Wayne C. Booth

How does Booth define the rhetorical stance? List and define all of the perversions of the stance that he names. To which perversion do you find yourself most inclined, and how might you combat that as you revise you blog posts? 

Peer Review Groups

Group 1
Emily Anderson
Bisha Wanzala
John Rinehart

Group 2
Noah Dively
Jacob McLeland
Samar Ghai

Group 3
Jack Hall
Alex Pressley
Marshal Withington

Group 4
Mikayla McCord
Lelia Rice
Taylor Dively

Group 5
Frank Tkach
Katherine Zeller

Group 6
Connor Hutt
Haley Strunk
Mary Boykin

Group 7
Chloe Rafferty
Claire Spence
Gabriella Ruff

Group 8
Benjamin Giddens
Zachary Speaks
Shatia Hunter

Question About Worksheet 7

Did you write your sentences in paragraph form or list form. Please explain your decision.

Class Discussion 4/13

Summarize Greene's argument. What is the relationship between this academic argument, his topic, and the voice he uses. With what advantages does it afford him? With what disadvantages does it afford him. Assuming Greene is not stupid (never assume authors are stupid), why did he choose to write his article like this?

Reading Question 4/13

How does Greene define under-fucking, and in what two ways does Narcosis enact this concept?

Extra Credit Sound Art

Today, we are going to be listening to sound art--people mixing things oddly, running algorithms, focusing on minutia, and generally experimenting to see what new sounds can be created and what we can learn from them. None of this is supposed to be "music" and none of it is supposed to be passively enjoyable. Instead, its supposed to produce an experience that perhaps we can learn from. You don't have to "get" any of it, but I ask that you not be dismissive.

A Room Listening to Itself

4/6 Conducting a Holistic Analysis

Your final blog post asks you to combine multiple styles of analysis that ask you to think about single tracks, the album as a whole, what genre the album came from, how the album affected the genre, the social milieu in which the album was create, the albums cultural impact, the influence of the album, the recording of the album, the artist's professional biography, the artist's personal biography, the sonic elements of the album, and the lyrical content of the album. This is a lot of different information to handle. You might want to bracket all of this information into sections, but I urge you to resist this impulse and instead find a way to blend all of these topics. This is the reason I had you listen to the Sound Opinions album dissections.

These analyses of Pet Sounds and What's Going On? blend all of the types of analysis I am asking you to conduct without making it seem choppy or disparate. For today's class I want you to listen to one episode of the podcast and list when the different types of analysis appear and how they are connected to one another. As you make this list, think about how the dissection is organized. What is the overarching logic that the analysis runs on: chronology, themes, etc.

Work on this list in an MS Word document (because you will need to be able to make edits and changes as your work) and then post it as a comment to this blog post. 

Short Answer 4/6

Take a look at the different reverse outlines you did of the Johnson article. What differences do you see between them? In a comment to this blog post, briefly explain the differences you see and give a reason as to why they are so different from each other.

Who Outline 1

Who Outline 2

Who Outline 3 

4/4 Work Day

What are you working on today?

Official Syllabus Change

After discussing this on Tuesday and Thursday, the following syllabus changes are now official: 

1. We are cancelling Blog Post 6 so that you all have more time to revise.
   
2. The eight percentage points from that assignment will be distributed equally between Worksheet 2, Blog Post 2, Worksheet 3, Blog Post 3, Worksheet 4, Blog Post 4, Worksheet 5, and Blog Post 5. This may seem unfair to people who have been doing well on their blog posts but not their worksheets, in response to this concern, I will be changing how end of semester revision functions.
   
3. Since the weight of each worksheet will be going up, it seems that you all should have the ability to revise them as well, but there is a problem. If everyone revised all of the work they did for this class, I would not have the time to grade it. As a compromise, each student will be given the chance to revise five assignments if they wish. These assignments can be either blog posts or worksheets.
   
4. Some of you may have already begun work on Blog Post 6 or been interested in writing it. Since I obviously find value in the ability to write a theory/application paper using difficult material, I want to encourage these efforts. If you choose to write a theory/application post anyway (I will make the new word count 1,200) then I will add three percentage points of extra credit onto your final grade.
   
