spectacle" paralyzes a person's brain from having to think about anything that is happening. They also distract the public from what needs attending to like, politics (go figure, right?)

However, one part of the other side of this argument is for spectacle. I think it was the "Afrocentrists" that believed that " some histories of Black culture emphasize a heritage of 'melodies sung like speech... overlapping... call and response patterns...discrete musical events... and the inseparability of music and dance and/or stylized movement.'" This was a postmodernist point of view if I'm not mistaken. Many forms of this type of expression fall outside of the "paddock" of modernist norms. That is very unfortunate.

These two sides debate for much of the chapter. This is what I understood. I really enjoy to see two sides of this argument because most of the time I see the modernist point of view. That got boring quick. I've always liked gangsta rap, so this reading really helped me see at least part of where the music was coming from even though I'm not part of their culture. In all I thought the reading to be very insightful and eye opening. See you guys in class tomorrow:).