Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback (summer 2011)

[stars#9]

Thank you for this service, it is a great prep!

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's third law, although meant to explain our physical world, has implications far beyond what is only physical. This same concept can explain the social aspect of activism.

 

Activists strive to create a better society. No society is without their ailments. Poverty, racism, violence, crime plague many major North American cities. How can one go about creating a positive difference in these citites? In order to cause change, it needs to be accepted that there is a problem. Take poverty for example. It is easy to be critical of those who are poor. It is easy to blame these people for their own demise. But directing your criticism towards the individual is not going to solve the problem. In order to be effective, poverty must be addressed as a whole. The underlying root cause needs to be found in order to reduce its hold on the people. An activist crying out against those who are poor will not only have little success, but will be seen as insulting. However, if they directed their criticism at the issue, about why poverty exists, about how some people face greater barriers in society, only then will change begin. By alerting government and other social players to the issue, change can occur.

 

However, there are times when individuals are to blame for harm caused in society. Sometimes, it is better for an activist to directy aim their criticism at a specific target. Take for example a large industrial company that is causing water pollution in a city's drinking water resource. The activist in this case wants social change, and wants it fast. The best approach here would be to criticize the company directly and publicly. In doing so, the company receives negative media attention. Negative portrayal in the media can result in great economic loss. In order to downscale the damage, the company is likely to invest in ways to reduce its pollution. By publicly committing to making a positive change, their consumers' attitude may return to where it was previously and the company can resume being as profitable as before.

 

In order to be effective, social criticism needs to be directed in the right place. If a social problem exists, it is necessary to determine the cause in order to find a solution. Poverty is complex; many factors are at play and no individual can be held entirely responsible. In such a case, the issue must be addressed at a societal level. Pollution, although arguably a complex issue as well, can be addressed on an individual level. Someone is either causing pollution or they are not. They are being harmful to the environment. Or they are not. Here, directing criticism at the source is a way to cause change. The balance herein lies in determining the root cause. If the root cause of a problem can be laid on an individual social criticism should be directed at them. If the root cause of a problem is complex, or if those suffering are not at fault, the issue must be directed at a societal, and not individual level if change is to occur.

[Sebriz]

Thank's for your previous feedback Anita!

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals. This statement means that we as a society should focus on judging and analysing the reasons behind what society does rather then towards the people that are taking part in the issues at hand. Social criticism is essentially the act of analysis and judgement towards an issue of society. In recent times there has been much debate over the idea to legalizegay marriage. Social criticism of this issue comes from two camps, those for and those against gay marriage. Both sides attack each other and one says that other'sbeliefs are unholy and the others say that the beliefs of the those attacking them are unreasonable. Making attacks and criticisms of each other lead nowhere and for many years gay marriage remained illegal. In recent years instead of focusing on the individuals, society and lawmakers focused on the issues at hand. The issues being, what defines marriage. Some believe that marriage is a religous act under god and religous texts claim that marriage can only be between between a man and a woman while others believe that state and religion should remain seperate and marriage is the union of two people. By not focusing on hating one another and rather at the issues that were the deeper cause of the debate, lawmakers were able to look at both sides of the issue and help change the laws that they felt were unjust and intolerent. Gay marriage is now allowed in a few states including New York and is in the process of being legalized in other states. Focusing on the issues did help to resolve the problems at hand but since many people would be affected, more time was needed for a deeper analysis.

 

It may not always be in the best interest of society to focus on the issue rather then the indiviudal. For as long as society has existed, there have always been hate crimes.Hate crimes are crimes directed to people due to things such as racism and intolerence. In the mid 90's in the state of texas, a group of adults were found to have beaten, tortured and killed a person only for one reason, because he was gay. It is the very issue of intolerence that lead to the innocent mans death but by focusing on the issues at hand, nothing could have been done quickly to bring justice. Society and law therefore needed to focus on the individuals involved in the issue. The few individuals were tried with commiting a hate crime and recieved life sentences. Although this did not do much to resolve the issue of intolerence, the intolerent ones recieved punishment for their actions quickly and justice was served.

 

As we can see sometimes it is more effective to direct social criticsm at the issues and other times it is more effective to direct it at individuals. What the deciding factor on what criticism should be focused on is the scope of how many people the issue would affect and how fast we need justice to be served. In the case of legalizing gay marriage, it affects many people so it was therefore better to focus on the issues at hand so that fair laws could be made that reflect the views of society. Since many people would be affected, more time would be needed to look at the issue from both sides; in this case focus on the issue is more appropriate. On the other hand, in the case of the Texans who beat, tortured and killed the gay person, the scope of the event involved only a few people and justice needed to be served quickly so it was more effective for social criticism to be effected towards the individuals. Social criticism ultimately resulted in justice but the means of attacking the issues differ due to the scope of the issue at hand and the amount of people affected by the justice that is served.

[antithesis]

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Society is by no means defined as a single person, it is a group of people who function as a whole under the same laws and freedoms. Therefore in order to improve something within society, criticisms should be directed towards social issues as opposed to individuals. Usually within a society, there are certain ways of thinking that the majority follows. We become socialized to live our lives following certain conformities and freedoms. For the most part it is not one specific individual who chooses how a society functions. It is something that is accepted and followed by generations of people. When one wants to change something within society, the issue must be challenged, to be effective.

For example, the attitude that many people have towards gay marriage is an issue that should be criticized, not an individual. Many people have been socialized to believe that gay marriage is wrong. This is not necessarily the result of one person planting this in people's minds, but the attitude that society has held for generations. Therefore when analyzing these attitudes and trying to change them, one must direct criticism towards the actual issue at hand, as opposed to a specific individual, in order to be more effective.

 

However, there are times when social criticism should not be directed at an issue, but at individuals in order to be more effective. During the Holocaust, Hitler and the Nazi party tried to eradicate all races and religions that did not fall under their perfect Aryan criteria. They used fear to make people turn on their neighbours and do terrible things to others just because of what they believed in or the colour of their skin. In this situation, in order to be effective, criticisms needed to be directed towards individuals, Hitler and his party, who did an excellent job of creating chaos throughout a nation. They gained too much power by making people believe in what they were doing. In this case, Hitler and his party were the ones creating this disaster and criticisms needed to be directed at them, as opposed to any issues in order to be effective and stop what they were creating.

