Inter: Action, Net, Fence

Hello! Welcome to the second episode of Social Renaissance. Today we will be discussing more about online interaction vs face-to-face interaction. Uh oh, silly me, looks like the sound isn't on...LOL...Did i REALLY just LOL (laugh out loud) or did i just write it and make you think i did??...you don't really know do you? Ok that was kind of corny but I just wanted to illustrate how willy nilly we are with our “lols”. We use them even when we aren’t really laughing out loud and this is a reflection of how we can be in internet social interactions period. In the last episode of this podcast we talked about how we put on a performance on social networks and also how ambiguity can’t be easily sorted out in digital space according to Jerry S. Wilson. Because you cannot see or hear the person, you really don’t know what the person is doing or the tone they are doing it in. Yes, you can use exclamation points and all caps but that only goes so far. We also discussed how internet interaction is great for connecting globally and can be safer. Those are great points but they are not good enough to supplement face-to-face interaction with internet interaction. However, one might say, what about programs like Skype? Those are face-to-face. (switch to vlog)

Yes, Skype is face-to-face interaction, but it is still virtual and doesn’t make up for the physical touch often longed for in real time, physically present face-to-face interaction. Remember vitual hugs…*cricket noise*. I think not. Lol. But seriously, internet social interaction is dehumanizing our teens. Teens nowadays were born into the digital age and are called “digital natives” according to Tim Challies, author of the book titled “The Next Story: Life and Faith after the digital explosion”. He said during a radio interview that studies show that teens lack face-to-face interaction and conversational skills due to too much internet and text interaction. I mean, teens are disrespectful, rude and easily distracted, checking social sites and texting while at the dinner table, and worse, while driving.

We need to bring back old fashioned values and basic human morals like honesty, integrity, credibility, transparency, thriftiness, caring for others, and trust. Americans are realizing the importance of these “retro” values according to Jerry S. Wilson and now its time for teens or “digital natives” to be introduced to them. In the 50s, neighbors new each other and people talked to and trusted one another. In my opinion, this is why the crime rate was lower than it is now. As stated in the previous podcast, we will accept a friend request from a stranger before we say hello to that stranger on the street.

Again, I’m not bashing Facebook and other social interactive internet sites. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be the sole means by which we communicate and interact with others. We need to get up from our computers and get to know our neighbors and people in our community. I believe this is possible through the Interfence.

In the last episode I shared that The Interfence is a physical infrastructural interface that would be attached to every lawn in America and is equipped with physical features of Facebook. Bascially, it is your Facebook profile transformed into a non-traditional fence on your lawn. It would initiate conversation and create an interactive small town community-feel through connections of common interest. One could create a reality chat room to discuss politics, tv, movies, sports or social issues right on your front lawn. The overall goal is that like the internet, these initial lawn, real time, face-to-face conversations would begin to connect neighborhoods, communities and finally cities by making better and morally conscious people. This interaction would re-activate “retro” values in adults and create them in teens. It would be a re-implementation of the quote “it take a village to raise a child”. Another solution I propose is “Free Speech Karaoke”. This is set up like “Speaker’s Corner” in London except the soap boxes are equipped with speeches, songs, poems, etc for visitors to recite. Crowds would draw based on their interest in the piece being recited and bring about discussion and interaction.

As I wrap up this vlogcast I want to reiterate that internet social interaction is not a sufficient supplement for physical face-to-face interaction. It does have its place and I don’t propose we get rid of it all together but that we use it in moderation. If we fail to do this, we will begin to loose who we are as human beings. That would not be good for our future. Lets bring back old fashioned values and neighborly interactive ways and make the world better. Thanks for tuning in to this episode of Social Renaissance. Bye!

Sarahs fringe project!

http://fringetvshow.blogspot.com/

Check out my final project!!

TV Outside the Screen

Here is the link to my final project, a blog titled TV Outside the Screen

http://tvoutsidethescreen.wordpress.com/

newsfutureanalysis Final Project

Here is the link to my final project Blog, a Wordpress blog titled, newsfutureanalysis.

http://newsfutureanalysis.wordpress.com/

Social Interaction Podcast

Hello everyone and welcome to the first podcast episode of "Social Renaissance". Today's topic is social interaction and how social networks are not sufficient supplements for face-to-face interaction and communication. As a society, we have drifted so far from the old-fashioned ways of interacting with our neighbors, family and friends in person. Back then, people spoke to one another even if they didn't know them. Nowadays, people will accept a friend request from a complete stranger on Facebook before they would say hi to that same stranger on the street. Cities had more of a community feel but this is no longer the case because we've become lazy and have opted for virtual communities instead. Granted, in virtual communities, you can interact with people all over the world and that is a great feature. Some also believe it is safer to interact with people online rather than in person. This may be true to an extent but humans were not meant to be cooped up in houses all day looking at a computer screen. According to a trauma specialists website, it is not healthy mentally or physically.