5. Tuesday’s peer review session is now an independent workday focused on either revision or Worksheet 7.

3/28 No Church in the Wild

On Tuesday Marshall argued that Bailey may be over-analyzing Kanye West's  "No Church in the Wild" in his article "When Apollo and Dionysus Clash." He argued that the symbolism may not run as deep as Bailey claims, and that the article is making to much of the video. He summed up his general argument against this type of criticism  by saying, "sometimes blue is just blue."

Several of you audibly agreed with this sentiment, and I am betting that more of you agreed silently.

I agree that in the real world--the everyday drudgery of life--blue is often just blue. As Freud is often misattributed as saying, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

But Bailey is not discussing the real world; he is discussing a high-production music video created by a host of creative professionals including musicians, directors, costume designers, etc. Moreover, he is discussing a music video that is highly stylized, cryptic, and affective. Of course it "looks cool;" being cool is important. Still, I think that there is more going on here. Everything we see, hear, and feel was done with purpose to create a specific art object that says something about the world.

As an aside keep in mind that when I grade your blog posts I assume everything you write was done intentionally and with purpose. How might you feel if I didn't?

Of course, we cannot chalk everything up to intention--how many times have you written something in your blogs that me or a classmate misinterpreted? Your intention did not matter as much as what was actually written on the page. If we can't just judge by intention, we need to look at the art object, itself to try and make sense of it. We are not asking "what does it mean?" or 'What is it trying to say?" Those are insulting question, as if the art object is incapable of meaning or saying without our analysis. Instead, we are asking what we can learn about the world and the artists' perceptions of it from examining what they made. The tools we have for making sense of these things are philosophy, history, cultural context, genre, author biography, and our own abilities to reason and feel. Bailey uses all of these in his attempt to understand "No Church in the Wild."

Let's watch the video and consider if we think this art object says something about the world or Kanye West's perception of it. Let's consider if it is worth our time to analyze the stylized and cryptic images and lyrics to learn something new. Let's consider if reading Bailey's analysis, whether we agree with it or not, helps us to engage the work. Let's ask ourselves what we can learn from engaging with a serious work of art seriously.Watch the video and respond to the prompt. You don't have to answer all the questions, I just want to know what you are thinking about these issues broadly. Be honest, there is no fun or learning to be had from inauthentic engagement.

3/23 conduct an ideological/philosophical critique

Consider what ideologies, philosophies, or critiques are happening in this track and use this awareness to write a critique of the song. Again, your object of analysis is the song your method is a close reading of the song that is informed by considerations of philosophy, ideology, and counter-ideology.

3/22 Philosophy

In class Tuesday, I asked you to listen to at least seven philosophical definitions and write three down. Take one of the definitions you wrote down, write it here and then explicate the definition, demonstrating how it might function in music and music criticism.

If you did not do this, then just provide a definition of philosophy that synthesizes your personal understanding with the thoughts expressed in the podcast. Then, explain how philosophy functions in music and music criticism.

The Weekend Featuring Daft Punk

What ideology do we see espoused in this music video? What specific values are expressed? Is this an instance of active or passive ideology?

3/23 Active and Passive Ideology

Define ideology and then explain the difference between active and passive ideology.

Peer Review 3/21

Peer Review Groups:

1. Emily Anderson 
2. Katherine Zeller
3. Shatia Hunter

1. Mary Ashley Boykin
2. Marshall Withington
3. Connor Hutt

1. Bisha Wanzala
2. Frank Tkach
3. Mikayla McCord

1.  Noah Dively
2. Haley Strunk
3. Jacob McLeland

1. Taylor Dively
2. Claire Spence
3. Alex Pressley

1. Samar Ghai
2. Zachary Speaks
3. Chloe Rafferty

1. Benjamin Giddens
2. Gabriella Ruff
3. Rice Lelia

1. John Hall
2. John Rinehart

Some Questions to Consider as you Talk:

1. Is the work interesting?
1. Is it on brand?
2. Is there something unique about how it is discussed?
3. is there good research?
2. Is the work accurate?
1. Is there evidence for claims?
2. Is the evidence persuasive?
3. How does the author make herself believable? 
3.  Is the work useful?
1. Does the author have a clear purpose?
2. Is the author responding appropriately to a clear exigence?
3. Is their a clear, interesting, and purposeful rhetorical organization?

