Opinion of the Court
The first constitutional right states that congress shall not make a law prohibiting freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case the respondent claims that Anthony Elonis’ lyrical posts are a threat to others, and violate the federal anti-threat statute. In these lyrics, he explains things such as killing his ex-wife, and shooting up a kindergarten. They argue that any reasonable person would take this as a threat, some of the reasonable people listed being those who were threatened, and even the lawyers themselves. Elonis defended himself stating that the lyrics were taken out of context by the respondent, and that he had the first constitutional right to post these lyrics. As the petitioners state, he even included disclaimers on multiple of those posts that clearly claimed, “This is not a threat,” and they argue that there is no proof he was planning on committing these acts. Due to the information given on the case, I have come to the conclusion that our first constitutional right protects those who make statements that are clearly not a threat, as in this case Elonis clearly stated, “This is not a threat,”. Those who make statements that are deemed from others threatening, but have no proof they intend to carry out these acts shall also be protected by this right. Firstly, Elonis stated below multiple of the lyrical posts, “This is not a threat.” This gives us clear context as to the fact that his post is an artistic decision. If we were to punish someone for saying something that they clearly said wasn’t a threat, we would be setting a precedent that would punish people for saying things taken out of context. Context and intent are the most important parts in determining if someone is guilty or innocent, so this precedent would ensure that there be proof of intent in a statement deemed to be a threat by others. This precedent of course would not cover things like yelling fire in a public space. However, if something said by a person causes chaos or results in harm to others, that person should be prosecuted whether the statement was said sarcastically, jokingly, or out of context. Secondly, the “reasonable people” in this case had clear bias. The petitioner brought up multiple times in their points that because reasonable people deemed the statements to be a threat, the respondent should face charges. The federal anti-threat law should definitely not count something as a threat if a reasonable person interprets it as so. It is incredibly difficult in determining who is a reasonable person and who isn’t, as it is all up to a person’s opinion. If we were to use intent instead as the decider, it would call for more evidence to be used in the case, such as that of Elonis saying, “This is not a threat,” clearly stating his intentions. The reasonable people brought up in this case that deemed Elonis’ statements as threats were the petitioners and those who were threatened. These people have clear bias, because for one those threatened would feel strongly emotional about the said threats, and two the petitioner side is literally hired to prosecute Elonis, and therefore has the greatest possible bias. Then again, this is only the way the petitioner described “reasonable people”. If we were to instead use a theoretical reasonable person, it would still be difficult in determining what a theoretical reasonable person would feel about this case. Freedom of speech has been one of our greatest, most important rights from the creation of our constitution. There is a reason it comes first on our bill of rights. In the case of Elonis vs. the U.S., Elonis made clear as to what the context of his online posts were, adding disclaimers to some posts that said, “This is not a threat.” Not only should the first amendment protect people in a situation like this, but also their intent should protect them. Intent should be seen as the main decider in whether or not someone makes a threatening claim. If there is proof that there was no intent in a claim, or there is no proof that there was intent in a claim, our constitution should protect those who make said claims. The “reasonable people” claim is not enough in determining whether he is guilty or not, as determining who is a reasonable person gets too difficult. Therefore, the constitution protects Anthony Elonis from all charges. It is so ordered.