 

Therefore, the question is when should social criticisms be directed at an individual or at an issue in order to be more effective. The cause of the problem must be determined in order for criticism to be most effective. It must be directed at issues when it is a longstanding principle that people have been socialized to believe for generations. As in the example with gay marriage laws, many people have just grown up believing that it is wrong. It is ingrained in the minds of a large number of people and in order to address the problem effectively, the actual issue must be examined. Criticisms need to be directed at individuals when one person or a group of people, who hold a great deal of power, try to change a society for the worst. In the case of Hitler, he tried to create a racist, discriminatory society, by trying to eradicate all races and religious views that he did not like. This kind of dictator-like quality, needs to be addressed by directly criticizing individuals as opposed to an issue to be effective.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Very well-explained and in-depth example. Great job defining terms.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Interesting example, which you ultimately came to in a roundabout way. Try to be direct and straightforward to shorten the time you spend on each paragraph and make your argument clear to the reader from the get-go and less convoluted.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Very good resolution.

 

In a society, there are many problems of various origins including cultures and economy. To deal with these problems and improve the society upon weaknesses shown by the problems, social criticism is essential. Social criticism can be defined as evaluation of faults of one's social actions in areas such as economy. In a socially stable society, where citizens can make rational decisions, social criticism should be pinpointed at certain issues rather than individuals to be effective. Effectiveness in this case can be measured by integration of people's opinions. For example, in South Korea, currently a stable developed nation, economic polarization, which essentially is an enlarged gap between the rich and the poor, had been constantly raised. Many critics including university professors argued that the system, which only enforces low tax to the rich and not redistributes the wealth to the poor enough were the major problems with plausible evidence. The evidence included comparing the social system of Korea with that of European nations. This caused major demonstrations by citizens, even including some of the rich people, in Seoul and eventually the government dealt with the issue. If the criticism were directed at solely the rich people, it would not have been able to gain support from the rich, thereby decreasing its effectiveness. Therefore, in a stable society, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals to be effective.

 

However, there are occasions where directing social criticism at individuals might be more effective. In a socially unstable nation, citizens demand a quick clear solution to the stability and have tendency to be easily swayed. Germany after World War I would be an example. Germany after losing in World War I was in a desperate shape. Not only did it have to compensate for damages sustained by its neighbouring nations, but it also had to deal with its own shaking economy. In fact, it experienced one of the highest inflation in the history, with which people had to pay millions of "Mark" to buy a potato. Therefore, it is safe to say that the German society at that time was unstable. Germans desperately wanted a clear tangible solution at that time; they were not able to assess evidence rationally because of their immediate need of a solution to the unstability. In fact, when Hitler came in power and blamed Jews for stealing all the wealth without any evidence, Germans were easily swayed by the quick easy solution of targeting Jews, certain individuals. This social criticism blamed at Jews was effective because most Germans agreed to it and followed Hitler to put Jews away. Therefore, in an unstable society where a swift solution is demanded, social criticism directed at individuals can be very effective.

 

Whether social criticism should be directed at issues or individuals to be effective depends on the stability of the society. If the society is stable, like in the case of modern South Korea, citizens can make rational decisions and assess the situation based on plausible evidence. Therefore, it is more effective to criticize at issues like the tax system. On the other hand, if the society is relatively unstable, like in the case of Germany after World War I during the era of Hitler, citizens want a quick tangible solution and tend not to consider any evidence. Therefore, it is more effective to direct social criticism at individuals like Jews rather than complex time-consuming process involving social issues.

[anitarama]

Score: 4/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You have taken on a more generalized approach with your examples, which would in fact be stronger if you had explored a specific poverty-stricken area of the world.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Once again, try to be more concrete with your examples to really impress the marker. Perhaps mentioning the Walkerton water contamination or another similar to it.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Good resolution given, relating back to the examples mentioned previously.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's third law, although meant to explain our physical world, has implications far beyond what is only physical. This same concept can explain the social aspect of activism.

 

Activists strive to create a better society. No society is without their ailments. Poverty, racism, violence, crime plague many major North American cities. How can one go about creating a positive difference in these citites? In order to cause change, it needs to be accepted that there is a problem. Take poverty for example. It is easy to be critical of those who are poor. It is easy to blame these people for their own demise. But directing your criticism towards the individual is not going to solve the problem. In order to be effective, poverty must be addressed as a whole. The underlying root cause needs to be found in order to reduce its hold on the people. An activist crying out against those who are poor will not only have little success, but will be seen as insulting. However, if they directed their criticism at the issue, about why poverty exists, about how some people face greater barriers in society, only then will change begin. By alerting government and other social players to the issue, change can occur.

 

However, there are times when individuals are to blame for harm caused in society. Sometimes, it is better for an activist to directy aim their criticism at a specific target. Take for example a large industrial company that is causing water pollution in a city's drinking water resource. The activist in this case wants social change, and wants it fast. The best approach here would be to criticize the company directly and publicly. In doing so, the company receives negative media attention. Negative portrayal in the media can result in great economic loss. In order to downscale the damage, the company is likely to invest in ways to reduce its pollution. By publicly committing to making a positive change, their consumers' attitude may return to where it was previously and the company can resume being as profitable as before.

 

In order to be effective, social criticism needs to be directed in the right place. If a social problem exists, it is necessary to determine the cause in order to find a solution. Poverty is complex; many factors are at play and no individual can be held entirely responsible. In such a case, the issue must be addressed at a societal level. Pollution, although arguably a complex issue as well, can be addressed on an individual level. Someone is either causing pollution or they are not. They are being harmful to the environment. Or they are not. Here, directing criticism at the source is a way to cause change. The balance herein lies in determining the root cause. If the root cause of a problem can be laid on an individual social criticism should be directed at them. If the root cause of a problem is complex, or if those suffering are not at fault, the issue must be directed at a societal, and not individual level if change is to occur.

[anitarama]

Score: 4.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Very good definition of terms. Though you have explained your supporting example well, it is not a terribly strong one to fit this particular prompt, as issue vs. individual is hard to define for the gay marriage debate as there is not one particular individual who was criticized beforehand. Perhaps don't include the part about the previous times when the debate was more individual-focused and instead develop your argument as to why issues-based criticism is effective.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Good example, though more details about the event would have strengthen your paragraph.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): This is a solid Resolution Paragraph.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals. This statement means that we as a society should focus on judging and analysing the reasons behind what society does rather then towards the people that are taking part in the issues at hand. Social criticism is essentially the act of analysis and judgement towards an issue of society. In recent times there has been much debate over the idea to legalizegay marriage. Social criticism of this issue comes from two camps, those for and those against gay marriage. Both sides attack each other and one says that other'sbeliefs are unholy and the others say that the beliefs of the those attacking them are unreasonable. Making attacks and criticisms of each other lead nowhere and for many years gay marriage remained illegal. In recent years instead of focusing on the individuals, society and lawmakers focused on the issues at hand. The issues being, what defines marriage. Some believe that marriage is a religous act under god and religous texts claim that marriage can only be between between a man and a woman while others believe that state and religion should remain seperate and marriage is the union of two people. By not focusing on hating one another and rather at the issues that were the deeper cause of the debate, lawmakers were able to look at both sides of the issue and help change the laws that they felt were unjust and intolerent. Gay marriage is now allowed in a few states including New York and is in the process of being legalized in other states. Focusing on the issues did help to resolve the problems at hand but since many people would be affected, more time was needed for a deeper analysis.

