This idea provides interesting theory as to how consumers attach authenticity to the things they purchase. I can use this idea to supplement a paragraph where I discuss why exactly people are on the "search for authenticity".

This Science daily article seems to be a paraphrase/summary of a larger research study. Science Daily hits on the main points of the study and presents the information in a way that would appeal to their readers.

"...on a particular object for sale at a particular price, and more on aura and setting, promising consumers not single products but new identities and new ways to live"(could not annotate across pages)

This fact could provide excellent motive and background to my paper's claim re. food services reinforcing cultural stereotypes by making their dining experience catered to customers expectation of culture.

For Outka to attempt to define authenticity and distinguish between these two synonyms of authenticity serves as great theory for the group to better use authenticity as a broad tool kit in own essays. Her particular stance on commodified authenticity is one of "skepticism and attraction" in that it can "distort history and present present crass imitation of something valuable." This perspective of authenticity will edify the group's use of the authenticity tool-kit.

This is an interesting idea that highlights the effect of time on an actors role in the authenticity building process.

This portion/citation from the essay provides good background to my argument-- that firms who feign cultural authenticity to satisfy customers’ distorted generalizations of a culture are perpetuating the acceptance of stereotyping in the customer’s’ society.

Peterson cites Beverland's article not only to establish a background for one of his authenticity arguments but also to motivate the reader to find interest in the subject at hand- the mechanics behind and the implications of socially constructed authenticity.

I've added a "Page Note" to this article with annotation instructions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVKTx9YlKls&index=8&list=PL6xdQ1-kSQsVpbI8Svt-UEezYj-y5VkCX

(This is part of the playlist; I've also linked here in case you miss that the first time around...)

After reading through this essay a second time while briefly considering using it for my essay, I find myself a little irritated by the tone Hyden adopts throughout. I'm not sure the conversational, over-casual tone really helps set him up as someone who knows what he's talking about, and his talking about 'you' doing things as though that's the only way things can play is at best unrelatable and at worst a little presumptuous. Kind of a negative take, I realize.

Art in general cannot be enjoyed the "right way" because art is such a subjective experience. Specifically considering authenticity, a song like Thrift Shop can be the most fake thing in the world, but if it's listeners don't know that or even if they do, it can still be real.

At the risk of sounding a little combative, has "Notes of A Hip-Hop Feminist" had a major impact in the way the Hip-Hop community at large addresses women in its art? It seems like the culture Joan Morgan talks about still persists twenty years later.

Tangent: starting sentences with "as a x " usually ends up pushing some stereotype that may not be true for every x. Are stereotypes necessarily a bad thing?

Anyways, Morgan is able to look past the artificially macho lyrics of sexist rap to examine what really matters--the true motivations and feelings of the artists behind it all.

Of course, the flip side of this is that if a government holds that if a speaker's intent is necessary to evaluate if lyrics are threat, then they (and juries) have to take on the uneviable task of trying to sort out what the intent of a speaker's is or isn't, making legal decisions infinitely more complicated. That doesn't mean it's right to treat rap lyrics as threats necessarily, but I can appreciate where those treating rap lyrics as words with clearly defined meanings are coming from.

Hate speech seems like a common thing in violent rap. Author argues violent rap should be recognized as art in the public's eye and the court's eye. Should hate speech also have that option? Are violent threats more ok than hate speech, strictly in regards to being art?

Here is a moment where Stone pivots into an evaluative claim about Erlewine's argument: it's inherently based in sexist assumptions about authenticity. While I think her evaluation of authentic characteristics often being disassociated from female artists is accurate, I'm not sure that it is so pervasive that it automatically makes any argument about a female artist lacking authenticity to be inherently sexist. Erlewine's evaluation of Perry's album should be examined on its strength as an argument before being categorically dismissed as sexist, in my opinion.

1) The assertion made here is that rap music can be perceived in many different ways that goes beyond the idea that it is merely a threat or that rappers are merely violent criminals. This claim is sufficiently evaluative and possesses the potential scope for a well-developed essay. In this paragraph, it is hard to determine how exactly the essay will be structured, but it leaves it open for many possibilities. 2) This paragraph involves two different sources in which the sources are concisely summarized. In the beginning, you touch briefly on the context for N.W.A. as does "Mark of Criminality" and then you contrast that with the "potentially 'threatening' word choice" in reference to the "Threat or Art" article. These sources work well together as they create a tension between the two. A stronger idea, as I'm sure you will do in your actual essay, would be to quote more of the language used in both of the sources to differentiate the opposing ideas. 3) If you are arguing that the violent nature of rap music can be seen in a different light, then the paragraph does begin to effectively analyze the relationship with the two sources towards that argument. If you wish to deepen the argument, or qualify it any way, then further analysis into the sources would be required. 4) The arrangement of your sentences work well to summarize the sources and place them together in tension with one another. However, if you want to further the argument then you may need to lead with a source citation and then analyze it until it almost comes into "contact" with the other source. This might help add a closer reading of the sources and can strengthen your argument even more.

