Interpretation | kaitlin-writing-blog

Interpretation: Re-Purposing

From start to finish, the process of completing the re-purposing paper was extensive. This page outlines the steps taken to reach the final product.

When originally beginning the conversation with my partner about the re-purposing project, I was unsure of which original document to use. I liked the idea of re-purposing entries from my dream journal, which is actually just a note in my iPhone in which I scribble parts of dreams that I occasionally remember. Sometimes they are arbitrary but other times they are interesting and seem symbolic to me. I considered turning these notes into a story, but am not confident that I would be able to think of a meaningful message or purpose and then tie it into the story in an obvious way. My partner and I also discussed the option of writing a paper about the personal significance of my dreams, but I would rather go into a direction that shifts the purpose and audience of the text more drastically. After talking it through, there was no mode of repurposing these dream notes that stood out to me.

I have decided to instead use a different original source- a music review that I wrote earlier this year for the music blog: 10 After- a branch of MUSIC Matters which is a student group I am a part of on campus. I wrote the review about a musical duo called “Oh Wonder,” whose music immediately struck me for its peaceful, electro-acoustic sound. It is a 500-word short descriptive essay about their music and what was known about them at the time. The essay was meant to compliment and promote their music more than it was to criticize.

While discussing ways to re-purpose this piece, there were many ideas that I was excited about. We again talked about transforming it into a personal piece about how music has affected my life, but after finishing the Why I Write piece, I’d like to try something different than personally reflective writing. We discussed creating a playlist, writing a song, or doing a close-reading of a particular song, but I would rather choose a medium through which I can communicate more ideas more efficiently. The idea that I liked best was to turn the review into a more research-based essay about how music impacts people scientifically and emotionally. This subject, however, is extremely broad, so I did some serious thinking as to how I could narrow it down into a more specific topic.

Currently, I plan to re-purpose the music review into an analysis of the ways that musicians rise to fame in modern times and how these methods have been changed by the growth of the Internet, social media, and music sharing websites in the 21st century. This plan is open to change, but this is the direction I am currently facing.

Blog Post

1. Re-Purposing Idea

This blog post was written soon after a collaborative discussion with a classmate about our respective re-purposing papers, and it details my thought process throughout. I initially thought it would be interesting to write about a topic related to music, so chose the music review as a potential inspiration piece. At the time I wrote this blog post, I was thinking of writing an academic-style research paper, just because it would be a stark contrast to the inspiration piece. I was also considering the topic of how musicians gain recognition in the digital age. Both of these ideas, however, later changed. It is interesting for me to return to this blog post and read about my thoughts at the time. Because I have written many research papers in the past, it is an area of writing that I am comfortable with. Therefore, it does not surprise me that when discussing ideas for re-purposing, I gravitated toward a research-style essay. Since this time, however, I have decided to take more risks as a writer, a confidence that grew throughout the re-purposing paper process. This post was submitted to my writing blog. See it in its original space here.

2. Proposal

In writing this proposal, I continued to pursue the idea of ways that musicians gain fame and recognition in the digital age. My inspiration piece tied in directly to this argument, because Oh Wonder (the subject of my review) remained anonymous for a long time, gaining recognition solely through music they posted on the Internet. The topic also excited me because it was directly applicable to the life of my peers and myself. Most people have firsthand experience using technology to find music, and I thought that personal testimonies could be an interesting component of the paper. However, it was in conducting preliminary research for this proposal that doubts began to form about the direction of my argument. In doing preliminary research for the paper, it became apparent that the number of bloggers and journalists who had already covered the same or very similar topics is vast. I began to wonder, why would anybody want to read my essay if they can easily learn about this elsewhere on the Internet? Although the subject of my essay did change, writing this proposal prompted me to think deeply about the structure. It was at this point in time that I decided to write in the style of an online article and deveoped the idea of conducting interviews for research.