3/16 Exigence, Purpose, Organization

For the article you have been assigned, answer the following questions:

1. What is article's exigence? (If stated, quote it and list the page number; if implied, write what you think it is and provide a page/paragraph number for the passage that informs your answer.)
2. What is the article's purpose? (If stated, quote it and list the page number; if implied, write what you think it is and provide a page/paragraph number for the passage that informs your answer.)
   
3.  How is the article organized? (Please provide an outline.)
4. Do the exigence, purpose, and organization work together or fight against on another? Explain your answer thoroughly in three to five sentences.

3/14 Organization

All writing is organized--either consciously or haphazardly. An organization should have a specific rhetorical effect on the audience, one that helps them to understand the author's purpose while also acknowledging a variety of different viewpoints. How did you organize Blog Post Four "Genre History." How will you organize Blog Post Five "Cultural Criticism"?

3/14 Purpose

All writing that is worth anything needs to have a purpose--something that it demonstrates, proves, explicates, informs, etc. When dealing with audiences who are not captive (i.e. do not need to read what you have written), it is not enough to have a purpose; you must demonstrate to them early on what insight, knowledge, perspective, etc. they will gain from reading your work. If not, why would they bother to read it? What was your purpose for writing Blog Post 4 "Genre History," how did you state this purpose to your readers, and why should the audience you are cultivating care? What will be your purpose in Blog Post 5 "Cultural Criticism," how will you state this purpose to your readers, and why should the audience you are cultivating care. 

3/14 Exigence

If you are, as we have previously discussed at some length, cultivating an audience through your brand, then you need to provide each post with an exigence that they care about enough to read a fitting response to it. What exigence did you provide for your audience in Blog Post Four "Genre Analysis" and what exigence will you provide for them in Blog Post Five "Cultural Criticism"?

Looking for Interview Subjects

Several of you wanted to interview other students in the class for your upcoming worksheet. This is an okay method, and one that has particular affordances (your interviewee knows the project and context, you don't have to reach out to strangers, and the person has an investment in you doing well.) If you want to try to find others in the class to interview, ask below. If you are willing to be interviewed and match someone's criteria, go ahead and respond to their comment.

Music, Culture, and Recursivity.

Using the definition provided by the Texas A&M site, give me your own 2-3 sentence definition of culture that is a thorough as possible.

Peer Review and Celine Dion

• Claire Spence
• Zachary Speaks
• Emily Anderson 

• Chloe Rafferty
• Benjamin Giddens
• Connor Hutt 

 

•  Marshal Withington
• Samar Ghai
• Noah Dively

• John Rinehart
• Bisha Wanzala
• Frank Tkach

• Alex Pressley
• Tia Hunter
• Taylor Dively

• Mikayla McCord
• Jacob McLeland
• Mary Boykin

 

• Haley Strunk
• Lelia Rice
• Katherine Zeller

 

• Gabriella Ruff
• Jack Hall

Worksheet 4

It appears that some people are having issues with worksheet 4. This is in no small part due to the fact that I was too sick both to host Monday's Workshop or to teach on Tuesday. I have a couple of possible solutions that I would like to run by you. Please reply with your thoughts in the comments, and we will discuss in class. As of right now, I am granting everyone an extension on the assignment until midnight tonight, but I may change that depending on your input:

1. I could grant an extension to those who need it until Monday, but students would have to come to a presentation on Audacity held later today. Those who do not need the extension will be given an extra point on this assignment as reward for completing it on time.
   
2. I could give an extension until Monday for those who need it. We could spend today's class talking about Audacity (those who already have the assignment completed could leave). The daily class wiritings would then become homework. Again, anyone turning in the assignment on time would receive an extra point on it.
   
