I don't think the idea that Mashups should be legal is defensible by saying it will give new generations exposure to old music.It is a weak argument. It is the law and this type of music is breaking it. Music after 70 years of the artists death can be sampled. Use that.
Daniel is obviously excited and passionate about music and the trouble behind mash ups, sampling etc... I don't know about pedagogy but I would first want him to re-think what his claim is- what is the end truth you want taken away from your piece? How does the evidence you have collected back up that claim. He has information from both sides but it is all over. I think what he has is really good if we can refine it into something arguable, clear, factual and fresh. He needs to stick with the logos and not the pathos :) I would love to see the whole paper, this is something my kids really get into especially because many of them have no idea it's illegal on some levels.
My own Daniel recently had to examine a music video by "The Who" in reference to The Outsiders. He showed me how a contemporary group had "sampled" parts of The Who's music.
If I had Daniel in class, something I might point out is that much of what he has is background information. Since the idea he is discussing is so new to people, that is a necessary step. Now a teacher could work with him on providing the evidence that is needed. He needs to make a sound claim; I think he is still searching for that. You are correct, Tom; he knows what he wants to say defend, but it is all mixed up with background information. His idea is certainly fresh.
Exactly, one sentence and is it defendable. "Mashups do not break copyright law." But that can't be proven because they do. Perhaps, "With new technology, copyright laws are obsolete."
His claim at the end seems twofold. "Sampling should be encouraged because it is a way of showing appreciation of another person's work. Sampling and mashups can ultimately help bring back some artists' careers back." Are either of these defendable?
Right. These are two of the claims he makes, but they're not easily defendable, I don't think. I think the better argument might be that they are truly new forms of art and should be "fair use" and not stolen. Maybe ..
I can see Daniel's stance developing and becoming more focused his claim becoming sharper in the last paragraph. He seems to hedge in the first two paragraphs while also setting up some background and introducing multiple views. I see him trying to introduce these differing views, but he seems to limit his information to a two-sided (pro/con) approach. Is there another way of examining this topic? He's got the artists (past and present) whose work is being discussed and the big-wig record companies. Should he also consider the public/consumer? I would want to work with him to manipulate his claim a bit better to show these varied views...I could introduce him to Graff's They Say/I Say templates. I wonder if Daniel would benefit from mapping out each sides arguments, first, and then coming back to a draft to develop his claim.
Daniel is close to a claim. Near the end of the writing, I see one emerging, though it's still hazy. Clearly, he supports mashups/sampling and views these practices as a true art form that can be beneficial to original artists as well as the creators of the new content. Also clearly, he will need to brush up on copyright law and understand why record companies would want to be the "bad guys" on this issue, but I think in this modern world, he makes some very good points. Ultimately, music consumers enjoy mashups and sampled music because they echo other artists and bring memories with them.
As far as helping Daniel solidify a claim, I would have him possibly highlight sentences in different colors -- one for background information readers need to understand the issue; one for specific reasons and evidence that support his opinion; and one for more global opinions that apply to the topic itself. Hopefully, he will identify where the real claim is beginning to emerge. As a follow-up, I would have him work on "mashing-up" his opinions into one claim.
I'm a fan of asking students to start with a question. It seems that Daniel's question is in his writing already. "Is sampling hurting record companies or actually helping older artist gain recognition for songs they created?" I would ask him to start by finding evidence to support or refute these.
One of the student texts I read for the OLE a couple of weeks ago dealt with a court case on this same topic...seems popular right now. I would see if Daniel couldn't find some perspectives from those older artists, possibly interviews?
I think his claim is there - right under the surface. It's in his head, but he doesn't know how to say it. He wants his audience to do something. That's the beginning of his claim. Some focused questions are in order. Who is your audience? What do you want them to DO with regard to this issue? (He may want different audiences to do different things, so he needs to choose one avenue.) What do you want to see happen? How do you want your audience's thinking to change about this issue? Why? What can you prove? How can/will you prove it?
I agree, but I don't know that he's there yet. Audience could be too big. I do love the question about "how do you want your audience's thinking to change about this issue?" I think that question should be the next question for Daniel.