Re-Purposing Proposal

Original Piece:

Rhetorical Situation
- The original piece is a 500-word descriptive music review that I wrote for fun. The review is about a music group called “Oh Wonder” who had only released three songs at the time I wrote the review. Their music struck me for its unique electro-acoustic sound and peaceful male-female vocals.
- Published on November 14, 2014
- Submitted to a student-run music blog on campus called 10 After. The blog is a branch of the larger student group, MUSIC Matters, of which I am a part.
- The intended audience of the piece is music seekers.
- The purpose of the article is to spark interest in the group and promote their music, which I found worthy of recognition.
In the piece, I argued that Oh Wonder deserved recognition for their creative album structuring, soothing harmonic sound, and lyrical versatility. Beginning in September of 2014, Oh Wonder began a 14-track album that remains in progress- they are releasing one track per month building anticipation and creating a product that the artists themselves discover along with the listeners. Their sound is unique in that every song involves a male and female voice singing at the same time, creating a unique peaceful sound. Additionally, at the time of the review they had released three songs, all with extremely different themes. I pointed this out as a strength of their music—the ability to showcase new messages and emotions in their music.
Genre
- The genre of the piece is a short promotional artist review. The conventions it exhibits include several short paragraphs, a broad overview of the duo as well as analyses of each song released, and drawing in quotes from other sources (an interview conducted with Oh Wonder).
- I think the genre was appropriate for the audience and context of the piece.
- It was not too detailed and only dealt with information that had been released before. It is clear that the article is based off of opinion and taste and is simply giving a recommendation to music seekers/listeners, not releasing new information or music.

Proposed new piece:

In the re-purposed piece I hope to take a more analytical approach to an aspect of the music industry in modern day. I found Oh Wonder on a music blog and then again on SoundCloud—two resources made possible by modern technology and the Internet. In the new piece I will analyze the means by which artists are able to gain recognition through modern technology and how this evolution has changed and expanded music for now and the future.
Rhetorical Situation
- The audience will include music seekers as before, but also anybody interested in the evolution of the way music is made and distributed. The audience will expand in age-range but remain in the sector of those interested in music.
- The new purpose is to analyze and inform rather than to suggest and share an opinion.
- The necessary context for this paper is the fact it is being written during a time that the distribution of music is changing rapidly. This is a hot topic and this paper will fill a need to inform people about the past, current, and future path of music distribution online and elsewhere.
The new genre will be article-style. It will be more formal and analytical, which is appropriate because its new purpose is to inform those seeking information about a certain aspect of the music industry.

Annotated Bibliography

1. El Gamal, Ashraf, "The Evolution of the Music Industry in the Post-Internet Era"

(2012). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 532. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/532

This 68-page essay explores the impact of the internet on music, including peoples’ initial reactions and current attitudes on the subject. It required research ranging from the history of music distribution to analyzing popular music file sharing websites like iTunes.

2. "A Change of Tune." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 07 July 2007. Web.

09 Feb. 2015. <http://www.economist.com/node/9443082>.

This article from the Economist was written in 2007 during the decline of the record industry, and gives insight into first impressions of what was going on in the music industry during this sharp turn. It brings in statistics of falling record sales while the live music industry is booming and ties it into how this affects record deals.

Early Draft

3.

The World Wide Web is a mere 25 years old. The earliest recording of music dates back to 1887. This leaves 100 years of time in between during which an individual’s journey in the search for music was a process that involved much more than typing in a few words to Google or YouTube or SoundCloud or one of the myriad of music blogs that speckle the bookmarks of customized Internet browsers all over the world. MP3s and the Internet are tools that allows for the most extensive and easy music searching in the history of technological innovation. With this augmentation of peoples’ ability to search for music comes with millions of more recordings to sift through. Anyone with the capital to acquire recording equipment has a shot of online discovery, and if they have real talent and catch on, might gather a real fan base to support them at live shows, buy merchandise, and suddenly become a profitable musician.

Discovering Music in the Digital Age:

4. Change in Direction

Author’s Note: I wrote this piece in the style of an article, and am happy with the current format. My intention was that it would be written for an audience similar to those that browse music/art/entertainment websites. It currently feels unfinished to me, and I would like to add more evidence and pull information from other sources. Sources criticizing award shows may be helpful here. I tried to write this in a very conversational tone, but am wondering if it comes across as too elementary. I am also a little concerned that each paragraph does not seem to have a clear purpose, and that it sounds a little too jumbled. Additionally, I would like to know if this seems like an obvious argument. Are there arguments to rebut mine? Addressing a counterargument might make the article sound more legit.

