Background This piece doesn't have a whole lot in terms of background. Mostly, it is how Wallace's informational claim of Mackey making quotes is really an interpretative claim. I have full intention to discuss quoting versus stealing at some point in my essay, perhaps as a pair of "key terms" paragraphs and a synthesis paragraph.

Theory/Technique Mackey uses what he refers to as a "damn bright ending" to finish a piece about the coming of the goddess of light. Mackey takes Holst's chord and adds a new layer of meaning to it. This is much like how an individual writing the persuasive essay would write it (perhaps not with the quote at the end but the general concept follows).

Exhibit I'm using this piece as an exhibition source. The piece of music that these program notes are in reference to does a phenomenal job of quoting and recontextualizing (indulge me if that isn't a word) music from other (relatively) famous musicians. The program notes even address these quotations and break it down on a much more musically inclined level (which, for this level of writing, I will likely disregard).

Argument They say that composers using others work is stealing. I say (with the appropriate rules and guidelines being followed, that is) that it is quotation.

Motive So what? Well, a lot of people know about U2. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that an immense amount more of people have heard of "Where the Streets Have No Name" than have heard of "First Suite in Eb". As this goes to show, this is a much more relevant topic than ripping off some old and dead Baroque composer (or should I say, de-composer?).

This ties back into the Sykes article about how the court defined de minimis to read along the lines that sampling doesn’t matter if most of the intended audience won’t understand the quote.

Holst was a phenomenal composer and Mackey uses Holst's work in order to commemorate and celebrate his genius.

This is interesting. Perhaps Jake Wallace wasn't aware that he was taking a side on the whole quoting vs. stealing debate. However, I completely agree with his phrasing.

This is will help strengthen my argument, and clarify it since I will be able to cite these ways to depict automated twitter accounts

Makes an argument that twitter can be used in politics, through sock puppetry and I wholly agree, this will fit with my paper since this was one of my main claims.

This would be useful to my argument concerning cover artists' authenticity in general and on youtube specifically because here, Cayari begins to talk about a specific artist on youtube who started small and used his musical talent and relations to gain exposure by making both covers of original songs and his own pieces of music. He ended up being well known for who he is, not the artists' who's songs he covered, which establishes his own authenticity.

Here, Cayari is summarizing and utilizing a source to show one way young kids are encouraged to make music and show their creative work in a world where auto tuned musical recordings make amateur songs sound poorly. He then goes on to connect this argument with the advancement of technology when it comes to music and learning.

The "phonograph" started the trend of recording and later being able to listen to live music.

The impact of modern day technology regarding visual art. Back in the day, one could only experience a live show by actually being there while it is performed and now the same kind of shows can be experienced online.

Shows youtube's immense popularity in the U.S.

Youtube is not only important to the lives of those making music to share on it, but also impacts the way the modern day teacher conducts their classes and allows them to show and provide specific examples to their class about a vast variety of things.

Things like phones and computers are no longer just separate media and technology for teens, they have become a way of life.

This is a cool way of viewing originality.

with just changing the words of a song really make it someone elses? also would that still be as authentic as someone who would create a new song from scratch?

This has been a confusing are for me on the regards of copyright.

From more of an authentic standpoint, this gives off the illusion that inspiration is everywhere for artists even though it has already been created. We ask ourselves again, could this be authentic or not?

This shows that from his perspective it was hard to be authentic because most of that kind of music has already been made.

This gives the idea of authenticity but shows how someone could still create new by being inspired by the old. It's hard to decide whether if you think it is authentic or not.

Shields summarizes this source to describe an interesting concept concerning marketing and connection. The artist releases free music, which in turn grabs the attention of the listeners who choose to buy the music the artist later puts on sale.

A phenomenon thats all too common in the modern world. Social media such as Facebook and now, twitter, give people a place where they can illustrate themselves in any way they want and not by shy about it.

Music has gotten less and less unique, songs start to resemble one another and become less authentic.

The author here starts writing with a different style of vocabulary, one that seems less academic maybe.

