bleckblog: musings of a community college english teacher

Even though I went on about the value of reading the newspaper yesterday, following Postman's lead, I read it this morning, and will read it tomorrow morning too. What I found interesting this morning (and the various online stories I read as well), among other things, was the story about Grockster and file sharing in front of the Supreme Court.

What struck me were the folks lined up against Grockster and file sharing: Sheryl Crow (if not for Lance Armstrong, I don't think she'd be as much in the limelight. Her music is a bit too poppy for me, but I listen on occasion), the Dixie Chicks, and Don Henley, late of the Eagles. I won't bother providing links to them, as they don't like file sharing and they probably don't have any files at their site you might want to download.

On the other side of the table were Brian Eno, Heart (I have to admit, growing up in Seattle when they were hot gave me some silly sort of civic pride, plus "Crazy on You" rocked in its day), and Chuck D of Public Enemy. I didn't find any free downloads at these sites, only some samples. What I did notice with Eno and Public Enemy is that they are hawking their own wares, seeming not to rely so much on record labels to do so for them. Certainly the RIAA isn't representing the likes of these folks because they don't make industry executives any money. It would seem those executives are also concerned with their gravy train being derailed. I guess I might be too if I were them, but I'm not them.

What struck me is that Crow, Henley and the Chicks said they were worried about their livelihood. I couldn't help but think what a crock that was. If they never sell another record, cd, tape or song, they'll still have a livelihood in music, but they won't make as much and they might have to work harder for it. They struck me as arguing for maintaining their right to be wealthy off their work, not making a living off it.

I'm not sure there is anyway I can tie this into my reading today by Postman. In respects, while he continues to make some interesting, and, to me, valid, points, a good bit of his argument has lost its resonance. What does resonate is his claim that "telvision is entertaining [and] it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience" (87). When teaching, I have a feeling I consider "engaging" and "entertaining" almost synonomously, when I do think about such things. Even when I don't try to engage or entertain, I tell students to get ready for some boring but essential information. Like any teacher, I bring a certain enthusiasm to what I do, because I like what I do, but I don't like the notion that students need to be entertained if they are to learn. I guess I'm still buying into the Calvinist notion, even though I like to think I take a more Unitarian perspective, that it has to hurt in order to be good for you.