Let’s Stop Pretending we Know What We’re Talking About and Get Rid of Rankings In Music Reviews

by Kaitlin Smith

“So while the EP feels like it can be connected to other music…the greatest pleasure comes in knowing where it came from and how it came to be.” 8.3/10 (Richardson)

“Chris Ward, aka singer/producer Tropics, never quite found his sound” (Moore). 6.7/10

“The music of José González has not changed at all.” 6.3/10 (Cohen).

“Even on its surface, though, it’s the meatiest set he’s produced in years” 3/5 Stars (Weingarten)

I should start by establishing with certainty that each of the above statements is perfectly valid, as were the greater articles of which they were a part. Above validity, each of the pieces was written with narrative style, playful humor, and sonic imagery that made for a pleasant read.

Searching for music on the Internet has long been a pastime of mine, along with most other teenagers and young adults that are accustomed to the age of aux cords and mass music downloading. I’ve tried my hand at writing promotional-style reviews of music that I like, and find it extremely challenging to think of a wide-enough breadth of adjectives and ways to describe sound. I found myself wanting to just link the music and tell the reader to listen for him or herself if they want to understand what I’m talking about, which only enhances my respect for writers that can craft phrases such as, “The vocals are often just vampy flow experiments, but at their best these verses exhibit the weightless exhilaration of a technician at work” (Jenkins). (I should add that this line was taken from Pitchfork’s online review of ultra-famous Drake’s surprise release album, “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late,” which the website surely knew would see a lot of traffic, so Craig Jenkins was chosen for a reason. This kind of writing is not easy to do.)

The analytics of music can be broken down into infinite categories: lyrical imagery, relatable messages, difficult guitar solos, ability to drive the listener to dance, general popularity, the list goes on. The satisfaction of both reading and writing about a song or album comes from describing these traits and sometimes relating them to the artist as a character. People are interested in the man or woman behind the art. How have they evolved to this point? What were their intentions for this piece? Informative reviews will leave the reader with an understanding of the musician’s past, present, and future direction, giving context behind their releases.

Music reviewers have power. They can give a voice to the artist. They can accuse music of being garbage, influencing the opinion of others. They can invoke peoples’ interest, or move music in a certain direction, promoting niche audiences. However, what music reviewers cannot do is rank music or rate it on a finite scale. Doing so is pointless and detracts from the analysis of the article. A song can be a 10/10 on lyrical originality and creativity but a 0/10 on vocal training. Averaging these numbers would do nothing because what if all I care about is the caliber of drumming? In that case, I would not care about either of the first two elements.

Especially now that we live in a digital age in which infinite genres and potential artist roam, classifying and sorting music is more difficult than it has ever been. Let us stop pretending that we know what we’re talking about, and rid these articles that are rich with opinion and discussion from arbitrary numbers that are made fun of in satirical articles and detract from the conversation ignited by a thoughtful piece.

Annotated Bibliography

Jenkins, Craig. "Drake: If You're Reading This It's Too Late." Pitchfork. Pitchfork Media Inc., 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2015. <http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/20271-if-youre-reading-this-its-too-late/>.

In this article, Jenkins analyses and praises Drake’s latest album, “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late.” He delves into the history of the failure of Drake’s record label, giving context behind the surprise release of the album which marks the beginning of a new venture outside of Cash Money Records. Jenkins also analyses the sound of the album and the rhyme and reason behind it, claiming it sounds similar to his first album, “So Far Gone,” which was released exactly 6 years prior. This article is written for all those interested in Drake’s release. This article is particularly applicable to my essay because the objective and analytical writing is accompanied by an arbitrary rating of 8.3/10, which is not referenced once in the article. The disconnect between the two demonstrates the rating’s lack of contribution to reader takeaway on the page.