0 Comments
Opinion of the Court
The first constitutional right states that congress shall not make a law prohibiting freedom of speech, or of the press. In this case the respondent claims that Elonis’ lyrical posts are a threat to others, and violate the law. In these lyrics he explains things such as killing his ex-wife, and shooting up a kindergarten. They argue that any reasonable person would take this as a threat, some of the reasonable people listed being those who were threatened, and even the lawyers themselves. Elonis defended himself stating that the lyrics were taken out of context by the respondent, and that he had the first constitutional right to post these lyrics. As the petitioners state, he even included disclaimers on multiple of those posts that clearly claimed, “This is not a threat,” and they argue that there is no proof he was planning on committing these acts. Due to the information given on the case, I have come to the conclusion that our first constitutional right protects those who make statements that are clearly not a threat, as in this case Elonis clearly stated, “This is not a threat,”. Those who make statements that are deemed from others threatening, but have no proof they intend to carry out these acts shall also be protected by this right. Firstly, Elonis stated below multiple of the lyrical posts, “This is not a threat.” This gives us clear context as to the fact that his post is an artistic decision. If we were to punish someone for saying something that they clearly said wasn’t a threat, we would be setting a precedent that would punish people for saying things taken out of context. Context and intent is the most important part in determining if someone is guilty or innocent, so this precedent would ensure that there be proof of intent in a statement deemed to be a threat by others. This precedent of course would not cover things like yelling fire in a public space though. If something said by a person causes chaos or results in harm to others, that person should be prosecuted whether the statement was said sarcastically, jokingly, or out of context. Secondly, the “reasonable people” in this case had clear bias. The petitioner brought up multiple times in their points that because reasonable people deemed the statements to be a threat, the respondent should face charges. The federal anti-threat law should definitely not count something as a threat if a reasonable person interprets it as so. There is a huge difficulty in determining who is a reasonable person and who isn’t, as it is all up to opinion. The reasonable people brought up in this case that deemed Elonis’ statements as threats were the petitioners and those who were threatened. These people have clear bias, because for one those threatened would feel strongly emotional about the said threats, and two the petitioner side is literally hired to prosecute Elonis, and therefore has the greatest possible bias. Freedom of speech has been one of our greatest, most important rights from the creation of our constitution. There is a reason it comes first on our bill of rights. In the case of Elonis vs. the U.S., Elonis made clear as to what the context of his online posts were, adding disclaimers to some posts that said, “This is not a threat”. Not only should the first amendment protect people in a situation like this, but also their intent should protect them. Intent should be seen as the main decider in whether or not someone makes a threatening claim. If there is proof that there was no intent in a claim, or there is no proof that there was intent in a claim, our constitution should protect those who make said claims. The “reasonable people” claim is not enough in determining whether he is guilty or not, as determining who is a reasonable person gets too difficult. Therefore, the constitution protects Elonis from all charges. It is so ordered Superman, one of the most recognizable heroes, if not the most recognizable hero of all time, is known by almost all who have in some way involved themselves in movie or comic knowledge. Since his creation he has been featured in multiple movies and comics that involve him in the "Universes" that were created by DC, putting him side by side with other popular superheroes in situations that typically involve fighting evil. These movies that revolve around the DC universe Superman and other heroes take place in are some of the most popular movies recently, such as "Justice League", or "Batman vs. Superman". These movies have seen less fan approval than usual though, both getting scores of under 50% on movie websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. So does Superman deserve the popularity and position he is in? Superman's character has too much power and too little flaws ruining the purpose of any superhero or villain he stars with in a movie, making him incompatible with any other characters in the DC universe.
