'See With Your Ears'

The stone walls… the floor… the hallway of authority. Welcome to the prison.

‘I don’t have much time’: the only thought that’s repeating through his head, nerves all tensioned from the situation at hand. He’s just violated one of the biggest rules anyone could ever break. If he doesn’t get out of here soon, he’ll be killed on sight. Eyes twitching left and right, heart pounding, breaths quickened.

Moving along, within the blanket of night, he sneaks behind the shadows of a crate (cracks within the decaying wood), created by the torches up in the handles on the wall. He leans on the floor, the cold-biting sensation burrowing in within his right leg. He looks around the corner of the box, just to have that clear eye of vision on the passing guard, who’s walking down the hallway on his usual routine.

Looking down at the knife in his hand (the one he stole from the sleeping guard’s table (next to his cell)), he knew what had to be done. Taking a look back the way he came… he saw no one. He crouch-runs as quietly as he could towards the unfortunate loner.

The guard, who walked on, suddenly hesitated in his walk, stopped, and turned around, only to see the blurs of an animal’s shadow right in front of him, running towards him. Before he could react, all the senses of the situation were knocked aside; in placement were the howls within his mind, blinding his eyes with yells and screams… biting within his stomach, and slowly he dropped down to the ground, unable to move.

Standing up, looking down at the ‘one of many’ that ruled this place, he knew he was okay… for the time being -

“THERE HE IS!!”
A yell that broke the silence of fire.

Turning around, all his eyes could focus on was the oncoming of blurred shapes, armored heads, and blades, all within the blunders of the faraway shadows that cloaked their presence, but only to a degree.

Fear shooting instantly through his veins, he turns the other way, and runs down the hallway, making his escape, feet clapping, yells going on, his hopes to winning the fate in hand, and escape.

… Seconds, minutes, hours later… it’s all over. The rain’s pouring, and most of the guards now decided to head on back inside to be sheltered from the rain. All you see now, within the courtyard, is a motionless body, cuts everywhere on his ragged clothes, his head nodded downward, the warmth slipping through his lips.

