Birdsong is a scrappy lil micropress based in Brooklyn. They publish zines and one-sheets stuffed with art, stories, and poetry. It’s good old fashioned creativity powered by rolled up sleeves and a do-it-yourself attitude. Alright then.
Birdsong #16, out today, features a short interview with yours truly. The issue is somewhat back to basics—black & white, xerox—and free from now until the end of the year. Just send them an email.
Cesious (Essay 4) The Best.
How The Internet Changed Music, Forever
What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of the internet? How about music? According to Wikipedia.org, music is “An art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.” There’s a deep correlation between music and the internet, the internet is defined by Dictionary.com as “A vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide.” After many influences from different cultures, countries, and people, music has evolved and is continuing to evolve, especially with the help of the internet.
About a year ago a woman named Rhonda Callow who is a self-employed blogger wrote a short article entitled “Has the internet killed the music industry?” She included an opinion from Ol’ Johnny Cougar Mellencamp who is described as a “wrinkly rocker.” Mellencamp is not an active supporter of how the internet has changed the music industry. He says “I think the Internet is the most dangerous thing invented since the atomic bomb.” He goes on to state that the internet will eventually kill the movie industry. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to say that the internet has destroyed the music industry is not being reasonable. Change in the industry is evident and not all of it is good. Does a tree ever grow up to be perfect? Not at all, but music is a growing culture that is evolving.
It’s safe to say that there are genres that outshine others in the industry. According to a website called www.musicforlicense.net the top five genres of 2011 are pop, rock, country, hip hop, and instrumental. The list is based on a worldwide survey using Google trends. Debates happen every day in a range of places at any time. What’s the best music genre? I’m sure if you went to 10 random OSU students and asked the question, you would probably receive different answers. After reading articles I’ve made the generalization that experts say race, religion, and cultures generally influence what type of music people listen to. I believe no matter what race, religion, or culture you are you can listen to any genre you choose.
Youtube is an internet website where users can watch free videos and live streams. To say that Youtube has changed the industry is an understatement. For example one artist named “Abel Tesfaye also known as TheWeeknd uploaded three songs, “What you need”, “Loft Music”, and “The Morning” via his Youtube account one day.” This was part of his nine track mixtape called “House of Balloons.” The artist is now a rising star and has even paired up with another talented artist Drake, who is credited for helping The Weeknd achieve publicity. Both are from Canada and have formed a group called OVOXO. Youtube has had a DRAMATIC impact on music in a great way as you can see; it allows artists to showcase their talents to the world for free. The downside for some people is that it is also known for having the most controversial and vulgarity filled videos on the planet. But if it had not been for Youtube some artists may have never been discovered.
A huge problem with the internet and music, what I like to call “The itch the industry can’t scratch” is music piracy. Ipods and mp3’s contribute to this greatly because before they were invented how did people pirate music? That’s right, by burning CD’s. It’s become a theme that has destroyed some artists’ careers that had talent but were not selling enough albums to survive. Websites such as Mediafire, Limewire, and Frostwire are prime examples of sites that encourage music piracy.
Sonia Das authored “The availability of the fair use defense in music piracy and Internet technology.” The article was published in the year 2000 and talks about the effects of the internet on music. One key point made in the argument was “As technology advances, musical artists and the recording industry face new challenges for protecting the copyrights of their works. Much of the new technology is inexpensive and readily available on the Internet, often at the expense of copyright protection. Online stores like Amazon.com or bmgmusicservice.com, musical artist home pages, and unofficial Web sites maintained by fans are some of the newest means through which music aficionados may listen to and purchase music. Unfortunately, despite the large number of legitimate sites over which listeners may listen or purchase music, the majority of Internet music sites are illegitimate, featuring music publicized online without permission from the copyright holder.” New steps have been taken to avoid this and prevent problems in the future.
This problem has been identified for a very long time and has been slowed but never stopped, new artists are actually learning from their predecessors on what not to do. Album leaks are another big problem, Canadian rapper Drake used Twitter to express his feelings toward Motown records. “Universal needs to stop taking my f****** songs down. I am doing this for the people not for your label.” There was a point he was trying to get across, the company was taking down music that Drake himself released to the internet. What they didn’t realize was that he was building anticipation. This is how the industry is surviving. In today’s generation album leaks happen to every artist especially the big names. Anytime there is leak it gives the fans an opportunity to sample the product before it hits the shelves. Drake even encouraged his Twitter followers to listen to his newest album “Take Care” when it leaked a week before its set release date of November 14th, 2011. Artists such as Kanye West, Kid Cudi, Jay Z, Lil’ Wayne and Eminem can handle the drop off in sales because they have built enough credibility and have a loyal fan base.