In my essay, I'm planning on challenging whether this is relevant. Sure, authenticity sounds like it would be critical to a good song, but it's not. The song itself is independent of whatever the singer brings to it. Music should be judged for what it is, not whatever the artist's background is.

This is an important sentence that went unanotated, so I'll just note it. For Karlin, originality/authenticity becomes a PROBLEM, becomes a really complex question, after the technology of musical recording changes the nature of how music is transmitted.

I think repeating things can be a powerful tool and make the song or poem more influential.

I feel like this attributes to complexity and poetic diction what might actually just be colloquial speech. This might also be a comment on the duality of the existence of both that "compound diction" and the common man's speech.

This is an interesting development and claim. Because his songs are no longer just songs, is some authenticity lost? Does another motive inhibit authenticity?

the motive: defending Dylan..

Many songs are poetic so maybe they go hand and hand,

so with taking away the paper form of the poetry he is skipping straight to the performance rather than preparing for it? can this always be done successfully for other writers/performers or was it specific for him? if written, does that affect the message a reader receives, would it be different than that of a listener? is it a matter of opinion or is his claim a wide spread understanding?

This way of looking at the concept of text in relation to music definitely challenges the way I would have thought of it. I would have thought of the lyrics as the text instead. I do think this claim does allow for a fuller exploration of the song, though. Words are only one component of Dylan's songs, and it is important to interact with all the components available to get a full sense of the 'text.'

This claim may be an extension of the author's general motive, but it is also certainly an argument made from close reading. This assertion is effective in expressing the importance of music as it "binds our culture." Without close reading, it would be hard for the author to argue this level of significance of "oral art."

This is a chapter from a recent book entitled on the "singer" as cultural figure. Please see my page note for your annotation instructions!

Here's a link to a playlist that contains most of the key songs mentioned herein (all those by Bob Dylan himself).

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response. (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

In the case of terms from the Marxist intellectual tradition like lumpenproletariat, one of the most reliable references is the glossary at marxists.org...

Here's the OED definition for comparison.

When terms that belong to specific intellectual traditions are involved, the question of "which reference?" becomes important. We'll talk about this question in more detail as we begin the research paper process later this month...

a term with a cluster of related meanings!

It definitely is not though. YouTube and the like are just ways to attain fame, which helps you get power and money. Being big on YouTube isn't and end like it used to be, now it's more of a stepping-off point for sponsorships and deals with the bigger corporations.

By the time this is a fully implemented feature there will be another kink in the system that will need to be worked out.

Hyden uses the evidence in his article to pose this fascinating implication about the future of music. I do not know how Hyden feels toward this implication, but I do not like the sound of it.

Interesting claim, but i agree, why would people use websites they have to pay for if youtube is cheaper with a more variety?

Would these two points not be the same for most people? The author seems to be making a distinction here between descriptive and prescriptive work that he does not support in the rest of the article.

Because of technology this is clearly not sure anymore. People can post their songs on vine and twitter and have other people sharing it to spread popularity.

When the motivation and influence is gone, the cyber back lash begins. If the video didn't have a clear point and purpose how long does it stay popular?

I would tend to agree with this claim inasmuch as it describes the effect pop music often has, but the writer either suggests or fails to substantially comment on an important implication of the claim. Is this the intended effect of pop music? I would tend to think not, that mass media is in fact aimed at the masses, so I would qualify this statement by saying that although this is the net result, it is not the driving intent behind pop music.

This claim demonstrates an effective argument based on close reading. The author is making an assertion about where the music industry is headed with evidence as to how this is so from the changing ways songs are becoming hits.

Social Influence starts to rub off on people that were hesitant to like a song, and slowly they grow a fondness of it bc it "makes people happy" which could technically also mean it makes them happy too.

I've added a playlist containing certain key songs Hyden refers to in this piece...

This is a piece from an online magazine that published critical writing about pop culture. Please read my "page note" for your annotation assignment instructions!

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

The "Citation Spectrum"!

in order to have good prose, the language can not differ from it. But why restrain one's self to that, when you can have language that differs from prose and still be well structured.