He did not succeed.

~~~~~

Sorry if I went a little ‘too far’ with what I thought up with lol. I tried to limit how much violence I wrote on this one, so that way… nothing ‘bad’ would happen from the school because of it xD

Anywho, how I lead to this idea… I have no idea really. When I heard the first part of that song, all I thought was something of an isolated situation, a ‘prison escape’ movie-like mood, sneaky, stealthy, someone alertive… so that’s where the idea started up from.

The climax of the piece was when the guy knew he was in danger of the others being alerted to his presence.

The ending of the song settled with the aftermath of the situation.


… So for me, I don’t think the ENTIRE song got me inspired on the idea. To me, I only took like bits and parts that sparked my imagination from the song to generate a start for the idea, and then it all goes down to me about what I wanted to write about for the rest of it.

If I wanted to, I could’ve done more and more with it, but I figure you didn’t want to read a LOT, so… I kinda settled with a short version of it : )

… Oh, and I wanted to ask, what song was that, and where was it from? I quite liked it!! :D

- Joe

Alice in Wonderland

We think that the music sounds like it belongs in Alice in Wonderland. The beginning is suspenseful, like when Alice falls down the hole.The music gets a lot faster while she's chasing white rabbit. She sees a bunch of wierd stuff while she's falling. She sees a bunch of colors and floating objects. When she finally lands, at the end of the song she ends up in a room by herself and it gets louder because of the echo. The music is really trippy and gives off wierd vibes. The lady singing sounds like the scene in Alice in Wonderland when the caterpillar is smoking the hookah. The music is out of the norm just like the whole Alice in Wonderland movie.

Alexis,Sami,Kris,Calvin,Bree

katie and alex

We both think something violent is going one. A husband and wife are having a lovely evening, and the husband becomes belligerent. The wife, in anger, pushes her beloved out of a window of a 10 story building. He falls to his ultimate demise. Then she takes the elevator down to ground level and weeps remorsefully at what she has done. The cops find his body lying on the street and start interrogating the grief stricken woman. She confesses to this heinous act. They take her away. It turns out the woman had a twin who actually pushed the man out of the window. She framed her twin sister and went on to live her life in Tijuana as a male escort. The music just sounds violent and like something bad is happening or evil is being done. This effect is given by the minor tonality of the music.

p.s. my name is katie and i think this sound clip is from "the burbs."

Horror Hansel and Gretel

An erie forest is the setting while the camera slowly zooms in on a house secluded by the various trees. All types of creatures come lurking out in the night. We see inside of the house and look around at all of the creepy items hanging on the walls. The wind blows through a window making a curtain seem like a ghoul. It could possibly be some kind of horror movie that is not meant to be taken seriously. It could be the beginnings of a plot for conquest or devising a plan. As the music increases in speed it sounds as if a chase or the camera is following someone...or something. Our reasoning is based upon the dramatics and sound rising and softening. There is definitely the horror vibe to it, but there is too much going on within the song to classify it as horror. In the forest, in the house, a witch is going to cook you alive and bake you into cookies. Stephen Phillips, Mike Sloan, Brandon Sekerak

See With Your Ears

Emma - I think this music sounds like some music in a Disney movie like Bambi or some other Disney movie. I think it sounds like a chase scene how the music starts off slow and then gets faster.

Cameron - In the beginning of the piece of music I see everything in black and white. Its raining outside and a man's car just broke down. Hes infront of a huge mansion, its an older house and it has a creepy vibe but the man notices a lot of cars outside the house so he walks up to it to see if someone can help him. He goes to knock on the door but it opens before his hands hits. He walks through a hallway and into a huge room and then this is when the drums and everything else kick in and everything goes from black and white to color. There is a huge audience on the outside of a circle and on the inside there are a group of dancers dancing to the music infront of a man on a throne, he sort of resembles dracula, or maybe the phantom of the opera.

Rachel- When I listened to this piece, it first reminded me of the Disney movie "Aladdin". The music sounds very exoctic and sounds like it could be arabic. The drums were what first gave me that thought because it reminded me of when they had the parade for the fake Ali Baba.

Doug - I hear different familiar sounds in different parts of this piece. The drums are reminiscient of some of the scenes in Planet of the Apes. The female voice makes me think of Star Trek (TOS episodes). Somewhere towards the end, there's also a comical-sounding part that reminds me of the old Pink Panther movies.

~See With Your Ears~

We see someone being chased through a dark space, by a type of vilan/monster like creature. The feeling of the song is kind of 90's. We also see a jungle type of background, and a wild man chasing something in it. The scene is tribal and eerie, almost as if the "jungle man" was hunting something. We also see a scene as being sort of mystical and magical. Like a Fantasia type of scene with Mickey Mouse, or Alice in Wonderland. In the Fantasia scene this could be where Mickey is mixing is concoction in his culdren and every time something bubbles or pops in the culdren, thts when the music peeks. The Alice in wonderland scene, is when she is falling dwn this hole and wen the music ends she final lands.

