Why uncreative people copy creative people

In an age where one can access multitudes of information within seconds, one can also marvel at the creative works of others posted on the world wide web for all to see. This also means that, to an extent, one can copy or rip off those works with a certain degree of anonymity. I mean, who's going to know, right?

What I don't get is why uncreative people do what I've previously mentioned. I understand that in this day and age, there's not much room for originality, but ripping off someone's work, changing the layout/font colours/etc., slapping your name on it and posting it on the internet? Come on.

As far as I know, there isn't another "Things I Don't Get" blog on Blogspot, but I don't know; however, if I were to come across a blog like mine, I would either a) chide them for copying my blog if it was around after mine, or b) delete/alter my blog to make it original.

It's a completely different story, however, when something like the following happens:

Person A writes a blog about things that anger them. Now, Person B posts a blog about things THEY hate and advertises it in their sig on a forum that myself and the other two people I've mentioned frequent. Assuming that 1) Person A's blog has been around longer and 2) Person B willingly copied the idea from Person A's blog, it makes my point painfully obvious.

So why can't people just be original? I mean, is it really that hard?

Actually, I could spiral into a tangent of the percentage of people with below-normal intelligence, but I don't know that I'd like to sit at the computer for that long.

Anyway, I think a big part of it has to do with the shield of anonymity that computers provide. People can go, "MUAHAHA. I AM MONKEYMAN3656 AND I WILL STEAL THIS ARTWORK AND CALL IT MY OWN" simply because either they can or because it's a lot easier than it is in real life to steal things on the interwebz.

-sigh- Seriously, people. Despite the fact that it's so easy to steal other people's work and slap your name on it to post on the internet, don't. Just...don't. Otherwise, it prompts people like me to write blog entries like this.

Oh, and if you're reading this blog and happen to know of another like it, let me know, would you?

Why Spongebob can't get his driver's license

I'm sure everyone has at least heard of Spongebob Squarepants and, if you haven't, I wonder: where have you been for the last few years?

Anyway, if you've seen the show, you know that one of the main running gags behind the show is that Spongebob fails his driving test and has to go to boating school (as they drive boats underwater instead of cars) again and again and again. I love seeing the shenanigans involved with SPongebob crashing his boat, sending his driving instructor, Mrs. Puff, to hospital, and maiming spectators to said shenanigans, but I thought this was blog-worthy.

So, I wonder: why can't poor SPongebob get his driver's license?

He's been to boating school so many times that it's not funny, yet he constantly fails his driving test. In the episode "Boating School," we can see that even Patrick can help him pass, but finding out that what he did (put a walkie-talkie inside his head and had Patrick give him the answers) was cheating caused him to not only feel incredibly guilty, but crash...again.

What I don't get is that even Patrick managed to get his boating license; I mean, come on. Patrick. And he's retarded as all get out.

Now, there was an episode where Mrs. Puff got fired and a new boating instructor was brought in. Spongebob did learn how to drive, albeit blindfolded, but it turned out that he was unteachable.

So, as the driving test isn't that hard (Patrick passed it, for cripes sake), the problem must lie with Spongebob. -shrugs- I guess driving isn't for everyone, apparently, even though he can pedal a unicycle fast enough to keep up with a car.

-sigh- Well, I don't know that Spongebob will ever get his license (he got it once, but that was because Mrs. Puff gave it to him after he completed some "extra credit," which was only because she was so tired of having him in class that she gave him a ten-word essay called "What I learned in boating school is..." and accepted it anyway, despite the fact that Spongebob started to freak out under the pressure. She eventually revoked it, though). If he doesn't, it will make for some more hilarious driving hijinks involving Spongebob, a boat, and surely, massive destruction. If he does...well, the series will probably end.

Cheers.

Katy Perry

Imagine how intrigued I was to hear one day that there was a song called "I Kissed A Girl" by an artist that I'd never heard of before, by the name of Katy Perry. Surprisingly, I managed to avoid even hearing the song until a few weeks ago, when I bit the bullet and looked up the video on YouTube.

I really wish I hadn't, as I haven't been able to get the lyrics to that song out of my head since.

Apparently, Perry's relatively new to the music scene, and she took it by storm with "Kissed A Girl," then with subsequent hits like "Hot 'N' Cold" and "Ur So Gay."

Now, what I don't get is why she's so popular. Yes, her songs are irritatingly catchy, but when one actually listens to the lyrics, one will realize that most of the time, they're just poppy, AABB rhyme scheme lyrics with messages like "I have a boyfriend, but I kissed a girl because I wanted to experiment while drinking, so I hope he doesn't mind, tee hee!" and "Your so gay because of [these reasons] and you don't even like boys just because I said so." I mean, look at the chorus to "I Kissed A Girl:"

I kissed a girl

and I liked it

The taste of her cherry Chapstick

I kissed a girl

just to try it

I hope my boyfriend don't mind it

It felt so wrong

It felt so right

Don't mean I'm in love tonight

I kissed a girl

and I liked it

I liked it

I mean..."The taste of her cherry chapstick?" That doesn't really make sense, as it doesn't fit in with the chorus, and it sounds like, while she really liked kissing this girl, her ideas about "what good girls do" and "what [she's] used to" are interfering with her homosexual tendencies. But, I digress. This isn't a blog about homosexuality.