Anchor 2

5. First Complete Draft

6. Final Draft

BLOG POST

PROPOSAL

EARLY DRAFT

CHANGE IN DIRECTION

Anchor 3

Anchor 4

Anchor 5

COMPLETE FIRST DRAFT

Author’s Note: Over the span of working on this piece its tone has become more and more casual, written as if I am speaking with the reader. Its genre could be an opinion article in an informal news source. I think that overall, the article’s argument could use better evidence and more of it. Explaining examples of famous artists that condemn music rankings in further detail could help. Or spending some more time observing differences in articles that rank and those that do not rank could be helpful research. I have recently found a few sources that condemn current music journalism in general for lack of detail, which might be an interesting point to tie in. Additionally, the addition of a counter argument might be helpful. It is difficult to find evidence to back up a subjective opinion.

Let’s Stop Pretending We Know What We’re Talking About And Get Rid of Rankings In Music Reviews

by Kaitlin Smith

“Along the way, the long, 19-song album offers its share of groaners, missteps and songs more indebted to trendy production than solid craft.” 4/5 Stars – Jim Farber, New York Daily News

“So while the EP feels like it can be connected to other music…the greatest pleasure comes in knowing where it came from and how it came to be.” 8.3/10 – Mark Richardson, Pitchfork.com

“Even on its surface, though, it’s the meatiest set he’s produced in years” 3/5 Stars – Christopher Weingarten, Rolling Stone

Searching for music on the Internet has long been a pastime of mine, along with most other teenagers and young adults that are accustomed to the age of aux cords rather than CD players and mass music downloading rather than record stores. In the search for music online, many turn to music reviews to find communities with similar music taste and people that can point them in the right direction for them. In this sense, music reviews hold power and they owe the reader a certain effort, truth, and craftsmanship.

I’ve tried my hand at writing promotional-style reviews and know that crafting one is challenging. I run into trouble thinking of a substantial breadth of adjectives and ways to describe sound. I find myself just wanting to link the music and tell the reader: “Just listen and then you’ll see why I think it’s so great.” My frustrations with such writing only enhances my respect for people that craft phrases like: “The vocals are often just vampy flow experiments, but at their best these verses exhibit the weightless exhilaration of a technician at work” (Jenkins). (I should add that this line was taken from Pitchfork’s online review of ultra-famous-Drake’s surprise release album, “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late,” which the website surely knew would see a lot of traffic. Craig Jenkins, the author of this review, was most certainly chosen for a reason. This kind of writing is not common and not easy to do.)

Music reviewers have power. They can give a voice to the artist. They can accuse music of being garbage, influencing the opinion of others. They can invoke peoples’ interest, or move music in a certain direction, engaging niche audiences. However, what music reviewers and everyone else cannot do is rank music or rate it on a finite scale. Doing so is an insult to the analysis of the review, which is meant to provide inspiration and thought, not claim concrete truths or establish a factual comparison.

The analytics of music can be broken down into infinite categories: lyrical imagery, relatable messages, difficult guitar solos, originality, general popularity, the list goes on. Music reviews come with an inherent bias—what traits do the author find most worthy of description? Of rank? Sometimes the author would rather concentrate on the artist him/herself: How have they evolved to this point? What were their intentions for this piece? What is the context behind this release? It is impossible to address every facet of a song/album/artist, so music reviewers must pick and choose. Reviews are mere highlights of what an author finds worthy of conversation, so, I ask, how can they rank the music on a scale used by other reviewers with different taste?

On a similar plane, music award shows have long been criticized for their arbitrary nature. Artists from Jay-Z to Bon Iver and a multitude of others have scoffed at the Grammy’s, which is criticized for its ambiguous voting process, neglect to recognize deserving artists, inability to understand hip-hop, and profitable motivations. The Grammy’s website even admits that to achieve “Voting Member” status, one must me in “good dues standing” in the Academy, which further highlights the elite and monotonous nature of the group. It has been made abundantly clear and repeated over and over again by music producers and lovers everywhere—these awards are arbitrary because how can one group of people really understand what music is all about and then pick one winner out of countless deserving gold stars?

