How to be classy

I want to share something this week that has to do with fashion. I've had a hard time deciding what to share. I've decided to share a lesson I prepared for the girls back home about modesty a few years ago. The great thing about this lesson is it's designed in a way that it won't change with time. I want to share it in hopes that someone, some where, can get some ideas from it. This will be modified from the original lesson a little, but it's basically the same thing.

When I was a younger I was awkward (who isn't?) and I never thought boys would like me ever. When I got to high school boys were suddenly paying attention to me and I loved it. I soon realized that boys like cleavage. I was not lacking in this field and I figured there would be no harm in showing a little so I would wear increasingly lower cut shirts. I had heard the lessons in church about modesty but it was always something along the lines of "dress modestly because you're told to." I'm stubborn and a little rebellious (not much, but I tend to like to do the opposite of what I'm told when I'm not given a good reason. I once really wanted to get married just because my friend said I couldn't get married before her because her and her boyfriend had been dating longer and I thought that was a silly reason). It took a while before I realized there was a good reason I was told to dress modestly, and I wished someone had given me a better reason. I have come up with three reasons.

1. Dressing modestly shows you have respect for yourself. When you cover up you're telling people you don't need to be an object to feel good about yourself. You're confident in who you are in all ways, not just in your appearance. Girls that dress immodestly give off the impression that they feel they can only impress people with their bodies. In the business world it shows that you have little confidence in your abilities. While girls that show up to job interviews in short skirts and falling out of their shirts may get the job sometimes, in any respectable work places it wouldn't fly. You're taking away from your resume when dressing like that. It gives the message to your future employer that, no matter how impressive your resume is, you don't have the confidence in it to get you a job alone. 
2. Dressing modestly shows you have respect for others. Let's use the interview example again. When a girl goes in for a job interview with things hanging out and what not, it distracts the interviewer from the resume. If the interviewer is male, he may have a hard time looking at your face. I don't care what you may say about the interviewer, this is what happens. It doesn't matter if he's looking at your chest, legs, midriff, what ever is showing, or decidedly behind you or above you or down at what ever is in front of him. The fact still remains that he's not looking at your face. I don't know if many girls realize this, but revealing clothing can be distracting for female interviewers, as well. It may or may not be in the same way. Now put this in the every day world. Nearly every day you will see people. Most of these people don't want to see everything you have at once. Dressing immodestly is bound to make someone feel uncomfortable around you every day.
3. Dressing immodestly for a boy will not impress him and if it does he's not a boy you should be trying to impress. I think this is pretty simple and straight forward. Most women want to feel respected by men. If a guy is talking to you and dating you because he likes your (enter body part here), where is that relationship going to go? That's right, to the entered body part. If you're looking for a good, healthy relationship, impress a boy with your laugh, brain, wit, what have you. I'm not saying don't look good. Do look good. Looking good is important. But, as Michael Kors said at some point on Project Runway, you don't have to show everything to have sex appeal. 

Another bit in this lesson I gave had to do with shopping. I'm going to shorten this section considerably because it's hard to type. I had girls pick things that went together to make a point.

It is possible to make almost anything modest by layering. Always have good white and black camisoles. The best way to layer is by following this check list in the order I will present it:

1. Color If your reds are a little off and right next to each other someone will notice. If your colors clash horribly everyone will notice. This is the first thing people will see
2. Style The next thing people see is style. You don't have to be close to someone to see that they mixed styles that compliment each other or didn't. I can spot style clashes from 50 feet easy and I can't be the only one.
3. Fabric Not many people can tell exactly what type of fabric you're wearing until they're within talking distance. It's important to match fabrics, this will just be the last thing people see. 

Now, don't go crazy layering. The less you wear t-shirts under tank tops the better. Layering doesn't always have to be like that, either. It's perfectly acceptable to wear a nice blazer over a more revealing blouse to make it less revealing. If you really want to wear t-shirts under things, make sure your neck lines compliment each other. A good example is a crew neck with a halter top. That looks tacky. I actually think most halters look tacky anyway, but that looks especially tacky. If you're not like me and do like halters, scoop or v necks look the best with them. 