 

It may not always be in the best interest of society to focus on the issue rather then the indiviudal. For as long as society has existed, there have always been hate crimes.Hate crimes are crimes directed to people due to things such as racism and intolerence. In the mid 90's in the state of texas, a group of adults were found to have beaten, tortured and killed a person only for one reason, because he was gay. It is the very issue of intolerence that lead to the innocent mans death but by focusing on the issues at hand, nothing could have been done quickly to bring justice. Society and law therefore needed to focus on the individuals involved in the issue. The few individuals were tried with commiting a hate crime and recieved life sentences. Although this did not do much to resolve the issue of intolerence, the intolerent ones recieved punishment for their actions quickly and justice was served.

 

As we can see sometimes it is more effective to direct social criticsm at the issues and other times it is more effective to direct it at individuals. What the deciding factor on what criticism should be focused on is the scope of how many people the issue would affect and how fast we need justice to be served. In the case of legalizing gay marriage, it affects many people so it was therefore better to focus on the issues at hand so that fair laws could be made that reflect the views of society. Since many people would be affected, more time would be needed to look at the issue from both sides; in this case focus on the issue is more appropriate. On the other hand, in the case of the Texans who beat, tortured and killed the gay person, the scope of the event involved only a few people and justice needed to be served quickly so it was more effective for social criticism to be effected towards the individuals. Social criticism ultimately resulted in justice but the means of attacking the issues differ due to the scope of the issue at hand and the amount of people affected by the justice that is served.

[anitarama]

Score: 5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Your introduction is rather long, you can cut it down a bit and put more emphasis on the example to allow more time to explore it further.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Well-explained refuting argument.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Very good resolution criteria.

 

To be effective, social criticism should be directed at issues, not at individuals.

 

Society is by no means defined as a single person, it is a group of people who function as a whole under the same laws and freedoms. Therefore in order to improve something within society, criticisms should be directed towards social issues as opposed to individuals. Usually within a society, there are certain ways of thinking that the majority follows. We become socialized to live our lives following certain conformities and freedoms. For the most part it is not one specific individual who chooses how a society functions. It is something that is accepted and followed by generations of people. When one wants to change something within society, the issue must be challenged, to be effective.

For example, the attitude that many people have towards gay marriage is an issue that should be criticized, not an individual. Many people have been socialized to believe that gay marriage is wrong. This is not necessarily the result of one person planting this in people's minds, but the attitude that society has held for generations. Therefore when analyzing these attitudes and trying to change them, one must direct criticism towards the actual issue at hand, as opposed to a specific individual, in order to be more effective.

 

However, there are times when social criticism should not be directed at an issue, but at individuals in order to be more effective. During the Holocaust, Hitler and the Nazi party tried to eradicate all races and religions that did not fall under their perfect Aryan criteria. They used fear to make people turn on their neighbours and do terrible things to others just because of what they believed in or the colour of their skin. In this situation, in order to be effective, criticisms needed to be directed towards individuals, Hitler and his party, who did an excellent job of creating chaos throughout a nation. They gained too much power by making people believe in what they were doing. In this case, Hitler and his party were the ones creating this disaster and criticisms needed to be directed at them, as opposed to any issues in order to be effective and stop what they were creating.

 

Therefore, the question is when should social criticisms be directed at an individual or at an issue in order to be more effective. The cause of the problem must be determined in order for criticism to be most effective. It must be directed at issues when it is a longstanding principle that people have been socialized to believe for generations. As in the example with gay marriage laws, many people have just grown up believing that it is wrong. It is ingrained in the minds of a large number of people and in order to address the problem effectively, the actual issue must be examined. Criticisms need to be directed at individuals when one person or a group of people, who hold a great deal of power, try to change a society for the worst. In the case of Hitler, he tried to create a racist, discriminatory society, by trying to eradicate all races and religious views that he did not like. This kind of dictator-like quality, needs to be addressed by directly criticizing individuals as opposed to an issue to be effective.

[anitarama]

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the popular music of a generation might not reject the conventions of previous generations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the Forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Scorer

Anita Ramakrishna is a medical student at McMaster University

 

Deadline

11:59pm Friday August 5.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Saturday August 6.

[ecobeco]

I haven't had much practice in writing essays for the MCAT (actually I haven't had any practice) but here goes:

 

Each generation brings into the world new people with new tastes in music. Recently, the popularity of certain genres of music always

seems to fluctuate - depending on the status of the world at the time. The rise of house, R&B and electronic music serves to

signify the rapid advances in technology that have taken place over the last few decades. Long gone are the mellow tunes of

The Beatles or the melancholic melodies of Pink Floyd. Instead, today's radio stations are constantly buzzing with songs that

portray single gangster men going out to a metaphorical club, looking for girls to take home for the night and smoking various drugs for

personal pleasure, all while shooting up opposing gang members. This type of music seems to be very popular today, and completely rejects

the conventions of generations gone-by, which placed emphasis on "being happy" and "not worrying". This is not to say that the youth of today

do not listen to Bob Marley - more teenagers are smoking marijuana and committing crimes now than ever before. However, the message is no longer

the same. Bob Marley preached for peace, while artists today such as "soulja Boy" make millions of dollars rapping about their Friday nights and

seem to support violence and criminal behaviour.

 

However, this has not always been the case throughout history. The music of the Baroque and Classical Eras serves to remind us of the fact that

music has not always undergone such fluctuations in popularity. The music of the classical era, made famous by composers such as Mozart and Beethoven,

is not so much different that that of Handel and Bach written a century previously. There is, of course, marked differences between Beethoven's

Sonata Pathetique and Bach's Preludes and Fugues, but these differences are not in stark contrast to each other. Peace and violence are two completely

opposite ideas, whereas fugal development of melody does not differ greatly from "sturm und drung" effects achieved by Beethoven in his works.

 

It seems as though the popularity of music has been fluctuating at a much greater degree in recent decades than ever before. The majority of the world

population is between the ages of 14-30 and consequently, the popularity of music is by and large determined by teenagers and young adults. It is rare

to see the average teenager today describe to you the works of Schubert or Wagner if they do not have a background in musical history or have a personal

interest in such music. What determines whether or not the popular music of one generation rejects the conventions of previous generations seems to be

the lives of the aforementioned individuals belonging to the age group 14-30. Today, many more songs are dedicated to gang life and pursuing your

fantasies at ridiculously expensive resorts, and less and less songs seem to deal with the morals and virtues that have been around for millenia.

[Alchemist11]

Thanks a lot!