It is my speculation that well-groomed music reviewers agree with my sentiments. Looking back at the review of Drake’s album on Pitchfork, the article is accompanied by a rating of 8.3/10, which is not once referred to in the piece. Jenkins, whom I infer by his allowance to write such a high-trafficked review, seems to be a respected, well-versed writer and music analyst. In his piece about “If You’re Reading This, It’s Too Late,” he chooses to write about Drakes new solo direction, his lyricism, his style and evolution as a musician. The 8.3 posted next to this thoughtfully-written, well-researched, mainly positive review looks extremely out of place, more-so because it is not referenced one time. I’m sure the review needed to be accompanied by some sort of number as to be synonymous with all other pieces on the website, but it is not given any sort of nod by the author so the 8.3 seems pasted on as a mere checked box more than anything.

Especially now that we live in a digital age [and space?] in which infinite genres and potential artist roam, classifying and sorting music is more difficult than it has ever been. There are subgenres popping up from “tropical house” to “downtempo” to “smooth pop.” With the expansion of music selection and downloading abilities, who is to say what deserves 5/5 stars or a Grammy? Let us stop pretending that we know what we’re talking about, fuck the Grammys, and rid music articles, which are rich with opinion and discussion, from arbitrary numbers that are mocked in satirical articles and detract from the conversation ignited by a thoughtful piece.

Annotated Bibliography

1. Farber, Jim. "'Rebel Heart' Review: Madonna's Album Bares Her Soul in a Way She Never Has before." Daily News. NYDailyNews.com, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/rebel-heart-review-madonna-latest-intensely-personal-article-1.2131124>.

2. Richardson, Mark. "Aphex Twin: Computer Controlled Acoustic Instruments Pt2 EP." Pitchfork.

Pitchfork Media Inc., 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/20156-computer-controlled-acoustic-instruments-pt2-ep/>.

3. Weingarten, Christopher. "Tetsuo & Youth." Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/lupe-fiasco-tetsuo-youth-20150212>.

These three reviews discuss music by Madonna, Aphex Twin, and Lupe Fiasco, all artists of very different genres. Farber’s and Weingarten’s articles are lengthier, going into detail about the history and evolution of the respective work of Madonna and Aphex Twin. On the other hand, Richardson’s review offers a different style. His piece is merely a short paragraph. Despite their differences, each article is accompanied by a ranking, whether out of 5 stars or 10 points. The contrast in style, length, and explanations offered in each review demonstrates the range of variation in music reviews juxtaposed with the consistency of an arbitrary number placed next to it. This is relevant for the purpose of my article because each piece demonstrates a valid take on what a review can look like while showing that there is no way to use the same comparative scale across genres and interpretations of music.

Smith, Kaitlin. "Artist Spotlight: Oh Wonder." 10 After. MUSIC Matters, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://musicmatters10after.com/2014/11/14/artist-spotlight-oh-wonder/>.

This is the review that inspired this article. It was written for a small student-run music blog at the University of Michigan for the purpose of encouraging new listeners and practicing creative writing about music that I felt passionate to promote. The audience consists of people interested in new music. It is relevant to mention for this article about rankings because it sheds light on my experiences finding difficulty in writing a review, which helps to define the reviewing process as more complex than simply ranking with a number. Additionally my review, along with all others in the blog, does not contain a finite rating, which is consistent with views expressed in the article.

In this article, Jenkins analyses and praises Drake’s latest album, “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late.” He delves into the history of the failure of Drake’s record label, giving context behind the surprise release of the album, which marks the beginning of Drake’s new venture outside of Cash Money Records. Jenkins also analyses the sound of the album and the rhyme and reason behind it, claiming it sounds similar to his first album, “So Far Gone,” which was released exactly 6 years prior. This article is written for all those interested in Drake’s release. It is particularly applicable to my essay because the somewhat objective and analytical writing is accompanied by an arbitrary rating of 8.3/10, which is not referenced once in the article. The disconnect between the two demonstrates the rating’s lack of contribution to reader takeaway on the page.

Firecloud, Johnny. "The Grammys Top 10 Bashers & Boycotters." Crave Online. Crave Online Media, 07 Feb. 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2015. <http://www.craveonline.com/music/articles/129524-the-grammys-top-10-bashers-boycotters>.

