Causal Argument – Ilovemydog

Posted on March 10, 2024 by ilovemydog

Needs a Title

The main goal of music is self-expression. Classical writers dating back to the earliest forms of music expressed a theme or idea, like Vivaldi meticulously expressing the feelings involved with each season; fall, winter, spring, and summer. Music was created to show emotion and demonstrate strong feelings that are too difficult to put into words. However, the purpose of music is to transition into something more superficial. Producing music has become more about making money and less about producing a soulful song. Artists feel societal pressure to produce songs that will hit top charts from their managers and supervisors, rather than producing music they believe in. The lessoned autonomy of music due to the music industry controlling artists’ output has caused less personal and politically influential songs.  

The lessened autonomy of music directly stems from the music industry enforcing stricter protocols on their artists. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s, called the Golden Age of Music, artists had to sign more restrictive contracts. Signing with labels is almost 100% necessary for artists to be successful, but many of these contracts are not fair or equally as beneficial for the artist as the label. Not only are these contracts confusing and restricting, but many artists are young and naive, which means they are more likely to get a contract that takes advantage of them and their music. For example, LeAnn Rimes, a young country music star, had signed a contract with Curb Records at 12 years old and “might be 35 years old before she finished delivering the 21 albums, she owes the record company”, this star being one of many to this deal with the devil. Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but rather with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.  

Artists continue to be controlled outside their contracts with their own market-driven music production choices. Artists know which songs will hit the top charts in the modern day, therefore causing them to write shallow music that does not carry any weight. This essentially means that the need for money and fame outweighs their intrinsic motivation to write music. Similarly, artists are less likely to take any sort of political stand in their music during this modern era because of the intense “cancel culture” that follows all celebrities and artists. “Cancel culture” is a fairly new term with the rise of excessive social media use in which celebrities are “canceled” for specific actions or morals, and therefore lose their media presence and following, and usually a lot of money. Because artists can be so easily “canceled” on social platforms, the idea of writing a politically or socially vulnerable piece is not as appealing as writing a guarded, easy-to-win hit. While one might argue that social media makes it easier for listeners to have a deeper and more personal connection to the artist and their music, online culture is so toxic that many artists are afraid to let their listeners get that close. However, artists hiding their true intentions come with a price: less impactful music that is not causing the political form it used to. According to Youth Time Magazine, artists say “One of my greatest fears as an artist is being canceled as a musician,” which makes artists more “careful” so to speak when regarding any polar stances they take, whether on their social media or within their albums.  

This brings around a general point: the lack of politically relevant and influential music contributes to a reduced effect of music on listeners’ engagement with social and political issues. While artists are stuck in their contracts and “safety nets,” people turn to social media for political ideas rather than the previously largest type of media for common people: music. Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media. Artists are losing their grip on listeners because of their less involved music causing people to be less engaged with today’s societal issues.  

Music is meant to be challenging and force people to think outside of their comfort zones. Hearing of political ideas through different forms of media allows people to be constantly thinking about modern-day issues from different points of view. Artists failing to produce this complex music causes people to be disengaged, indifferent, or even worse, not aware of the injustice or problem in the first place. To revive music’s role as a form of social and political activism, artists should take advantage of social media campaigns. Artists from diverse backgrounds can collaborate on projects that highlight social and political issues from a global perspective and promote this music on their many platforms available. This not only advertises their music but promotes the political reform that music once provided many. The diminishing personal and political impact of music can largely be attributed to the music industry’s control over the creative output of artists, leading to a reduction in the production of personal and socially influential tracks. 

References  

Anderson, M. (2018, July 11). 1. public attitudes toward political engagement on social media. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/07/11/public-attitudes-toward-political-engagement-on-social-media/  

Herron, I. (2022, May 25). The complicated relationship of music and cancel culture. Youth Time Magazine: News that Inspires, Updates that Matter. https://youthtimemag.com/the-complicated-relationship-of-music-and-cancel-culture/  

Laura. (2001, September 6). Music stars complain about stringent contracts. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/06/business/music-stars-complain-about-stringent-contracts.html 

This entry was posted in Causal Argument, ILoveMyDog. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Causal Argument – Ilovemydog

  1. ilovemydog's avatar ilovemydog says:
    March 10, 2024 at 4:54 pm

    30-45 minutes of feedback works for me!

