One of the things I appreciate about iTunes is the fields you can use to add extra tags to your songs.
As we discussed earlier most people use Genre as their default sorting system, but that is just tapping the surface of what you could get out of your music collection. If you have an extensive library, it would be worth your while to ‘polish’ these song tags so that you can create some great play-lists. Here are some essential tags you might want to consider using:
- Date – Should be the date of the song’s release, not the date of the album release. This is especially important when it comes to greatest hit compilations. Having the correct date allows you to listen to an artist’s evolution as a musician.
- Location – I put this in the Grouping header. I put the city, state/province, and country that the artists/band was born/formed in. Having a location can allow me to listen to bands from California or from Scotland.
- Other Info such as Member of XXX Band – I put this in the Comments header. When I do a search for the Police, I will also see my albums by Sting, Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland. Again, it allows me to listen to an artist evolve as a musician.
Do you see what this creates? It becomes possible to sort music in a new way. You can create a play-list of your Australian Rock Bands from the 1980s. You will see new trends develop and your music will become more interesting.
Where do you find this information? My favorite site for this kind of information is AllMusic.com. Check it out.
Popularity: 50% [?]
In a recent meeting with a few of my work colleagues I was struck by how differently we each see issues and problems. I am not talking about different personality views, but a general worldview that appears to be defined by the generation cohort we belong to.
As one of the younger people at my office, I belong to the Baby Bust / Generation X cohort. which is in contrast with most of my colleagues who are in their mid to late 50s and are part of the Baby Boom.
It has been my experience that Baby Boomers are generally a positive group who believe that the world is always getting better. In contrast, I am pretty cynical about the future, particularly the Health Care industry I work in where the future challenges are being solved with more bureaucracy and institutional thinking. While I see us being faced with a very negative future, my older colleagues see lots of strengths. Who is right? I don’t know, since the correct answer depends on the question being asked. A big part of my perspective is my fiscal conservatism which which asks, “How are we going to pay for all of this?”
What I do worry about is that the Baby Boom in their enthusiasm, rose-colored view of the world, and breaking of social rules will leave the younger generations with a huge financial and social headache. I don’t see them as a group asking any of the hard questions, nor even caring how things are being run. This is demonstrated in Europe’s debt crisis with Greece not being able to afford its government programs. I am worried that this is what we will face in the future, especially as the Baby Boomers retire and begin drawing on government programs yet contribute less to the tax coffers. The problem is that the Baby Boomers are spending the money now, and it won’t really be there for them (or the following generations) when they need it.
What is interesting is that this all seems to be part of a natural cycle expressed by an interesting website I stumbled upon. The website combines mythology and generation gap issues into a thoroughly researched perspective called the Lifecourse Insight. Check it out.
Popularity: 57% [?]
May 26th, 2010 in
Philosophy |
2 Comments
I attended an ethical workshop recently and the presenter stated she thought that most people are good. This worldview allowed her to approach people she met in a warm and open fashion which made for a rewarding and pleasant work experience. Benefits aside of such a worldview, is she right? Are most people good?
I never asked her, but I am sure the presenter thought that all of the evil acts of the world are committed by a small number of bad or misunderstood people. She saw people themselves being valued as good or bad. For her, the world is made up mostly of good people whose lives get ruined by a small number of bad people. The value is placed on the person, not on the behavior.
My experience tells me otherwise. Instead of seeing human nature being inherently good or bad, I would instead that it being imbued with potential for both. Across time and place people have struggled to avoid suffering and find happiness in life. It is the limitless ways of finding happiness that makes human nature appear so complex. Yet this complexity does not mean that we have to leave our ability to judge at the door. The value judgment of whether a particular pursuit of happiness is good or bad can be judged by the actions undertaken. The continuum between good and bad would be based around how one pursues happiness. “Good” behavior would be demonstrated when one enjoys putting the needs of others before their own needs and/or taking happiness in another’s happiness, while “Bad” behavior would see a person putting their own needs before others or having to harm/kill others to be happy.
By becoming aware of the distinction between these different kinds of happiness we can stop labeling the person or our human nature as inherently bad or good. We will find that there is no original sin or inherent angelic quality in us, just dynamic potentialities. We can then judge the actions and not the person. Awareness of this subtle but critical distinction will lead us to a healthier place as captured by Ropbert Pop in his quote: “Awareness is the first step towards healing”.
With awareness we can leave the fairy-tale worldview that human nature is inherently good and toward a more complete view of ourselves.
Popularity: 39% [?]
