Gunderson's Intended Audience

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/29/10

After reading Gunderson’s review of Danger Mouse’s Grey Album for the first time I was left very puzzled. The article was full of very elaborate vocabulary, and it seemed very confusing altogether. However, after learning more about Gunderson and reading his article through a second time, I began to wonder why he would write it this way. Ultimately, I decided that Gunderson used a confusing composition and vocabulary to try and reach a more intellectual audience. By reaching this audience he could introduce and explain the mash up form of music as well as file sharing to them. He could also include his positive opinion on those topics within his article, as well as his negative opinion on copyright laws, which could ultimately be used to persuade the intellectual audience to agree with him. The author uses several methods or features within his article to show that it is meant for intellectuals.

One important aspect of Gunderson’s article is its design. The design of the article itself could easily mislead and confuse the average reader. When reading the introductory and closing lines of each paragraph, an average reader might be led to think that the author was against mash ups and file sharing. However, when you really pay attention to the article you can understand that he actually supports them both. I believe that Gunderson did this purposely because he was targeting intellectuals, such as students and professors, and he knew that when they read his article they would either just understand it more, or, like our class, they would need to analyze it in order to understand, discuss, and write about it. And, by analyzing and understanding the article it could give the reader a sense of accomplishment, which could, in turn, lead to their liking of the article. The fact that they liked the article could also lead to their fondness of Gunderson’s arguments and opinions.

Along with its design, the vocabulary of Gunderson’s article also shows that it is meant for intellectuals. By using words like vexingly, nadir, juxtaposition, and puerility throughout the article, Gunderson is excluding or possibly scaring away many ordinary readers because these are obviously not your average vocabulary words. This technique would probably assist in capturing the intellectual reader’s interest by making them seem like they are part of an exclusive group of individuals who can actually understand the language within the article. If they feel like the article was written for them in vocabulary that only they can understand, then that will make them want to read it even more.

Throughout the article Gunderson also makes very convincing points about why mash ups are good things. These instances could help persuade an intellectual because normally a person such as a professor would not be interested in this type of music. One specific example is when he talks about the idea that all music came from some form of music before it, and the fact that The Grey Album (Danger Mouse’s mash ups of the Beatles and Jay-Z) erases the thoughts of black and white and one artist being better than another (3). He basically says that The Grey Album erases all boundary lines, such as race and genre of music, and forms just music alone. This idea could draw the attention of an intellectual because even though they do not know a lot about mash ups, they can now see that they are part of a bigger picture that they can relate to. Another example of a mash up that erases these boundaries is The Sweet Home Country Grammer mash up below. This mash up clearly does this because normally most people who listen to Lynard Skynard (a country/rock and roll band) would never listen to Nelly or rap music at all for that matter, and those who listen to Nelly would most likely not enjoy country or rock and roll music. The fact that this mash up, like Danger Mouse’s Encore (Jay-Z and the Beatles), combines two different genres of music into one helps to erase boundary lines and create a form of entertainment anyone can enjoy.

Along with his opinions on mash ups, Gunderson also talks about how corporate businesses and production agencies take advantage of and abuse their property rights. I believe that by including this topic, he is targeting the attention of an intellectual audience because most average people probably already agree that copyright laws are too extreme and that file sharing should be legal. He uses Disney, Inc as a specific example by talking about how they “fought to extend copyright protections for reasons of “personal” profit” after Walt Disney had long been dead (2). I think Gunderson uses the argument that large corporations and wealthy individuals abuse property rights as a way to further persuade the intellectual reader as to why file sharing should be acceptable to some extent. The first video below is an ironic mash up of clips from disney movies used to explain copyright laws and how ridiculous they are. This video is ironic because it is made out of clips from the movies of the organization that Gunderson criticized, and it pretty much says the same things Gunderson says about copyright laws and how absurd they can be. The next video is of Michael Moore (director and producer of documentaries such as Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11) expressing his opinions on copyright law. His opinion is very similar to Gunderson’s about file sharing in that he also believes that it should be acceptable. I believe that Gunderson would agree with everything that Moore is saying in this video, and that this video, like Gunderson’s Disney example, would encourage an intellectual reader to agree with Gunderson on the issue because so many intellectuals probably know a lot about Moore and his work.

