Blog 10

The sort of artist that I like is those that find a new place in the music world instead of trying to copy somebody who has had success previous to them. For example simply love VNV nation because their electronic sound carries many elements within their music that appeal to all sorts of people. Sound is such a complicated sense to me; I think that we should add intricacy to our auditory experience by adding clashing elements or elements that complement each other in a way that has never been done before. I mean, what is the point in starting a band if what is going to come out off it is just the same junk that that has been heard for generations? Bands that interest me are pioneers of sound; people who take the old and twist is into something new and innovative. I think that the bands that I have picked this semester reflect this. VNV Nation with their electronic sound that will not be tamed, Muse and their rock electronica and Linkin Park with their unique blend of mu-rock and rap-rock. I am still debating what band I should to this collection of papers. Right now I am leaning towards some candidates. Krypteria, a band composed of German instrumentation and a Korean vocal is one of such options; they are mostly inclined towards metal with emphasis on vocals. A similar band coming from the bowels of Netherlands, Within Temptation, creates strong instruments blaring and an angelic voice from the singer.

Blog 9

I think the paper could use some more expert testimony and less of other elements such as evaluative writing. In total, I have three valuable sources within five pages, which I believe is a little short. What I could to strengthen my paper would be to try and make the sources clash more and bring out more sources, because this makes my writing appear more professional and academic. I am afraid that I might have neglected to do extensive enough research on my band’s album and allowed my initial response of it to affect too much. But after thing about it for some time, I have become even more puzzled; what can I say, really? Even after I read numerous opinions about how the new direction is great because it shows that Linkin Park’s abilities lie further than mu-rock I still won’t believe it, because that is not the sound that pleases me. All I can really say is that Linkin Park had their reasons for changing and I have already incorporated that into the paper. Perhaps, what my paper needs is more tension within sources. Maybe, I don’t need to remain totally non-bias but try to accept why the source commends Linkin Park for the same reasons that I condemn them. I think it is harder to do this with music because music is not such a quantitative thing; you either like it or you don’t. Moreover, can I really argue that one type of music is better than other, when I cannot give a definition for what music really is?

Blog 8

For this paper I think I will use the sources as a way to raise my credibility as a writer. If I apply expert opinion to my subject matter then it will appear as though I have a solid grasp on the material, which is something that any writer should aspire for. Many times one neglect to add enough sources and one’s essay ends up sounding like a very opinionated, ignorant rant with no real academic value. I think I will try to stick to the more memorable sources though and stay away from Amazon costumer reviews because, like I heard in class, it is always better to have the big guys around if you are going to a fight. Also, I will treat the sources as a way to focus and the reader upon the problem. For example I can use one of the band members of Linkin Park to explain the new direction that the band has taken and the processes that went behind the changes. Sources can also be used to clash against each other and create singular opinion from the writer. By qualifying from statement to statement, writer not only seems like they are purposely meditating the issue but he/she looks as though she is not quick to pass judgment, instead he/she strips bias away and attempts to see all possibilities analytically. One of the best elements to use for this direction would be meta-commentary because it allows the writer to argue back and forth and accomplish the said purpose.

Blog 7

Yes I think that there are both analytical and evaluative qualities to this paper because to come to a solid conclusion one must weight the different elements of an issue. Since out paper has to do with songs I think that this even more appropriate. First one must analyze the song into something that can be argued, concentrating on solid things like rhythm, lyrics, voice quality and other elements. By doing this, one can then go into evaluating this uses versus a criteria that one holds as a measurement of a good song. With this two steps accomplished, the writer can then weight back and forth about the question that he/she is trying to answer. If such steps are not taken appropriately, then any decision or conclusion that is arrived would just pre prejudicial and premature. I think this would be the mayor flaw in many exploratory essays: the writer does not do enough preparation within their essay to leave the reader satisfied with what they have to say at the ending of the essay. A writer must be methodical and deliberate with their writing or many elements will be neglected or down right omitted. However, while these elements are important one must remember the purpose of the essay and not divert into another essay type. To clarify, one has to try not to stray into an evaluative or an analytical paper. I think that I have had some problem in maintaining this focus at time with my previous papers; I will try to redirect the focus in my writing.

Blog 6

Revision is one of the most fundamental aspects of writing because it creates a final masterful draft and filters out the inadequate portion of the original idea. A writer who neglect revision will regret it because, no matter how much one tries to separate emotion from writing, one is always influenced by the state of being that one carries daily. This is why, when one revisits a previous draft, one is left dumbfounded by the things that one said previously. I myself have gone through this scenario and thought to myself “how did I ever think this was an accurate way to depict the problem” or “why did I even bother to mention that? It is completely obsolete and awkward with the rest of the paper.” I think the revision method used is really effective because it makes one have to continuously revisit the material and think about what need to be enhanced and what needs to be cut from the final production if you will. I would rate it rather high in the priorities that a writer must have with him, but I am not so sure with placing it at the peak of the things that are fundamental to writing, because I think creativity and formulating an interesting, a worthwhile idea are more important than neglecting to cut a sentence that is slightly redundant. This, of course I say from the way that I write and what I deem most elementary to writing. To other people that do not value self expression in academic papers, they might rate revision higher.

Blog 5

In this paper I plan to use meta-commentary as a tool to farther the clarity of my ideas. By arguing back and forth what I mean and what I do not mean, I not only succeed in covering space upon the page, but also avoid potential misinterpretations that might arise by ambiguous, scandalous statements. I think this type of writing device is very relevant when writing an evaluation; all the evaluation has to do with a personal opinion that the writer has taken form him or herself and placed it in an analytical way. In most cases, opinions are not something concrete; instead, one usually qualifies his or her own statement frequently. Without meditated meta-commentary it would be hard to filter out a definite conclusion, which would encompass all the factors addressed in the paper. Of course, this practice is mostly done unknowingly because one is often qualifying their own views in everyday conversation. Nevertheless, when one becomes aware of the use of this rhetoric strategy one can use it even more effectively. I plan to continue incorporating this in my future papers because meta-commentary is one of the most important tools a writer can use. Often times a writer is attacked for saying something, when their intentions with the message laid elsewhere. Because of the concrete nature of writing, it is hard to take something back and try to clarify the original meaning to an audience that read the unexplained version. Meta-commentary is a way to save your own credibility.

Blog 4

One of the most pervading weaknesses in my writing is that while I do raise an academic voice, I fail to engage the reader in a sense entertainment. Truly, I think if I am going to make somebody read my evaluation of a new album, I should at the very least make it a witty evaluation that genuinely entices the reader to continue their journey to the other sentence. Indeed, I think sometimes I become to infatuated with words are forget that my audience might not feel the same thrill when reading the word “euphonious” or “esoteric” upon a page. However, I think that this defines me as a writer and to restrict my language for the sake retaining clarity, for a person that really just needs to read a book, seems a bit frivolous for me. All through high school my teachers have told me to tone down my vocabulary. “It’s not dumbing it down, just understanding your audience and the kind of language that it uses” I have always found this utterly absurd; never have I conceded to this type of conformist thinking. Instead I have remained adamant that just because my audience is dumb does not mean I have to debase myself to that level. However, I do agree that sometimes, in my effort to make my paper as semantically beautiful as I can, I neglect to add wit and other devices that would compensate with the reading difficulty of my papers. I shall work on this.