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?