Studies by Social Indicators Research have shown that interaction through social networking is not enough for our well-being as humans. A blogger references the study saying quote "The researchers guess this has something to do with the lack of non-verbal cues, lack of warmth, and the laziness of communication associated with Internet communication" end quote. It is often times hard to decipher a person's tone in written text and lets be honest, virtual hugs just don't make the cut.

Also, as stated in the article, "I Tweet, Therefore I am" people put on a performance on social networks. How do we weed or read through this performance to get to the truth? In the article "Don't Displace Face to Face" Jerry S. Wilson tells us, quote "Face-to-face interactions, on the other hand, allow all parties to discuss issues and identify, in real time, potential disagreements and alternative approaches to a situation. Additionally, people can read nonverbal cues to determine if there is real buy-in to an idea—or mere compliance...Ambiguity can be sorted out immediately, resulting in alignment of priorities and direction. None of this is so easy to do in digital space. " end quote.

We need to return to those old fashioned values and neighborly ways of life in which we trusted one another which meant times were safer. Jerry S. Wilson says, quote "Now, more than in many other years, Americans are being reminded of the power of "retro" values. These include honesty, integrity, credibility, transparency, thriftiness, caring for others, and trust. Face-to-face interactions lead to positive outcomes and better long-term relations than relying on the digital space exclusively." end quote.

Now I know it seems i have been bashing social networks but i propose that we actually use Facebook in particular as a model to return to traditional, face-to-face interaction. I've created an architecture project called "Reality Facebook: The InterFence". The Interfence is a physical infrastructural interface attached to every lawn in the city of Detroit and is equipped with physical features of Facebook. Bascially, it is your Facebook profile transformed into a non-traditional fence on your lawn. It would initiate conversation and create and interactive small town community feel though connections of common interest. Trust and other values mentioned by Mr. Wilson would reemerge creating a better person and city. Thus, quote"in remaking a city, man has remade himself"end quote.

This wraps up this episode of "Social Renaissance". Join us next time when we will be discussing Part 2 of this topic and a deeper analysis of The Interfence. Thanks for listening! Take care!

Future of Journalism Podcast

Podcast

Podcast Script

Welcome back, everyone, and to all you new listeners out there, this is the latest installment of my podcast series entitled “The Evolution of Media.” In this episode, I am looking at the future of journalism, and focusing on a recent spat between two media giants. On Thursday, March 10^th, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, posted online his article for the upcoming edition of the NYT Sunday Magazine, entitled “All the Aggregation that’s fit to Aggregate.” Notice the play off of the standard newspaper motto, “All the News that’s Fit to Print.”

In this article, Mr. Keller argues that the future of serious journalism lies with the like of the New York Times, and not aggregation sites like the Huffington Post. He does not believe all the positive hype surrounding AOL’s recent purchase of the Huffington Post. He doesn’t believe that it’s a sign of AOL moving into the business of actually creating more of their own content. In his view, news aggregation today means taking content created from others, repackaging it onto your own website, and in effect stealing the revenue that might have gone to the originators of that content. In his own words, Mr. Keller believes that Arianna Huffington “has discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications, array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions of people will come.”

Now, of course Ms. Huffington herself had to respond to this harsh criticism of her work. She posted a response later that same day on her site, with a title of “Bill Keller Accuses Me of “Aggregating” an Idea He Had Actually “Aggregated” From Me.” In this post, she defends the work of the Huffington Post, citing the fact that along with AOL News, it has over 70 percent more unique visitors than the New York Times. She flat-out refutes his characterization of her site and reminds us that it is in fact in the business of content creation. In her words, “Even before we merged with AOL, HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism.”

Well, to be fair, the New York Times does have approximately 1100 full-time employees engaged in the same old-fashioned work or traditional journalism. But, I’m not here to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m here to put this in context and maybe offer some of my own original thoughts. This back-and-forth is a part of the larger discussion of what the future of quote-unquote serious journalism looks like in this country. Can old-fashioned newspaper stalwarts like the New York Times survive and make enough money in this digital age where more and more people read their content for free online? And can sites like the Huffington Post earn enough revenue from advertising to support their business-model of aggregation and minimal original content creation?