The they say is the "common life" of others to relate to them and to show commonalities but then "to throw colouring of imagination" to show the authorship of the common or the ordinary to create a different interpretation showing a strong sense of I, to take away the context of the they in order to know how to appeal with the extrapolation of personal experience with "ordinary things"

Here WW is adducing (citing as evidence) that there were others that tried to make a distinction between prose and meter.

WW is essentially saying that the language he is using throughout is not different from prose. And that to any reader that is perusing a lot over the language is not seeing the obvious connection to prose.

Why is WW throwing so much shade? And what makes him a better poet than others? It seems he is referring to someone he knows and thinks badly of them. Why is he restraining himself? if you're going to throw shade, might as well be a poet that does whatever he wants.

Implicit TS/IS: They (Sir Joshua Reynolds) say(s) that an accurate taste is an acquired taste, and Wordsworth agrees, but is conversing by qualifying the statement.

If they say it, then it "naturally" becomes the conclusion that a consumer of the poem would come to. Therefore creating a direct relationship from I to they because I am producing how the "they" will or should receive the poetry.

Explicit TS/IS: They say not to let readers think for themselves, I say to let them do so.

Here's another TS - Wordsworth describes a criticism offered in the form of parody. The IS comes in the form of the "false" description, which is further expounded on later in the paragraph.

TS/IS: THEY SAY that something offends others, therefore it must be censored, I (WORDSWORTH) SAY: let the readers form their own opinions without prior restraint.

When the speaker says "they who should be pleased" he is already particularizing a collective group as to create some type of individualism to show that the poem impacts some but not all but then in the same sentence says that "common pleasure" and "common dislike" to collectivize everyone into a group. This allows somehow for the reader to know where his poems are and how he has mastered or figured out what appeals and what repels the audience.

Here's a TS/IS - Wordsworth describes that they as a few groups or individuals. They say alterations should be made, but Wordsworth says that this is problematic for an author who disagrees.

they say

This is a TS - Wordsworth anticipates that his readers will question the sympathy or artistic value of his work.

TS/IS implied...

I thought this was intriguing because it says we don't even need to understand the words for the poem to evoke emotions.

Neither of the two WW poems we have read were included in Lyrical Ballads (the linked RPO online anthology contains the entire 1798 text of that volume, as well as other WW poems). They were composed slightly later, in 1804/5; both first appeared in book form in 1807.

WW’s “Preface” is important because in many senses he is “ahead of his time”: he anticipates a perspective that has become our modern perspective. By 1800, a mass, literate public existed and was growing rapidly. What relationship should the ancient traditions of art, particularly literature, have to this rapidly growing audience? How would this public come to understand its own life in and through reading imaginative writing? Discussions of literature around this time (and ever since!) tend to focus on language because literature is made out of language, and language is something used by everybody for many non-artistic reasons all the time. (This makes literature different from classical music, or painting.) And different kinds of language, historically, are associated with different groups of people. Thus, arguments about literary language (“what language should be used?”  are always associated with arguments about society (“whose language should be used?”).

Moreover, Wordsworth’s “Preface” is important because the terms it which defines poetry are terms that would prove hugely influential in the developing understanding of what poetry should do–an understanding we now capture with the term “lyric” poetry.

Does this mean that all successful poems should not be understood completely when they are first heard, and that they should be tediously decomposed until they are?

Sets up the question of whether this hunger dwindles or fades as we get older? Does our ability to access the imaginative or in the context of the reading, learn how others see the real diminish? If so, is poetry then an attempt to reclaim our more interpretive self?

Sort of like identifying with a message someone else is saying that's not on the forefront of your mind.

So a lyric seems to be an intimate piece of writing, allowing a very personal and naked piece of the writer to be shared.

This line is especially relevant to the question of authenticity. Lyric poetry seeks to subvert what is unique, authentic about ourselves and make experience human and no longer personal, no longer authentic to some degree.

my old professor! ....I remember her red pen in the margins of my papers :-)

When I participated in high school theater, I had to do preparation to understand the script before performing it. Do we likewise have to prepare to "perform" lyric poetry and thus appreciate it? If so, how do we prepare?

This example does make sense, but are there ever times when it is impossible to put yourself in the position of the speaker? And if so, is that a failing on the poet's part, or the reader's? Or is it not a failing at all?

"The Little Black Boy" by William Blake

It seems as though it is shortlived from the outside, but with deeper thought it feels as if it is a long moment that is being experienced.

This is a very interesting thing to notice, it is distinguishing these types of poems from other type of literature and making it much more personal.

not "Poems"? ;-)