I’m thinking that Daniel is all over the place at the beginning. I feel like he finally wrote himself into the beginning of a claim draft in the last sentence. That being said, I think I might have Daniel really define the sides of the argument.
I would ask Daniel to stop and brainstorm a list of how mashups can be positive for artists. Then we would hone these into reasons. Then we could start thinking about evidence to support those reasons.
Then I would ask him to list how mashups can be negative for artists, repeating the same sequence. Queen vs. Vanilla Ice (which was wrong on so many levels).
Then I would ask Daniel to write a “barking rough” draft of his claim. Just get the words out. We can wordsmith it later. I just want the powerful idea to pull us into the thinking.
From this point, we can start really digging into the research. He will change his ideas or reasons at some point in that process, but I hate to send him into research until he has some clarity to the subject.
In a writing process interview with Daniel, he revealed that he is most interested in positively influencing interested people in helping change the laws that currently prohibit the use of sampling and mash-ups. First, the audience must be addressed clearly so that the reader understands who is being "courted" in this argument.
His argument surrounds the benefits to the creators of music, but it does not address the opposing side of the argument, so that he can negate it outright. In other words, he must set up his debate.
His video evidence is not discussed in this piece so far--at least not specifically. Daniel will need to draw attention to the video and discuss how it strongly supports his argument about the creation of a new musical entertainment genre that will be cultivated only if restrictions are removed.
Suggested strategies: Continuing to provide strong pieces of argument mentor text followed by analysis and discussion of the models may help him sharpen his focus. Following through with the process support--peers and teacher conferences--will also provide scaffolding for Daniel. Reviewing a criteria-based rubric may also help guide his work.
Daniel's piece is almost like a freewrite. He's writing all of his thoughts about this topic, and he's generating some really good material for his final piece. I love that he wrote all of this, because it gives him (and his teacher) something to work with. He begins to dance around the claim toward the end, which I think is fine. I don't necessarily like papers that start out with a claim. Sometimes it's better to build up to it. The first thing he needs is an authentic audience before he can really solidify the claim.
Wow! I loved this creationand what it did to create a "new" work of art. Now, what are some of the possible claims Daniel might be trying to make and how to help him make them. One that he seems headed for is the claim that "sampling" of the work of a previous artist should be a valid--and free-- way of building understanding of the contributions of a genre. To help Daniel develop and use this argument, might we have him look for evidence of "sampling" in other art forms and for other purposes and audiences. The Jon Stewart show uses "sampling" all the time for satire and comic purposes and juxtaposes various genres to create new "genres" of news. Daniel might research what kinds of credits and what kinds of royalties someone like Jon Stewart has to give and make a point about free access from that. Daniel might also be headed toward an issue of plagarism. What is there about this mash that Daniel is claiming to be his? Cartainly everyone in my (old) generation would recognize the individuals in the compilation and not think Daniel (or the creator of the mash) was attempting to pass off the work of John Lennon and Joan Jett as his own. Is this where the question of the audience is going? How much of this understanding is the work or product of the audience? Is my experience with the mash the same as my grandson"s?
This is very reminiscent of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who practices copyright law for the entertainment industry in Washington, DC. She and I respectfully understand each other, but we do not agree. How’s that for argument? Hah!
So, anyway, there are several claims that Daniel appears to want to make here, with the overall idea being mashups and samplings are good and being told that they cannot be done is bad. This is a HUGE undertaking, though, because he attempts to tackle many major issues all at once: the amount of time sampling has been around, ownership of sounds/melodies/lyrics, etc, audience wants/desires, copyright law, music industry giants, artistry, repurposing of creative outputs, etc. I think the first thing I would want to talk with Daniel about is how long he wants his finished research paper to be!
I think I would guide him to think about the major groupings of his points and hopefully guide him to the discovery that he is really talking about two major issues – copyright restrictions/legislation and creative license. Maybe one way that he can do this is to highlight similar evidence and claims with the same colors to see what tends to stand out to him.