When you go shopping, go shopping with someone, preferably someone that is blunt. Ask them if something looks tacky if you can't decide. It's also nice to have someone there to tell you if your butt crack is showing when you sit down. Always make sure you sit down when trying on pants, shorts, skirts, and dresses. Decide how long you want your skirts and make sure they're still that long when you sit. Bend over, move around, make sure your clothes actually fit and won't fall off. 

And finally a word of advice: Get classic clothes. A pair of nice jeans will never go out of style. Fads can be nice but they won't last. But never give up! I entered the mature clothing stage in the early millennium when all the shirts were short and the pants were low and butt crack was the new cleavage. Bermuda shorts didn't exist, knee length skirts were rare, knee length dresses even rarer. When there is a slump in good clothes, just wait it out. Buy classic clothes while you can and they can last you until you feel comfortable with the styles again.

Lead vs Rhythm Guitar: My opinion as a nonguitarist

I've been thinking about this topic since I had to compare a song written in the 1950s to a song written in the last 10 years. The assignment was to compare and contrast the two songs and then do a short personal response. While I was writing the response I had an epiphany. When I love a song, it has a solo or some type of solo aspect to it. I realized this while I was listening to different recordings of Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode," particularly the one I've included in this post. Now I don't think Chuck Berry is a master guitarist, though I do love his music. I've definitely heard better solos and other guitarists are my favorite. Jimi Hendrix is, in my opinion, the greatest guitarist ever to live, followed closely by Yngwie Malmsteen. But that is not really the point of this, just a random thought I've included. The point is, I don't understand the role of lead guitarists in a lot modern music.

The lead guitarist is supposed to be the head of the band, the most important of the instruments. If you take the lead guitarist out the song shouldn't be able to stand on it's own. That's why it's called lead. Really, you shouldn't be able to take any instrument out and still have a stand on it's own song, but that, again, is not the point. Lead guitarists lead. They're the lead because they can play more than just rhythm guitar, they can solo.

I am saddened by the fall from soloing and I blame grunge rock. I understand how music got to grunge. The 80's was getting ridiculous. Solos went crazy long, were crazy hard, and became a time just to show off. A lot of the time solos weren't even in songs, they were a show case that lead into a song. I can understand how that can get old. If you don't understand the technicality of these solos they wouldn't be interesting. I just think grunge took it a little too far.

Rhythm guitar, to me, is something that happens during the verses and chorus. It purposely doesn't draw attention to itself. Good rhythm guitar compliments the melody, doesn't overpower the singer, and is just catchy enough to get the song stuck in your head. I don't like when it's the main thing in the bridge of a song. A bridge is supposed to be different. I don't like what bridges have become. It seems to me that bands today try to see how many layers of things that have been repeated through the whole song they can get at once. I don't find that interesting. I think it's boring and a short cut to making song writing easier. Now, bands that change things up in the bridge, make one or two instruments stand out, whether it's technically a solo or not, that is interesting.

Now I will explain why I feel this way. I consider myself to be a pretty good musician. I couldn't be a professional musician but that is simply because I'm not willing to put in the time to polish that much or to pick one instrument. My main two instruments are piano and percussion. For the sake of this blog post, I'm going to focus on my experiences with jazz band. My senior year of high school I finally discovered an instrument my high school jazz band uses in every song that I love playing. It was bari sax. I love that instrument but it took me a while to find it. Here's my story.

I started my middle school jazz band playing drum set. Besides the struggle of fighting the guys for any fun parts, I had a serious problem. The way I played drum set was technical. I had the technical skills to copy people and know what would sound good. The problem with that is I couldn't hear the music in my playing. I felt like I was just banging random drums, even when I was copying a drum solo from some well known band. It was boring, I didn't like it, so the next two years I played piano.

The problem for me with jazz piano is I can't solo. Give me the chords, I can comp. It's not that hard for me to see the chord and make an interesting rhythm with the chords. Rhythm guitar is the same thing. It's basically, make this chord progression unique and interesting. I honestly think anyone who knows chords and has a sense of rhythm can do this. Soloing is hard. When you solo you have to take into account the chord progression and the type of scale you're in and rhythm and different octaves. It's a lot. I can solo with one hand on the piano. Throw in the other hand and suddenly I'm overwhelmed. So I took two years off jazz band, gave up on learning the trumpet, and learned the saxophone.

