WP #2

Maria Leal

Z. De Piero

MW 3-4:50 PM

February 18, 2015

Modern Technology: Beneficial or harmful to the modern music industry?

Textual genres, in a way, are similar to people, each one with a different surface appearance when compared to the next, but often times, with a similar make up within, whether it may be rhetorical make-up, conventional make-up, or one’s literal biological make-up. There are countless genres, available to readers and writers alike, that can be used to convey a message. Said genres are categorized under different groups, with the two most prominent ones being scholarly and non-scholarly texts. In regards to the effects of modern technology on the music industry, two articles were heavily taken into consideration, Birgitte Andersen’s “Shackling the Digital Economy Means Less for Everyone”, an article published in a scholastic journal known as Prometheus, and Matthew Wall’s “Is Tech Saving the Music Industry?” an article released through BBC News online, a more mainstream and widely known news outlet. Despite reporting on the same topic, Matthew Wall’s article proved to be superior, over Birgitte Andersen’s journalistic endeavor, in part because Wall had the advantage of writing through a more mainstream and relatable genre source, and also through the overall effectiveness found within his article due to his appealing usage of rhetorical features and conventions, as well as the “moves” he utilized throughout.

Mathew Wall, a business reporter for BBC News, and Birgitte Andersen, a

professor at Birbeck College, both published papers centered around the effects that modern technology possesses over the music industry; however, regardless of the mutual topic, both articles are very distinct in their textual make-up in regards to rhetorical features and conventions. Mathew Wall’s “Is streaming technology saving the music industry?”  is an online newspaper article. Therefore, the way it is structured is very different than other textual pieces out there. In terms of structure and conventions, newspaper articles are usually written in a way that makes them “easy on the eyes”, so to speak. Each sentence is usually written as though it is its own individual paragraph. Although having an individual sentence stand as its own paragraph goes against everything English teachers have drilled into students from the beginning of essay writing, this tactic, unique of newspaper articles, has a positive impact on the reader. When examining the “series of choices” Wall makes in his writing, the reader begins to see and comprehend the “techniques he used” and how those techniques influenced the “responses” of the reader (Bunn 121). Said influence branches out to how the reader processes the information provided. In other words, it makes it easier for the reader to follow along and understand what said article is reporting on through the sentence-per-paragraph structure that aids in dividing what is usually viewed as dense information: facts, figures, and interviews. Andersen’s article, however, does the complete opposite.

            Both articles are divided into different sections with bold-faced headings, but the content in each section is what greatly differs. If Wall’s article is more visually appealing, Andersen’s article comes across as visually dreary. Due to the fact that Andersen’s article was published in a scholarly journal, it does not follow the sentence-per-paragraph structure typically found in newspapers. Instead, she opts for the classic paragraph structure that essentially everyone has had to endure at one point or another. It is important to consider, however, that although Andersen consciously chooses to communicate her information through extensive paragraphs, perhaps it was not a choice of which she was fully fond. Instead, it was a “move”, or stylistic choice, that she was obliged to include as part of the conventions of scholastic journalism because after all, “techniques that are effective for one genre may not work well in another” (Bunn 77).

            Her paragraphs are dense, not just visually, but grammatically as well. Andersen incorporates intense, academic vocabulary that makes her article suitable for a scholarly journal such as the Prometheus. Additionally, simple sentences in Andersen’s article are extremely rare, if not nonexistent, making structurally complex sentences more than abundant throughout the entire text. Although such sentences allow for a more eloquent article with greater fluidity, it also makes it far easier for a reader unfamiliar with the topic or discipline to become lost and confused. The common reader has the ability to appreciate the hard work and effort a scholar places on their journal piece, however, simply because a reader can appreciate a piece does not mean they fully value it. It is evident that the research has been done for Andersen’s article, but her strenuous vocabulary and stylistic choices, as well as scholastic conventions, end up hurting her work more than aiding it, seeing as how the lack of appeal to the common reader greatly restricts her exposure to a more extensive audience. In regards to a scholarly article, such as Andersen’s, scholars are the only ones who could possibly find real value in her work and fully comprehend it without the risk of losing interest in its complexity, as the typical reader would surely do.

            Both articles possess an informative tone, however the style found within each is what sets them apart. BBC’s article places an emphasis on the effects of the increasing popularity of “streaming” music through programs such as “Spotify, Deezer, and MixRadio”, which are now seen as the “savior[s]” of the modern-day music industry (Wall 2014). Wall includes plenty of hard facts in regards to statistics, however, he balances the dense and dry with the conversational as he incorporates plenty of quotes from sources he has interviewed. This allows for an easier and more enjoyable read. That does not mean that Andersen’s style of writing is not enjoyable, however it does make it a bit more time-consuming due to its length, she focuses on not just streaming music, but also “music rights”, “globalization”, and “P2P file sharing” (Andersen 2010). As a result, it makes for a harder and denser read filled with an abundance of statistics. Her writing is far more formal and scholarly, thus limiting her audience due to its lack of relatability.