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, it is important to analyze the keywords "popular", "generation", and the phrase "rejects the conventions". Popular refers to music that is mainstream, in other words, a significant amount of people listen to a certain style of music. Also, the people who do not listen to this music are probably still aware of its existence. In terms of defining generation, it refers to each generation of children and adults. As the children grow into adulthood and many have their own children, a new generation begins. Each of these generations can be characterized by the types of popular music they listen to, which generally changes as new artists are constantly becoming popular and older ones retiring. By "rejecting the conventions" the statement refers to the idea that newer music does not necessarily stem from older music. In fact, newer music may be completely different than the generation before it, and therefore any traditions or conventions utilized by previous generations may not apply when looking at a newer generation of music. Overall, the statement is asserting that as every generation of music comes into fruition to appeal to a young set of individuals, the facets and traditions of previous generations of music do not relate to this newer music. For example, consider a revolutionary artist such as Michael Jackson. Part of the reason why he was so popular was because he mastered a certain style of music that was present on his most famous albums. This style of music was not exactly the same as previous generations' music, in fact it was quite different which was partially why he was so popular. In this case, Michael Jackson's new style of music was likely to reject the conventions of older music because it was a different style and because Michael Jackson revolutionized pop music.

 

However, popular music from each generation does not necessarily have to reject the conventions of previous generations. Consider the example of the development of classical music, from Bach to Mozart and everyone in between. Although true that there are many subtle differences in the way each of these composers create music, to the regular listener, it would not be extremely easy to differentiate between many composers. This is because the composers' music uses the same instruments and have many other similarities. It is clear that the similarities between different composers' work shows that the music they created did not reject any previous generations of music. Instead, these composers put their own spin on it and stemmed out from earlier composers, by perhaps adding or removing some instruments or changing certain rhythyms. However, very few if any composers completely neglected all previous generations work on composing and did something totally different. Thus in this situation, the popular music from composers does not reject conventions from previous generations.

 

The style of the music in question, and its change through the generations, is the criteria for whether popular music rejects the conventions of previous generations. In the first example regarding Michael Jackson, the reason why his music was likely to reject conventions of previous generations was because the style or genre of his music was not as popular before him. Not only did he perform his style of music well, but it was refreshing and unique because it had not been seen before the 70s and 80s. In this case, the rejection of conventions of previous generations occurred because he was performing a relatively new style. On the other hand, the example regarding the composers shows that the style of music - instrumental/classical, was still the same. Thus, even though the music changed slightly over time, because the style did not change an extreme amount, there was no rejection of previous generations. When the style of music changes drastically from one generation to the next, it is likely that popular music will reject the conventions of previous generations. On the other hand, when the music from one generation to the next is quite similar, and in the same genre, it is unlikely that the conventions of previous generations will be rejected.

[stars#9]

Thank you for your feedback. It is very much appreciated. A bit of trouble getting started on this one and again ran out of time to edit...

 

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

 

Turn off that racket!

This phrase has been used countless times by parents as they criticize the music that their children listen to. The referral of modern tunes as "noise" is also a common expression. As parents love to point out, the music they listened to as teens was so different and of much better quality. But was it?

 

Popular music changes by generation. As fads phase in and out, pop culture moulds as musicians attempt to create a unique sound. Generation by generation, pop music tends to blend from one sound to the next in order to keep their fan base. Popular music of today ranges from upcoming female artists like Katy Perry, Lay Gaga to bands including the like of These Boys Wear Crowns, NIckelback and more. It is true. If we compare these artists to the The Beatles, popular music from the generation before us, very little similarity wil be found. The soft, mellow tunes of "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles is not comparable to the upbeat music of "Born This Way" by Lady Gaga. The music was written on different conventions, or conformities, of what was popular at their respective moments in time. Modern "popular" music is so different from music in past, that it is as though artists reject there predecessors as they aim to be unique. Outside of the opera, how often do hear people cruising along in their car listening to Mozart?

 

Yet, despite this seemingly rebellious act of music history, current artists do not always reject what was done before. Many times while listening to the radio, a teen is shocked to hear that their parents know the lyrics to their favourite, fresh out of the studio songs. How is this possible? Remixes. Songs from previous generations are very often redone by new current artists. They say that mimicry is the best form of flattery. These artists are recognizing the talents of musicians before them by acknowledging that their work is good. A remix will keep many of the same conventions used by the original artists, lyrics for example, but put them to a new beat that parallels current popular music. Popular music thus does not completely reject what was before them.

 

So when is does an artist decide to make a remix and honour those musicians past, and when do they stick to making new, modern popular music? Popular music likes to be unique, it tries to separate from what was before. However, it is not complete rejection as elements from past generations do creep in, especially when artists decide to remake a song. When music is going through a transition, it needs to create a solid foundation of what it is. It must reject the conventions of past generations as it determines what separates it from the popular music of before. Once this is established, then it is possible to incorporate old ideas. A beginning artist, like the genre of popular music, will want to create an album of their own before remixing a song from a past great. If an artist begins by making a remix, just as if popular music does not separate itself first, they risk being labelled a mere carbon copy of the past.

[Stainless0]

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback!

 

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Music exists as a means to express one's self. The popular songs of a generation can be used as a way to observe the viewpoints and opinions of that time in history. It can be noted that the type of songs released and that are popular at one point in time are often quite different than those in another decade. Often the popular songs are favored by youth and serve as a way to express their opinions, often countering those opinions and conventions held by their parents and members of the previous generation. This serves as a basis to say that the music of one generation might reject the previous generation's way of thinking and social conventions. The cultural revolution throughout the 1960's is quite a drastic demonstration of this argument. The conservative customs of the previous generation were ignored and altered drastically by the hippies and baby boomers during this time. Large music festivals like Woodstock, featuring bands like The Who, with their song "My Generation", and Bob Dylan, with his song, "TImes are Changing", illustrate the music calling for a change in convention in society.

 

On the other hand, some may argue that the themes in music are universal and often convey similar messages, regardless of what era the song is from. Often these songs express a desire to create a place in society and to be independent. Essentially the theme expressed is that the new generation wants to prove to their elders they can take care of themselves adequately and can contribute to society in their own way. Remakes of popular songs from the past are excellent demonstrations of this. Songs like "Behind Blue Eyes" by the Who and redone by Limp Bizkit show that many of these songs of previous generations are still relevant today and the messages they express have the same effect.

 

Thus, perhaps popular music doesn't fully reject the conventions of the previous generation, but instead remodel some universal theme to fit the opinions of a new generation. Whether it be the yearning for independence, to make a unique mark on the world, or proving self-sufficiency, these desires remain relevant across time. The cultural revolution was a drastic change in society, but in the end, the youth were expressing their thirst for independence and looking to show their parents they can do just fine on their own. After all, everybody wants to find their place and make their mark in the world.