I can improvise really well on one instrument. I don't know why, but I can solo on vibraphone with 4 mallets. This, really, is how I've formed my opinion of soloing. I think true soloists have a talent in them that reveals itself through their instrument. It's the same concept as painting. Anyone can learn to paint, anyone can learn to solo. Only those that really have a gift can continually progress. Those with that gift also tend to be faster learners. I don't have that gift. After high school, I decided to stick with what I'm comfortable with, classical music.

When I listen to music I want to be impressed by something. I don't listen to songs just because they're catchy. My favorite bands are my favorite because I am impressed by their song writing abilities, technical skills, ability to mesh sounds, etc. It's hard for me to hear talent in many bands today because of their reliance on rhythm guitar. I love listening to solos. I can hear the talent in solos. I love listening to solos particularly by classic metal guitarists. I sit there and I am in awe and the speed and exactness of it. I can hear the influences and the skill. I may not be able to hum it, but I rarely hum songs anyway so it takes nothing away from my music listening experience and actually increases the pleasure that listening to music brings me.

Take care of your toes

I almost always have my toe and fingernails painted. I've done this for so long that I need to have them painted now for me to feel comfortable. Why does this matter? It doesn't, really. I've just been thinking about appearances lately and how your toes play into your appearance.

In my family we dress to look good. We don't wear things that aren't flattering. Every time I'd go shopping with my mom and I tried on something that I thought looked cute on the hanger but it didn't look cute on me, my mom would ask "What does that do for you?" That's generally what I think when I'm shopping or someone asks me for my opinion on their clothes or when I just see someone wearing something very unflattering.

The thing about toes is it's really easy to cover them. Shoes and socks are like make up for your toes. If they're hairy or have weird nails, covering them with shoes is the fastest way to fix it just like make up is the fastest way to hide a blemish. This is why I have decided those that really care about their appearance take care of their toes.

There was a girl in one of my classes that I sat next to quite a bit. Her style was very young, so I didn't think she had much interest in fashion. I was surprised to find out she is actually very interested in fashion. This confused me and I started to wonder why I'd thought this. I realized the biggest reason was not her very young fashion sense, it was her toes. She wore flip flops every day and her toe nails were in desperate need of maintenance. I was surprised she didn't have scratches on her legs, but maybe most people aren't as active of sleepers as I am.

So why are toes so important? Because they're easily overlooked. You can be successful and look successful without ever showing your toes. It's the same idea as shaving your legs in the winter. No one is going to see your legs since pants are generally worn, you do it for yourself. That, I believe is the bottom line of my thought. No one is going to ask to see your toes, no one will ask you to roll up your pants in the winter, few people will ask why you don't work out. You do it for yourself.

I don't think you have to go out and spend a lot of money to look good. While people may enjoy manicures, pedicures, facials, etc, you don't need them. What you spend on your looks is up to you. For example, I feel comfortable spending a rather large amount on hair cuts because I have difficult hair and if I don't I have to find someone to fix the cheap hair cut. Whenever I'm asked where I get my hair cut and how much it is, people are shocked. Those people do not need expensive hair cuts. Some people are really bad at applying nail polish or maybe they just find manicures or pedicures relaxing, so they choose to spend money on those. I don't, don't think I ever will, but I am also pretty good at giving myself those. You don't need designer clothes, just clothes that fit. Looking put together is within everyone's budget. There's not even that many essential clothing items. I have just decided that I will include a list of these.

Essential clothing for women:

• Black and/or brown skirt
• Black and/or brown dress pants
• Black and/or brown close toed heels or flats (or both! I really like shoes...)
• At least one pair of well fitting jeans
• Button down white and/or black shirt
• A belt

If the "or" option is picked, I suggest picking black or brown in all of the options. Black and brown is very hard to match to each other.

Essential clothing for men:

• Dress slacks (black, brown, navy, tan, olive, just have some)
• Matching belt and dress shoes (It looks kind of funny when you have a brown belt and black shoes)
• At least one tie
• At least one pair of well fitting jeans
• White button down shirt
• Here's an optional one for you men! A suit or sport coat (I strongly suggest having one, but they're expensive and, in most cases, it's not absolutely necessary)

Well, there it is. Steph's view on appearance. I hope you enjoyed.

