# data[].attributes.body
Think of the ocean. We know there is a bottom, there must be right? However, very few of us will ever see the bottom. The true bottom, the lowest point. We know it's there, that's common sense to most of us. Most of us probably wouldn't mind seeing it either, or maybe even have a desire to see it. But most of us will never see it with our own eyes. That's the general idea behind "Endless Inventory". It can take two forms: owning as much as you possibly can related to the music you desire or always singing/dancing along to it (recordings and merchandise both physical and digital, and physical reaction), and having a "relationship" (not just a happy relationship, like with the Mariah Carey example, but also a mean one too, like with the Merzbox example) with the artist themselves. It's also important to keep the idea of "longterm" and "aging" in mind. You're not listening to this music for quick pleasure, it's depth and length.

The merchandise owning and singing/dancing aspects describes the knowledge of "the end". There is a finite amount of the music you own and finite movement you can put to it. X amount of albums, X amount of shirts, X amount of giga-bites on your iPod, X amount of dance moves, X amount of lyrics to memorize. However, we can always listen to it, over and over again. We can set our iPods to repeat, and can dance the same dance over and over. It's endless, and finite simultaneously. We can also always seem to get something new from the song every time we listen or sing along. We want to look deeper to discover something new. We want to experience life around it, and not just it somewhat being in our life.

The relationship aspect of this concept can be related to having a friends, as Ratliff compares on page 114, second paragraph, "But we often want our friends, traditions, and beliefs to be beyond understanding, to be a little bit opaque" (Ratliff 114). This can relate to our music in that, we want to know everything there is to know about music, implying that there is an ending. But we don't want to stop learning, we don't want to find the end as we pursue to find it, ironically. Ratliff doesn't describe it as a connection to a song or even an album, but to a specific artist. We want all their insight and music, but we'd be heart broken to find an ending. Musically, it can sound much like repetition almost. It's not about getting the big thing out of the song and moving on, but sitting in the moment and breathing it in.

The relevance this has to all forms of music is, it prevents us from stopping as surface level. We dig into a familiar place of music deeper than any other genre, any other song, and any other artist. This is our focal point, the "most played" list on our iPods.

# data[].attributes.body
Ratliff is upfront about his opinion on the first page of chapter ten, "I think it's an upside-down understanding of what music is for" (Ratliff 111). He views this as a limit to your listening flexibility, but he also respects this view. He states that he has a friend that purchased a recording for every piece Mozart did, and now he never listens to it. However, he also believes it will improve your attention for the long run and adds a new layer of listening. It maybe limited to a single area, but the depth you can achieve can be astounding. Much like a gold mine, for example. It's in one very pin point area, but depth and very easily make up for narrowness.

I can understand his view point on how it limits flexibility. You are limiting yourself to not just one genre, but to a single artist often times. Where is your variety? Where is the appreciation for the idea of music versus just a single type of music? What happens if you do actually find the bottom? I can understand the benefit of depth and diving incredibly deep into something, but what use is it if you never explore outside of this comfort zone? Personally, I listen to a very wide variety of music. Everything from upbeat, to hard rock, to baroque, to rap. I go through seasons for music. Sometimes I want to listen to classical, sometimes I want to head bang to hard rock, sometimes I want to relax to slow Celtic music, so I would have a very hard time following this concept. I don't have quite the same respect for this view as Ratliff does. I find it to be very restrictive, which can inadvertently lead to ignorance. Aesthetically speaking, I would also become very bored very quickly. Don't get me wrong, I have my favorites, but that's not all I listen to. I like the idea of half and half: half focus on depth, half focus on range.

I can also see the value of that relationship with the band and "You are listening to hear life lived. You are listening to hear aging" (Ratliff 112). However, again, comparison is just as beneficial. Having variety would actually even help you better understand your favorite band. You would be able to compare it to other music and get different perspectives. Much like, learning both sides of an argument to better understand your side.

# data[].attributes.body
Merzbox "Oersted"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwZRxB48qT0

There's no melody, no rhythm, no vocals, no instrumentation, arguably no music. But nevertheless, he is making a statement. A harsh statement that pushes you away, but perhaps that pushing is making you want to get in even more? Maybe you develop a "I'm winning this fight" mentality? Or maybe you just want in, strictly because someone said no?

Mariah Carey "Vision of Love"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xgEqZuyhjU

Mariah Carey's "Vision of Love" that Ratliff mentions, is a good example of the content volume and relationship aspects of "Endless Inventory". It's personal, she's not singing to a crowd, she's singing to the individual. She's singing to each person, there's connection. It also has volume in a sense, it's very repetitive. It's not a a song to just listen to, it's building a connect, kicking your shoes off and staying a while. She invites you in, she makes a place for you, she talks to you. And the melody is not complex and always different, it's very similar throughout, because that's not the point. The point is to stop and focus, to build a relationship.  Each time you listen can be a new conversation, like walking into a friend's house and talking about what's new. That's the never-ending part to this song. Your always learning, there's always something, there must be a bottom, but it'll take forever to find.

# data[].attributes.body
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" (Album)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW-lXjOyUWo&list=PLEQdwrAGbxncZFLH4KETau3-uncnqVtWD

The whole album features how each song bleeds into the next. It's essentially one continuous song. The capacity is there: a finite ending exists, but listening to it gives you the idea that a bottom can never be reached.

Zack Hemsey "The Way"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nco7qfrPG7I

I chose this piece because it really shows both sides of the relationship aspect of this concept. The vocalist is surrounded by this mood that was established by the instrumentation. It takes a long time to get to the vocalist part, so it leaves the listener to sit and absorb the emotion, "What is the artist trying to convey to me? What does he want me to get?" Then the vocalist comes in, and this is what I mean by two sides: he is speaking very independently, very "You're either with me or against me" feel. He has the side of pushing you away, but he isn't pushing, he's actually letting you in. He's reluctant almost to let you in, but he's letting you in anyway. He's letting you into the depth, into himself. Relationship is established and there are deeper levels to explore. The instrumentation stays very similar, it's the setting of a play, and the vocalist is the actor, and he's asking you to join in. He's asking you in a "only if you can handle it" way, but regardless, he's asking you. He's giving you a taste; you already understand, but there's more to learn. Much how Ratliff states, "We want to try to know everything there is to know about what can't be completely known" (Ratliff 114).