Krystyn Davis
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment