http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/12/why_no_yes_in_the_rock_hall.html
I'm already biased in the case argued by the author. As a fan of Yes, I most definitely believe that they should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But I think that even if I weren't a huge fan of Yes and the genre they represent, that I would support them being inducted after reading this article. The author uses diction, detail and syntax to great affect in order to get his point across.
The article is very accessible because the diction is very casual, colloquial. But the diction is also used to highlight Yes and progressive rock as a whole in a positive light. "Yes and other prog bands of the 1970s had enormous success and substantial influence" is one of the many quotes that emphasizes the high level of fame the band achieved. The diction conjures up feelings of grandness and importance when it comes to Yes, which supports the author's original position.
The detail provided by the author is also critical in how the point of the article comes across. "It's not only Yes who has been consistently passed over by the Rock Hall: Jethro Tull; Emerson, Lake & Palmer; King Crimson; The Moody Blues; and Procol Harum are all still outside looking in". Is it necessary for the author to list all of these other progressive rock bands? No, it isn't. But it enforces the idea that it's not just one fanboy upset that his favorite band has been snubbed. It shows that the problem is large and scale, with Yes just being one of the most notable examples. The author uses a wide array of details to show all of the credentials Yes has: popularity, artistry, musicianship, and influence. The author also leaves out any and all details that might strengthen the case of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In fact, when the Hall itself is brought up, detail is used to discredit it's decisions, noting that its decision to shut out most of progressive rock "fatally undercuts the credibility of the institution".
Finally, syntax in the article is put to great use in areas where the author wants emphasis. Questions are used to make you think about the case yourself, but usually with the author's slant in mind. For instance one of the questions makes you ask yourself if "the fact that it's not only Yes that is passed over, but also most of the other '70s prog bands, point to a pervading prejudice that undercuts the credibility of the entire Rock Hall enterprise?" Most people aren't going to read that question and say no, they'll think of various reasons why the answer is yes (the author makes use of the rest of that paragraph to give you more reasons). The author also keeps key information until the end of the sentence so that it really sinks in. In this instance: "It's almost as if these folks think they can dictate history with no explanation or supporting argument: rock history by fiat." the last four words have the most impact because they're at the end of the sentence, and it works well because that's the main point the author is getting at in the sentence.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe use of questions was also in my article. Their use is more wide than one would think. My article used them to convey confusion, but they have the complete opposite use in yours. I think their main use is to set up expectation. The reader automatically wants to answer the question or know the answer. Sometimes, the reader is let down and the question is never answered, but instead stays in the reader’s mind and is for them to answer.
The American Dream puts forth a question that is later answered. Throughout the piece, Grandma keeps mentioning the boxes and she almost tells the reader what is in them several times, but only gets around to it when the Young Man explicitly asks what is in the boxes. The reader still has the question in their mind the entire play, even though it is not asked about until the end. This constant question shows the importance of the boxes to the reader and furthers the questioning of what they represent or show about Grandma.
Do you think questions are more powerful when they go unanswered, or do you think the answer solidifies them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI like your ideas about the diction and how it's colloquial, but the author jazzes it up when talking about Yes to make them stand out. Regarding the use of details, I agree that mentioning other bands that were gypped was key in giving the author credit for having a valid point, not just being an outraged fan boy. However, the fact that he leaves out details that support the Rock and Roll hall of fame could actually hurt him. When writing a persuasive essay or article, it is important to acknowledge the other side's argument and explain why you think it's flawed. Do you think Covach should have addressed the other side's argument more or do you think that wouldn't be necessary? I’d also like to address Lindsay’s question, because I found it interesting. I find that I usually like it when writings leave open ended questions, because it makes me think more about the work and I usually end up remembering it better and getting more out of it.
Hey, Sydney--I'm positive you don't mean anything negative by your use of the term, but here's some information to consider:
Delete"Gypped" is arguably the most commonly used racist term in existence today. If someone buys a used car that turns out to be lemon, for instance, he’s likely to complain, “I got gypped.” So, why is the term offensive? Because it equates the Gypsy, or Roma peoples, with being thieves, cheats and con artists. When someone says that they “got gypped,” they are essentially saying that they were conned.
Explained Jake Bowers, editor of Travellers Times, to British newspaper the Telegraph: “Gypped is an offensive word, it’s derived from Gypsy and it’s being used in the same context as a person might once have said they ‘jewed’ somebody if they did an underhand business transaction.” But don’t take Bowers’ word for it. If you’re still debating whether or not to use the verb “gypped,” consider that Philip Durkin, principal etymologist at the Oxford English Dictionary told the Telegraph that there’s “scholarly consensus” that the word originated as a “racial slur.”
http://racerelations.about.com/od/diversitymatters/a/Five-Terms-You-Might-Not-Know-Are-Considered-Racist_2.htm
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI'm with you and Covach in regards to the argument. With regards to your analysis, I'd say you did a really good job. In your introduction you stated where you were going, and you stuck with that direction. I appreciate the examples you used to show how your content related with the article. I did, however, have one holdup with a part of your paragraph on detail when you said, "The author also leaves out any and all details that might strengthen the case of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame." I don't disagree with the conclusion you came to, but I do think that Covach at very least acknowledges the reasons behind the Hall of Fame nominations:
"The voters are thus very knowledgeable about rock music, but are not necessarily historically oriented or trained. Since induction to the Rock Hall can stimulate back-catalog sales, it's also possible that some of the voters have a deep conflict of interest."
With this excerpt from the article in mind, your comment on the absence of strengthening detail struck me as weird. The author doesn't seem to have a problem with the Hall, as he says, "I don't mean for any of this to cast aspersions on the current inductees." He just has an issue with the voters that do the inducting. I don't think this discredits your ideas though.
To what Sydney had to say about Covach leaving details supporting the Hall out, I agree that the clear bias could be a harming factor, but I think that the fact that he focused more heavily on the logical reasons prog rock should be included in the Rock Hall of Fame, rather than slamming the voters, keeps his case valid.