Project

I wrote my essay on how Ticketmaster, an online ticket broker, gouges the consumer when they buy tickets online from them. With hidden fees, they often end up charging 30% more than the ticket is at face value. They’re essentially corporate ticket scalpers.

I decided to keep my project very simple in nature, in part because the message I had to send to people was simple as well. I know the final product looks somewhat bland, but I feel like it's the message that is the most important. I decided to make my image in the outline of a ticket stub, and to show that the price that it says you are paying for a ticket is never the actual amount of money that you end up paying. It's often 30-50% more, sometimes. I felt like including those hidden charges on the ticket will invoke an emotional response from the view; nobody likes having to pay more money than they have to.

I don’t feel like there’s a major difference in the presentation of my arguments. If I was better at Photoshop, I’d definitely make the ad more aesthetically pleasing, but there’s only so much I can do when there’s five other exams I have to take. I learned that there are main differences in the way you have to present your argument visually in order to grab their attention. There’s only a small amount of time you have to convince them that your argument is one that you should listen to. The challenges that this presents are very different than the essay. Rather than spreading out your argument over four or five pages, there are maybe 20 words at the most that you have in your arsenal. You have to make sure that every word has a purpose on the page, and that the image compliments the words well.

Cable TV vs. Network TV

HERE is the link to the article I referenced.

Television on the four major networks (broadcast TV) has hit a wall. Besides a few well written shows (House, LOST), most of the dramas on network TV are inferior to ones on cable. Gillian Reagan, a writer for Business Insider, said this was due to many reasons. She said the biggest problem the networks face is that many top flight shows are being picked up by cable networks, while broadcast TV is left with the scraps. Reagan says this occurs for three reasons; One is the switch (mainly NBC as of late) to substitute reality programming in lieu of scripted television. Secondly, networks often cancel a show before even finishing a seasons worth of programming. There is little chance for an audience to grow because of the broadcast executives quick trigger-fingers. On cable, most series almost always at least get one full season. Thirdly, programming is usually darker and much more realistic on cable than on traditional broadcasts.

I think this can be solved in a few ways. I think like with comedy shows, network dramas have become stale. Do we really need 3 CSI's and 2 NCIS's? They are basically the same show. Look at what is on cable right now. Dexter is about serial killer who works for Miami homicide. It's funny, creepy, and more unique than anything on networks. Breaking Bad is a great example as well. A teacher who gets terminal cancer, and decides to get into the business of selling meth.

Neither of those would have ever made it to the big four. What can they do? Be courageous. Give those who try out a new idea or intriguing story a chance and some money to bring their creation to life. I think the other huge thing that needs to happen for network dramas is to slash at least 5 episodes a season.

When you have to fill 23 episodes in a season, content gets stale. Most cable shows have around 13 episodes in a season. There is no "pointless" episode, usually. LOST is the best drama on TV right now, in my opinion, and since the third season, they've only had 16 episodes in a season. While there may be fewer advertising opportunities, the production cost of a show will go down, too. Now, you can spend more money on new shows, and improve the quality of the programming already running.

Argument of Evaluation

The review I chose to evaluate was Pitchfork's Review of the debut album of Arcade Fire, titled funeral. The reviewer's criteria is based on two things: it's quality, and the ability of the music to "heal".

The author notes in the beginning that our society has experienced great sorrow in recent years (this was written in 2004), and out of that sorrow came a feeling of emptiness, perhaps to act as a defense mechanism We all became cynical, and never saw the bright side of things. The author claims that this album is in fact a release of emotion and an attempt to look at the bright side of things in the darkest of days, something that was greatly needed in our society.

He supports his claim by facts, stating that several members of the group had lost close family members in the process of making their album, so the emotion shown in the song was more obvious, and according to the author, more real. Even when a song is at its most depressing point in the album, there appears to be a ray of hope that shines through, whether it be a powerful cord, an uplifting lyric, or a soothing image.

I think the criteria of the album needing to be emotional was very well established, and by the end of the review, I had a firm understanding of what went through the minds of the band while they made the album, as well as the opinion of the reviewer when listening to it. The only thing I think the reviewer could improve on is the paragraph following the intro. It takes a little bit to understand what the author is trying to convey

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/452-funeral/

Death of the album?

The article I chose centered on the idea of the death of the album from The Guardian's music blog. The writer argued that while the album may not be as important as it once was, it still serves a great purpose in the music industry.

He also tried to argue that the growing number of music journalists who are proclaiming the album dead are in fact hurting the music industry. He cited an example that many reviews for an album at the bottom of a web site will often include a box that tells the listener to "listen" to certain tracks, while skipping others. He argues that by encouraging potential buyers to not listen to the album, the reviewers actually use their ethos in a way that further diminishes the albums importance.

The overall stasis of the argument is one of definition, as each side makes a claim: one that the album is dead, and the other states that it is still alive, and music journalists are overstating its death.

In my opinion, each side has a valid set of ideals to base their arguments on. The side that believes the album as a proprietary means of selling music is dated would argue that the impact of the iPod and iTunes have had on the industry. They could also point out the massive decline in album sales, while singles have held steady.

The opposition could argue that with the internet, this decline was inevitable. There are still albums that sell millions (even Radiohead's In Rainbows with their online experiment reached #1), and the music industry has simply failed to adapt to this trend. They would also argue that declaring the album dead despite evidence of quality albums that are released is a sign of ignorance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/04/album-format-dead/print

Music Video Analysis: "Express Yourself" by N.W.A.

N.W.A. - New Music - More Music Videos

I was first drawn to this music video because N.W.A had some very controversial music videos, and presented another side of culture to Americans that had no idea it existed.

Right at the beginning of the video, there's a group of black slaves harvesting crops in warm temperature, as the white slave owner dominates over the workers. When one man stops working, the white man proceeds to whip him. The slaves then run from their masters, effectively, expressing themselves.The song hasn't even started yet, and the audience is already wanting more. A prime example of pathos, N.W.A. used some disturbing imagery to get across the point that the black man in America is repressed, and unable to express themselves.

The way ethos is used in this video is primarily in the group themselves. This was a rap group that formed in 1986, on the streets of L.A. They saw the injustices that blacks faced on a daily basis in their city. Of all people that would understand and could articulate the feelings of African Americans at the time, it would be N.W.A.

Finally, logos is used in the lyrics and video together, combining to logically show the people of America that not much has changed since the time of slavery, according to the group. Later in the video, the group is rapping while a cop on horseback tries to break it up. He fails. By the end of the video, Dr. Dre is now back on the farm, but now is on horseback, implying they are now in charge.