Mr. Keller and Ms. Huffington are leaders of two of the most prominent media empires of our day, so we are smart to pay attention to what they have to say on this topic and of each other. While I want to side with Mr. Keller out of respect for the institution of newspapers, I do think that the Huffington Post is making the right move with AOL. Although I do want to challenge Arianna Huffington to ensure that she defies her critics and uses this merger to beef up on paid content providers for her online newspaper. I hope she resists the urge to focus on her unique view count, and places serious and well-researched articles at the top of her site rather than “sexy” or “eye-catching” pieces. She can also avoid the labels bestowed upon her by Mr. Keller by making a clearer distinction between stories that belong on the front page, and stories that belong on the Tabloids. Her site does itself a disservice when it places these two kinds of content next to each other, giving viewers the impression it believes they are of equal importance to society.

Well, that’s it for this episode of “The Evolution of Media.” Stay tuned next week when I will be discussing the uses and abuses of Twitter.

Television: A Fickle Mistress?

---
Vlog Transcript

[“How to Save a Life” – The Fray]

My So-Called Life

Freaks and Geeks

Arrested Development

What do all of these shows have in common? They were cancelled before they could really shine. This television phenomenon will be explained in this segment called “Television: A Fickle Mistress?”

Currently, television networks are in the throws of pilot and renewal season which means two things: First, new projects are purchased and new actors are cast, all in the hopes that this script is the next success story and second, network execs decide if a show is performing well enough to move on to next season. However, what exactly is a success story in the television landscape? Is it great acting? Is it a new and unique story? Is it critical praise?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions is sadly, no. In television today, success is synonymous with ratings, ratings, and only ratings. High rating shares mean advertising dollars for the networks and therefore television shows that are out of the box or that are from a new perspective are often thrown by the wayside, never given the time or money to develop.

This story is common in television, with great programs handed a premature cancellation because of the ever-feared low ratings.  

A current example of a show that was not given enough network attention is Friday Night Lights.

Although there have been five seasons of the show, their episode count per season was shortened after season 2 and the final three seasons have been relegated to premiere on DirectTV before a run on NBC in off-months. Here is a scene of the amazing acting and portrayal of emotion in Friday Night Lights.

TEXT: “SPOILER ALERT! For Season 4”

[Tim: Hey guys, can I steal Billy for a sec, Minds?

Mindy: Aww, this is my first break ever…

Tim: It won’t be long.

Billy: I’ll be back in a second…What’s up, man?

Tim: I did it. I did it all.

Billy: What are you taking about?

Tim: You did not do anything. When we closed the shop, I reopened it.

Billy: Tim…

Tim: You had no idea this was happening.

Billy: Timmy, I can’t let you do that.

Tim: I stripped the cars. I took the money.

Billy: No…

Tim: I took the frames to the junkyard.

Billy: I can’t let you do that.

Tim: You are my brother. You are all I have. You have a family now. You are a father and you need to be one. This is my decision, this is what I’ve decided. This is what’s going to happen. You are my brother.

Billy: I’m sorry, I’m so sorry.]

[“Hang On” – Guster]

Unlike films, which tell stories in a brief, two-hour time slot, television shows are able to expand their characters and stories over a (hopefully) long period of time. However, the current model of television development precludes this kind of evolution and creativity by forcing television shows to find an audience in one or two episodes.

Like Friday Night Lights, Fringe, which airs on Fox has struggled to find a mass audience, but has a cult following and has received consistent mass critical praise throughout its first three seasons. Although fans and entertainment news organizations alike have launched a campaign to save the show, its future remains uncertain.

I would like to see a television industry that praises and rewards innovation, rather than merely reproducing stale and tired plotlines that have been seen time and time again but that are sure to bring in high ratings. Programs like Friday Night Lights and Fringe bring something fresh to television, and it is a shame that this work is not rewarded. 

The Captivating Fringe

I have an addiction to TV shows and once I start, I just cannot stop. Recently, a friend recommended I start watching Fringe, mostly because I had run out of other things to watch. The sci-fi series portrays the FBI's “Fringe-Division,” solving unexplained, mysterious, and quite often gruesome events. With this in mind, I decided to watch the very first episode.

Well, it was gross. The episode was about a bio-terrorist attack on an in flight plane, where a self-administered shot led to an airborne epidemic causing everyones skin to fall off and turn into goo. But, if it was so gross, how was I so into it! The ideas, the concepts, the thrill, the science, it was all just so... gripping! It caused my jaw to drop just like the skin dropping off those peoples body. The idea of Fringe science just seemed so possible. So I set out on a quest to find out what exactly was it about this disgusting show that was so entertaining.