Next, I would want him to think about whether he wants to make a claim of fact, value, or policy. Does he want to deal with definitions and propose that mashups and samplings are a viable art form? Or is he more concerned with saying they are more artistic than other forms? Or is he concerned with changing copyright law?
Today in a professional development session, we were wrestling with how to write a constructed response in the form of a mini argument with a defensible claim, evidence, and warrants. Heather reminded us all that students should start with a question as a path to making a claim. Directing Daniel to frame a question before searching for evidence, making a claim, and writing an essay could help keep him focused.
I could go two ways with Daniel. 1. He writes like the mashup music he admires. So I'd like to have him sort out the threads (ideas) that he has unmashing them in some graphic way, so he can see related lines of thinking. 2. Daniel might benefit from a peer reader or a small response group that would serve as that audience and help him focus. But it would have to be a loving reader response group that did not leap to fix his writing. Instead they would be willing to see the lines and "left-turns" in his paragraphs. It is as if Daniel has so many good thoughts that he is rushing to get them on the page. If Daniel could hear (nicely stated) the work it takes a reader to make sense of his argument(s), then he might be willing to go back and focus his thinking. Focusing his thinking may lead him to his claim.
For his topic, he needs a better understanding of copyright.
ReplyDeleteHe dances around his claim without being emphatic.
How would you help him make a claim? More research on copyright would certainly help.
DeleteI don't think the idea that Mashups should be legal is defensible by saying it will give new generations exposure to old music.It is a weak argument. It is the law and this type of music is breaking it. Music after 70 years of the artists death can be sampled. Use that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRight. He wants to defend the remixers.
DeleteDaniel is obviously excited and passionate about music and the trouble behind mash ups, sampling etc... I don't know about pedagogy but I would first want him to re-think what his claim is- what is the end truth you want taken away from your piece? How does the evidence you have collected back up that claim. He has information from both sides but it is all over. I think what he has is really good if we can refine it into something arguable, clear, factual and fresh. He needs to stick with the logos and not the pathos :) I would love to see the whole paper, this is something my kids really get into especially because many of them have no idea it's illegal on some levels.
ReplyDeleteMy own Daniel recently had to examine a music video by "The Who" in reference to The Outsiders. He showed me how a contemporary group had "sampled" parts of The Who's music.
DeleteIf I had Daniel in class, something I might point out is that much of what he has is background information. Since the idea he is discussing is so new to people, that is a necessary step. Now a teacher could work with him on providing the evidence that is needed. He needs to make a sound claim; I think he is still searching for that. You are correct, Tom; he knows what he wants to say defend, but it is all mixed up with background information. His idea is certainly fresh.
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking that perhaps if he tried to state his claim in just one sentence that is defendable, what would that sentence be?
ReplyDeleteExactly, one sentence and is it defendable. "Mashups do not break copyright law." But that can't be proven because they do. Perhaps, "With new technology, copyright laws are obsolete."
DeleteI love that second claim and I think that is where Daniel wants to go, too. Great!
DeleteI like that, Lauren - I think that's where his argument is headed.
DeleteHis claim at the end seems twofold. "Sampling should be encouraged because it is a way of showing appreciation of another person's work. Sampling and mashups can ultimately help bring back some artists' careers back." Are either of these defendable?
ReplyDeleteRight. These are two of the claims he makes, but they're not easily defendable, I don't think. I think the better argument might be that they are truly new forms of art and should be "fair use" and not stolen. Maybe ..
DeleteNot sure you could actually provide proof.
DeleteHow about the one that Lauren suggested: copyright laws need to change to adapt to new technology?
DeleteI can see Daniel's stance developing and becoming more focused his claim becoming sharper in the last paragraph. He seems to hedge in the first two paragraphs while also setting up some background and introducing multiple views. I see him trying to introduce these differing views, but he seems to limit his information to a two-sided (pro/con) approach. Is there another way of examining this topic? He's got the artists (past and present) whose work is being discussed and the big-wig record companies. Should he also consider the public/consumer? I would want to work with him to manipulate his claim a bit better to show these varied views...I could introduce him to Graff's They Say/I Say templates. I wonder if Daniel would benefit from mapping out each sides arguments, first, and then coming back to a draft to develop his claim.
