A Breadwinner of a Post

Here begins the newest, most amazing musing from The Loudest Fan. Bow appropriately:

It seems my self-promotion is already paying-off. Thanks to all of my new followers. YOU'VE MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE.

Now, to get angry.

I want to continue talking about both human entitlement and "selling out." SO I WILL. Tough titties to all those hoping for me to change the subject up a bit. I'm writing more frequently now. Isn't that enough for you people? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? [cue Joaquin Phoenix's pouty-face]


Art (all creative content, for that matter) absolutely should and must be free. By free, I mean openly available to all. At least, to me. No question about it. Creative content that is not openly available to all/me lacks accountability, for which I am the ultimate judge, above all others. For creative content to have any value, it must be accountable for whatever it accomplishes, which in itself is entirely dependent upon its audiences and their ability to access it. I'm saying nothing new here.

In a perfect universe, creators create and... that's it. Creators create. Unfortunately, this universe is drastically imperfect, solely because it contains life besides mine. Life is imperfection, imperfection is life. Once again, nothing new (BE PATIENT). So, creators create, but must also live. For them, life is not only an imperfect process of providing for themselves, but providing for their creations as well, be they paintings, movies, books, blogs, children, etc. No creation is free in the sense of being uninhibited in its development and nurture. Life stands in the way, most every step of said way, unless you know how to kick it in its stupid face. Where creation transcends into art is in the artist's mastery of manipulation (i.e. face-kicking), turning that inhibition of life (be it a monetary limit, a cultural pressure, a time constraint, what have you) against itself to ensure the creation's nourishment even further. Lemons into lemonade. More accurately, water into lemonade, once the lemons drop from the tree and hit you on the head. Limeade is better, though.

So, why do we as a culture hold so much against a creator who embraces commodification (patent pending on that word), be it via sales or with advertising? Artistic integrity? That's only compromised if it's compromised. Even something as invasive as product placement can be manipulated by a skilled artist to contribute artistically to the work- satire is usually the easiest way to do so ("The Colbert Report" and Talladega Nights come to mind), but that's hardly appropriate outside of comedy (BECAUSE I SAID SO, DAMNIT), and I'd kill to see someone effectively pull it off straight. Does that mean I'll end up murdering someone when I finally get around to watching "Mad Men" (from what I hear, I'm gonna end up loving that Don Draper)? Possibly.

So, who has the right to decry a band that charges for a song download? To bemoan internet videos for having commercials (especially when more and more advertisers are finding value in using genuinely creative talent, as Old Spice did with Tim & Eric!)? And if your complaint is that those come from broken institutions ("the band doesn't see that money, it goes right to the record company"), then who the Hell are you to place the responsibility on the creators to develop and run the alternative, rhetorical reader? It's not enough that they have to be the ones creating in spite of everything, but now they have to set up and maintain an infrastructure to get voluntary (read: not guaranteed) support from you?

Let's start wrapping this up. Now, I'm not saying that the "download now, pay later" method championed in that one Minecraft article (you know the one- one of YOU is bound to post it in the comments field) is a bad one. I am saying that if that's the mode we want, which makes us the patrons, and which contributes to the creators consistently and fairly, then we need to be the ones to set it up and get it working, not the people who already work so hard for us. Record companies weren't started by bands (the good, non-exploitative labels are now, but that shouldn't have been their responsibility). Publishing houses weren't started by authors. SO QUIT BEING SO DAMN LAZY IF YOU DESERVE TO BE ENTERTAINED SO MUCH. You get it started, or you fix what's here (mandated salary caps for all artistic distribution execs/higher minimum contract rates for talent? Hooray socialism! Yay unions!). If not, then buy the freaking song and watch the damn commercial, jerk.

I tell you what to think, Volume I

Here begins the newest, most amazing musing from The Loudest Fan. Bow appropriately:

Every once in a while, people find me on the street and approach me, saying, "Hey, The Loudest Fan, I am a giant ignoramus, and thus need you to give me an opinion on [insert social issue here]. Could you help me out, O Wise One?" To queries like these, my usual response is something to the effect of, "Get your hands off of me, you cretin!" That being said, I think it time to define the correct social views of our time.

Today's topic:
Gay marriage

For starters, let me point out that this debate will be pointless in a matter of years. By that time, gay marriage will be fully legal across the country, and recognized on a federal level. How do I know that? It's a simple matter of social evolution.

To put things in perspective, interracial marriage has gone through the same process as gay marriage is now. The very same arguments (the sanctity of marriage, God's law, state's rights in governing marriage, etc) were levied against your now-legal ability to purchase a mail-order bride from China, just as they are currently used against preventing two human beings from participating in the ultimate expression of genuine, mutual love for each other in this progressive day and age.

OK, there are some camps that shun gay rights due to the "ookiness" factor. They feel discomfort in seeing homosexual physical contact, and they believe we all feel that with them. These are the people who make commercials asking if you'd be OK with YOUR KIDS being exposed to such "icky" behavior, and taught its acceptability in school. First off, I just want to say that I want every child of mine to be taught from a very early age that lesbianism is the most beautiful thing on the planet. But that's just me. Secondly, heterosexual physicality is just as icky. Who among us hasn't ever wished those two sacks of hormones in the corner would stop sucking face and would either get a room or commit dual suicide? Do the names Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag mean anything to you? If your issue with homosexuality comes down to simple discomfort, why don't you petition for federal bans on all PDA, you fascist hypocrite?

Now, we come to the camps who throw the Bible around, saying that God forbids these people He has lovingly made homosexual to join each other in the sacrament of companionship He developed. Considering that the Big Man and I communicate on a daily basis (given how important I am, He visits me in person, often asking for advice and the like. I usually oblige him), I can just tell you that He says you've got it all wrong, and leave it at that. My status as veritable Prophet should be enough. If you want more rhetorical proof instead, I can provide that as well. Actually, the argument is worded best by Sam Greenspan over at www.11points.com: [someone else being almost as brilliant as me]
Well done, Sam. Me and the Big Man dig your style. In a non-gay way.

Beyond these, arguments against gay marriage come down to legal, constitutional semantics, and will ultimately be decided by a voting public or the supreme court in favor of protecting same-sex marriage via the process of social evolution I mentioned before. There are many blogs and articles (like this one: another person whose existence I permit) out in the tubes of the internet that demonstrate a statistical trend of the youth of America becoming more and more acceptable of homosexuality and LGBT rights. It's only a matter of time before the crotchety, old conservatives die out. In fact, in my talks with the Big Man, I've voiced my impatience in wanting these people out of the picture. His response: "I'll see what I can do..."