So I set out to find some testimonials, to see if I was the only one so tied into the plot. Just as I had thought, many other were just as caught up in the action as I was.
Camdpt on TV.com claimed that Fringe is the

“Best paranormal show since X Files. Great plot twists, great character development, it gets on all cylinders. Fringe has a great Sci Fi component, from the believable to the not so believable, but its all done in great fun and excitement.”

Another by Mark_Barnes420 stated

“Finally, something intelligent on television”

Barry Garon at the Hollywood Reporter said that

“Although [the] episodes are self-contained, each has a clue that points to the overall involvement of a shadowy, giant corporation, Massive Dynamics. Combine these elements with solid special effects and confident direction and you get some heavy-duty counter programming to ABC's "Dancing With the Stars."

And personally, I agree. With all the TV shows out there, like Greys Anatomy, The Office, and Castle, it is about time that the sci-fi lovers got a show too! But these testimonials only showed I wasn't alone, and I was on a quest for why this show was so addicting as nasty as it was.

Many claimed that the reason the show was so interesting was due to Peter Bishop, the mad scientist who seems to be able to solve every freaky mystery. That the human addiction with fringe science, such as teleportation and reading ones thoughts after death, is something viewers often ponder about.

Could it be that viewers are so drawn into the idea of the government hiding things from its public, that we consider these things to actually happen. There is a sort of intensity in all these themes that is only reiterated in the way the series is set up itself. Since the episodes only solve what occurs within them, they slowly answer the broader question that set within the series.

On one hand this may seem like a giant risk to its producers. Yet then again, Fringe is in its third series and from what I have read it is only getting better. The show may be gripping because of its cast, its mysteries, and its speculation on government conspiracy, but the way the plot is revealed brings out the attention on these subjects.

Most TV shows seem to have two to three big issues per season. They slowly get revealed and every episode is a continuation of that problem. Often, a series will have a two-part episode that continuous the problem but that doesn't come close to J. J Abrams' Fringe. The show does the same, but it operates differently for every episode has a beginning and an end with the problem at hand, but the seasons problem is constantly in question. Rarely does the audience get answers, leaving them hooked and begging for more.

This is why I sat glued to my computer while watching the first episode, because I was yearning for a solution but none came. It wasn't the skin dripping off their bodies, which frankly, I am relieved to find out. It was the amazing way this series has chosen to define itself, that strikes everyone that watches.


Fringe uses this different and compelling set up to entice its audience, to draw them into the season. Each episode acts like a cookie crumb on Hansel and Gretel path, leading them to the final and climactic situation. I am now currently on episode 11 and from what I hear, I will only get further into it.

Recap: Valentine's Day Episodes

Well, it is that time of the year again. What time of the year is it you ask? The time of year for Valentine's Day themed episodes of our favorite television shows. Although events such as this come around relatively frequently, i.e. for Thanksgiving and Christmas, the Valentine's Day brand of themed episodes is undoubtedly my favorite.

Some viewers often scoff at these Valentine's episodes, that inevitably provide the perfect dose of romance and unexpected love for our favorite characters because that same romance has eluded us in our own lives. However, I am stating here and now that I am on "Team Valentine's Day" and that does not refer to the movie that should have been great but wasn't. I am supporting these episodes that are proven, year in and year out, to give us that little bit of romance between our favorite TV couples (especially on sitcoms), that often goes neglected in traditional, non-love themed episodes.

So here, I will recap the romantic highlights from this year's crop of Valentine's Day episodes from some our favorite shows, providing you with a play-by-play of the romance (or lack thereof) that took place this past week. And hey! to all the cynics out there, keep reading! Because this year's Valentine's Day episodes might have more for you than you think! Here we go...


Modern Family "Bixby's Back"

When I saw that the title of this episode was "Bixby's Back," I knew this could only mean one thing: the return of Phil and Claire's "stealth" alter-egos. Unfortunately, the revival of these characters turned out about just as badly as the first, with Phil caught naked in another (much older) woman's room and narrowly avoiding arrest. However, their escapades were most definitely the highlight of the episode, with a close second going to Manny's endless pursuit of his love-crazed cousin Hayley. The romance between our other couples did not fare much better. Cam and Mitchell spent the night engaging in a flirting competition and bickering (hilariously) about which one of them Mitchell's assistant had a crush on and Gloria and Jay engaged in a war to see who could "win" Valentine's Day (Gloria: 1, Jay: 0).