The reason behind our descriptions are, tht is what the music sounded like.

Patrick Katusin

Allison Bishop

Autumn Ware

Seeing With My Ears

Right away the music reminded us of a Disney Orchestra, and the movies we use to watch when we were younger. When the woman's voice came in, it made us think of a man running through the jungle, trying to avoid something and hiding behind trees and things. It definitely makes us think of an action scene, as if someone or something is being hunted. It's very dramatic and surprising. It could possibly be a horror movie, but we believe it is an action movie. The beginning reminded us of a romance film and also a mythical tale. When the drums began it could possible represent a heart beat, we know when we are watching a movie and the music and drums start to play we know that something is going to happen. Then, our hearts start racing and the suspense builds. We also imagine a very colorful picture, it's not that dark of music due to the violins, it is somewhat uplifting. It's like an explosion, it starts off soft and gradually starts to build and build, meaning more things are happening while the music is playing and more action starts.

Abby Vidic & Brad Biben

composing AMerica

After reading this some things i had already new about the government but many things i didn't know and where in what way interesting. I didn't know that the declaration of independence
at the National Archives in Washington D.C. weren't the original copy. In fact its the third copy. Also when reading in composing America i didn't know there where certain styles of writing. Two main styles are Typography and calligraphy. When reading about the two certain styles of writing it seems that Typography standards of writing is more upscale than calligraphy. When going deeper into reading , it easily states the case that writing today has progressed much more than it was back in the day. Nouns and punctuations were used differently. Like for example it says that Jefferson only capitalized and in the beginning of paragraphs and in the names of nations or people. he didn't capitalize after every sentence as we would today. I see how writing changed drastically and also the concept of writing. this was reading was very informal and educational.

See with Your Ears (200 words)

For today's blog post, we will use words (verbal) to describe what sounds (auditory) allow us to see (visual).

This assignment has two parts (at least 200 words):

Part 1: LISTEN to the instrumental musical selection posted to VISTA/BLACKBOARD. Try to imagine a scene as a you listen. Describe the setting based on the music and sounds that you hear. What does it look like? What do you suppose is happening? Are there people there? If so, what are they doing? Be as descriptive and creative as possible. Listen to the entire selection - as the dynamics of the music change, perhaps your imagined scene should change as well.

Part 2: EXPLAIN the reasoning behind your scenario/storyline/charcters/etc. You must connect your essay to the music – what is it about the sound and music that led you to see/write what you did?

Composing America

I never really took into account that people many many years ago actually wrote drafts for the important documents. The subject was never brought to my attention until now. I also did not know that there were certain styles in writing. There is Calligraphy and Typography. I perceive Calligraphy as more of a free hand approach by one person and it seems to be not that legible. Typography is more collaborative and is held to a better standard. These two different styles can send different messages

After reading this, I know that the rules of grammar back then were not as strict as today's rules of grammar. Back then nouns were capitalized. It is some what interesting to see how grammar has changed over the years.
I found that peer review was also present in a way. Jefferson wrote the draft, then the committee overlooked it and edited the draft. This concept is still used today.

THATS NONSENSE! (TIMOTHY)

laws were set in motion to provide protection against those who have fell victim to those breaking that law, but were also put there to serve as guideline for individual rights and responsibilities. i feel that the jury was wrong to rule against timothy!

the prosecution said that timothy broke the law stating you couldnt swear in public...but put an emphasis on swearing in front of children in the public, is what hes trying to say mean that if there werent any children there it would've been aceptable?...bc after reading so there werent. if no one was offended or hurt by the language and they (who were there) didnt complain about the incident what was the issue? i think that law needs to be revised or done with. also the prosecutor was blaming timothy of breaking a law, but isnt freedom of speech a right of the people?...so does that make the prosecutor guilty of breaking a crime? and if you find that to be true wouldnt timothy then have been fasly accused/punished? (im not sure of the legal temrs but i hope you know what i mean!)

also, the prosecutor was making a big deal about 'protecting' the children, i feel like if you dont want your kids around that type of environment you should know the people their with its tht simple. you wouldnt send your kids to a daycare that you know nothing about and then complain that your child isnt learning like you feel they should be...would you? it just doesnt make sense.

for another matter, i feel the prosecutor crossed the line when he denied timothy his right of freedom of speech by ruling against him trying to give him jail time 'for the childrens' sake...i feel if its not good for kids...why is it good for you?. theres a reason its bad or wrong in the first place so I dont understand his argument.

also, if it were such a big deal for timothy to swear, why arent all the rappers, singers, actors and actress' who say and do these things being punished? or why isnt the government censoring what we see and hear?. because WE choose what we get exposed to! just because someones putting it out there doesnt mean YOU have to accept it into your life.