[natalie]

This is my first time posting and I'm a little worried, but any feedback would really help.

 

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the popular music of a generation might not reject the conventions of previous generations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

With every generation comes a new suite of popular music. While the music of the 1970s focused heavily on the concepts of free love and humanity coming together in peace and harmony, the music of the 1980s, while varied, had other focuses. The advent of popular rap music occured, which was centered around hardships, and the past, emphasizing the negative aspects of the then current society. Music about gangs and violence began by the late 1980s which was strongly opposed to previous generations' music conventions. This trend in music continued, even received a resurgence, in the new millenium, with even stronger overtones of violence and crime. This can only be recognized as a rejection of the past in a new generation's attempt to identify themselves as individuals apart from their predecessors.

 

However, in many cases the music of subsequent generations has clear roots in music of previous generations, with subtle, but important, developments. Further back in time, there was the development of rock-and-roll music. While this fast-paced, fun music was entirely new to the youth of the day, and wholly embraced by them, it was quickly rejected with vigour by a large portion of the adult population. This was mostly in response to the subjects of the music, deemed inappropriate to engage in or discuss in public. However, there was a very strong, and now heavily-studied, connection between rock-and-roll music and the earlier Blues genre of African-Americans. Elvis Presley, one of the most recognized names in early rock, has even been accused of simply imitating the music of the Blues genre with new lyrics, and bringing it to Caucasian populations as something innovative.

 

The conventions of popular music in each generation can rarely be predicted, and are often shocking and apalling to the generations before. Whether the new music will be embraced by the young generation, however, is often based on its differentiation, or more specifically, it's apparent differentiation from the music that they identify with their parents. As youth reach adolescence and attempt to identify themselves both as idividuals, apart from their families, and as part of a new group, among their peers, the venue of music is a place to find common ground with peers and reject the trends of the past. The more violent rap music became, the more rejected it was by the previous generation, and more appreciated it became by the new generation. In the case of rock-and-roll, the sexually-suggestive lyrics that were apalling to their parents were embraced by the youth. One of the greatest deciding factors in whether a new development in music will become a popular trend is how strongly it evokes the feeling among adolescents that the genre is unique and their own. Every generation wants to feel as though their lives are unprecedented, and music is one of the primary ways that a generation can share this feeling of community with one another and segregate themselves from the generation before them.

[bored]

We see it with various types of art all the time. It is a field of work that is always changing, and the reason it changes is because people change and our values change as time passes us by. Poplar music is arguably one of the best ways to make money in the modern era. It composes of music videos of various artists with very nice cars and girls all around them in their music videos. This popular music genre described is Hip Hop. Hip Hop became popular in the 21st century. If one were to analyse a Hip Hop music video, they would find that all of the music videos have large amount of cars, girls and profanities. What makes this genre popular is that that is what the youths of our time are being exposed to throughout their life. These Hip Hop artists abuse this power and make music videos that suit the society to make profit. Hip Hop is a very new brand of music that has totally removed the limitations set up by the previous generations of popular music, the older music of the 19th century became popular by the lyrics, not be the actual video. Take the Beetles for example; their music focuses on presenting meaningful lyrics to the society. Hip Hop totally rejects this idea, and instead focuses on making a more appealing music video and making very loud lyrics.

 

The popularity of Hip Hop can be attributed to the liberalism of the North American society. It allows just about anything to be shown to the kids on TV and radio. In other countries such as many European and many eastern nations, the influence of Hip Hop is very little. The values of youths in these countries have not been tainted by westernism and the choice of music of their youths shows that. In these nations, music is still listened to for the lyrical meaning rather than the appealing music video and the profanities. The parents of these nations still teach their children to listen to music with meaningful lyrics as in the olden times. The most albums sold in these countries are still by artists who choose to focus more on the lyrics rather than the actual music video. Take my family for example, we all listen to the same type of music, this same type is enjoyed by me and my father as well as my brother. We do not have to fight for the radio in the car; we both enjoy the same classical music that is loved by many. This, I believe is because my values and beliefs towards life are very much similar to those of my father. I was thought the same things he was thought when he was little, he thought these to me and if I were to teach the same values and beliefs to by children, then I am sure their choice of music will resemble ours.

 

Thus, the primary determinant of popular music is the values and the beliefs that the youths of the civilization holds, because youths are after all the people with time to listen to music. The values and beliefs of western nations are very liberal when it comes to what children see on the TV, and that allows music like Hip Hop to rise. Hip Hop destroys all the conventions and limitations of the older style of popular music and chooses to incorporate what the youth of todays western civilization wants. Westernism however has not yet tainted all of Eastern and European nations; there are still many countries where the most popular music still uses the conventions that the last generation of music used. The kids and the parents of these countries both listen to the same type of music because both the child and the parent have the same set of values and beliefs. That however is not the case in the western civilization. The parent has very little control over the child’s beliefs and values, instead the society has much more power, and society dictates that children must listen to Hip Hop because it is more appealing to the youths.

[slumdogMD]

Thanks!

 

An effective leader must possess the ability not only to deal with current problems, but also to anticipate future ones.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a leader might be effective without anticipating future problems. Discuss what you think determines whether or not it is necessary for a leader to anticipate future problems.

 

 

Politicians ought be able to merge the ability to deal with current problems and the ability to anticipate future problems when the issues surround national security. In the context of politics, anticipation future problems is the ability to propose legislation that serves to prevent problems that may arise later. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposed legislation of the Anti Terrorism Act in 2004. After the onset of the attacks on the twin towers in september of 2001, the threat of terrorism became the main issue for Canada's national sercurity. Stephan Harper proposed the flexibility of police searches on suspicious individuals believed to be part of Al-Quida. The legislation included faster times of obtaining warrents, increasing the amount of time of detaining a suspect, and the increase of survailance on suspects. This legislation was to be instill for the upcoming 5 years, just long enough to ensure that the threat of terrorism that was arising from the Afganistan could be controlled by Canadian forces. In this case, Staphan Harper's proposed legislation not only dealt with the current problem of terrorism, but also anticipated the increased threat of terrorism that may occur due to the war in Afganistan.

 

However, in the case of proposing legislation that is to increase economic wellbeing, a politician may be effective without anticipating future problems. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposed legislation of increasing taxes in order to stabilize Canada financially. With the onset of the American economic crisis, Stephan Harper set out to increase taxes on goods and services by 2%. This drastic increase was thought to bring Canada into a state of financial security quickly so that the economic downturn that was occuring in America would not spill over to Canada. Analysts were urging for a smaller tax increase, arguing that tax increases of such a scale would put Canada into a consumer buying crisis a few years down the line. Nevertheless, the legislation was enstilled 3 months after the initial proposal and Stephan Harper was able to avoid Canada from having an economic downturn. In this case, Stephan Harper was able to be effective without anticipating the future problems of consumer buying because economic stability was needed now, rather than later.