Watch the full episode here: Bixby's Back


The Office "PDA"

I went into this Valentine's Day with high hopes after last year's light on romance episode and this year did not disappoint. The Office was in uproar after the newly reunited Michael and Holly were engaging in some inappropriate office PDA. Dwight, in sidekick mode, proceeded to list off all of the members of the staff who have had sex in the office, including but not limited to Creed and Kevin (with a girl who goes to another school.) Gabe then declares that PDA is not allowed in the office, which is unfortunate when Michael and Holly finally declare their love for one another and are relegated to a hand shake instead of a kiss.

On the Jim and Pam front, after returning very drunk from a bottomless champagne lunch, they decided to try and find a place to have sex in the office, and after a few unsuccessful attempts (warehouse loft, cardboard box, Ryan's office a.k.a. closet), returned to the office in the middle of a meeting tucking in their shirts, go Jim and Pam! All in all, a successful holiday at Dunder Mifflin.

Watch the full episode here: PDA


How I Met Your Mother "Desperation Day"

Like many classic episodes of How I Met Your Mother, this one started off with Barney inventing a new "thing," with this one being a declaration of February 13th as "Desperation Day," his favorite day of the year. It is magical night because "a 10 has the self-esteem of a 4 and the depraved enthusiasm of a 2." However, while in hot pursuit of his next one-night stand, Barney comes across Nora, a work friend of Robin's who rejects Barney's traditional advances. Normally, Barney shrugs off rejections, but he lingers on Nora. She later agrees to play laser tag with him, which viewers know is the quickest way to win Barney's heart. I can't wait to see what plays out between these two.

Elsewhere, Lily goes to Minnesota to see Marshall for Valentine's Day only to find him regressed to a childish state. Ted comes then comes to help (or escape Valentine's Day with girlfriend Zooey because he felt they might be moving too quickly in their new relationship), only to join Marshall in the playing of endless video games and eating. Lily leaves, upset that Marshall is refusing to come home which makes both Marshall and Ted realize they have to go back to New York to join their respective women. The episode ends with Marshall returning to Lily (who had been cuddling with her Marshall replacement, Marsh-pillow) just in time for them to watch their traditional Valentine's Day movie, Predator. Cue "awwwws" from the audience, Marshall is back!
  
Watch the full episode here: Desperation Day

I think that this year's Valentine's Day episodes had a little something for everyone. They (mostly) left the sappy romance at home and showcased the comedy that we always expect from our favorite shows but is often lost in the spirit of the Valentine's romance. I also think that each of these episodes did a good job of advancing the plot: Hayley gets back together with Dylan (let's hope this means the return of more songs like the classic "I Wanna Do You"), Michael and Holly say "I love you," and the biggest gasp of the set, Barney Stinson might have real feelings for one of his conquests?! WTF? Often, themed episodes are mere stand alone episodes but I think that this set of Valentine's Day episodes will be woven into the greater story-line of the shows. On the whole, I would rate this Valentine's week as a solid 8 out of 10. Until next year...

Tweeting while televisioning

The American pastime of watching television has changed as we know it. It is inevitable that major television events are watched. However, with the creation of Twitter, it is also inevitable that they are tweeted about while being watched. Furthermore, real time twitter updates during and about these television events makes it possible to get a full synopsis without even watching. One of my followers who was at work during the Grammys tweeted,

"I feel like I'm watching the grammys.."

Whether it be the Super Bowl, awards shows, or popular reality television shows, i can always count on my timeline to be a hot spot for interactive discussion, critiques, and laughs during these events.

One advantage to tweeting and televisioning is that other people catch things that i may have missed during the show(most likely because i was tweeting). For instance, one of the people i'm following tweeted,

"I know I'm behind on the #GRAMMY'S, but did any1 see Beiber's dancer do a flip off the platform, fall & grab his back?#InTears"



After she tweeted this, my timeline was in an uproar and everyone with DVRs rewound it or looked it up on YouTube the next day. Although it was pretty funny, i really hope the guy is okay.