LAWS

If no cursing is a law than you should obey by the law, whether you believe in it or not. I think that Timothy could have choose better words than the f word while falling out of the canoe. If you know that your not suppose to curse in public than why would you? If no one is around that is one story but there was a kid around at the time. I think that the judge was right for ruling becuase if you let it slip once that is fine but repeating it over is another becuase you know you are doing something wrong. His punishment shouldn't be to harsh but he did disobey the law that has been the law for a very long time so there should be something done. If you choose to live somewhere with something rediculious like this than you should obey the law.

Cussing Canoeist

In this case i am going to have to rule with the First Amendment and say that the jury had made a mistake. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making any laws about freedom of speech. You can't prosecute a man that is not breaking any laws. I mean yes someone needs to say something to him about his cursing, but his dozen or so friends all said that he only said it like three or four times. In my opinion the jury made a huge mistake with this one. When was the last time that jury took a look at the Bill of Rights. I just think it is farfetched because there are some people on television cursing and using vulgar language. Are we going to prosecute all of them.

After reading this short article about Timothy Boomer I wasn't sure if I could take it seriously. Somebody seriously being convicted for say the "f" word? I do not think the jury was right for convicting Timothy Boomer. As far as Boomers attorney goes, that what probably his best bet to pull the free speech card, but all I think it really comes down to is somebody fell off a canoe, got pissed, and happened to let some bad language slip. It really isn't that big of a deal and I find it so ridiculous that this was even taken to court. So many worse things could have been done. I believe the only reason it was taken to court was because it happened in such a small town where I doubt anything seriously bad happens. In my opinion Timothy Boomer shouldn't have been found guilty.

~@*x % # !!!!~

In the case of 25 yr old Timmothy Boomer, I do nt feel tht the jury was right to rule against him. He was put on trial in Michigan for sayin the "f" word multiple time infront of children on a canoing trip. People cuss infront of children in public on an everyday basis. So if this is the case then houndreds of thousands of other poeple should be going to tried right along with him. I feel tht cases like this are nt even worth wasting the courts time, on even bringing them fourth. This violates every aspect of Mr. Boomer's first amendment right of this freedom of speech. Therefore i feel that the charges that were put against him are unconstitutional, and haynis.

guilty

I am unable to say if the jury was correct in ruling against Timothy Boomer. The arguments made in the article try to appeal to opinions and emotions. Neither of those matter in this case. The fact is that a law does exist, whether the jury members agree with the law or not. It is the job of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, to write laws. The article does not give us the wording of the law, nor do the prosecutor or defendant give us a clear idea of what events lead to the case appearing in court. We do not know the number of times that the defendant cursed, how many children were nearby, what their ages were, whether or not any of them heard him. The data that the article does give us is rather irrelevant to the case in question (I seriously doubt that the law contains clauses for people who have recently fallen from their watercraft). The simple truth is that without the facts, we can only trust that the judicial system acted as it was intended to.

CURSING

In my opinion, i think the jury were very wrong in finding Timothy Boomer guilty. It was wrong because never in my life have i heard of such a thing like this. I hear people curse a lot everyday and nobody even thinks nothing of it. He shouldnt have been punish because many people were brought up in a family house hold where there parents use profanity quite often. People have a right to say whatever they want so in that case i dont think he was at fault for doing what he did. Also he was very upset, he had fallen of his canoe so instead of taking his anger out in another way , he simply did it by using profanity. By him doing this didnt hurt anybody in any type of way so i dont think he should be punsih for it.

Guilty As Charged??

In my opinion, I don't believe Timothy Boomer should've been sentenced under guilty for the 'crime' he comitted.

From how I looked at this case, it doesn't make any sense how the judge came to the conclusion of his decision anyhow. According to this, it said that witnesses didn't hear him cuzz the 'f' word more than three times.

Unless they were lying about it, it's a big stretch. Either the prosecutors are right, or the witnesses... 75 times to 2-3 times.

Then the judge talked about how yelling the 'f' word to children is vulgar or indecent. Although he has a point there, I don't understand why he brought up New York or LA; it's like he's saying 'Well, we're trying to make a good example, unlike other people... and by own beliefs, I say he should be guilty.'

All in all, I believe the case was sorta lacking, in terms of the evidence, and the authority who was ruling the case. The case has a problem, it has some information (with two major-different opposing sides of the story)... but the way the judge handled it sounded unprofessional. It sounded like his ruling was more 'his opinion', than 'how the law bids it'.

Timothy Boomer?

The Michigan jury was right to rule against Mr. Boomer because Timothy Boomer cussed in front of children.