Shows authenticity does not necessarily equal success, as the DJ's borrowing musician's work got more attention than the creators themselves.

Shows the power of "relatability", it won Obama the election.

I agree with this statement in the works of authenticity.

I like this example because it shows that not everything is authentic. This example in particular shows a group being formed to make money rather than sing whats on their hearts.

Not very authentic

This kind of gives us the vibe that authenticity can actually be really hard to achieve.

Is it really authentic then if they just "seem to care" ? Or are brands not trying to actually be authentic, just seem authentic?

This reminds me of a fairly new (published 2009) piece entitled Aurora Awakes by John Mackey. In it, Mackey unapologetically uses the guitar riff from U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" as a marimba ostinato (where a musical phrase is continuously repeated). The driving feel with a lighter tambre (instrument sound and color) helps push the theme (daylight arising from a cold and dark night) forward.

Furthermore, Mackey also takes Holst's final chord from the Chaconne of his First Suite in Eb and (after adding crotales, which had only been around for about 30 years at the time that First Suite was released and they weren't all too popular as a result) uses that as his final chord for Aurora Awakes.

Doing something with intention and the chances of it coming off as a mistake have an inversely proportional relationship.

In classical music, the cadenza is very similar to this. In instrumental solos, there is occasionally a part where the accompaniment (usu. piano) almost, if not completely, drops out and the soloist is left a sequence of notes on the page that he/she is free to play how he/she wishes. One of the pedagogical approaches to executing a cadenza is to never play it the same way twice.

A very bold claim to make here. Wasn't there a previous reading that stated something is similar. "Parody is crime"?

Outlining the difference here between "borrowing" and "stealing"... Perhaps the difference lies in whether or not the poet asks the individual(s) from whom he/she is taking. In other words, the knowledge (or lack thereof) of someone using your work helps define the border between borrowing and stealing.

What precisely does genius borrow? Does it borrow the thoughts, skills, techniques, prowess, etc. of others?

This section is (obviously) most related to my research subject, but I don't think it's particularly helpful for advancing my ideas. However, the overall point this author makes about the fluctuating perception of authenticity in various mediums might be helpful to me in defining authenticity itself as a "theory" source for the purposes of my paper.

Uses the example of french wine as a background source; unrelated to his main example of authenticity in country music, but provides context for the historical discourse about authenticity, which he builds on.

What an odd judgement, to not judge the product of their labours but to instead judge the maker of the product. What makes a good creator? Given how many perspectives and views can be took on art alone, how can we even begin to try and define the artist without looking at the fruits of their brow?

Berman is summarized to add one point on the argument for authenticity's "salience" where counterexamples are listed below.

This source is utilized to show the lengthy authentication process in music, and the multiple checkpoints that have to be passed. It also establishes multiple viewpoints of authenticity, that of the experts in the studio, the audience, and the singer.

Brings up the idea that a work of art is deemed automatically authentic if it meets a certain set of standards, but on the other hand is usually considered nothing more than a fake if the standards are not met. However, the standards themselves are formulated by experts' judgements of what is deemed authentic , so why should a work of art not meeting these rules be labeled by them.

This could be used in my argument, regular people "stealing" something associated with a famous person. Such as trends "stolen" (this word is a little harsh) from well known people by their followers, thereby making them less authentic.

I agree with this point, authenticity is very important into determining the worth of a piece of work, at least that's how I interpret this statement.

also ties in with the debate over authenticity

I could be wrong, but I think this is his main point; that "authenticity" is no simple concept and is one that is much debated and argued about. As time progresses, the perception of authenticity is altered, which leads to conflict of what it truly is.

This also ties in well with psychology. In theory, people try to be true to themselves, but within certain boundaries that society has in place. With that, we find a group whose beliefs match with our own. Yes, it is an elastic concept because once we find a group in which we identify with, we want to stay in that group. As the group's ideologies change, so do ours (in some cases).