Superman's character is much too powerful. According to IPFS.io, he has powers from "Superhuman strength", to "Flight" to even, "Invulnerability". Now does that sound like a character we'd be on the edge of our seat, wondering, "Will this be Superman's end?". Of course not. Take sports for example. One of the best parts about them is you never know who's going to win. If you were to watch every boxing fight knowing who's going to win, what would be the point of watching it? It ruins the fun. Now understandably, some people like watching powers like Superman battle it out because they find it entertaining. Now this would be fine, if it he had a great villain or weakness to even things out and make the battles more entertaining. But with all of this power, the rare times when he loses a battle is because of one, dull weakness. Every superhero needs a good weakness. When you look at Batman, his weakness is The Joker, a villain who's character finds enjoyment in making Batman's life difficult, and shows the worst in Batman. These characters relations make for the perfect Hero vs. Villain situation, and both characters in a way feed off each other. Joker's decisions will change the way Batman is as a person and change the way he looks at himself. You need that conflict in a Superhero movie. But Superman's greatest weakness? Kryptonite. Yes, a crystal. That is Superman's greatest enemy. He is a near invincible character, but if he makes contact with that crystal, he's basically dead. This makes for absolute minimal conflict. Whereas a character like Batman that has a weakness like The Joker has to make big decisions that reflect on their personality, and who they stand for, Superman just has to stay away from a crystal. And you might be thinking, what about the conflict he has that aren't related to kryptonite in the movies? Even in conflict as that of him and Batman in Batman V Superman, the conflict is dealt with because their mothers both had the same name. There isn't anything interesting about that, and the entire movie is supposed to be about that conflict. Even after that conflict is resolved, their new conflict is a giant creature that wants to kill them. Why? Because he just does, without having any motivation. Characters like Batman, Spiderman, and Iron Man all earned their spots as heroes through their conflicts growing up. Superman was just born with these powers, making him unrelatable to those who watch media involving him. Especially those he stands besides in the movies, which he creates a whole other issue for. Superman makes other heroes pointless. The point of a big superhero movie such as "The Avengers" or "Justice League" is to show different heroes put together in the same environment in which they need to combine their powers to defeat one big evil. Movies like "The Avengers" execute this well, and make sure to involve the different heroes in their films and bring purpose to each character so all are seen as important. Without this, the use of other heroes is useless. In the movie, "Justice League", the heroes revive Superman after an evil force tries to end them. Then, Superman does the rest of the work in the movie to save the day. The thing is, really any character could've revived Superman in that situation. If they wanted to, they could've made that film a standalone Superman movie, and just had some random civilian come across Superman and revive him. The point of DC bringing all of these characters together in this movie is just to plaster them on their poster so they can make more money. The poster itself says "You can't save the world alone," which I find ironic. Although Superman reigns as one of the biggest characters in superhero history, with the decline of quality in movies, his popularity might begin to die as we see a decrease in consumer interest to watch the movies with him. His standalone movies aren't the issue here, but to compete with big Marvel films like The Avengers, DC will need to make the right decisions to change this character for the better. Because of these character decisions they've made for superman, he is made a character unpairable with other heroes. Superman, one of the most recognizable heroes, if not the most recognizable hero of all time, is known by almost all who have in some way involved themselves in movie or comic knowledge. Since his creation he has been featured in multiple movies and comics that involve him in the "Universes" that were created by DC, putting him side by side with other popular superheroes in situations that typically involve fighting evil. These movies that revolve around the DC universe Superman and other heroes take place in are some of the most popular movies recently, such as "Justice League", or "Batman vs. Superman". But does Superman deserve the popularity and position he is in? Superman's character has too much power and too little flaws ruining the purpose of any superhero or villain he stars with in a movie, making him incompatible with any other characters in the DC universe.