How do you stop an immovable object such as piracy? There’s no way you can stop something like this. Artists are still very successful but how? Helienne Lindvall wrote “Behind the music: How can artists prevent their work from being leaked?” an article that contained problems associated music. A powerful statement by Giacobbi was mentioned in the article, “We usually encourage artists to give away a few tracks for free ahead of a release to hungry fans.” That is exactly what artists are doing! Mixtapes play a great role with this movement. One site in particular, Datpiff.com allows users who make an account, download free songs legally that are released by artists. Usually the cover art will include the word official meaning it was an official release from the artist.
Artists use their Twitter pages to market their music as well. Typically the more popular you are the more followers you have. Kanye West doesn’t follow a single person but he has over 4 million followers! New artists such as Tyler, The Creator, Whiz Khalifa, J.Cole, and The Cool Kids use twitter to release singles, promote other artists, and give Youtube links of new videos. Shane Richmond, author of “The power of shared music;” says legal online services are now better than pirated ones. The last piece of the article says “Legal online music services are now clearly better than their illicit competitors. However, many in the industry are concerned that streaming services cannot attract the number of listeners required to replace lost revenue from retail. Most people would agree that ”music matters”. The industry is about to find out just how much.” Another great reason why legal sites are better than pirated sites is the quality. The quality and sound of a song is very uniquely crafted by artists. They often add special tempos and pitch qualities to certain songs that are left out by songs downloaded from illegal sites. If you’re a hardcore music fan like me you would appreciate and notice the difference in songs that are illegal.
Itunes is often credited for helping musical artists succeed. Albums are released electronically through Itunes that are the purchased by fans with the proceeds going to the artist. It’s a strict program that is maintained by its parent company Apple. You can download it to your computer for free and sometimes songs are released for free, of course at the consent of the artists.
Progression is a very key factor in the music industry; fans don’t want to hear the same thing over and over. Where exactly do these artists get their inspiration from? Dig deep and research and you will probably figure out that your favorite artist samples another artist. The Hip Hop genre is a great example, Tyler, The Creator; leader of an alternative Hip Hop group called OFWGKTA has a song called “Fish” were he raps over piano chords. Tyler adds a light drum and other chords to the chorus. The point is that I’m sure he wasn’t the first artist rap over a piano. Styles of music are introduced, die off, and then are reintroduced by a new artist. Artists spend time on the internet doing research on old albums, finding old hooks and reintroducing them by adding a new school flavor, add vocals and release it. This is often associated with the term “Paying Homage.”
Because of the internet music can change a life, make someone famous, destroy a career, or tarnish a reputation. The benefits of the internet outweigh the disadvantages of the internet dramatically. Everyday someone makes a breakthrough, samples a song, or advertises a concert. This would be impossible without the internet, and that is why the internet has changed music, forever.
Gentian (Essay 3)
Wait, Where’s Our Slice of the Revenue?
There’s a burning question that pops up into the mind of college athletes every day: Why are we not getting paid or at the very least receiving stipends, for the sacrifices and dedication we make to our universities? Millions of dollars are generated by student athletes every year mainly in college football and basketball. Typically the millions of dollars generated from those two sports support other sports such as soccer, golf, track & field, and even lacrosse. This controversy is at the top of the debate list for analysts everywhere and the question is will there ever be a resolution?
Michael Wilbon, an ESPN analyst wrote an article called “College Athletes Deserve to be Paid” Wilbon wasn’t always in favor of college athletes receiving money he quickly changed his mind about the topic when the deal between NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024 was struck. Steve Wulf is an executive editor at ESPN The Magazine his short article “Tote that ball, lift that revenue” gives an assortment of reasons why college athletes should be paid. He uses examples and supports his article with quotes from former college athletes. Even though these two men in general agree with paying college athletes, both articles use similar rhetorical appeals and commit similar fallacies.
Wilbon uses the example of how a University of Alabama professor will not earn as much money as the head football coach in his entire teaching career. The coach will make $5.9 million in one year! Wulf uses an in depth statement to describe what he thinks about college athletes receiving benefits. “They are required to put in long hours of hard work for next to nothing, often in hostile conditions, always under intense scrutiny of their bosses.” Wulf has an expressive personality like Wilbon. Wulf wrote an article about Michael Jordan who is arguably the world’s greatest basketball player ever. The article was titled “Bag it Michael” which took shots at Jordan’s minor league baseball career, as a result, Jordan hasn’t spoken with Sport’s Illustrated for 15 years. In the examples, Wulf seems to use a direct approach when stating his ethos; Wilbon uses an example that has a great reflection of his character because he’s usually the guy to talk to when it comes to sports and money.