 

Whether or not it is necessary for a politician to anticipate future problems depends on whether or not the issues surround national security. Since a politicians primary obligation is to protect his or her citizens, protecting citizens ought to be an ongoing fight and the continous anticipation of future threats must occur. In the case of Harpers legislation of Terrorism, anticipation was needed because the issues surrounded national sercurity. However, in the case of the tax increases, antication was not needed since the issues did not surround national security.

In politics, good intentions cannot justify bad actions.

[slumdogMD]

In politics, good intentions cannot justify bad actions.

Describe a specific situation in which good intentions in politics might justify a bad action. Discuss what you think determines whether or not good intentions in politics can justify bad actions.

 

Often in politics, a good intention goes un-praised when bad occurrances arise on national national security. In the context of politics, a good intention is the proposal of legislation that is intended to increase the nations well-being. Take for example Stephan Harper's proposal of increasing funding in the education sector in order to cut the cost of pursuing post-secondary education for Canadian citizens. In 2006, after continous out-cry from university and colleges students asking for a decrease in tuition costs, Stephan Harper proposed to increase funding for education by 1.5 billion dollars. Although the goal was to increase funding for education while at the same time maintianing other aspects of Canada's treasure funding, many financial analysts argued that the increase for educational funding directly lead to a decrease in funding for Canadian armed forces. The deaths of 5 Canadian soldiers who died in Afganistan because they ran out of bullets was pinned on Stephan Harper. The weeks that followed their deaths included many newspapers and journals blaming Harper for deaths of soldiers. In this case, Harper's good intention of increasing educational funding lead to a decrease in funding for national security and the subsequent deaths of soldiers in the battle field due to not having enough resources. His good intentions were not justified and thus was scrutinized by themedia and journalists.

 

However, in the case were good intentions lead to bad occurances that do not involve national security, the good intentions are justified. Take for example Stephan Harper's legislation for the increase of tax in order to stabilize Canada's financial situation. In 2005, Harper proposed a legislation to increase tax by 2% of goods and services. The idea was that since America's economy was in a devastating crisis, that an increase on consumer tax would allow Canada from falling into the same pit-hole as America. Three years after the increase in goods and service tax, Canada's currency took a sharp and sudden fall, leaving many wondering what the main cause was. Analysts were blaming Harper's increase on tax as the main driving force behind the currency drop since citizens were not able to spend as much on new purchases as before. Nevertheless, the blame quickly subsided and journalists turning to ideas of increasing Canada's currency back to where it was previsously rather that bashing Harper for his legislation. In this case, Harper's good intention of stabilizing Canada's economy led to the bad action of a sharp decrease in currency. However, his good intentions justified the bad action and journalists and media spokes men directed their attention to finding a solution to the currency decrease.

 

Whether or not good intentions in politics justify bad actions depends on if the bad action surrounded national security. Since a politians main obligation is to protect his or her citizens, bad actions that occur on national security ought not be justified by good intentions. In the case of Harper's increase in educational funding leading to the deaths of soldiers, his good intention were not justified since the bad action involved a decrease in national security. However, in the case of Harper's increase in taxes leading to currency drop, his good intention was justified since the bad actions did not involve national security.

[ecobeco]

slumdogPREMED, this thread is for essays about the specific prompts posted each week. Check back a page or two to see the prompt its about the popularity of music.

[Kovah]

Thanks!

 

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

Describe a specific situation in which the popular music of a generation might not reject the conventions of previous generations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Each generation has its own unique music which encompasses ideals and styles which are different from anything that came before them. It is difficult to point to one particular style of music which could be considered “the popular music” of that time period or that generation of youth. Musical tastes vary between social groups and ages, not just between generations, but popular music finds its identity in how popular it is with the youth of the time. Overall, however, the popular music which is most widely listened to and aired by radio stations and TV channels, often rejects the conventions that were held by the previous generations. These conventions are the opinions about social issues and how to approach them. For example, the popular music of the seventies can be exemplified by the progressive rock band, Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was known as progressive not only because of its new and sureal style of music, but because of the provocative motifs that were presented in its lyrics. The song, Another Brick in the Wall, and its line “we don’t need no education”, point to the fact that many of the youth of that decade were not interested in becoming the young man or woman that their parents expected them to be. They, just like every other generation, wanted to plan their own future and create their own goals.

 

However, the music most widely listened to by the youth of any particular generation does not always rejected the conventions of previous generations. The musical conventions and styles that were developed in the seventies still influence the popular music of today. Alternative rock bands, such as Green Day, have become quite popular in the past few years. Yet the style of Green Day uses an adaptation of the guitar riffs that were created by bands like Def Leppard thirty years ago. Hence, the stylistic conventions of the popular music of previous generations is not rejected by the popular music of today. In fact it is influenced by previous music.

 

What determines whether or not the popular music of a generation rejects the conventions of the previous generation depends on the type of convention being discussed. Popular music, such as Pink Floyd, often rejects and even speaks out against the social ideas that are held by the previous generation, by proclaiming a desire for freedom. However, popular musical bands such as Green Day draw on the musical ideas that were discovered by the previous generation to create a new kind of music.

[anitarama]

slumdogPREMED, this thread is for essays about the specific prompts posted each week. Check back a page or two to see the prompt its about the popularity of music.

 

Correct. I will only mark essays for the prompt for the current timeframe. If you miss out on a few, it's fine, there will most likely be a fresh prompt up for you to try out.

[anitarama]

Score: 3.5/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): You have given some examples here, but the way in which current music rejects the ideals of previous generations is not necessarily explored, as you have in fact outlined quite a few similarities between the past and present music styles. Try to save such arguments for your Refuting Paragraph to make your first example stronger.

 

Task 2 (Refuting): This is a better example, though I feel you could have gone more in depth into the similarities found in Classical and Baroque music.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): Though you have stated that it is the daily occurences i the lives of youg adults that affects whether musical styles change, you have not explained why you feel current daily lives are changing for the youth but did not change in the Classical and Baroque eras.

 

Miscellaneous: Remember to complete each task fully with depth and explanation to get the highest marks possible.

 

Each generation brings into the world new people with new tastes in music. Recently, the popularity of certain genres of music always

seems to fluctuate - depending on the status of the world at the time. The rise of house, R&B and electronic music serves to

signify the rapid advances in technology that have taken place over the last few decades. Long gone are the mellow tunes of

The Beatles or the melancholic melodies of Pink Floyd. Instead, today's radio stations are constantly buzzing with songs that

portray single gangster men going out to a metaphorical club, looking for girls to take home for the night and smoking various drugs for

personal pleasure, all while shooting up opposing gang members. This type of music seems to be very popular today, and completely rejects

the conventions of generations gone-by, which placed emphasis on "being happy" and "not worrying". This is not to say that the youth of today

do not listen to Bob Marley - more teenagers are smoking marijuana and committing crimes now than ever before. However, the message is no longer

the same. Bob Marley preached for peace, while artists today such as "soulja Boy" make millions of dollars rapping about their Friday nights and

seem to support violence and criminal behaviour.