This is the stance of the author in this particular essay. In addition i feel that this is the main resource for my essay. The entirety of invisible man is him validating his idenitity authentification through various events

This could be helpful to my argument regarding copyright issues, with the fact that people claim authenticity when they for instance try to copyright something and call it theirs'. Also, the reasons behind a claim to authenticity and its success is mentioned, such as why someone or a group would choose to copyright something.

Here, Peterson utilizes and summarizes an article to show an important aspect in the world of authenticity, which is that there is some leeway when it comes to what is authentic or not, at least in that of group membership.

You can sell authenticity now? Says something about the consumer...that the market is able to homogenize places, goods, and services means that there is a demand for it and that a number of people identify authenticity with static ideas of what is authentic.

Authenticity has an economic incentive. Does this then mean that is about creating more value for oneself in the social market (i.e. people liking you, buying your goods, attributing success to your name)? Are we trying to then prove our authenticity to others? Why?

this is funny because then it becomes the situation where to feel like you are not authentic is when authenticity has come into question...shows what an empty promise authenticity is because from that very moment of questioning our authenticity we have done that most inauthentic thing. To live differently or to learn different ways to become authentic. Begs the question of what it means then to become authentic.

Nothing is intrinsically authentic due to intersubjectivity i.e. that we each have different definitions of what is valuable for different reasons. One thing that is valuable or truly authentic to me could be a sell out and redundant to someone else.

This is an ironic phrase. Searching for something authentic seems stale in that you have produced some type of conception of what authenticity looks like. I don't think that authenticity can be held down to a static thing and thus to search for it is a ploy for failure because it is something that you can never find.

Here the author turns the example his source provides into a starter for one of their arguments.

Here we see the author's stance through her own personal connection to the topic. Even though we don't share this stance, it is valuable to know because it makes her a more credible source. She's not just writing to be writing, she's writing because she has something important to say. I think that this is an important quality for a source to have, and can help us think about our own relationship to our topic.

This shows background on how branding began and also relates it to the struggle between authenticity and marketing. Even long ago merchants discovered that a name can be associated with a trait, and set out to make their name associated with something great. They then faced the challenge to continually make a great product beyond just their great name. We see companies continue to do this sort of thing today, and of course, some are more successful than others. I think it is important to realize, though, that we have the power to make these associations. Even if it is a popular opinion that something is "good", we still have the power to decide whether or not we agree with that.

The text provides a background as to how these singers and musicians transformed the genre of country with their unique and innovative music. The author introduces one viewpoint, saying that some people saw these musicians as "the rising wave of country music" and then proceeds to counter this point with another perspective that asserts that these same musicians were "traitors...destroying country music". This demonstrates the various ways that people can receive one's intellectual property based on the perception of authenticity. Not everybody perceived the authenticity of these artists well, so not everybody perceived their intellectual property (in the form of music) well. The author likely notes this distinction so as to highlight the dichotomy between the various ways that people interpret authenticity. One group may receive it really well and praise it and another group may receive it poorly and bash it.

I've added a "Page Note" to this article with annotation instructions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVKTx9YlKls&index=8&list=PL6xdQ1-kSQsVpbI8Svt-UEezYj-y5VkCX

(This is part of the playlist; I've also linked here in case you miss that the first time around...)

This makes me curious about the very nature of what we consider masculine and feminine. Who decided which traits were put into which category?

Operating under the assumption that the piece is in minor mode, (I'm not sure because I have yet to listen to it) G# minor is frequently interpreted as the key of wailing lament, difficult struggle, and a squeezing-heart-until-you-suffocate ambience. Perhaps this eerily fitting for the context of the piece.

It's wrong that they're praising Adams's version of 1989 so much more than Swift's, even though she's the one who's lyrics he's copying.

I found this interesting. While big name female musicians are being bestowed with achievements making it seem like there is no inequality, those who are not famous struggle with getting recognized far more then men.

How can there be such a big difference between the actual and reported numbers?