Superman's character is much too powerful. In his movies, he is portrayed with powers such as flight, super strength, super speed, near invulnerability, and even the power to reverse time. Now does that sound like a character we'd be on the edge of our seat, wondering, "Will this be Superman's end?". Of course not. Take sports for example. One of the best parts about them is you never know who's going to win. If you were to watch every boxing fight knowing who's going to win, what would be the point of watching it? It ruins the fun. And with all of this power, the rare times when he loses a battle is because of one weakness. Superman has no conflict. Every superhero needs a good weakness. When you look at Batman, his weakness is The Joker, a villain who's character finds enjoyment in making Batman's life difficult, and shows the worst in Batman. These characters relations make for the perfect Hero vs. Villain situation, and both characters in a way feed off each other. Joker's decisions will change the way Batman is as a person and change the way he looks at himself. You need that conflict in a Superhero movie. But Superman's greatest weakness? Kryptonite. Yes, a crystal. That is Superman's greatest enemy. He is a near invincible character, but if he makes contact with that crystal, he's basically dead. This makes for absolute minimal conflict. Whereas a character like Batman that has a weakness like The Joker has to make big decisions that reflect on their personality, and who they stand for, Superman just has to stay away from a crystal. Characters like Batman, Spiderman, and Iron Man all earned their spots as heroes through their conflicts growing up. Superman was just born with these powers, making him unrelatable to those who watch media involving him. Superman makes other heroes pointless. The point of a big superhero movie such as "The Avengers" or "Justice League" is to show different heroes put together in the same environment in which they need to combine their powers to defeat one big evil. Movies like "The Avengers" execute this well, and make sure to involve the different heroes in their films and bring purpose to each character so all are seen as important. Without this, the use of other heroes is useless. In the movie, "Justice League", the heroes revive Superman after an evil force tries to end them. Then, Superman does the rest of the work in the movie to save the day. The thing is, really any character could've revived Superman in that situation. If they wanted to, they could've made that film a standalone Superman movie, and just had some random civilian come across Superman and revive him. This is ironic, considering the posters text says "You can't save the world alone". Although Superman reigns as one of the biggest characters in superhero history, with the decline of quality in movies, his popularity might begin to die. His standalone movies aren't the issue here, but to compete with big Marvel films like The Avengers, DC will need to make the right decisions to change this character for the better. Because of these character decisions they've made for superman, he has made for a character unpairable with other heroes. When looking back at someone, how should we judge their character? By what they think and say, or by their actual actions? When looking back on Abraham Lincoln, how should we remember him? As one of the greatest presidents we had who ended slavery, or as a two faced politician who only cared about the Union? When remembering John Brown, should we see him as an important figure to ending of slavery, or a man whose failed actions made him irrelevant to history? It is important that we remember the figures who shaped and changed our lives by their actual actions instead of what they personally felt or said about the issue. Because whether or not someone says something that goes against their actions, their actions are what permanently change our future for the better or worse.
Lincoln was an important figure not because of what he believed, but because of what he did. During the civil war, Lincoln's main concern was the Union. He didn't care about what would happen to slavery, because he felt as it wasn't his business to make decisions on slavery. Slavery became an important issue to him though, because abolishing it would be an effective tactic for the Union to live on. "My [main] objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it," is what Lincoln had said in a note from 1862. But the things he's said do not make his actions any less important and valid. In 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation created by Lincoln freed all slaves in the rebellious states, eventually leading to the end of slavery. If it weren't for these actions by Lincoln, it is possible slavery would've stayed for decades to come. Once we look at someone like John Brown, it seems that the way he was remember was for the opposite reasons than Abraham Lincoln. John Brown was an abolitionist, one of the biggest known ones during Bleeding Kansas. Though as much as John Brown advocated for anti-slavery, once he led a raid with others to free slaves and attack pro-slavery forces, "The raid, however, quickly failed. They were surrounded by militia, ten of his followers were killed, and Brown himself was wounded and captured and later hung." John Brown was much more anti-slavery than Abraham Lincoln, but because of his failed actions, he made much less of an impact on our future. When you compare the legacies of John Brown and Abraham Lincoln, one is known for his strong belief