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 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?

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.

Peterson claims that "it takes an effort to appear authentic". Peterson argues that you have to be proactive when establishing authenticity. This proactive state can even foster less-than-completely-legit methods. Peterson gives the example of how the Bordelais fabricated the authenticity of their wine company by associating it with a well-known chateau and letting people establish that psychological connection.

Peterson also argues that when you establish authenticity, that there may very well be people who disagree with your credibility. Peterson includes the anecdote of how he built up Hank Williams as a hero but that Peterson's colleague chastised him for painting Williams in such a positive light. The informant, Cherry, argued that Williams was "reprehensible" and "not the most popular". This just goes to show that different people may have different opinions about you and there isn't really much that you can do about it.

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.

I find it incredibly interesting that, while the author is arguing that power chords (P5) are a symbol of masculinity, traditionally, the perfect fifth interval is viewed as "hollow" and isn't used as much as other harmonies.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps this train of thought is really only conducive to facilitating more institutional racism and promoting ethnocentricity.

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?

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,

Wordsworth notes here that some poets stick to very specific guidelines within their writing, almost alerting the reader of what exactly will all be covered in the work just by knowing the genre. Wordsworth insists that he himself refrains from doing so and that, while perhaps adding to the awkward element of reading his work, the reader shall hopefully be spared any disappointment if Wordsworth fails to meet up to the given expectations.

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