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.