This case is not really a question of free speech as the defense would try to make it look. The case is really a question of did the man cuss in front of children or not. Mr. Boomer upon falling out of his canoe did utter an F-word in front of children so he broke the law. I personally disagree with the law but I don't see how you could find him innocent if everyone says that he uttered the word. The law makes no sense but that's not what is in question what is in question is what Mr. Boomer did. So the jury was right in ruling against Mr. Boomer.

Cussing Canoeist

The jury was right to rule against Timothy Boomer because of the 105 yr old law that says it is against the law to swear in public in front of children.

However I dont think Boomer did such a terrible thing that it was made to be so serious. I agree with not swearing in front of children, but who wouldnt say a few swear words after falling out of your canoe. The issue of if he said it a couple times or 75 times was never settled according to the article. So I don't think it was a huge deal.

What's right and wrong

The short article about the cussing canoeist had me raise my brow to a few things especially the reasoning for such frivolous laws that a lot of US states may or may not have. Because if we can't say what we're feeling, free of prosecution, then how free are we really? What's not very surprising to say the least is the fact that such laws exist, laws that prosecute and punish people who aren't normally the criminal type. In the case of Timothy Boomer the judicial system really struck a blow against one such man, by ruling against him in a court of law finding him guilty of a century old law that still exist that probably nobody really knows about. The point of the justice system is to punish those who are guilty of breaking laws, and in that respect alone i find the ruling of the jury reasonable since Mr Boomer did in fact break a law. No law is really up for interpretation it either is or it isn't. If you allow for some laws to be bent than you have more farther reaching implications in the entire judicial system. Simply put if one person can be granted a pardon for breaking the law, then who's to say that other people breaking similar yet slightly more severe laws cannot also be granted that same pardon. I feel that the jury in this case probably weighed out the impact of an innocent verdict on a guilty man more questionable, than just simply saying whatever to the situation and letting it slide. Regardless of how frivolous it may have been. Because without law and order they're could be no peace, even if that peace means punishing those who break laws that shouldn't exist.

Screaming in public

I do not think that the jury was right to convict Timothy Boomer just because he was screaming the f-word in a public place, and thats the key word public. I think that they were wrong because it is a public place its not like he was in someones house at there childs birthday party screaming his head off, he was canoeing and he fell out of his canoe. like most normal people Tim got mad and decided to say some selected words. Was it wrong that he got mad that his canoe tipped over, no anyone in there right mind would have been mad. now most people swear, he just did it in a fashion where a lot of people heard him. did he have to yell? no, but he did, and yes i dont think that someone should just scream the f-word but he did. he didnt know that there would be children around he was just upset that his canoe tipped and that he got all wet. who knows how many times he dropped the f-bomb but the fact of the matter is i dont think he should have gotten tried for swearing in public. for example you can walk around campus and hear people swear all the time im not gonna say "you who just swore whats your name im going to sue you for swearing in public." i think that some people are just to uptight about what there children hear. there going to hear it anyway, your not a good parent for getting someone in trouble for swearing in front of your child. a good parent would have just said " now young man/lady you dont say the words you hear people say because they're not nice things to say." to me i dont think Timothy Boomer did anything wrong he just got mad in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cussing Canoeist- Not Guilty!

I do not think it was right for the jury to rule against Boomer. It is not like he was just screaming the word in the middle of store. He fell off a canoe in a river, surrounded by all of his friends. I do not think it was inappropriate for the sitaution. He was probably in a panic considering he had just fallen off a canoe, he probably was not too concerned about breaking a cussing law. I don't even think that law should consist in the first place. There's always an appropriate time and place for certain things and I don't think he violated anything. It probably was not the first time the children had heard that word either. If freedom of speech exsists in our constitution , I believe he had every right to say what he did. I think they over-reacted and the situation could have been handled a lot differently than taking Boomer to court.

Freedom of Speech?

The jury was wrong to rule Timothy Boomer guilty because they failed to take into consideration the fact that Boomer is a human being and he reacted when he fell out of his canoe. Although he was illegedly yelling out obsentities, it was for a reason. Under normal circumstances, maybe he should be persecuted, but Boomer possibly was partially fearing for his life, or maybe just really bummed his clothes were soaked. In the heat of the moment, this was how he reacted. He wasn't cussing just to cuss. Another thing to take into consideration is Boomer might not have truly realized that children were around him. Many people don't have a filter when it comes to cussing so they probably don't look for children around before they decide to cuss. This law seems dated.