I believe that Gunderson deliberately wrote his article in a confusing manner to try and draw the attention of an intellectual audience. By doing this he could possibly gain their respect and convince them to agree with him about the topics he discussed throughout his article. I also think that by convincing them to believe that mash ups and file sharing are good things, and that copyright laws are too extreme, he could use them as prophets of his ideas. By having intellectuals like professors on his side, he could use them to teach his ideas to their students and colleagues, who could ultimately spread his opinion even further.

Reading Log 2: Response to the Danger Mouse Article

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/18/10

I think that the author of the Danger Mouse article is arguing that mash-ups and file sharing should be acceptable in our society. I also think that he is arguing that corporate music producers are abusing copyright laws far too much and that mash-ups are doing society justice by going against this. However, this argument cannot be easily seen when reading the article only one time due to its confusing organization and vocabulary. The reader has to pay close attention to the article and probably even read it more than once to understand what Gunderson is trying to say.

One specific example in the article that shows this argument is the last paragraph. The author describes Danger Mouse as a cultural prophet because he threatens the music industry and producers by sharing music and creating mash-ups illegally. However, it was difficult to find very many specific examples that supported his argument, which was another reason why it was difficult to determine exactly what Gunderson’s argument was.

I think that by making his article very difficult to understand, Gunderson forces the reader to really think about what he is trying to argue. He is discussing a very controversial topic, and I think that by making the reader really pay attention to his article he is pushing his opinion into their head even more, which could possibly change their opinion on the topic of file sharing. Ultimately, if he was only targeting an intellectual audience, this way of writing could work. However, when writing about mash-ups/file sharing, he should probably target the average Joe as well, who is less likely to read this puzzling and complex article.

Also, while discussing the controversial topic of mash-ups and file sharing in his “supposed to be review”, Gunderson cites three very intellectual people. One was a philosopher, one a neurologist, one an economist and scholar, and one a psychotherapist and philosopher. I think that this clearly shows that he was writing from an intellectual point of view and his article is meant mainly for and intellectual audience. This clue along with the others can show us who he was writing this article to, as well as why he wrote this article.

Reading Log 1: Response to the Danger Mouse Article

Krystyn Davis

Billy Middleton

2/10/10

I believe that in the article, “Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, Mash-Ups, and the Age of Composition”, the author, Philip A. Gunderson is writing to a very intellectual audience. This article was probably meant for readers whom were professors or well educated people because of the elaborate vocabulary used throughout the article.

The author wrote this article saying it was a review of The Grey Album when it turned out to be that he was also reporting information, describing how some things worked within the file sharing community and within the corporate community, and even lightly expressing his opinion on the whole copyright/file sharing topic. I think that he did all of these things to try and introduce mash-ups and file sharing to more intellectual men and women because everyday average Joes already know a lot about them and probably already do them. By introducing this and trying to persuade the intellectuals that mash-ups and file sharing are both okay things to do, he seems to be trying to start a revolution. If he can get the upper class to support those things then maybe a trickle down effect will occur.

In the article the author also uses different types of media to try to make his writing more powerful. He uses subheadings and an image to try and help get his point across to the audience. For example, the first subheading is The Forces of Production (pg. 1). The fact that “forces” is italicized could indicate a lot to the reader. In my opinion, seeing the word “forces” emphasized tells me that he probably thinks of production companies in a negative manner because he could be implying that they are forceful or too powerful for their own good. However, this method of using subheadings could have also been simply for organizational purposes.

Overall, I do agree with much of what the author is saying in his article. I think that even though mash-ups are going against copyright laws, they are very interesting and unique forms of music that should be able to be enjoyed by the public. I also think that big corporations are taking advantage of the copyright laws and that people who make mash-ups are somewhat putting them in their place by making them.