3. We could do nothing. You will all be given an extension until midnight if you need it. I will field questions but not discuss Audacity in class, and will give the lecture I have prepared for the day.
   
4. Something else--if you have suggestions, please let me know in the comments. 

2/22/2017

Sound Opinions gives us a really in-depth look at ska as a genre. Explain the three waves of ska and what defined them. Then, explain what the waves have in common. What does this history tell us about how we understand genres and the ways in which they evolve?

*****Stop*****


Given the definition of genre that I just gave, to what exigence is the genre of music you are discussing for your blog post a fitting response. Give a brief argument to explain and defend this postion.

*****Stop******


Summarize Croggon and Parker's argument about retro-historicism. What can you do to avoid this in your writing while still taking into account history and genre?

*****Stop******

Peer Review and Source Use

1. Get into the following groups:
   
   
   • Claire Spence
   • Chloe Rafferty
   • Alex Pressley
   • 
     
   • John Rinehart
   • Mikayla McCord
   • Marshall Withington
   • 
     
   • Jack Hall
   • Gabriella Ruff
   • Taylor Dively
   • 
     
   • Haley Strunk
   • Katherine Zeller
   • Mary Boykin
   • 
     
   • Frank Tkach
   • Lelia Rice
   • Jacob McLeland
   • 
     
   • Noah Dively
   • Emily Anderson
   • Connor Hutt
   • 
     
   • Shatia Hunter
   • Bisha Wanzala
   • Samar Ghai
   • 
     
   • Benjamin Giddens
   • Zachary Speaks
2. Pick the person who is going to have their blog reviewed first. Once time starts, the person to the left of them will read aloud the blog of the person being reviewed. The person who wrote the blog post, the reader, or the third reviewer can interrupt the reading at any time to ask questions or provide feedback. Do not stop discussing the review until I call time. Remember, you can do actual composition work and revision during these reviews. Some questions you may want to consider are:
   
   
   • Is the review relying too much on the background material or saying that the artists' intentions unequivocally explain the meaning of the album? (Neither are good.)
   • Does the review bring in relevant outside information that provides a context in which we can understand the album, or does it rely merely on a "navel-gazing" analysis of the album?
   • Does the author spend too much time discussing lyrics?
   • Does the author discuss the impact of the sound, or does she focus on pedantic descriptions of the sound?
   • Does the author provide a reading of the album, simply give an opinion, or simply describe the album?
   • Is the author's post on brand? Is that brand interesting, unique, and enjoyable to read?
   • Does the author fall back on track-by-track analysis, or discuss the album as a whole? (the latter is preferred for this assignment.)
   • Is the voice, tone, and grammar of the writing easy to read? Are the errors or "writing ticks" that throw you out of the reading?
3. Let's discuss the upcoming blog post, the upcoming worksheet, the readings for Thursday, and the library session.
4. Discuss types of source integration.
5. Hand back Blog Post 2 feedback

Today we are going to use the rhetorical concepts we learned on Tuesday, and just went over together in class, to gain and organize information from a research source. We will watch the following videos hoping to learn about the band Screaming Females. We will then use this information to write rich and interesting reviews of their song "Hopeless" from Rose Mountain. We will be using the rhetorical situation both to help us think about what we want to learn from the source--who is this band, what are they like, what are their fans like, why did they create this album, what was their recording process, etc.--and to help us categorize this information once we have extracted it from the video.

So, as you watch this video, make copious notes about what we learn about Screaming Females's ethos, the pathos they generate in their audience, the logos of Rose Mountain (though much of that will come from actually engaging with the album itself), the exigence to which Rose Mountain was a fitting response, and the timelines of the album. The video does not clearly state these things; instead, you will have to make your own observations from watching it. In other words, this is a creative and analytical practice that asks you to pay attention not only to what is said but also actions, images, and auditory cues. Make as many notes as possible, the more information we have, the better reviews we will write.

Now that we have used the rhetorical situation to interrogate our background source and categorize the information, we will use that information to inform our reviews of "Hopeless."

Listen to the track, write a review, and post it in the comments section.