 

However, this has not always been the case throughout history. The music of the Baroque and Classical Eras serves to remind us of the fact that

music has not always undergone such fluctuations in popularity. The music of the classical era, made famous by composers such as Mozart and Beethoven,

is not so much different that that of Handel and Bach written a century previously. There is, of course, marked differences between Beethoven's

Sonata Pathetique and Bach's Preludes and Fugues, but these differences are not in stark contrast to each other. Peace and violence are two completely

opposite ideas, whereas fugal development of melody does not differ greatly from "sturm und drung" effects achieved by Beethoven in his works.

 

It seems as though the popularity of music has been fluctuating at a much greater degree in recent decades than ever before. The majority of the world

population is between the ages of 14-30 and consequently, the popularity of music is by and large determined by teenagers and young adults. It is rare

to see the average teenager today describe to you the works of Schubert or Wagner if they do not have a background in musical history or have a personal

interest in such music. What determines whether or not the popular music of one generation rejects the conventions of previous generations seems to be

the lives of the aforementioned individuals belonging to the age group 14-30. Today, many more songs are dedicated to gang life and pursuing your

fantasies at ridiculously expensive resorts, and less and less songs seem to deal with the morals and virtues that have been around for millenia.

[anitarama]

Score: 4/6

 

Task 1 (Supporting): Great job defining important terms, as it really set up the rest of your essay. Good example. I know it's difficult to explain things like musical styles, but this paragraph would have been even stronger if you had perhaps mentioned what musical aspects Michael Jackson had "rejected" (eg. beat, rhythm, melody, etc.).

 

Task 2 (Refuting): Here you have attempted to actually explain what those differences were or weren't between certain musical styles in more detail, which made this a stronger and more fleshed out example.

 

Task 3 (Resolution): This criteria is slightly confusing, and it may just be the wording, but it seems somewhat cyclical. You say that Michael Jackson performed a new style of music because it was a style no one else before him had attempted, yet Bach and Mozart continued along a similar musical path because it was popular. These are in fact diametrically different situations, though you have not given a reason as to why these two situations arose and both were popular. Remember that your criteria can not simply explain that your two examples are different - as you have already done that in your first two paragraphs - but it must explain why these differing circumstances can occur and still both be valid.

 

In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, it is important to analyze the keywords "popular", "generation", and the phrase "rejects the conventions". Popular refers to music that is mainstream, in other words, a significant amount of people listen to a certain style of music. Also, the people who do not listen to this music are probably still aware of its existence. In terms of defining generation, it refers to each generation of children and adults. As the children grow into adulthood and many have their own children, a new generation begins. Each of these generations can be characterized by the types of popular music they listen to, which generally changes as new artists are constantly becoming popular and older ones retiring. By "rejecting the conventions" the statement refers to the idea that newer music does not necessarily stem from older music. In fact, newer music may be completely different than the generation before it, and therefore any traditions or conventions utilized by previous generations may not apply when looking at a newer generation of music. Overall, the statement is asserting that as every generation of music comes into fruition to appeal to a young set of individuals, the facets and traditions of previous generations of music do not relate to this newer music. For example, consider a revolutionary artist such as Michael Jackson. Part of the reason why he was so popular was because he mastered a certain style of music that was present on his most famous albums. This style of music was not exactly the same as previous generations' music, in fact it was quite different which was partially why he was so popular. In this case, Michael Jackson's new style of music was likely to reject the conventions of older music because it was a different style and because Michael Jackson revolutionized pop music.

 

However, popular music from each generation does not necessarily have to reject the conventions of previous generations. Consider the example of the development of classical music, from Bach to Mozart and everyone in between. Although true that there are many subtle differences in the way each of these composers create music, to the regular listener, it would not be extremely easy to differentiate between many composers. This is because the composers' music uses the same instruments and have many other similarities. It is clear that the similarities between different composers' work shows that the music they created did not reject any previous generations of music. Instead, these composers put their own spin on it and stemmed out from earlier composers, by perhaps adding or removing some instruments or changing certain rhythyms. However, very few if any composers completely neglected all previous generations work on composing and did something totally different. Thus in this situation, the popular music from composers does not reject conventions from previous generations.

 

The style of the music in question, and its change through the generations, is the criteria for whether popular music rejects the conventions of previous generations. In the first example regarding Michael Jackson, the reason why his music was likely to reject conventions of previous generations was because the style or genre of his music was not as popular before him. Not only did he perform his style of music well, but it was refreshing and unique because it had not been seen before the 70s and 80s. In this case, the rejection of conventions of previous generations occurred because he was performing a relatively new style. On the other hand, the example regarding the composers shows that the style of music - instrumental/classical, was still the same. Thus, even though the music changed slightly over time, because the style did not change an extreme amount, there was no rejection of previous generations. When the style of music changes drastically from one generation to the next, it is likely that popular music will reject the conventions of previous generations. On the other hand, when the music from one generation to the next is quite similar, and in the same genre, it is unlikely that the conventions of previous generations will be rejected.

[MCATprepper]

Music is a very powerful form of media. It can provoke different emotions in people and has even been influencial in making drastic changes in society like breaking down racial barriers and changing societal norms. Popular music is the well known songs that most people of a given generation are familiar with and recognize when heard. The popular music of one generation however, may be very different from that of another generation. In this sense, generation refers to a similar group of people in regards to age, while their parents or children would be considered a different generation. Often, one generation rejects the conventions, or societal norms of previous groups of people. The most powerful examples of this is when one group is very different from the preceeding one due to major changes and turning points in a society. For example, the music of Elivs Presley started in the 1950s and was very controversial. His lyrics and how he physically presented his music with pelvic thrusts and other suggestive body language was viewed as very suggestive and inappropriate. His music also aimed to break down racial barriers. Overall, his music disgusted some, but these were mainly the people of the previous generation. The people who grew up at the same time that Elvis' music was becoming popular, were not opposed to his views and his music became known worldwide and as a result he has become known as one of the most famous musicians of the past. This example demonstrates how one group of people can have strongly differing views on music compared to future generations. This is only one of many examples of this concept and it explains why music has evolved so much throughtout time.