    Like

    Reply
  2. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    March 12, 2024 at 8:36 am

    OK, ILoveMyDog. I’ve added a Note in red. You need a title (Didn’t that lesson about the “Storm Threatening the Village” convince you?).
    Also, your body paragraphs are quite long and most likely contain more than one Main Idea. I’ll be advising you to break them up.
    Let’s start the clock at 8:30AM

    Like

    Reply
  3. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    March 12, 2024 at 8:58 am

    What you have here, ILoveMyDog, is a perfectly strong first draft of a perfectly reasonable causal argument that makes reasonable claims and fails to back them up with anything like the evidence that would convince a reader.

    I could help you with language improvements in every paragraph, but I hesitate to ask you to spend any time on sentences that might not survive the editing cycle, so we’ll leave grammar and syntax for a later Feedback session.

    To the argument and evidence feedback(!), one paragraph at a time, with a 45-minute time limit.

    The main goal of music is self-expression. Classical writers dating back to the earliest forms of music expressed a theme or idea, like Vivaldi meticulously expressing the feelings involved with each season; fall, winter, spring, and summer. Music was created to show emotion and demonstrate strong feelings that are too difficult to put into words. However, the purpose of music is to transition into something more superficial. Producing music has become more about making money and less about producing a soulful song. Artists feel societal pressure to produce songs that will hit top charts from their managers and supervisors, rather than producing music they believe in. The lessoned autonomy of music due to the music industry controlling artists’ output has caused less personal and politically influential songs.

    —The Vivaldi example is a nice tangible way to demonstrate your point, ILMD, but you don’t need to hark back to classical history to emphasize the emotive, expressive power of music . . . AND you would be much better served by an example from Rock’s Golden Age, if you’re brave enough to choose one.
    —You’re wasting time and diluting your argument by going back too far and choosing music that doesn’t directly pertain to your central complaint.
    —Which is NOT that music has lost its way . . . it’s that ROCK has lost its way.

    —Next, I have to make one Rhetoric Note.
    —Your transition sentence is confusing.

    However, the purpose of music is to transition into something more superficial.

    —Even careful readers will think you mean: Music has a purpose even more important than expressing emotion and that is to transition into something more superficial.
    —What you need to make clear to readers early on is that FOR MUSICIANS, the goal is to express, but for THE MUSIC LABEL, the goal is to maximize profits.

    —Here’s another sentence that needs work:

    The lessoned autonomy of music due to the music industry controlling artists’ output has caused less personal and politically influential songs.

    —Music doesn’t need autonomy, and labels don’t lessen music’s autonomy.
    —It’s the musicians whose autonomy is reduced or restricted.
    —The real SUBJECT OF YOUR IDEA should be the SUBJECT OF YOUR SENTENCE.
    —And that subject is the influence or the pressure labels put on musicians.
    —Have it STIFLE something.

    Music industry pressure to maximize profits stifles personal and political expression.

    Moving On:

    The lessened autonomy of music directly stems from the music industry enforcing stricter protocols on their artists. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s, called the Golden Age of Music, artists had to sign more restrictive contracts. Signing with labels is almost 100% necessary for artists to be successful, but many of these contracts are not fair or equally as beneficial for the artist as the label. Not only are these contracts confusing and restricting, but many artists are young and naive, which means they are more likely to get a contract that takes advantage of them and their music. For example, LeAnn Rimes, a young country music star, had signed a contract with Curb Records at 12 years old and “might be 35 years old before she finished delivering the 21 albums, she owes the record company”, this star being one of many to this deal with the devil.

    —This is a good place to break your paragraph.
    —It tells a very strong story, the best in your whole essay.
    —That obligation to record 21 albums to fulfill her contract is an excellent example of the pressure to produce MORE not BETTER music, which is your strongest argument.
    —You fail to note that it was signed almost 30 years ago.
    —If you’re using it to prove how bad contracts have “gotten lately,” it’s out of date.

    Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but rather with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.

    —This should be its own paragraph.
    —8:55AM. I’ll be back.

    Like

    Reply
  4. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    March 12, 2024 at 9:55 am

    Picking up again at 9:30.

    Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but rather with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.

    —This could be a strong argument with a shred of evidence, ILMD.
    —Pretty clearly the music agent has a strong vested interest (and therefore a bias) in favor of getting musicians signed to big contracts.
    —It also ignores the path so many musicians have taken in the last 20 years . . . NOT to sign to big labels.
    —Most readers interested in contemporary music will be asking themselves when they read this paragraph, “If their independence is so precious to them, why don’t they produce themselves and upload to streaming services?”

