Many have formed the opinion that Taylor Swifts career is solely based on her relationships and her breakups, and in accordance with this many have grown less and less fond of her and her music. However, more recently there has been a spark in conversation about her new song coming out about her ex Harry Styles, and people have been going crazy to hear it (http://www.eonline.com/news/586928/taylor-swift-is-releasing-a-harry-styles-inspired-single-next-week-and-fans-are-going-bananas). This specific incident has had me wondering about who really likes her as an artist and who doesn't.
Many say that Swifts music has grown old and that hearing about nothing but her either current relationship or breakup has grown tiresome. However, at the same time. many still ironically get excited to hear about what her new songs on her albums have to say. Yes, in my opinion Swifts music may often times be repetitive, nonetheless they never fail to be intriguing. All of this brings me to believe that although many say they aren't inspired by her music anymore, they are at least still intrigued.
All it usually takes from an artist is to spark an interest in his or her audience to sell their music and tickets to their show. With that being said while many may believe that Swift is on her way out, she may very well still be on her way up. While Swift has lost the war of her constant repeat in literature, she has still succeeded in her cause in interest among teens and young adults across the world. This sort of thing still leads her to sell more and more cd's and continue to rise on the charts of popularity. In accordance she has recently changed up her style of music, leading more towards a pop sort of feel. While many didn't like it at all in the beginning, many have seemed to accustomed to it now. In conclusion, I would think twice before believing that Swifts career is headed out the door. In my opinion at least, her career seems to be still alive and very much on the rise.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Nick Cannon
Many by now have heard the news about Mariah Carey and Nick Cannons break up and soon to be divorce. More recently though many have been raging about Cannons dramatic change in his back tattoo (http://www.eonline.com/news/586140/nick-cannon-covers-up-his-mariah-carey-tattoo-replaces-signature-ink-with-massive-new-tat). The tattoo that originally said "Mariah" on the back has now been covered up with a tattoo of a dove with a cross. This newly released information has had many ragging in all different directions of opinions.
As a teen myself I know that even though the conversation was brought up lightly and in a joking manner, my parents have told me to think twice before getting permanent ink placed on my body. As I'm sure all are aware, any form of tattoo ink placed on your body is forever there, and there are essentially no for sure options of removal. Many could argue in this manner that it was immature of Cannon to get the tattoo in the first place. Tattoo's are nothing to mess with, and while it may show love and affection for a spouse or significant other at the time, it may come of regret later. My parents have taught me that getting a persons name, not including family, tattooed on your body is most likely a mistake that will often times most likely not work out in the end. With that being said, I would have to lean more towards this side of opinions on my belief and behalf of the issue.
On the other hand however, others may argue that this sort of behavior is typical and okay. Many people get their significant others named tattooed on their bodies and many believe that if it doesn't work out that just getting it covered up isn't a problem. In fact, there is even a show about people that specialize in covering up mistaken tattoos called Bad Ink. However, if you ever watch that (or any other shows of that manner) you would come to realize that they all follow a distinct pattern. The guests on the shows always seem to walk in a little embarrassed knowing they don't only have to discuss their mistake, but explain why it happened in the first place, it's like being a kid and talking to your parents all over again! This is yet another reason why I believe that Cannon's mistake did not start when he got the divorce, but rather the fact that he even got the tattoo in the first place. Maybe next time he will think about getting permanent body ink and save himself the talk and embalmment from the public.
As a teen myself I know that even though the conversation was brought up lightly and in a joking manner, my parents have told me to think twice before getting permanent ink placed on my body. As I'm sure all are aware, any form of tattoo ink placed on your body is forever there, and there are essentially no for sure options of removal. Many could argue in this manner that it was immature of Cannon to get the tattoo in the first place. Tattoo's are nothing to mess with, and while it may show love and affection for a spouse or significant other at the time, it may come of regret later. My parents have taught me that getting a persons name, not including family, tattooed on your body is most likely a mistake that will often times most likely not work out in the end. With that being said, I would have to lean more towards this side of opinions on my belief and behalf of the issue.