ReplyDeleteGreat suggestions.
DeleteDaniel is close to a claim. Near the end of the writing, I see one emerging, though it's still hazy. Clearly, he supports mashups/sampling and views these practices as a true art form that can be beneficial to original artists as well as the creators of the new content. Also clearly, he will need to brush up on copyright law and understand why record companies would want to be the "bad guys" on this issue, but I think in this modern world, he makes some very good points. Ultimately, music consumers enjoy mashups and sampled music because they echo other artists and bring memories with them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as helping Daniel solidify a claim, I would have him possibly highlight sentences in different colors -- one for background information readers need to understand the issue; one for specific reasons and evidence that support his opinion; and one for more global opinions that apply to the topic itself. Hopefully, he will identify where the real claim is beginning to emerge. As a follow-up, I would have him work on "mashing-up" his opinions into one claim.
I love the highlighting idea! That works so well as a revision tool. Now to use it as a "visioning" tool.
DeleteAgreed. I think the idea of mashups as a new art form idea is the strongest claim for this paper.
DeleteI'm a fan of asking students to start with a question. It seems that Daniel's question is in his writing already. "Is sampling hurting record companies or actually helping older artist gain recognition for songs they created?" I would ask him to start by finding evidence to support or refute these.
ReplyDeleteOne of the student texts I read for the OLE a couple of weeks ago dealt with a court case on this same topic...seems popular right now. I would see if Daniel couldn't find some perspectives from those older artists, possibly interviews?
DeleteI think his claim is there - right under the surface. It's in his head, but he doesn't know how to say it. He wants his audience to do something. That's the beginning of his claim. Some focused questions are in order. Who is your audience? What do you want them to DO with regard to this issue? (He may want different audiences to do different things, so he needs to choose one avenue.) What do you want to see happen? How do you want your audience's thinking to change about this issue? Why? What can you prove? How can/will you prove it?
ReplyDeleteGreat questions.
DeleteLove these questions
DeleteI agree, but I don't know that he's there yet. Audience could be too big. I do love the question about "how do you want your audience's thinking to change about this issue?" I think that question should be the next question for Daniel.
DeleteI’m thinking that Daniel is all over the place at the beginning. I feel like he finally wrote himself into the beginning of a claim draft in the last sentence. That being said, I think I might have Daniel really define the sides of the argument.
ReplyDeleteI would ask Daniel to stop and brainstorm a list of how mashups can be positive for artists. Then we would hone these into reasons. Then we could start thinking about evidence to support those reasons.
Then I would ask him to list how mashups can be negative for artists, repeating the same sequence. Queen vs. Vanilla Ice (which was wrong on so many levels).
Then I would ask Daniel to write a “barking rough” draft of his claim. Just get the words out. We can wordsmith it later. I just want the powerful idea to pull us into the thinking.
From this point, we can start really digging into the research. He will change his ideas or reasons at some point in that process, but I hate to send him into research until he has some clarity to the subject.
- Ellen
I like the concept of a "barking rough" draft. I do the same thing and ask for a "zero draft."
DeleteI love They Say, I Say. I wish he could argue that sampling and remixing is a new art form, but I am not so sure that would be defenable either!
ReplyDeleteI love love love this book! I've used it in high school and college classes.
Delete-Ellen
In a writing process interview with Daniel, he revealed that he is most interested in positively influencing interested people in helping change the laws that currently prohibit the use of sampling and mash-ups. First, the audience must be addressed clearly so that the reader understands who is being "courted" in this argument.
ReplyDeleteHis argument surrounds the benefits to the creators of music, but it does not address the opposing side of the argument, so that he can negate it outright. In other words, he must set up his debate.
His video evidence is not discussed in this piece so far--at least not specifically. Daniel will need to draw attention to the video and discuss how it strongly supports his argument about the creation of a new musical entertainment genre that will be cultivated only if restrictions are removed.