of anti-slavery but with failed actions. Another is known for not caring about the issue of slavery, but was the leading role in abolishing it. So does it make Lincoln less of a hero for not caring about the issue he ended? Well, no. If it weren't for Lincoln, who knows how long slavery could've continued for. Then let's pretend John Brown never existed, not much would've probably changed because his actions had failed anyways. In the long run, someones actions are what change our future, and if that change is positive change the person who makes that positive change should be praised for their work. No matter Lincoln liked slavery or not, we still today no longer have it because of him. Some might say that activism and speaking out against something without taking direct or successful action still has importance, and I'm not disagreeing with that. Anti-slavery forces still benefited from John Brown because of his activism, as he spread the word of anti-slavery to others, and popularized it. There was an importance to John Brown, just not on the same level of Abraham Lincoln. When we look at modern day activism for things like gun control, we can clearly see some level of success from those who speak out against it. These activists do have an important role in making the change they want. But it is those in a political position and in power who can actually make the changes that people wish for. And because Lincoln made his way into becoming the president, he could finally use his platform to make real successful change unlike John Brown's failed actions. Without an Abraham Lincoln as president, there would be few political powers to make change to the important issue of slavery. Our society is the way it is today because of people like Abraham Lincoln. Whether you dislike him or not for what his true beliefs are, there is no doubting the fact that he ended slavery in the U.S. and changed our world in a positive way. His actions should reflect on his character, and therefore we should look up to him as a hero. It is ones actions that make an impact on our world more than one's words. No hero is perfect, no matter their flaws. Because who knows what the U.S. could look like today without Abraham Lincoln. At HTHNC, we have annual day for both 9th and 10th graders in which we shadow someones career for a day. This is meant to get kids used to a professional work environment, and to see what a day for someone who is working in a specific field is like. For this day, I shadowed at the San Diego home inspection for the city. I chose this field mostly because of the fact that I didn't have any other opportunities for career day, but thought it would be interesting anyway. On the day of I got up around 4 am, which was really early for me, and we drove over to the office for the job. We were in there for about 3 hours planning the day out, and routing out which houses we were going to inspect for the day. After that there is about 6 hours of inspecting to do, going from house to house inspecting whatever it may be. It was interesting to see the different types of people, and different types of inspections. Some inspections lasted only a minute, whereas others lasted 15-20 minutes. One of the hardest parts of the job, according to the person I shadowed, would be the people you encounter. Some will argue with you and shout at you if they don't believe an inspection didn't pass, so I'd say we were lucky that we didn't encounter any difficult people. Many of the people who go into home inspecting come from a construction or architecture background, and that's how the people I talked to in the office got into it. They actually don't really look for degrees, but rather if you have a background in construction or architecture. Because of this, during the inspections I didn't understand most of what they were saying. There are some things that are similar from our school to their jobs. They have a dress code in which you have to wear a collared shirt when working. Also, it is important to know how to communicate with others and collaborate because you are constantly talking to people and explaining things to them. Although I wouldn't plan to be an inspector in the future, it was an interesting experience overall. Next career day I hope that I do not have an issue of transportation so I have more opportunities for someone to shadow, and hopefully the person I shadow has something to do with music.
In America 1831, there was no sign of slavery ending. Nat Turner, a 31 year old slave seen as a genius by many, was in belief that he was a prophet, and that it was gods plan for him to revolt against and kill the whites in order to end slavery. He grouped up with others and created a rebellion that lasted only a few days, but ended with the deaths of 55 to 65 men, women, and children. Nat Turner was later turned in by a farmer and hanged. So were his actions justified? Nat Turner was a madman who helped a good cause, but in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.
In the span of only four days, Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both wiped out and flattened from the drops of two American atomic bombs. Following the second bomb drop, Japan immediately surrendered and the brutal war between America and Japan had finally come to a quick end. But were the atomic bombings justified? The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war and ultimately saved more lives than it ended. However, the second bomb dropped too early, and America hadn't given Japan enough time to react to what had happened.