On the other hand however, others may argue that this sort of behavior is typical and okay. Many people get their significant others named tattooed on their bodies and many believe that if it doesn't work out that just getting it covered up isn't a problem. In fact, there is even a show about people that specialize in covering up mistaken tattoos called Bad Ink. However, if you ever watch that (or any other shows of that manner) you would come to realize that they all follow a distinct pattern. The guests on the shows always seem to walk in a little embarrassed knowing they don't only have to discuss their mistake, but explain why it happened in the first place, it's like being a kid and talking to your parents all over again! This is yet another reason why I believe that Cannon's mistake did not start when he got the divorce, but rather the fact that he even got the tattoo in the first place. Maybe next time he will think about getting permanent body ink and save himself the talk and embalmment from the public.
Abby Lee Miller
In a recently new news report Abby Lee Miller has allegedly been slammed with a law suit for assaulting a student (http://www.eonline.com/news/587563/dance-moms-abby-lee-miller-sued-for-assault-by-student-get-the-details)/). Since her reality TV show "Dance Moms" has premiered many have come accustomed to different opinion on Millers behalf. Over the years she has been either hated by many (according to her lack of love for her students) or loved by many (according to people agreeing with her stricter ways of teaching and many believing it builds character). Despite the wide variety of "love-hate" relationships for Miller, there is no doubt she has sparked up conversations of her teachings and punishments.
I'm sure most have seen "Dance Moms" at least once in their lives as it has had many consistent seasons, which leads me to question the talk and suggestions of Millers new law suit against her. From watching the countless episodes I (and I'm sure many others) have been able to tell the aggression coming not only from Miller herself, but the moms as well. Often times when one or the other doesn't get their way they tend to throw a fit, most likely to save themselves from embarrassment on national television. In return this is what causes drama, which essentially is what drives it's audience to watch the show. My question is why this charge in assault hasn't been brought up before, this is not the first time something like this has occurred has it?
In accordance with my statement earlier, a lot of times when Miller or a mom gets angry they tend to throw things out of proportion (throwing objects, using profound language, etc.). The argument presented in the article states that Miller threw a chair at Paige (one of her students) which may not be morally right in some peoples minds, but is for sure not the first time something like this has happened on the show. In conclusion (and based on other scenes made like this over and over again) I believe that this case was probably made mostly on the fact that something didn't go somebody's way. The people that participate in the show tend to be a little overdramatic about situations, but in the end always seem to come to peace with them. Everyone on the show might not always get a long, but they all know each other well enough to know that any kind of essential "abuse" or "harassment" would never be deemed intentional. In my opinion Miller's reaction may have been wrong, but her supposed "cause" was not intentional.
I'm sure most have seen "Dance Moms" at least once in their lives as it has had many consistent seasons, which leads me to question the talk and suggestions of Millers new law suit against her. From watching the countless episodes I (and I'm sure many others) have been able to tell the aggression coming not only from Miller herself, but the moms as well. Often times when one or the other doesn't get their way they tend to throw a fit, most likely to save themselves from embarrassment on national television. In return this is what causes drama, which essentially is what drives it's audience to watch the show. My question is why this charge in assault hasn't been brought up before, this is not the first time something like this has occurred has it?
In accordance with my statement earlier, a lot of times when Miller or a mom gets angry they tend to throw things out of proportion (throwing objects, using profound language, etc.). The argument presented in the article states that Miller threw a chair at Paige (one of her students) which may not be morally right in some peoples minds, but is for sure not the first time something like this has happened on the show. In conclusion (and based on other scenes made like this over and over again) I believe that this case was probably made mostly on the fact that something didn't go somebody's way. The people that participate in the show tend to be a little overdramatic about situations, but in the end always seem to come to peace with them. Everyone on the show might not always get a long, but they all know each other well enough to know that any kind of essential "abuse" or "harassment" would never be deemed intentional. In my opinion Miller's reaction may have been wrong, but her supposed "cause" was not intentional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)