I'm really glad I read this bc I had never seen rap lyrics in this light

This perspective is interesting because it's so different than mainstream thoughts and what appears in many people's bias that just stops after calling rappers "violent gangsters" and etc. It really makes you question what is going through these great rappers minds, and put yourself in their shoes, even if it's just for a second.

One interesting tidbit that I've noticed throughout this paper is that, although she doesn't necessarily directly acknowledge it, the author makes a clear line between white feminists and black (and other minority ethnicities) feminists. Sometimes, white feminists are only concerned with their own rights. They only think about the more seemingly surface-level as opposed to the deeper aspects of feminism. For instance, some feminists are only concerned with fighting to prevent street-harassing and wage gap issues (don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not discrediting the importance of these issues in their own light) but they'll forget that women in lesser developed countries can get sexually assaulted/killed just for trying to pursue an education. Perhaps some focus should be in those areas as well.

This is an excellent point. A lot of times, people have these crazy images and expectations of how they want their partner to be, and this causes several, severe problems when they realize that someone isn't perfect. We also need to realize that they, too, are human. They have their own things to deal with and cannot be expected to be and act perfect all the time. The writer does not only say this in the best interest of the men, that women need to lighten up, that men have their own burdens; it is also, and arguably more so, in the best interest of women who will also get emotionally distraught if they maintain such ideologies.

The idea of rappers shrouding their own insecurities and pain through violence and hate of others in their music seems ironic to me.

So, essentially, internalized racism?

I wish more news articles looked at something from this perspective. I understand the need to have news regularly hampers long-term studies like searching for the source of conflict, but the news is too liable to let their own biases slip in and color it, even when just reporting the facts. Just reporting the actions and results with not much time on the causes does very little in aiding long-term solutions.

Judging by how it is referred to later, it seems rap is the battlefield, whereas the greater evils of sexism, and the racism that spawns it are the war in general.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, and I feel that it goes both ways. Unfortunately, society today does not make it easy for anyone to love themselves. There are so many industries today that rely on the fact that men and women are insecure, and thus far, we haven't let them down. I don't think that this is an issue that gets talked about enough. It's not a problem that is going to solve itself. There has to be a large number of people actively working to solve it if anything is ever going to change.

Feminism as a broad concept has historically been too essentialist in its incorporation of racial categories allowing for tropes like the Welfare Queen to continue, diminishing black women from the narrative of equal access and empowerment.

Many people could have their own definition on what is and isn't art, but it shouldn't be able to be used in trials just because of someones opinion over if it's art or not.

If this "fictional entertainment" is created but then is not enjoyed by a vast majority of the human population, it can be very easy for them to overlook rap music as a form of art and, instead, perceive it as a threat. Perhaps the relatability, vulgarity, etc. all play a factor in one's ability to enjoy rap music.

This is a topic that comes up a lot these days. The First Amendment gives citizens a right to free speech. However, in this case, along with many others, someone's speech got them in legal trouble. This begs the question: exactly how free is "free speech"?

What truly distinguishes a "reasonable" person from one that is not?

this case also brings up the issue of whether or not already famous artists that rap about the same things (things that would be considered "threats") would be subject to the same charges and treatment as someone who was only posting on Facebook

This is the crux of the argument. Rap is not art, no matter what devices it uses, because of its content to those charging others based on lyrics alone. It is later stated that no other genre is used this way, because rap is not art. It's representative of a cultural divide between what is considered art and what is not by those in the courthouse. (Sidenote: would libraries be considered art galleries for literature?)

This makes me think of "make art, not war" But in this case the art IS the war

Then how is it justified???

This honestly makes no sense to me. An artist can write about whatever they want, but it is not autobiographical unless they specifically intend it to be. An artist may relate to their lyrics, but that still doesn't make it autobiographical. If an artist says their lyrics are art, just that, how could someone other than the artist prove otherwise?

This is something that I have a really hard time understanding. I can't really wrap my head around the idea that writing violent lyrics will make someone feel less violent. In my experience, writing about things that I'm already angry about just tends to make me feel more angry.