    Artists continue to be controlled outside their contracts with their own market-driven music production choices. Artists know which songs will hit the top charts in the modern day, therefore causing them to write shallow music that does not carry any weight. This essentially means that the need for money and fame outweighs their intrinsic motivation to write music.

    —To make this claim more credible, you’d have to name some artists, LoveMyDog.
    —Do THEY think they’re writing commercial crap?
    —What would really help would be a band/writer/performer known for rebelliousness and personal expression who (after signing a big contract) totally sold out.

    Similarly, artists are less likely to take any sort of political stand in their music during this modern era because of the intense “cancel culture” that follows all celebrities and artists. “Cancel culture” is a fairly new term with the rise of excessive social media use in which celebrities are “canceled” for specific actions or morals, and therefore lose their media presence and following, and usually a lot of money. Because artists can be so easily “canceled” on social platforms, the idea of writing a politically or socially vulnerable piece is not as appealing as writing a guarded, easy-to-win hit.

    —Being cancelled for “actions and morals” doesn’t actually contribute to your argument, LMD.
    —Being cancelled for “overtly political lyrics” or for “music that incites rebellion” would definitely work if you have such an example.
    —Right around the time Lee Ann Rimes was signing her 21-album contract, Sinead O’Connor infamously tore a photo of the Pope in half on Saturday Night Live.
    —SHE knows how it feels to be cancelled for expressing her horror at the comfort the Catholic Church gave to pedophile priests.
    —Is THAT the kind of thing you argue could never happen today because of the repressive contracts artists sign with their labels?

    While one might argue that social media makes it easier for listeners to have a deeper and more personal connection to the artist and their music, online culture is so toxic that many artists are afraid to let their listeners get that close. However, artists hiding their true intentions come with a price: less impactful music that is not causing the political form it used to. According to Youth Time Magazine, artists say “One of my greatest fears as an artist is being canceled as a musician,” which makes artists more “careful” so to speak when regarding any polar stances they take, whether on their social media or within their albums.

    —This section deserves its own paragraph.
    —You’re letting Youth Time Magazine speak for “artists” without names. Not as powerful.
    —5 minutes left.

    This brings around a general point: the lack of politically relevant and influential music contributes to a reduced effect of music on listeners’ engagement with social and political issues. While artists are stuck in their contracts and “safety nets,” people turn to social media for political ideas rather than the previously largest type of media for common people: music. Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media. Artists are losing their grip on listeners because of their less involved music causing people to be less engaged with today’s societal issues.

    —If you want specific examples of music mixing with politics, read a few stories about the songs political candidates choose to open their rallies or their celebration parties.
    —Both “sides” of the political aisle can find representatives to champion them.
    —In many cases, the artists have objected to having their music CO-OPTED by candidates without their expressed permission and have DEMANDED that the campaigns pull their songs.

    I spent my 45 minutes, ILMD (and used up all the ways I could think of to abbreviate your username along the way).

    MAKE NO CHANGES TO THIS POST.
    Instead, as you did with your Definition posts, copy and paste your text and References and use them to start a new post called “Causal Rewrite—ILoveMyDog.” Make all your revisions there.
    You owe me 45 minutes of significant improvement revisions before you can ask for a Regrade or for more Feedback.
    I hope it was helpful. I enjoyed the engagement. Love the topic. 🙂

    Like

    Reply
  5. davidbdale's avatar davidbdale says:
    March 12, 2024 at 10:02 am

    A note about evidence.
    (This one’s free.)
    —Make it as specific as possible.
    You made a weak citation from the Pew Research Center:

    Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media.

    You could have pulled your data from this section of the same article:

    In the past year, 34% of Americans have taken part in a group on social media that shares an interest in an issue or cause, while a similar share (32%) says they have encouraged others to take action on an issue that is important to them. Smaller shares have used these platforms recently to find information about rallies or protests happening in their area, change their profile picture to show their support for a cause, or use hashtags related to a political or social issue. Taken together, 53% of U.S. adults have engaged in at least one of these activities on social media in the last year.

    And with THAT, you could have created a much more pointed citation:

    In the past year, 53% of Americans have “taken part in a group on social media that shares an interest in an issue or cause” or used social media to “encourage[d] others to take action on an issue that is important to them.”

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to davidbdale Cancel reply