Another advantage is that tweeting while watching television adds another element of emotion and interaction. It's like you are watching it with a group of people even if you're in a room by yourself. E.B. Boyd believes that Twitter has been the savior that has gotten us back to watching television at the same time despite the anarchy of watching when you want with DVRs. He quoted Robin Sloan who said, "[In the last 18 months], I think we actually saw the pendulum swing back toward things like shared experiences, back toward live TV. I think Twitter, of course, is one of the things that drove this". While tweeting and televisioning during the Super Bowl i felt like i was at a virtual Super Bowl party. When the Chrysler "Imported from Detroit" commercial came on, it was a sense of unity and pride that took over my timeline as everyone tweeted that they were proud to be from Detroit.

Granted, tweeting while televisioning might distract you from actually watching the show, but it is a lot of fun. Tweets bring another level of entertainment to watching television and allows one to connect with others emotionally. What once was a one-dimensional, American pastime has become a multidimensional, international trend and activity.

#304 People-Watching

We all do it.

Whether you're in a coffee shop, a park, or any other public setting, you've probably taken part in the art of people-watching. Simply put, this involves watching and observing people from a distance. The main reason we do it is to observe the way people act, dress, and talk to make inferences about what kind of a person they are.

After a long morning at work you deserve a break from it all. The pressure, the deadlines, the drama, the constant bombardment of emails. We all need a break from it all. A lunch break isn't complete without some quality people-watching. This brings me to my first of three reasons why people-watching is so awesome.

1. It's relaxing. You can put as much or as little thought into it as you want. You can merely stare with an empty mind or you can study your subjects intently. People are fascinating! Especially when they aren't aware someone is watching them.

2. It passes time. A lunch break in the cafeteria goes by much faster when you can sit and observe a group of people throwing the frisbee outside.

3. It's inspiring. I can't think of a time when I was people-watching that I didn't witness or hear something or someone that I turned into a conversation starter later. "Hey, you'd never guess what I saw this guy wearing!" or "This couple was talking about how much they loved that new movie in theaters, we should go see it!"

And although it can turn creepy if the person you're watching looks back at you, people-watching is definitely a healthy alternative to Facebook creeping. Watching people in the real world beats stalking them on facebook any day, which is why people-watching is...

AWESOME!

The 53rd Grammys: Furthering or Limiting the Music Industry

A total of 26 million people watched the controversial 53rd Grammy Awards this last Sunday. With Lady GaGa's entrance in a egg to Cee Lo Greens Muppet Show, to say the Grammys were abnormal seems to be an understatement. Not only were the fashions and the performances obscure but so were the recipients of the awards.
I may not exactly be Justin Bieber's "One Less Lonely Girl" but I certainly found him a prime candidate for the Best New Artist. Instead, Esperanza Spalding won the award leaving many shocked at Drake's, Justin Bieber's, and Mumford and Sons' loss.

"As for the awards" Bieber himself tweeted "...of course I wanted to win. Its been & still is a dream to win a grammy. Was I upset...yes. But I was happy for her also."

Eminem who was nominated for a total of 10 Grammys ended up taking home only two, instead of sweeping away the competition. With his album, Recovery, selling 4 million albums this year, Eminem once again did not win Album of the Year. Instead, Arcade Fire, a small indie-band beat out artists like Katy Perry and Lady Antebellum. With Eminems 4 millions albums sold, Arcade Fire's 484,000 did not even come close to reaching the mainstream media.
Though surprises are never rare at events such as these, Lady Antebellum's win for Song and Record of the year had many watchers stunned. Tweets were going off the hook as upset fans poured out their anger while others we're so excited for the underdogs win.

"Is this a f***ing joke? RT: @CNNshowbiz: Lady Antebellum wins the #Grammy for record of the year for "Need You Now."

As the controversies over this years Grammy's continue many are asking themselves what exactly is happening to the music industry.
So is this good new, or bed news? Is the music industry opening up to smaller, and dedicated bands while leaving the epic winners like Eminem, and other behind? MTV's article on the "Grammy Upset" states

"It made me happy, because they're (the current generation working the music industry) voting for moving the music industry forward, and that's healthy that they're ethically and aesthetically minded. This is what we want music to be like in the near future — independent, artistically motivated more than motivated by commercial desire. We don't want it to pander."

Personally, I was upset by this years Grammys wins and losses. I had my favorites set and many of them did not win! Though I may have been let down I agree with MTV's article, what is the fun in watching the same old artists win by sweeping the competition every year? Exactly, it isn't. This years Grammys may have been a little more... awkward then usual but that is exactly what has been getting so much attention. With the Grammys opening up to small indie bands, crazier outfits, and unknown artists the music industry is broadening their horizons. As unhappy as I may be with Justin BIeber's loss, many deserving artists won this year, making a name for themselves, and taking home a shiny little Grammy trophy.