This is an important sentence that went unanotated, so I'll just note it. For Karlin, originality/authenticity becomes a PROBLEM, becomes a really complex question, after the technology of musical recording changes the nature of how music is transmitted.

With music being copied and played anywhere at anytime, this makes the want for a live original performance that much greater.

Authenticity doesn't come from watching someone else perform and trying to replicate what they did/their style.

I don't really think that a "performance" of authenticity can really be considered authenticity, especially if it is for commercial gain. He may be making a show of relatability, but I don't think the word authenticity can be applied here because it implies that he makes choices without acknowledging popular public opinion.

Here the idea that authenticity cannot be noticed by the self returns. Interesting to note the author does not share that perspective.

This makes me think of an over-used meme. It's funny when it starts, but once you've seen it so many times, you're over it.

This is the main argument of the author's section on recording. It could be anyone's song before, but once recorded it belongs to the recorder unless another recording becomes more popular.

This is definitely something that sticks with us even today in modern music. You can't really imagine Eminem singing a Taylor Swift song because he can't relate to it and it would not sound authentic.

Is this lowering poetry then by turning it into popular culture?

I think that this is the main claim that the author has to make. That Poetry is no longer in the standard text form. It has evolved into an oral art and is demonstrated more or less by "poetic singers" like Bob Dylan

I disagree with this statement. Repetition is what allows that arts to be accessible. If it weren't for repetition, all of the arts would still be something for only the wealthy to enjoy. Repetition and reproduction allows everyone to be connected.

This is a chapter from a recent book entitled on the "singer" as cultural figure. Please see my page note for your annotation instructions!

Here's a link to a playlist that contains most of the key songs mentioned herein (all those by Bob Dylan himself).

The idea of authenticity in music rests with the performer, not his songs.

Is this basically saying Dylan can only be called a poet if it is said he is a bad one?

Maybe repetition is not so bad, it seems to me that it also means being remembered and becoming iconic.

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response. (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

In the case of terms from the Marxist intellectual tradition like lumpenproletariat, one of the most reliable references is the glossary at marxists.org...

Here's the OED definition for comparison.

When terms that belong to specific intellectual traditions are involved, the question of "which reference?" becomes important. We'll talk about this question in more detail as we begin the research paper process later this month...

I think that this is interesting to note because often there is a separation between media and its influence in the political scene but with this introduction to "Gangsta Rap" there is a break in this divide because of the message being transmitted to the public of a reality for black people living in this area being the result of imbalanced political decisions.

This is a valid claim in modern rap music. Of course not all, but a lot of the popular music today is centered around sex, drugs, and violence. Still, people listen to the music without much regard to what the rapper is saying.

Do white people feel like this setting of Compton is just some fictional story? Do they find it fascinating because it is so far off from their reality that it seems fake? Alternatively, they could be listening to SOC in order to gain more knowledge of the circumstances, although I rather doubt it.

The image that they set forth is quite powerful. In a manner, it's quite sad that to maintain their ethos, that they have to talk like uneducated heathens. That rough street Fred is so important to them that they will literally change the way they appear to people.

This was an interesting point that the author makes. It definitely makes sense, but I had never really thought of it that way. Some songs that hold absolutely no artist value can become a social rage just by how catchy the tune of the song is. It seems like this article is making the claim that this phenomenon is a bad thing- but is it? On hat grounds is music good? Is it based off the time and effort it took to create it, or is it based off of it's success?

I thought this was an interesting claim to make, it definitely holds some truth. It seems like cultural appropriation happens a lot in today's society; not just in forms of songs but even in movies, tv shows, or even mascots.

I feel like this explains that Youtube is less like a economy but more like a monopoly.

Social Influence starts to rub off on people that were hesitant to like a song, and slowly they grow a fondness of it bc it "makes people happy" which could technically also mean it makes them happy too.

this could be seen as evidence for his claim of "ruining our culture"

I agree with this because walmart is the superstore where you can find, ultimately anything. Same goes for youtube tbh.