 

In some cases, we hear songs on the radio that are considered old and we also hear remakes of songs from past generations. In this case, current music does not reject the conventions of music from the past. For example, a recent popular hit among young people is Alyssa Reid's "Alone Again". This song is a remake of Celine Dion's "Alone", which can be considered music of the previous generation as the current group of people does not listen to many of Celine Dion's songs. The only explanation as to why Reid's song is popular is that people can still relate to it and the lyrics are still considered relevent to current society. Thus, the peers of today must relate in some way to their parents. This example is not an exception but rather something we see often where music is being remade or past songs are becoming popular once again. This is evidence that music does not always progress with the rejection of previous conventions.

 

There seems to be a discrepancy because at times, popular music acts to change the norms of the past, but it may also embrace those norms. The difference lies in how much the society itself is changing. When major movements are occurring like breaking down racial barriers in Elvis' time, the music is a reflection of these changes which are not embraced by people of the past. However, when society has not experienced significant changes, like that of today's youngest generation compared to the previous, music has a very similar message and thus is relatable to more than one generation. This can be seen with music remakes or the regaining of popularity of past songs. Music is a reflection of present times and often changes its message due to changes in society.

[DoItYourself]

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Each new generation in one form or another, rebels against their parents in order to stand out. Music is no exception. With each advancing generation, the popular music differs from the common trend of the previous decade. Within the past few years, one may have noticed the tend towards the introduction of technically altered voices with the rise of Autotune. People no longer require a profound voice in order to become successful in the music industry. They simply require a good production team with the funds and the equipment. This significant difference from previous eras is largely due to technological advancements. The criteria that once defined an individual as a “good musician” is no longer necessarily relevant today.

 

However, the popular music from one generation can bleed into the next as some bands stand out as icons from multiple generations. The Beatles, for example, have produced hundreds of songs over a lengthly period of time. Once realizing how widespread their fanbase was, the group had no reason to alter their conventions used. The very fact that it touches people of a broad age range, of numerous ethnicities and financial backgrounds proves just how relevant they are.

 

Typically, the popular music of each generation differs from the previous as a result of societal factors that influence the writers, however, popular music of one generation does not always reject the previous era when a band has great popularity. As demonstrated, the music of the recent 2000’s is defined by advancements in technology which have led artists to be able to perfect their every note is clearly different from the sound of the 1960’s in which the hippie lifestyle influenced a period of disco music. Further, when a band is successful in maintaining a lengthly career, their musical influence tends to lessen the amount of change that in seen between generations.

[tsuki_123]

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Task #1:

As an individual matures, they absorb much of the culture they grew up in – this culture undoubtedly shapes their taste in music. However, as generations pass, musical style evolves and the musical taste of the new generation may disfavour contemporary music genres. For example, many people who were born in the 1960’s would much prefer a type music that has been trendy during the period, such as blues music. Their children would be quick to change the radio station if they heard their parents’ old-school music, and instead turn the knob to “Chum-FM radio” for current, popular music. Hence, when the popular music of each generation is compared, there are sometimes disagreements and one generation rejects the musical conventions of the other.

 

Task #2:

However, when a generation falls right in between a conventional change, they will experience the cultures of both the old and new generations. This is also the case for those who have the luxury of being exposed to many genres of music; they will learn to appreciate them and they will be accepting of various musical genres, new and old. A person who enjoys the variety of jazz, pop, and classical music would definitely be more open to other musical genres than someone who always listens to just one type of music. Hence, this is an instance where a newer musical generation might not necessarily reject the musical culture of a previous generation.

 

Task #3:

The question then still remains – which factors determine whether or not the new musical conventions reject the old conventions? The answer lies in the musical openness of the generation in question. If the generation is very open to explore different types of music, then they would certainly be accepting of older musical conventions. If the new generation limits them to their own generation of music, they bias against other genres and they might not accept musical conventions of an older generation.

[pacemaker]

The popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations.

 

Music is a popular form of art that many have used to express their feelings, emotions and thoughts. Music is also known to be universal as it holds the power to touch the lives of many individuals around the world. Moreover, music can be used in various different contexts and for various different reasons. For example, music can be used for dancing, praying, expressing ones feelings to others and entertaining. The term popular music is used to refer to the kind of music that is well known and popular amongst individuals of a given time. In music, the term convention refers to the notion of tradition, tunes and melodies of music from the past. Over the last 50 years, music has gone through tremendous changes. As a result, many believe that popular music of each generation rejects the conventions of the previous generation. For example, since the 1970’s, hip-hop music has become quiet popular. It gained great respect and acceptance from the audience in the 1970’s, 1980’s and most of 1990’s. Hip-hop music is still quiet popular today. However, it is important to note the prior to the 1970’s, hip-hop music was not present. Younger generations in the 1970’s started this new form of music that was quiet innovative and thus, was able to capture the attention of the youth of that era. Given the vast amount of social changes that took place in the 1970’s, music also changed. As a result, a new and innovative style of music emerged which was well received by the audience.

 

In contrast, it is not always necessarily true that popular music of a given generation rejects the conventions of the previous generations. This is especially true if the goal is to create new pieces of music by incoporating both, old and new elements. As such, that music is not truly innovative but it strides to create something new while keeping the old traditions, tunes and melodies in mind. For example, bollywood music is quiet popular amongst South Asians and other individuals around the world. Most of bollywood music is still based on contemporary and classical Indian music. New pieces of music are created while still incorporating the traditional tunes and melodies. Moreover, remix music is also becoming quiet popular in Bollywood as older songs from the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s are being used in new contexts in terms of the accompanying video and new beats are also being applied to this old music. Moreover, it is also fascinating to note that most of the popular singers in bollywood originally start their musical training by learning Indian classical music since it plays a major role in Bollywood music as a whole. Thus, older conventions and traditions are kept alive in bollywood music. Much of bollywood music is based on older traditions, tunes and melodies while remix music in particular also used the lyrics from older songs to revive the memories and sentiments of the past generations.

 

Finally, music holds tremendous powers to affect individuals in various ways. Music can affect individuals on social and emotional levels. Due to the tremendous changes in music over the last 50 years, many beleive that popular much of each generation rejects the conventions of previous generations when the music is meant to be different and innovative. This was clearly illustrated in the example of hip-hop music that started out in 1970’s and has grown ever since. This form of music was not present prior to the 1970’s. It was mainly a result of new innovation in style and tunes by the young generation in the 1970’s and was well received by the audience. On the other hand, popular music of each generation does not necessarily reject the conventions of previous generations if the goal to create new pieces of music while incorporating older styles, tunes, methods etc into such new pieces. This was clearly illustrated in the example of Bollywood music. Most of bollywood music is still based on contemporary and Indian classical music. New pieces of music are created while still incorporating the traditional tunes. More specifically, remix music in Bollywood uses older songs from the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s used in new contexts in terms of the video and new beats are being applied to this old music which shows that famous tunes, lyrics and melodies from previous generations are used in different ways such that new pieces of music are created. Thus, conventions of a previous generation are not rejected but are rather accepted with pride.

 

Thanks!