What language is exceptable

I believe the Jury to be faulty. If he wants to yell the "f" word then he should be allowed. If i fell out of a canoe I would do the same thing. Its not the best time, especially if the water is cold. The same could be said of someone who got cut, or stubbed their toe. It hurts, and you will yell things you wouldn't normally because of it.

A big problem for most people is that we like to over exaggerate the truth. I know people who use that language more then needed but have never herd them yell it 75 times or more for falling out of a canoe. If a child herd it then it should be the responsibility of the parent to make sure their child does not repeat it. Words slip, simple as that. Did he break the law, yes. Is that law out of date, most definitely. People swear in public all the time, and there is no way you can catch all of them nor would you try. the people who sued the man need to get off their high horse and get over it cause it is not that big of a deal. They just did it because they wanted to feel powerful for once, which in most cases is why many people are sued in the first place.

Besides, you know those same parents have cussed in front of their children at least once in their lives.

Cussing Canoeist

Im my opinion the jury did not do justice to Timothy Boomer. The jury found him guilty of breaking a law of cussing in front of children. First of all the number of times the jury convicted of him saying the F word is ridiculous. They said he yelled the F word 75 times before he fell out of his raft. On the other hand Boomer's friends and family who were with him said he only said it two or three times. A person should not be indicted on such a crime. I agree with Timothy Boomer's attorney when he argued that Boomer's speech was covered by the 1st amendment, which gives the people of the United States the freedom of speech. This entire case seems silly to me, it is not that series. It's especially not important enough to get national attention.

Freedom Of Speech

I feel Timothy Boomer's first amendment was violated. The first amendment states everyone has the right of freedom of speech. Boomer fell out of a canoe, and proceeded to cuss. I do not believe he should have been prosecuted for stating how he felt. Regardless if children were around him or not, he can still say how he feels. He was not in a professional setting where he had to set an example for the children around him. I could bet that half the children around him have heard the f-bomb several times before. They've probably heard it at their homes, from their own parents mouths. I do not believe that he should have gotten in trouble for swearing after falling out of a canoe. I highly doubt that he was screaming it into children's faces or directing the swearing to the kids. The kids over heard him swearing, just like I'm sure they have before from someone else. I feel the first amendment protects everyone from saying how they feel.

The Cussing Canoeist

The jury was indeed wrong to rule against Mr. Boomer. This is a matter of free speech. He was not using his language toward anyone offensively. It was out of anger. This "cuss" word is just that, a word. I think that it is ridiculous that they ruled against him. This should not have even gone to court. In my opinion, he has the right to say what he wants. Kids hear "vulgar" language on tv, movies, and video games everyday. I think hearing someone say the "f-word" isn't as new or shocking as some might think. Society lets Eminem talk about killing his wife and say the "explicit" things he says but they take a man to trial for saying the "f-word" a few times out of anger. It absolutely blows my mind. It was completely unnecessary and stupid, in my opinion.

thee canoeist

I think he is very protected by the 1st amendment and should not be punished in anyway. there are plenty of reasons that this guy should not be punished for saying the f-word in public i mean seriously. if you fell out of a canoe and you were confused the 1st thing you're going to think is F**K i just fell into water in which god knows what is in it. also who cares if children hear it. no matter what happens they are going to hear or see that word millions of times throughout their lives. seriously the only reason this guy was ruled against was because it was a jury of stuck up people who think they are too good for a simple word that has many meaning and all this guy was doing was expressing his fear. what else was he going to yell? OMG i'm in the water. to put it simple no he should not have been punished i guess everyone in that little city forgot about the 1st amendment. they had absolutely no right to get him in trouble. he did right by me

Video analysis (last Friday)

Very good work by all of you (at least those who showed up).

Well done.

~MTV~

The way first came on the air, I feel was very appropreiate for the situation. First they hav an actuall rocket launching at the beginning of the show. It has a little "man on the moon" planting a flag tht says "MTV" into it. Since the little space man "launched" to gt to the moon for the first time, MTV had launched on tv for the first time. Then, the first music video launched on MTV jus happens to be Video killed the radio star, by the Buggles (which to me was hilarious) seemed later in the years after to prove just that. I feel that in certain cases the visual element of the music video takes away from the actual song. The visual i feel MTV was trying to portray was a sort of "rocker" 80's type vibe with all the patterns and bright colors.

I very much agree with Pareles assertion tht MTv produces music tht looks better than it sounds. In todays world persentation is everything and I feel that by making something look good (such as the music video), the way it sounds alomst bcomes second best. I offten find myself jus watchin channel such as MTV nt to hear the songs tht come on, bt mainly to see which song has a new video, and which video looks the best.