I don't think we can credit this added "metatextual layer" solely to YouTube, since there are so many other social media platforms that music and "music memes" are shared through.

should people be held responsible for cultural appropriation/mockery always or be given a reprieve in the case of ignorance?

I believe that this statement is farfetched. There are different ways to convey music other than youtube and personally I am more influenced by the radio than that on youtube.

A music video often helps to stimulate the sense of vision as well, thus creating a more holistic impact for the audience. By doing this, it appeals to a larger audience and attracts more people to it,

interesting how pop music acts as both a binding and dividing force. It is designed to target certain people/groups, which brings them together via common interest, but also ostracizes other people, driving a stake between the two. I feel that ultimately whether eliciting a positive or negative response, pop fads like the ones mentioned here bring the public together one way or another

I feel like that is an overdramatic claim. I do not think that one measly song can ruin an entire culture. Sure, it can influence certain people's thoughts and beliefs, but most of it is only temporary. It affects ONE group of people; not nearly enough to generalize and say that our culture gets ruined

context is quite frequently something that makes or breaks a song (for a large portion of people anyway)

Shows how a song's lyrics or its music video don't have to be good for it to be popular. In this case, its how bad they were that caused it to be.

It's great that YouTube is now a venue for personal expression, comedy, and great videos, but what about great music? YouTube used to be a place for that, but now that it's not so much anymore, it seems like it's harder for people to have access to honestly great music

--Olivia

I've added a playlist containing certain key songs Hyden refers to in this piece...

This is a piece from an online magazine that published critical writing about pop culture. Please read my "page note" for your annotation assignment instructions!

Annotation assignment:

I want you each to make one original annotation, and one response (Please use the tag KIR020 / KIR900.)

Specific possibilities:

1) Annotate and respond critically to one claim, a claim you think important, in one of the two readings.You might challenge it based on its scope, its relation to evidence, or other grounds; you might find it ultimately persuasive, but still want to qualify it or otherwise engage with it]

2) Annotate and respond to one moment where the author makes the stakes of their argument apparent (the “motive”/“so what”?)—or fails to do so…

3) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author grounds their analysis effectively in “close reading”

4) Annotate and engage with one moment where the author’s analysis depends on something OTHER than “close reading”

—Respond by engaging with ANY one of these annotations left by a fellow student!

Remember, you can make OTHER annotations too; in particular, you can annotate privately, for your own benefit, if you choose to read online.

I think Wordsworth is attempting to say that despite most poets centering their poems around the subject, there are more important aspects within the poem than the sake of the subject.

TS- he is saying hat most writing in this time seems to be centered around some sort of extraordinary event because daily life has become so uniform.

He is asserting that poems do not necessarily have to be centered around something any more than mundane interactions. He doesn't believe that this phenomenon of uniformity should be reflected within writing.

TS/IS implied...

He is trying to "justify" his own writing style (which is counterintuitive to the whole idea of art to me, but w/e)

IS statement, his own belief. Calls excitement "unusual"

Wordsworth agrees with the idea that poetry is pleasurable for both the reader and the poet, but goes on to give some more detail as to why that is. TS/IS- agrees with the TS and expands

This is a TS statement.

This sounds like TS

"I say"

The beginning of the "I say"

A strategic way of incorporating the "they say" aspect of the argument.

Here Wordsworth writes about what his contemporaries say about language and its impact on metrical compositions, and Wordsworth's own opinion on the subject. The rest of the paragraph follows as a dissection of sorts for poem.

This is what "the poets" say

this statement has both an IS and a TS statement right by each other. The IS is sused to refute the TS in this case.

Wordsworth says that his poetry has a purpose and gives rise to feelings that cause action.

They say that the poems are written with purpose.

This is a TS statement because we are being spoken to about the writers perspective and not the author himself.

This is an IS statement because here we are being told what the reader should find. Why is personification utterly rejected if it is one of the main components of any literary text

I think that in this case, covers are a more relatable form of authenticity because the average person cannot relate to singing a song for millions of people, but most of us can relate to jamming out to a song in our own home, possibly sitting in front of our phone or laptop.