Sunday Spiritual Thought: Testimonies and Intellectualism

I enjoy facts. I like things to be proven and well documented. I want to see with my eyes what makes things happen and I will not just trust someone that something is right. A good example of this is 2 classes I took last year. While I did not do that great in ECON 110, I enjoyed the class. This was mostly because my professor would say "If you don't understand calculus, zone out for the next 60 seconds" and then explain why some equation would work using calculus. I did much better in STATS 121 but I detested it. My professor would give us these random numbers that were constants and then say "You'll just have to trust me that it works." I don't like this at all. I still do not know why those numbers work and that bothers me. While I am able to do basic statistic problems, I do not know why I get the answers so I will not do statistic problems.

What does this have to do with testimonies? Good question. I've recently come to notice a general train of thought when it comes to members of the LDS Church. It might be present in many faiths, I don't know, I'm not of many faiths, I am of one. This thought is that it's hard for intellectuals to have testimonies. Until recently, I have not really considered myself an intellectual. Perhaps I'm not one, but I fit the category as described by many. In some people's eyes, I am an intellectual. In a scientist's eyes, I'm probably not. Either way, I like things to be proven. This being said, I would like to share how I came about my testimony that God is our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer.

I cannot remember a single Sunday growing up that my parents just decided not to go to church. The only times I can remember not going is when I was sick, we were snowed in, or we were travelling. Even when we were travelling, I remember going to church almost every Sunday we were on the road. The only exception I can remember is when we were visiting my grandpa on a Sunday. He is not religious and family comes before anything else so we would visit with him instead of going to church. As a child I simply did not doubt my parents or their testimonies.

The first time I remember doubting religion in general was sometime between 7th and 9th grade. I don't remember an exact year, but I know it was in there. I had a hard time believing there was a being I could not see that cared about me, cared about what I did with my life, and knew me personally. The vastness of God was just too much. My "prove it" tendency came out and I could not find anyone that could prove that there was any type of god.

This type of thought came and went for a few years. I remember telling my mom that I didn't know if I had a testimony or not and she told me that I did, I just didn't know it and she could tell I did because this bothered me so much. I did not believe her, but I realized I was bothered by not knowing because of two reasons: 1) I did not know and I don't like not knowing things and 2) the idea of a world and life with no meaning is incredibly sad to me. I could not accept that we come to this life, conscious beings, from nothing and then die and become nothing again. The thought of only leaving a legacy, not continuing after this life, is kinda depressing if you really think about it.

Once I realized this, I knew I had to find out if life is depressing or if there is some other purpose. Growing up in a church-going family really helped me find a place to start. The interesting thing is, I hadn't even started looking when I found the answer.

By this time I was in early morning seminary. Every morning I would get up sometime between 4:30 and 5, get ready for school, and leave at 5:30 to get to seminary by 6, which was held at the teacher's house. I hated it. I am not a morning person and I only went because my parents expected me to and I've never liked disappointing them. Some time in the first two years of this, I was trying to find a scripture to start the class off with (We rotated doing a spiritual thought and prayer by week) and I opened up The Book of Mormon. I liked doing this because you can find a good spiritual thought on almost every page of that book of scripture. The scripture I found that day happened to be 2 Nephi 11:7

 7 For if there be ^ano Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no ^bcreation. But there is a God, and ^che is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

That highlighted part is the part that really struck me. I'd always had a hard time accepting that the whole world just evolved by chance into what it is. It just seemed a little far fetched to me. I have never been able to just accept that conscious life just happened by chance. People are too complex, animals are even too complex. There had to be something there prompting it along. I agree with a biology professor I had a few semesters ago in saying God may have used evolution to create the world. He is the greatest scientist ever, after all. Even if he didn't, I will never say it does not exist after the creation, there is just too much evidence saying evolution exists.

After finding this verse, I decided I needed to find the true religion. Since I found the verse in The Book of Mormon, I figured the religion I was raised in was a good place to start. I also trust my parents and consider them to be very intelligent. If they have testimonies that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church, there must be a reason why. They wouldn't believe it blindly. I began asking questions in church and to my parents. I had a lot of questions but every answer I was given made sense, there was no contradiction between them. Slowly, I gained a testimony all for myself.