Not only many American lives, but even Japanese lives were saved by the ending of the war and bomb droppings. It was towards the end of WW2, and the fight between America and Japan was getting worse. According to "Thank God For the Atom Bomb", a book created by WW2 soldier Paul Fussell, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed one another a few weeks before Hiroshima. Also, in the last six months Japanese forces had killed or injured half as many Allied forces as they had in three years. There wasn't a sign of them stopping, and it seemed that they were putting up a bigger fight at the threat of defeat. The U.S. could've used a standard invasion to stop them, but that would be a bad option. A piece from "Three Narratives of our Humanity", a book that explains both perspectives of the bomb droppings, says that, "Japanese battle plans that were in place when the bombs were dropped called for a massive suicidal defense of the home islands, in which the imperial government would mobilize not only several million fighting men, but also millions of ordinary citizens." This means that even extreme amounts of innocent Japanese civilians would die through a standard invasion. It is possible that more Japanese military, and civilians would die protecting their land than the amount that died from the atomic bombs. Incredible amounts of American lives would also be taken from a standard invasion, and to protect American lives a better approach to the situation would be crucial. And that's where the atom bomb takes place. In the span of four days, the U.S. caused the Japanese to surrender through two bombs, and the Japanese civilians, and U.S. soldiers who were going to battle through a standard invasion were saved from being killed. Sure the first bomb drop was justified and necessary, but the second bomb dropping wasn't exactly necessary, and the Japanese didn't have nearly enough time to react to the first. From the source "Two Historical Narratives", as used earlier, "For Japanese to even discuss capitulation was seditious." Surrender wasn't even a thought they were allowed to have. When the first atom bomb dropped, Japan still didn't show signs of surrendering. They had only around three days to inspect the damage done on Hiroshima, and to react to what had happened before the second bomb drop. President Truman had decided on using the atomic bomb in hopes of bringing the war to a quick end. If America had given Japan a bit more time to react, it is very possible that Japan would've surrendered without a second bomb drop. 39,000 - 80,000 people died from the atomic bomb drop on Nagasaki, which is a huge number. Sure it ended the war quick as Truman and others wanted it to, but it was at the cost of the deaths of possibly 80,000 people. It isn't justified to make a move like that in such a short amount of time. The dropping of the bombs should be seen as not only the end of a terrible war, but as a lesson on what these weapons can do. In the situation the U.S. was in, an atomic bomb was necessary to end the war safely and very possibly saved more lives than took. If it weren't for the bombs, the war could've had deadlier outcomes. But for any country to have an atomic bomb, a weapon that could wipe out a city and take the lives of thousands, is a huge responsibility. To drop one on Japan was justified, but to drop another only a few days later seems unfair. If this weapon was in the hands of a country that wasn't America, and that didn't have good intentions, we could all be dead. Looking into what the future holds for us is important. We need to ask questions like, "If we continue our current behavior, what might happen to us? How can we prevent negative expected things in the future from happening? What challenges will we face in future years?" In our latest project, "What Lies Ahead", we looked into these questions. We went over topics such as the future of robots and AI, global warming, war, evolution, and human behavior, and discussed those topics to help us brainstorm our story ideas.
In this project, we were tasked to create a sci-fi story about topics that could possibly take place in the future. I was an author, and worked with another author, an illustrator, and a scientist. The author worked on writing the story, the illustrator worked on creating art for the story, and the scientist worked on explaining the science aspects of the story. After our group came up with an idea we enjoyed, we created a story pitch. Our story was about bring extra terrestrial life into an Earth Environment, and it breaking loose and causing chaos. In our original story idea the alien was supposed to spread across the entire U.S.. After pitching our idea to an actual author, he gave us the critique of making the story take place on a smaller scale, which turned out to work as great advice that we used in our final story. After this, my other author and I started story boarding. This process involved writing down short summaries of what each scene would look like, and what characters would be in the scene. This process was important to lay out your story correctly before you started the actual writing process, and also helped me with working out the importance of each scene. We worked on writing our actual story when we were ready. We got critique from multiple other people, gave critique to multiple other people, and after several drafts the book was finished. In this project the biggest growth I had was with collaboration. We were the only group with two authors in it, so it was questionable whether that collaboration was going to work. We had worries that the story would seem strange because of different writing styles, and other worries that only one of us could work at a time. But we found a way to make the best of the fact that we had two people, and took advantage of it. Both of us were working at all times, whether that be one working on editing and adding onto earlier parts of the book, and the other working on writing the rest of the book. Or both of us combining our ideas to improve the book in certain parts, and make it the best we could. I had always thought that my collaboration didn't need much improvement, but this project pushed me to grow and become a much better collaborator. Another growth I had was in my writing. I feel that many times in the past my writing projects have been pretty small, and I've never had the freedom of choosing what story I want to write about. Due to the freedom and time I had, I was able to take time into working on things like character development, and see growth through the story. I've worked on things like persuasive essays, and personal stories in the past but have never really worked on creating my own story with my own ideas like in this project. This made story creating much more fun, and taught me something new about how to create characters someone can have actual connections to, and characters that people care about. This project not only improved my skills of writing, but improved my collaboration heavily, and helped me learn the importance of looking into the future. It's important for all, especially newer generations, to think about how our actions right now could effect what the future holds for us. Through this project I now have skills in writing that I hadn't had before, and can create a story that is exciting but also has meaning behind it. "A Rush of Blood to the Head" is Coldplay's second full length, alternative rock album, and what I believe to be the height of their career. It's my favorite Coldplay album, and one of my very favorite albums I've ever listened to. It's 11 songs have managed to stand the test of time, and are still as enjoyable to listen to as they were many years ago. I'd recommend this album to anyone, so here's my review.