            As a writer, when considering a genre, it is vital to not only consider its rhetorical features, audience, and purpose, but to also consider how effective it may be over another genre when trying to send a message across. Each genre was created for a specific purpose or area in which it was designated to shine. Depending on the information being provided and the audience trying to be reached, perhaps a non-academic piece would be more suitable in a certain environment as opposed to a scholarly text. It works the other way around as well. Once again, it is vital to remember and stress the fact that different techniques and genres work better with each other and on different audiences. For instance, if someone is trying to get the word out about an upcoming national event that is due to happen within the next few days, it is not advisable that they undergo the long and arduous process of scholastic peer revision and journal publications. Besides, advertising for an event is not really considered “scholarly journal” worthy. In said case, publishing on a non-academic platform would be far more beneficial because not only would it be quicker to accomplish, but it would also reach a much wider audience, scholar or not. However, it also lends for its reliability to be compromised.

            Non-academic pieces are easier to be influenced by biases. When it comes to scholarly texts, due to the intense amounts of peer revision, biases are harder to slide through because scholarly texts, such as journals, are meant to report and inform on facts without biases getting in the way, thus allowing the reader to formulate their own opinions and thoughts based upon what they have read. Furthermore, although it may be easier for a writer to convince the less educated masses to perhaps share the same ideologies as them through a non-academic text, attempting to get a scholar or any other educated person with authority to side with them would be near to impossible. Non-academic texts are nowhere near as reliable as journals and other scholarly pieces, which present facts and hard-hitting evidence to support claims. Additionally, having said facts and evidence allows for writers to get readers to swing to their side. It demonstrates that the research done supports their claims and that those claims were not just made in vain without adequate information and support.

            As everything in life, there are pros and cons to using a non-academic piece as opposed to a scholarly text, when attempting to convey a message, and vice versa. The biggest concern is audience. Practically everyone has access to non-academic texts from social media, to magazines, to newspapers, and even something as simple as flyers. As a result, reaching a huge audience is far easier to do with non-academic pieces because they are easier to access both online and offline and are also easier to put out. As for scholastic papers, their audience is far more limited. Scholarly writing does not appeal to everyone but a select few groups. Not just that, but access to academic journals is a lot harder for the everyday person if they do not possess a subscription or have access to a database. Most people would rather have subscriptions to entertainment magazines than scholarly journals. In other words, one is more appealing than the other, making one’s message reach a farther and wider audience than the other.

            Everything a writer does, is not simply done in vain, but in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of their paper, “moves” included. Writers do not simply compose first drafts and call it a day, in fact, almost all serious writers continuously revise and create draft upon draft until they have arrived at the most effective way to convey their intended message. One of Matthew Wall’s more notable “moves” in his BBC article is his rare but carefully chosen sentence length variation. Wall is consistent in his use of complex sentences. However, when discussing the shift among music listeners from willingly wanting to solely own music to their new preference of streaming, he also goes on to point out the constant disputes regarding money loss that many music companies possess. Among all the financial dilemma that the music industries are claiming to face, Wall notes that some artists have banded together and created the Featured Artists Coalition, an organization that is fighting for “fairness and equality for artists in the music industry”, however, he is quick to state that in regards to music access via streaming, the FAC “is also very supportive” (Wall 2014). The sentence regarding the support of the FAC is very short and straight to the point. It is one of the most notable moves Wall utilizes. Among all the chaos and complex sentences, this short sentence stands out, thus, making it obvious and notable that there is support for new technology and not everyone in the music business is against that technological change. By using short sentences sparingly, their usage stands out to the reader, along with the ideas that may come with it. In a way, it is also a “move” that can be used to highlight important facts and ideas, seeing as how the information is not hidden among all the “fancy sugarcoating” that is commonly seen in English writing.

            Wall’s article is more effective than Andersen’s because he does not overuse the “jargon” common to the music industry that Andersen does, which ultimately, “can alienate readers” (“Style and Presentation In Arguments” Pg 310). However, had Andersen not utilized the jargon available to her, the chance of her paper getting published in Prometheus would have significantly decreased. Her paper may not appeal to as wide of an audience as Wall’s, but it definitely appeals to those within the scholar community.

            Ultimately, messages and information can be conveyed in a multitude of ways and through numerous different genres. However, simply because a message can be reported in one genre effectively, does not mean that there is not an even more effective genre out there that is ready to be used. Furthermore, it is not just the genre that measure the effectiveness of a textual piece, but also all the small aspects that make up said piece whether it may be rhetorical features, conventions, and even the author’s “moves”. All those things can and should be used in order to really get the most out of a textual piece and convey a message as effectively as possible.