I know God is real. It has been proven to me beyond the shadow of a doubt. I know he is a God of order and his church would be the same across the world and organized in a way where that could easily happen. He is a kind and merciful God and would allow a chance for every one of his children to return to him. I know Jesus Christ was sent to earth to die for us for just that reason. I know they appeared to a young Joseph Smith to restore the true church to the earth. This I know for myself. I have studied it, I have prayed about it, and I've received answers to my prayers.

If anyone that reads this doubts that intellectuals can have testimonies, I hope I have shed even the tiniest ray of light into that thought process. Intellectuals can have testimonies. Religious universities and colleges everywhere are evidence of this. Testimonies come when they are searched for, just like any other knowledge. Those that truely understand things are those that study whatever it is that's being understood. Anyone can come to know anything if they only put in the effort.

Words are tools

I've been thinking a lot about words. I like words. Anyone that knows me knows that I love to discuss. I love to hears other's ideas and to share mine. I also do not like to beat around the bush. One of the worst parts about my job is when I ask "How can I help you?" or "What's the emergency?" or anything else along those lines and it takes forever for the caller to get to a point where I can figure out what they need and how to control the call in order to get the necessary information out of them (Note: If you ever call 911 or a non-emergency police line, get straight to the point. The dispatcher will ask you for exactly what happened when they need it. The first priority is to get officers to your location as fast as possible and let them know what they're dealing with). Recently I've specifically been thinking about contention.

I believe there are different types of contention. The first type is the type mentioned in the Bible when it says contention brings Satan into the home. This type I will call contention for the sake of contention. This is when you argue because no one is willing to admit they were wrong or sit down and figure out a solution. No one actually wants to find a solution, they just want to be right. It's very hard to talk to people like this. There is no point in it. It brings Satan into the home, school, where ever this takes place and once Satan is there, he's not leaving until you make him.

Another type of contention is unaware contention. This is people that don't realize they're being contentious. This happens when someone feels the need to share an opinion every time someone shares something that they don't find funny or don't agree with. All intentions are good, well most of the time. A lot of times this is seen as debating by the unaware contention starter. I actually find this type to be the most annoying. If I lived in an ideal world, everyone would know exactly what they were saying and how it sounds to others. I don't think anyone is innocent of this, but some just do it more than normal.

The last type of contention is what I consider good contention. I find it healthy and convenient. It's not really contention, in my opinion. It has it's uses. What many consider contention is not really contention. It is a way to resolve things. I, personally, hate passive-aggressive behavior. People who run from "contentions" force others into passive-aggressiveness. I think that's just plain rude. Another way contention is good is it gets things out there and fixed faster. When people run from this "contention" it prolongs problems and just causes more problems and eventually you get real contention.

Tune in next week for some other random thought at some random time!

And then there was an attack on music

I've finally done it, I've started a blog. Why? Because I just have too many thoughts that I want to yell at the world but there just isn't enough time in the day so I thought this would be simpler. So now I will share my thoughts with the world through a blog, starting with my thoughts on rock music.

I am currently in a class called Philosophy and Sociology of Rock and Roll. I've really enjoyed this class and the teacher. Before this class, I hadn't really noticed when people bash on rock or call it evil. When the professor would start talking about how often it's called evil, I would just think he was stuck in his childhood and that stuff didn't happen any more. I've come to realize, I was just oblivious. The bashing isn't as prominent as it used to be, but it's still there. I should have figured this out when I realized AC/DC does not stand for "Anti-Christ, Devil Child" but actually for "Alternating Current/Direct Current" but I didn't. I didn't really figure out how often I hear bashing of rock music and the musicians in it until yesterday while at work.

A coworker was talking about a young family that named their child "Jagger." This coworker asked if any of us would name our children after any of The Rolling Stones and my immediate answer was "yes." I really would. Brian Jones was a brilliant musician. While I'm not a huge Stones fan, I respect Jones' music and the influence he's had on basically everything since. He was the one that really brought the blues back into rock and roll after the 50's died out. He is the one that started electric rock as we know it today. I might even name my kid after Keith Richards because he is also an amazing musician and I believe he is a pretty good guy. He's recently written an autobiography called Life that has been highly recommended to me and I plan on reading. There are other musicians I would name my kids after first, but I wouldn't rule these two out.