The album features 11 songs, each usually spanning around 5 minutes. This album includes many hits, such as "The Scientist", "In My Place", and one of my favorite songs of all time, "Clocks". The album starts of strong with the song, "Politik". This song began to be written the day of the 9/11 attacks, and it's lyrics reflect on the current state of our world. The added piano in the song makes it much better, and the track remains one of the more memorable ones on the album. Following it is, "In My Place", one of their more popular songs. As enjoyable as it is to listen to, it's lyrics don't really speak to me as much as the following songs such as, "God Put a Smile Upon Your Face", one of my very favorite songs from this album. "God Put a Smile Upon Your Face" was created mainly because they wanted a more exciting song to play live, and that it is. My only complaint is it sounds so amazing and exciting live, that when I listen to the actual track on the album it almost feels underwhelming. "The Scientist" is what I would consider to be their most popular track on the album, if not tied with "Clocks" for that place. As popular as it is, I think it's great but not one of the best songs on the album. It can also seem somewhat boring listening to it after a song such as "God Put a Smile Upon Your Face". Following it is "Clocks", one of my, if not my favorite song of all time. The piano in this song feels magical, and it's this song that I'd say got me into wanting to learn the piano. I'd be surprised if you didn't have the urge to learn this song on the piano after listening to it. After all the times I've listened to it, it has never gotten old or lost the magic it had the first time I had listened to it. Daylight, Green Eyes, and A Rush of Blood to the Head are all enjoyable songs, but don't hold up to the greatness of the rest of the album. "A Whisper" is probably my least favorite song out of this album, and feels a bit more like filler than anything. "Warning Sign" is a beautifully created song, and has some of my favorite lyrics of all time. It feels somewhat underrated in the album, because I believe it has some of the deepest meaning out of every other song. A warning sign is symbolism for the fact that a man is looking for an excuse or warning sign to stop loving, but later recognizes this mistake and regrets looking for that "warning sign". The last track, "Amsterdam", is perfect to end on. It begins with great piano and vocals, and about three fourths into the track guitar, drums, and an organ are met with the piano and vocals with perfect timing. Every time this happens I get chills, and never in my album listening have I heard a more perfect song to end a track on. It just fits so well in the album, and by the end of the song you just feel complete. If I were to rate this album out of 10, I'd give it a perfect 10 easily. It is tied to be my favorite album of all time, and showcases Coldplay's best ability of music creation. I have never heard a album as great as this one, and it makes some of the band Coldplay's other albums look like nothing in comparison. It includes various instantly recognizable classics within the album, and I've enjoyed every song on this album greatly, without really any complaint. I'd recommend anyone to fully listen to the album, especially those into alternative rock. |
AuthorHi, I'm Canon Stringer. Archives
October 2018
Categories |