Artist Context and Review

Today we are going to play a little game. I am going to split you up into 8 groups of three to analyze the four reviews you needed to read for today. This means that there will be two groups assigned to each review. You will all answer questions about the review and the honest based on today's lecture and the focus of Blog Post 3, "how can we utilize background information to write better album reviews?"

Each group analyzing the same review will be in direct competition with the group analyzing there same review. Each member of the group that answers the questions better, as determined by me with input from your peers, will receive an extra point (remember I grade those on a five point scale) on their Workshop 3 grade. 

Use our discussion to answer the following questions:

1. What is the reviewer's  (NOT the artist's) exigence for writing the article?
2. Describe the reviewer's (NOT the artist's ) ethos? How does she establish it? Give specific examples.
3. What kind of emotional response (pathos) does the author (NOT the artist) try to evoke from the audience? How does she do this? Give specific examples.
4. How does the author characterize the artist? In other words, how does the reviewer describe the artist's ethos? Give specific examples.
5. How does the author characterize the artist's connection to her audience? In other words, how does the reviewer  describe the artist's pathos? Give specific examples?
6. How does the author describe the relationship between the artists purpose and execution? In other word, how does the reviewer describe the artists logos? Give specific examples.
7. Take some time to listen to some of the artist's songs. Consider, and give a brief explanation of how the reviewer's characterization of the artist's ethos, pathos, and logos effects how you engage with the music. Include the name of the song(s) to which your group listened.

Working on Collage

For Worksheet Three you are creating a collage about your artist, their album, and the context in which it was created. Hopefully, this research combined with the use of an unusual mode of analysis will help you rethink the relationship between artist, album, and context in that way that will enable you to say something interesting about the album. However, I understand that working with image manipulation software can be confusing, which is why we are having this workshop. I am not a expert with using GIMP, which is why I have provided you with this tutorial from GlacticsTutorials:

Of course, we are here in a workshop for a reason. Feel free to ask me questions, ask those around you questions, or offer up some knowledge. Between all of us and the internet, we should be able to solve any problems that emerge. As we work, we will listen to J Dilla's Donuts

 

Thinking about Holistic Album Reviews

Choose either Ann Power's review of Daft Punk's Random Access Memories or Jim Derogatis's review of Simon & Garfunkel's Bookends. Take a few moments to skim over the review, then write a short response explaining what makes the review noteworthy (voice, tone, alliteration, research, lyrical readings, discussion of instrumentation, use of history, knowledge of band, knowledge of musical discussion, etc.). In your response, make sure to use examples from the text (summaries, paraphrases, quotes, textual references) to evidence your position.

Peer Review 2

First, get in the following groups:

John Rinehart
Noah Diveley
Chloe Rafferty

Emily Anderson
Katherine Zeller
Jack Hall

Gabriella Ruff
Alex Pressley
Connor Hutt

Mary Ashley Boykin
Samar Ghai
Mikayla McCord

Zachary Speaks
Frank Tkach
Shatia Hunter

Taylor Diveley
Benjamin Giddens
Claire Spence

Bisha Wanzala
Jacob McLeland
Haley Strunk

Lelia Rice
Marshal Withington

Second, let's read this together:

Today we are peer reviewing blog posts that are much longer than those we looked at two weeks ago. For that reason, we need to either allow time at the beginning of each person's review for their peers to read, or we need to have each person being reviewed read their review aloud to the reviewer's while the reviewers read along on their screens. We are going to do the latter.

Reading your own writing aloud is a great habit to get into because it forces you to engage with your work in a different way. Reading aloud slows you down and demands that you pay attention to details in your writing that you might otherwise ignore. It is a great editing technique and we are going to test it out today.

When it is your turn to review, read your post slowly--as if you were performing it for an audience. If you want to stop and change something or ask for feedback, suggestions, or input, feel free to do that. If your reviewer's want to stop you to offer feedback, give comments, or ask questions, allow them to do that. In other words, read through your piece stopping whenever either you or your reviewers think it is necessary.