After my response, the story most members of the LDS church have probably heard at some point came up. Elder Gene R. Cook sat next to Mick Jagger on an airplane at some point in his life. When asked what impact his music has on the people listening, he responded that it's supposed to drive them to sex. While I do believe this conversation happened, I do not believe that Jagger was completely serious. Let me share why.

When The Rolling Stones first came into the spotlight, it was at the same time as The Beatles. The Beatles had this clean cut, guy you'd like to bring home to meet your parents type look going for them. They tried to make music that both teens and adults could enjoy. The Rolling Stones decided to give the opposite image. They were the long haired, drug using, guy you'd date if you're being rebellious band. They did not try to target adults with their music at all. They did not try to keep their drug use quiet and got arrested several times. This was their image. It was purposefully the opposite of The Beatles. (The Beatles were also heavily in to drugs. If anyone doesn't believe me, just google it).

The Stones wanted to keep that image alive. That doesn't mean they were the devil, it just means they were entertainers and actors in every day life. If anyone has watched their rock and roll circus, they'd know The Stones went for shock factor. While singing "Sympathy for the Devil," Jagger rips off his shirt and the devil is drawn on his chest. Anyone that actually knows that song would know it's not saying Jagger is the devil, it's saying the devil causes all the evil in the world and we, as humans, are bound to sympathize with him. The devil on Jagger's chest was simply to get reactions out of people.

Now take that same person and put him next to a man that introduces himself as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't think anyone will argue with me that religious people tend to be the first to question and even attack any type of new music. (Note: This is not an all inclusive statement. I'm in a class full of members of the LDS church and we obviously love all types of music, especially rock, and I know we're not the only ones nor of the only faith that love any good music.) Elder Cook gave this talk in 1988, but I don't know when this conversation happened. No matter when it happened, Jagger had to have been performing for a decent amount of time, seeing as he was in a magazine. During that time, he'd been called the devil and other not so nice things. Put yourself in his shoes. You're now a man that has been attacked for years by many people, religious people among them, you have an image of a bad boy so it doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are, you're bad, and you are a natural entertainer that goes for shock factor whenever possible. What would you do? Give shocking answers.

I do not believe The Rolling Stones aim to make their listeners have sex. Are some of their songs about sex? Yes. Is that what all of their songs are about? Not even close. Many of their songs, especially from Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Between the Buttons, and Exile on Main Street, are very good and have good meanings. Her Satanic Majesty's Request is another album that isn't about sex. I don't think it's very good, but that's not the point of this thought. The whole point of this is to say give music a chance.

I would not name my child after Mick Jagger. I think he's very egotistical and I do not want my child to be named after a man with 4 kids from 3 women who can't seem to keep his life together, even if he is a good musician. I also think he's sold out too much. I understand that bands need to sell out some times to survive, but Jagger's music has just become too commercial for me. I will, however, defend him and other musicians that have been attacked for years and probably for years to come. I encourage anyone that has questions about different bands and music to look into it and find out for yourself if it's good or not. Look up lyrics, it's so easy. Don't listen to anything that makes you uncomfortable. There are certain chord progressions and chords that give off an unpleasant sound. You will hardly ever see an augmented fourth/diminished fifth in classical music because of that very reason. If that type of sound affects you in a negative way, then don't listen to it. It's that simple. But never, ever attack someone else's music.

I do not condone listening to music with obviously negative and sinful lyrics. If a song is blatantly pro sex, violence, drugs, or anything else that would fall into this category, I will not be allowing my future children to listen to it, I will ask whoever is playing it to turn it off if I'm around, and I will tell anyone that asks my opinion not to listen to it. I will not write off bands because they may have some songs about that. The amazing thing about our world and how we get music is you don't need to buy the whole album anymore. If you really want to support a band, buy their cd, but if you just like one song, you can do that, too.

For the record, musicians that I deem worthy of naming a child after are as follows: Jimi Hendrix, John Paul Jones, Ian Paice, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, Chuck Berry, Roy Khan, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Robert Plant, Jon Lord, Ritchie Blackmore, Pete Townshend, Tony Iommi, Brian Jones, and Keith Richards.