This website presents a list of artists who disapprove of the Grammys and short explanations of their specific situations and reasoning. The article highlights some of the first boycotts of the ceremonies and refusals to accept awards for reasons such as failure to recognize talented hip-hop artists, and simple principle that creating music should be for the pleasure of creating music. Jay-Z, who once boycotted the Grammys for failing to recognize hip-hop artist DMX, is mentioned on the list. Jay-Z’s prominence and respect as a rapper augments the importance of his opinions for many, so is used as an example in my piece.

Caramanica, Jon. "The Bon Iver Grammy Quandary." The 6th Floor The Bon Iver Grammy Quandary Comments. The New York Times Company, 02 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/the-bon-iver-grammy-quandary/?_r=0>.

This piece, published on the blog section of the New York Times, is a transcription of an interview with Bon Iver who expresses skepticism of the importance of the Grammy awards. In the interview he says, “Everyone should go home, this is ridiculous. You should not be doing this. We should not be gathering in a big room and looking at each other and pretending that this is important.” Bon Iver’s words align with my view in the article, making it a relevant example of a prominent artist who also sees the ambiguity and extraneous nature of music award shows and the hype surrounding them.

"GRAMMY Awards Voting Process." The GRAMMYs. The Recording Academy, n.d. Web. 09 Mar. 2015. <http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/grammy-awards-voting-process>.

The voting process for the Grammys is referenced in the piece to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of ranking musical talent. Breaking down who votes and how is helpful in understanding this. The Grammy’s website provided the qualifications to become a Voting Member of the Academy and voting process, which includes the fact that only members in good dues standing, despite musical qualifications, are allowed to participate in voting.

Anchor 6

In my writing, I always tend to begin with the introduction. Writing introductory paragraphs orients my mind around the main points and feel of the essay, helping me to keep consistency throughout the entire writing process. Introductions also help me to smooth out the wrinkles of my arguments and decide early on which direction is most appropriate to pursue. When writing this draft of what would have become the introduction to my essay, I could sense that something was off. To me, it sounded dull. The growth of technology has obviously changed peoples' relationship to music searching and artists' rise to fame; there's hardly an argument to make about that. The reasons behind this evolution also seem obvious: less tangible music stores, less music magazines, more music sharing, the ability to upload files to the internet, the growth of portable music players, etc etc etc. You don't need to read a research paper in order to be able to figure out the basic reasons behind this transformation. In writing this short draft, I realized that this was not an argument that I found challenging and stimulating to form. Moving forward, I decided to narrow my argument and focus on one aspect of the music searching process. Tieing this into my inspiration piece, I chose to focus on developing an argument about music reviews.

This first draft of the piece is what I label my "change in direction." The argument lands in the realm of music reviews, and is one about which I feel very strongly. I love music writing and have extreme respect for music writers who successfully inspire interest and inform the public about cool artists. However, something that has always stuck out to me are the numbered rankings that often accompany such great writing (i.e. 6/10, 4/5 stars, C+, etc.), which I argue should be eliminated. In figuring out the audience to this message, I thought it would be appropriate to write in the style of an article one might find on a website like Vice or Slate. These writers can be biting, and I wanted to continue to experiment with tone. After writing this, I was proud of the newly developed argument, and was excited to expand upon it further in later drafts.

This is the complete first draft of my re-purposing paper. In writing it, my main concern was tone. I tried to adopt some attitude, which was easier than I thought it would be. Though I didn't have much experience writing in this way, I did feel very strongly about my argument, and these emotions came out through the writing. I even added the word "fuck" in the last paragraph for emphasis, which actually made me pretty nervous because I had never cursed in a paper before. In finishing this draft, I was most proud of the style of writing, but was concerned about the flow of the argument. Points did not seem to transition well, which I knew needed to improve. As shown in this draft's extensive annotated bibliography, I consulted many sources to develop the argument. However, in writing the final one of my goals was to find more relevant and informed sources.

Click here to read the final draft of my re-purposing paper.