Suggested strategies:
Continuing to provide strong pieces of argument mentor text followed by analysis and discussion of the models may help him sharpen his focus. Following through with the process support--peers and teacher conferences--will also provide scaffolding for Daniel. Reviewing a criteria-based rubric may also help guide his work.
Daniel's piece is almost like a freewrite. He's writing all of his thoughts about this topic, and he's generating some really good material for his final piece. I love that he wrote all of this, because it gives him (and his teacher) something to work with. He begins to dance around the claim toward the end, which I think is fine. I don't necessarily like papers that start out with a claim. Sometimes it's better to build up to it. The first thing he needs is an authentic audience before he can really solidify the claim.
ReplyDeleteMy reply is a lot like Daniel's paper. All over the place. I wasn't finished when Tom said "right now".
DeleteWow! I loved this creationand what it did to create a "new" work of art.
ReplyDeleteNow, what are some of the possible claims Daniel might be trying to make and how to help him make them.
One that he seems headed for is the claim that "sampling" of the work of a previous artist should be a valid--and free-- way of building understanding of the contributions of a genre.
To help Daniel develop and use this argument, might we have him look for evidence of "sampling" in other art forms and for other purposes and audiences. The Jon Stewart show uses "sampling" all the time for satire and comic purposes and juxtaposes various genres to create new "genres" of news. Daniel might research what kinds of credits and what kinds of royalties someone like Jon Stewart has to give and make a point about free access from that.
Daniel might also be headed toward an issue of plagarism. What is there about this mash that Daniel is claiming to be his? Cartainly everyone in my (old) generation would recognize the individuals in the compilation and not think Daniel (or the creator of the mash) was attempting to pass off the work of John Lennon and Joan Jett as his own. Is this where the question of the audience is going? How much of this understanding is the work or product of the audience? Is my experience with the mash the same as my grandson"s?
This is very reminiscent of a conversation I had with a friend of mine who practices copyright law for the entertainment industry in Washington, DC. She and I respectfully understand each other, but we do not agree. How’s that for argument? Hah!
ReplyDeleteSo, anyway, there are several claims that Daniel appears to want to make here, with the overall idea being mashups and samplings are good and being told that they cannot be done is bad. This is a HUGE undertaking, though, because he attempts to tackle many major issues all at once: the amount of time sampling has been around, ownership of sounds/melodies/lyrics, etc, audience wants/desires, copyright law, music industry giants, artistry, repurposing of creative outputs, etc. I think the first thing I would want to talk with Daniel about is how long he wants his finished research paper to be!
I think I would guide him to think about the major groupings of his points and hopefully guide him to the discovery that he is really talking about two major issues – copyright restrictions/legislation and creative license. Maybe one way that he can do this is to highlight similar evidence and claims with the same colors to see what tends to stand out to him.
Next, I would want him to think about whether he wants to make a claim of fact, value, or policy. Does he want to deal with definitions and propose that mashups and samplings are a viable art form? Or is he more concerned with saying they are more artistic than other forms? Or is he concerned with changing copyright law?
Today in a professional development session, we were wrestling with how to write a constructed response in the form of a mini argument with a defensible claim, evidence, and warrants. Heather reminded us all that students should start with a question as a path to making a claim. Directing Daniel to frame a question before searching for evidence, making a claim, and writing an essay could help keep him focused.
ReplyDeleteI could go two ways with Daniel.
ReplyDelete1. He writes like the mashup music he admires. So I'd like to have him sort out the threads (ideas) that he has unmashing them in some graphic way, so he can see related lines of thinking.
2. Daniel might benefit from a peer reader or a small response group that would serve as that audience and help him focus. But it would have to be a loving reader response group that did not leap to fix his writing. Instead they would be willing to see the lines and "left-turns" in his paragraphs. It is as if Daniel has so many good thoughts that he is rushing to get them on the page. If Daniel could hear (nicely stated) the work it takes a reader to make sense of his argument(s), then he might be willing to go back and focus his thinking. Focusing his thinking may lead him to his claim.