In the previous examples that were given two logical fallacies were committed. One common fallacy, “Fallacy of Composition means assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.” Wulf’s example has truth to it but do you honestly believe that this is happening at 120 division I schools? It would be very unusual to assume Wulf has been to every division I school, his assumption cannot be made based on an example from 10-15 schools. He’s probably done his research and used a few schools to contribute to his theory. In the other example “The Fallacy of single cause is committed when it is assumed that there is one simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.” Everyone is aware that coaches make more than professors but do you know why? Coaches not only make an income from just “doing their job.” Coaches receive benefits from just having their team sponsored and wearing athletic gear from Nike, Adidas, Under Amour, and so on. In reality there is more than one cause of coaches making more than professors at major universities, in connection to the benefits they receive from winning games. This fallacy further enhances the argument of why athletes should be paid. The previous fallacy also creates false situation. Someone reading this might interpret severe wrongdoing when there are not enough facts to support this claim. This would create another argument.
Wulf uses logic when he asks the question of “Who can blame the athletes if they feel resentful at the millions of dollars being made off their talents?” A person deserves to be upset if they aren’t getting the cash or recognition for a certain skill or talent that they possess. This is very similar to the logical appeal that Wilbon uses. He says “What happens if a music major goes out one summer and earns $50,000? Does that make him in any way less of a college student? Does anyone even care?” Both of the examples introduce the thought of how athletes are treated differently than other students at universities. In their eyes it would be logical for a college athlete to capitalize on their talents in every way possible.
Wulf’s article is an all-around emotionally charged plea. One specific quote from the article that has plenty of emotion in it is “The coaches own the athletes’ feet, the colleges own the athletes’ bodies, and the supervisors retain the large rewards. That reflects a neoplantation mentality on the campuses that is not appropriate at this time of high dollars.” This is according to Walter Byers who was the executive director of the NCAA from 1952 to 1987. My guess is that Wulf got the statement from Byers around the time he was writing the article, the year of 1996. I can infer that this quote is emotional because the words in the quote make it seem like the relationship between the coaches, supervisors, and athletes is a violation of common rights.
Wilbon’s article is more of a fact based argument but there is one quote that is entirely emotional. Wilbon states that “the players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students – an employee with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.” When you read both quotes, the general argument convinces you to feel for the athletes, the use of pathos helps readers understand the “inhumane” side of the problem.
When you read both of these articles, there’s a sense of how Wilbon and Wulf make the NCAA and the universities seem like the bad guy in a way. There is one fallacy that pertains to both of the articles. “Straw man fallacy is an argument based on misrepresentation of opponent’s position twisting his words, or by means of false assumptions.” Wulf and Wilbon are doing this but in an indirect way. They are not twisting the words of the NCAA but both of the quotes used in the articles hint at the possibility of this entire situation being labeled as exploitation of the college athletes. Another source outside of these two even labeled this as the NCAA being a “pimp” in relation to the athletes, without benefits being received by the athletes in exchange for their athletic talents.
Wilbon and Wulf use ethos, pathos, and logos in similar and different ways. The common appeals chosen by these authors have a direct connection to their personality and how they are perceived by the general public. Vast amounts of research, a turning point such as recent stories about improper benefits that were released to the public, and observations had a direct impact on not only why they wrote the articles but in the way they did. Wilbon and Wulf wrote the articles to prove a point, shed light and to even educate readers on the situation. The appeals may have been chosen to further promote their idea of what should happen in the future. Wilbon for instance included examples of logic that asked questions and challenged the mind of the readers, universities, and the NCAA.
Logical fallacies are very difficult to avoid in any type of article, it’s apparent that both Wulf and Wilbon feel for the athletes and the predicament that they are in. This ultimately influenced which fallacies they committed. We know that they are arguing the same position, but there are different ways they use the examples to contribute to the argument. In some cases there are fallacies committed indirectly but you can tell from reading that a couple of the examples in the articles were intended to compliment an argument.
Revenue influences a lot of decisions in college sports, is it safe to say that cash is the driving force in college sports? More questions are starting to be answered each and every day and this debate is in its final stages of finally being settled once and for all. Is this just beginning? Analysts are debating on shows, meetings are being held at this very moment about one question. Should college athletes be paid? It’s a controversial, heavily debated question that will have a big impact on college sports once it is finally decided. Time is winding down or is this just starting? Fallout is bound to happen from a decision made. Wulf started a blazing fire and Wilbon added to an already burning flame. Where will you be when the clock strikes midnight on this topic?