This is a plodding method of feedback, but it should also be productive. I assume that in fifteen minutes you will not get through reading your entire post--especially with all the stopping and discussing you will be doing. However, use the feedback you get in group to inform the revisions you make to the rest of your post.

Finally, if you do get through reading your entire post, use the rest of the time to facilitate feedback. Remember to ask your reviewers questions about how they experienced your post, how they felt reading it, and how they understood your work.

Third, let's write about music:

Fourth, let's talk about my feedback and your grades: 

Remember that there are have not been many assignments yet, so every assignment is influencing your grade more than it will once all the assignments are completed.

Also, you can revise your blog posts for full credit. When you ask me to re-look at a post at the end of the semester, then original grade completely disappears and is replaced by the new revision grade.


Fifth, check out Zachary Speaks on Lander University Radio tonight at 5

http://www.primcast.com/radio/610882

More Track by Track Analysis

Listen to the tracks your group has been assigned. Remember, everyone in the group has to listen to and discuss each of the assigned tracks--this is collaborative work, not delegated work. As you listen, take thorough notes; Hawk has a tendency to cite authors and generate lists, which you will need to be able to accurately summarize in order to answer the questions. I suggest you listen to each track as a group, discuss it, answer the questions, and then move on to the next track. Remember, this is not a race; Hawk gives detailed, nuanced, and difficult readings of each track, so take your time discussing what he says and answering these questions. Remember, you need to answer the questions for each track--not for the review as a whole:

1. What is the purpose of this review? (This may change from track to track.)
2. What is the thesis of this review? (This will most likely be implicit)
3. How would you define Hawk's approach to this review? (This may change track to track.)
4. Provide a thorough summary of the review, including all key terms, authors, lists, and concepts. Keep in mind this is a summary, which means information should be condensed. Still you need to retain all the vital information and nuance.
5. What do you gain from reading this review (Is this merely a reading, opinion, or interpretation? Do you learn something about the band, track, genre, or philosophy? Do you make a relatable personal connection?)
6. How does the medium help or hinder this review?

 
 

Thinking about the Track by Track Analysis

Keeping in mind the lessons learned from reading critiques by Cooper, Gaitskill, and Gevinson, write a track review of one of the following songs.

Dance Workshop

When we decided to do some dancing together to help strengthen our classroom community, build up our resistance to pain, and explore the connection between music, dance, and social cohesion, I wasn't sure what to do, but it didn't take me too long to decide on something iconic.

This song and dance are deeply embedded in American culture. A quickYouTube search pulls up dozens of Thriller flash mobs, dance instructions, discussions, and parodies. Since there is such a cultural weight to this song, it seemed perfect for building community with a group that already had similar literacy with the song. However, the dance is a bit complicated, and we only have an hour to learn it, so I chose a simplified version. It was meant for children I think, but its still fun and uses several moves from the original.

Here is the explanation of the moves with the counts

Alright, Let's start dancing!



In the comments section, answer the following question: What did this experience, or similar ones, elucidate about the connection between social bonding, dancing, and music? What does each element add to the experience?

Approaching the Album Review

In your groups answer the following questions about your reading. Remember the goal of this exercise is not to get it done quickly but to learn something about writing about music that you can bring into your own writing. That said, try to provide thorough, evidenced, and well thought objective answers. Post your answers as comments to this blog post.

1. What is the context in which this review was written (you can figure this out through the footnotes in the beginning of the article, a Google search, and clues within the text.)
2. What is the overall purpose of the review (critique, defend, describe, etc.)
3. How does the author approach their subject?
4. Describe the author's overall tone.
5. What is the author's overall thesis (they probably don't have a "thesis" but what is the take-away)
6. What (types of) evidence does the author use to defend this interpretation of the text?
7. Ultimately, what do we learn about music from reading the article?
8. Now that you have answered all of these questions, write a 2-3 sentence summary of the article that expresses the nuance of the author's engagement with the music. Do not include any of your opinion on the article, try to be as objective as possible.
9. Give your opinion of the article in 2-3 sentences. Consider all the elements that were discussed above

Peer Review 1/17

Peer Review is often a dreaded assignment for students in a first year composition class because it asks them to read the work of other students and then pretend as if they have the skills and expertise to tell them how to improve it. This put-on is a problem because most students don't know how to improve their peers' work, question their own authority as reviewers, or don't think the work is worth saving in the first place. Underlying all of these problems is that the onus for peer review lies with the reviewer.

