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.