So covers, specifically rock covers, fit into a gap between allographic and autographic. Where every performance is at once an original and a copy, imbued with authenticity from the artists themselves and not from the work they are performing.

I'm not incredibly sure that I follow here. It is perhaps the copyright infringement sense of parodying that the author is referencing here? Or is it a crime to take something serious and make light of it?

I think The Lumineers have a lot of songs that fit into this category, and really lots of the Indie genre as well. A specific example would be "Flowers in Your Hair", which is basically just the singer describing the difficulties he faced in growing up and realizing the mistakes he made in a specific relationships.

A rather ironic but nonetheless clear example would be Crucified by Ghost, in which Papa (the singer) explains his sins and pleads to their lord for acceptance

The "Citation Spectrum"!

Neither of the two WW poems we have read were included in Lyrical Ballads (the linked RPO online anthology contains the entire 1798 text of that volume, as well as other WW poems). They were composed slightly later, in 1804/5; both first appeared in book form in 1807.

WW’s “Preface” is important because in many senses he is “ahead of his time”: he anticipates a perspective that has become our modern perspective. By 1800, a mass, literate public existed and was growing rapidly. What relationship should the ancient traditions of art, particularly literature, have to this rapidly growing audience? How would this public come to understand its own life in and through reading imaginative writing? Discussions of literature around this time (and ever since!) tend to focus on language because literature is made out of language, and language is something used by everybody for many non-artistic reasons all the time. (This makes literature different from classical music, or painting.) And different kinds of language, historically, are associated with different groups of people. Thus, arguments about literary language (“what language should be used?”  are always associated with arguments about society (“whose language should be used?”).

Moreover, Wordsworth’s “Preface” is important because the terms it which defines poetry are terms that would prove hugely influential in the developing understanding of what poetry should do–an understanding we now capture with the term “lyric” poetry.

my old professor! ....I remember her red pen in the margins of my papers :-)

(If I am interpreting correctly) I don't necessarily agree with the idea that you become the speaker when reading lyric because perspective's of experiences are unique to each individual. So while some may be relatable/resonant either in content or in the emotional idea behind it, I disagree that you step into the identity of the speaker.

Is this saying that lyric poetry is basically spoken word poems?

showing that lyric is a moment of true authenticity completely by ourselves

Well, yeah, given your definition of "art," it has to move someone.

so does the power of lyric poetry reside solely in the speaker's hands (or voice, as it were)?

Why does Vendler propose that lyric poetry is this deep, intimate view of the soul?

I like how these sentences show how complex a lyric is and how difficult it can be to grasp them. The reader must pay attention to every detail that the author has set forth to really grasp all that the writer is putting forth.

In a way, it could be argued that this is a violation of privacy, that people should not delve into others' thoughts. However, this is people in their truest form, showing vulnerability. This is what makes lyric special.

So is poetry even meant to be understood? Or is it always intended to remain somewhat mysterious? Is this what allows a poem to touch people from different cultures and backgrounds?

• Rebecca

what are different ways to truly enjoy or be moved by an artwork?

Curious way to describe reading poetry; does this author find understanding it a chore? Or are they acknowledging the tendency for poets to go overboard on the flowery language?

Volatility? I don't know if that is a word I would use to describe poetry.

Is this saying that every part of lyric has a meaning from the title to the stanzas to the organization?

This is not necessarily true. Just because you don't like or "enjoy" a certain piece of art, doesn't mean you can't recognize it as art.

I normally only associate lyric with songs, and not poetry even though songs are a form of poetry.

But what if the reader does not? Can it really be considered the most universal genre?

I thought that a diary was someone's words by itself. I would expect lyric to be said by someone else and not the reader.

What makes this difference? What about a lyric makes it seem that it the readers words?

Why is there always an absent addressee? Why can they not be present and actively involved in the story?

is this meant to be comprehensive?