In this class, the onus for conversation is on the student whose work is being reviewed, not the persons doing the reviewing. It is up to this student to guide feedback, ask follow-up questions, and listen to the opinions that will help her with her work. When it comes to making this time useful, it behooves the student whose work is being reviewed to focus questions not simply on how the work could be improved but rather on how the reviewers experienced her work. Reviewers may not be experts on revision, but they can deftly discuss their own engagement with another person's work.  When reviewers experience does not mesh with the author's goals, this is a good time for her to ask for clarification, suggestions, clarifications, and discuss possible solutions.

Of course, reviewers are encouraged to help guide the conversation if they have something that needs saying or believe they have a way to really help the writer reach her goals. However, the main architect of the reviewing process should be the person being reviewed.

For this Peer Review Session you will be broken up in to groups of four. You will choose one person whose work will be reviewed, then you will read her work and discuss it for ten full minutes (I will be keeping time, so do not stop discussing that person's work until I say so.) During this time the person reviewed may ask questions, the reviewers may offer advice, the person being reviewed may draft solutions to problems or brainstorm ideas, the reviewers may help invent solutions and ideas; really, the groups can engage in whatever collaborative work seems productive as long as they stay on task. After ten minutes I will call time, and someone else in the group will have their work reviewed (do not switch persons until I call time.)

Below are some potentially helpful questions for the student being reviewed to ask. You do not need to stick to this list, but it is worth consulting if the conversation becomes stagnant:

• Legibility
• Is the site easy to physically read?
• Is the site easy to navigate?
• Is the background distracting?
• Is is easy for you to summarize the brand in a few sentences?
• Can you clearly articulate why someone would want to read the blog?
• Can you clearly articulate the brand's personality?
• Purpose
•  What makes this blog unique?
• Is it unique? Could it be more so if changed?
• Why would someone want to read this blog?
• Would they? Could it be more worthwhile if changed?
• Is the blog's scope appropriate--small enough to be meaningful but large enough to provide support for all the upcoming assignments?
• What makes the blog stand out?
• Does it? Could it stand out more if changed?
• What is interesting about the perspective and voice used?
• Are the perspective and voice worthwhile? Could they be more so if changed? 
• Emotional Response
• How does the blog make you feel?
• How do you think of yourself when reading the blog?
• What kind of people do you think would actually read this blog?
• What might I do to target the kind of readers I really want?

•  Consistency
• Are the colors consistent with the brand?
• Does the visual style match the tone of the language and the goals of the blog?
• Do I use keywords to demonstrate my overall focus?
• Do I overuse keywords?
• Do all of the elements work together cohesively--or are some elements working against each other?

Someone asked that I post on the blog the "rules for writing about music" that we derived from our daily readings. I was going to compile everyone's answers, but I decided to simply type out what I had written when I read the piece. Keep in mind that these aren't really rules; they are just some principles to keep in mind. Think of them as a list of "best practices"

Here is the List of rules that I came up with from the readings

1.       Move beyond approval and disapproval

2.       Know your purpose

3.       Avoid silly metaphors

4.       Avoid Romantic Descriptions

5.       Avoid biographical determinism

6.       Avoid mere description

7.       Take a position as regards the music

8.       Don’t force songs into genres

9.       Make your writing art

10.   Don’t eclipse the artists by talking about your own life

11.   Let language come close to music as language

12.   Let language be art

13.   Describe the impact of the music

14.   Be bold

15.   Empathize

16.   Communicate the heart of the music

17.   Do it for love or not at all

18.   Do the work

19.   Write every day

20.   Write early
21.   Don’t merely close read lyrics

 Now that we have re familiarized ourselves with the list, and listened to this Mitski track a few times, let's write a review of the track attempting to use all of the best practices.