Oh, on a quick note, there's a part in the song where she praises tributes girls possess, like "skin so touchable" and whatnot. It sounds to me like she REALLY liked kissing this girl (whoever she was, as apparently, her name didn't matter to Perry), but who am I to judge? This is about Perry.

Anyway, I will admit that Perry is attractive, but there's something about her voice that throws me off. Could it be the husky contralto coming out of this skinny white girl's mouth? Perhaps, but I've heard that she can't really sing live, which is disappointing, for reasons that I've listed in my "Amy Lee" blog.

So, it looks to me like Perry's one of those pop singers who will either:

a) have a few more catchy, poppy hits and fade into oblivion like so many before her,

or,

b) have way more poppy, catchy hits and end up having a career akin to Britney Spears.

But, as I can't see the future, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I guess, for now, I'm stuck agonising over how to get that damn song out of my head.

The decline in the quality of Amy Lee's vocals

If you know my tastes in music at all, then you know that Evanescence is my favorite female-fronted band. I got hooked on them back in high school, and I've loved them ever since. I love the guitar riffs, the lyrics, the melodies, basically everything about them.

But...

Ever since Evanescence's latest album, The Open Door, came out, I've noticed a decline in the quality of the frontwoman's (Amy Lee) vocals. Not to say that she's can't sing anymore, but comapred to the vocals on their previous albums, the quality's gone downhill.

I mean, look at Bring Me To Life (Fallen). Amy holds the ending note for a good long while, and her voice sounds incredible the entire time. Then you look at a song like Sweet Sacrifice (The Open Door), and the soprano notes she holds are just...lacking. I recall reading reviews of Fallen that said Amy's vocals were "soaring," "beautiful," and "haunting." Why couldn't she have carried that over to The Open Door?

One main difference I noticed (besides the vocal quality) between The Open Door and Fallen was the change in musical style the band went through with the departure of one of the cofounders, Ben Moody. While he was the guitarist, the songs were more alternative hard rock. On The Open Door, where Lee had more creative control over what the songs sounded like, it progressed in a different direction that's more indicative of Lee's style as a musician. If you don't know what I'm talking about, listen to The Open Door and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I surmise that the decline in the quality of Lee's vocals is due to the change in their style. In The Open Door, she tends to put a lot more power behind her singing, which draws away from the quality. Come on, Amy, where are the sweeping, soaring vocals we heard and loved in Going Under and Bring Me To Life? They've been replaced by power soprano notes, sadly.

Another thing about Lee's vocals that I don't understand is why they sound so bad in concert. I had the pleasure of attending Family Values 2007 last year when it came to my town and, I must say, while I was overjoyed at getting to see one of my favorite bands perform live for the first time, I wasn't very impressed with Lee's singing. I have talked to many other Ev-heads (fans of Evanescence) and they've agreed with me: Amy sounds nowhere nearly as good live as she does on the albums. This makes me sad, as one of the biggest marks of a good band is the ability to sound good live. I must admit, though, during the early acoustic performances of songs from Fallen, her voice sounded amazing. It must be all that moving around on stage, as she sounds good in acoustic performances where she's just sitting at the piano.

So, to sum it up, although this doesn't put me off from liking Evanescence and won't prevent me from getting extremely excited when they finally put out another album, it still makes me wonder constantly.

Twilight

Okay, so it's come to my attention that Twilight has enjoyed a recent popularity boom in the past few months, and the trend caught my interest; however, as I learned more and more about the book series, I started to ask one question:

Why the eff is it so popular?

Okay, so it's a love story between a vampire and a girl, which is all fine and dandy, but...

Here's a list of gripes I have:

• According to more than one source, there's absolutely no chemistry between Bella (the girl) and Edward (the vamp). So why do they fall madly in love?
• Vampires can not only go into sunlight without being dusted, but they sparkle as well. There's also a particularly long-winded, scientific-sounding explanation by the author herself.
• Apparently, the writer not only didn't write the story with the intent to get it published, but also admits that she isn't the best writer. So why do people (mostly girls in the 9-16 year old demographic) tout it as a work of literary genius?

Apparently, the fans of Twilight (dubbed "Twilighters" by God knows who) will react quite violently to anyone who "disses" the series. This has inspired me to wear a "TWILIGHT BLOWS HARD WITH GLITTER" t-shirt around, but I digress.

Anyway, I don't understand why Twilight has become so popular. Is it because the characters are Mary Sues/Gary Stus, the plot is contrived and predictable, and most importantly, Edward is the hottest thing to hit the literary world since those trashy romance novels 40+ women who subsitute teach for elementary schools read during busywork time? Or could it be because a majority of the American public prefers uber-characters and contrived plots over literary works of actual merit? I don't understand it.

I have often heard the Twilight trend being compared to the Harry Potter trend, but I don't understand how people can make the comparison on the basis of anything but the amount of fanpeople. Aside from the thousands of people who enjoy either book series, there's no comparison. While there are people who don't like each of the series, Rowling's work is superior, even when you just look at how well-written each series is; however, I won't launch into a tirade about this comparison.

So, it looks like I'll never understand the Twilight phenomenon (or phenome-not, as I'd prefer it to be)and, until I do, it looks like I'm commander of the Anti-Twilight armies. -sigh-