Simple subject matter in verse-- lofty poetic diction, common man's subject matter

Need clarification-- is characterization of the "audibly distinct segments" marked by pitch, syllables, tone, some combination of the above?

My original thought was that it was just pitch. I listened to Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" earlier today and in the chorus the singer stretches the "uh" sound in love across two different pitches. Zeppelin definitively does not possess a twang to his voice-- clarification?

Just as it was in slavery, Jim Crow, and beyond, the economic power disproportionately given to whites over blacks results in a sort of "ownership" of black artists

Very important to note-- influence upon American popular music for decades to come, potential turning of the culture from expecting singer to have no personal connection to the music, to expecting the singer to have a personal connection

The article describes Blues as being characterized not so much by its musical style, but by revealing the gritty first-person narrative experience of a dispossessed people, their struggles, their poverty and their disillusion with society. This, combined with the description of Jimmie Rodgers singing about a "disease slowly killing him by degrees" (page 2), caused me to immediately think of the Grunge movement in the nineties, specifically as viewed through the lens of the band Nirvana. The similarities are striking--Blues explored the experience of social outcasts as defined by socioeconomic categorization, Nirvana explored the experience social outcasts as defined by those struggling with mental health, drug addiction, or alienation from their peers socially. Jimmie Rodgers' "TB Blues" explored how a common disease, Tuberculosis, affected him physically, socially, and mentally-- Nirvana's song "Come As You Are" demonstrates how the disease of depression changes how one perceives themselves, how others perceive them, and how one perceives the values of their own life. The contradictory lines in the verses seem to demonstrate a sort of confusion over what the person should be, what social norms push them to be, whether they should listen to their own desires or the social rules of the time, and the chorus in which the narrator repeatedly states-- or even pleads-- that they "don't have a gun" seems to suggest a concern for the narrator having suicidal thoughts or inclinations. Thusly, one can conclude that the social disillusion shared by Blues and Grunge reveals that Grunge is a sort of cultural and ideological heir to the Blues movement, due to the similar expression of a narrative of the oppressed, outcast, and marginalized.

Lyrics: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/nirvana/comeasyouare.html

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabnZ9-ex7o

On a personal note, this is one of my favorite songs by Led Zeppelin and one of my favorite songs ever. With that being said, I cannot relate to this personally, as the subject matter of moving across the nation due to my hometown flooding has never happened to me, and more than likely never will happen to me. Does this make my enjoyment of the song inauthentic? Since I am not a dispossessed people as the song's Blues origins appeal to, is the song "not for me"-- that is to say, is my enjoyment of the sound a sort of cultural appropriation of the dispossessed proletariat the Blues genre appeals to? To extend the question even further-- given that Led Zeppelin is a group of 70's rock stars with unfathomable fame and wealth, as compared to Minnie's experience of poverty during the Great Depression, is Led Zeppelin's cover itself culturally appropriating the lyrics of Minnie's song?

Lyrics link: https://genius.com/Led-zeppelin-when-the-levee-breaks-lyrics

Song link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwiTs60VoTM

Serious academic commentary: incredibly interesting how a genre focused explicitly on firsthand experience/narrative can have a signature piece about something the author was incapable of experiencing. Is the article being self-contradictory here, or does this indicate that Blues by is inherently authentic regardless of all else?

Unprofessional commentary: I laughed out loud at this in a silent study room lol

Authenticity comes through connection between audience and performer. If one cannot relate to the experiences put out by the other, inauthenticity arises. Sort of a mutual relationship, rather than one determining for the other what is important

Perhaps a change-- previously had others write his songs, but now this is a personal experience? Would it be correct to infer that he wrote this song, or at least had personal influence in its composition? Regardless, intriguing to note that this sort of taboo-breaking song came to be known as one of the most authentic of its genre/time precisely because it was about the singer's own disease

Even though, as the author previously noted, he enlisted considerable help with writing his songs; it may have been his own passion put into his voice, and perhaps he really did identify with the words/ideas of his songwriters, they were not per se his own words

Very important. Duality between freedom to do as one likes vs settling down, monogamy, family etc-- inauthentic due to conflict, or authentic due to accurately representing this duality that exists within mindsets of rural Americans?

Remember "I'll judge the results of the election when they happen"? Trump would not have accepted results of his losing because it would have empirically shown he did represent the majority of people or have any sort of claim to power. This is why he insists that millions of Hillary's votes were fraudulent; if he did not actually win the popular vote, his Populism is revealed to be a complete sham

Impossible for a Populist to speak for the people because there are millions and millions of people with conflicting opinions, therefore Populist's positions are what the Populist likes the most-- not actually the people's will

Authoritarianism-- Populists are completely fine with power being allocated in the hands of the few, so long as they are the only few. Sole authentic representative of "the people" because the people are what the populist says they are

In a democracy the majority rules, therefore the populist claims sole authentic legitimacy to power through a "silent majority" ingroup-- if the majority supports them, they are THE ONLY authentic leader of the people. Silent is necessary because the populist, of course, may be refuted by facts/polls/etc that they do not have majority support

This allows Trump to call anything he doesn't like "fake news", i.e. opinion polls showing him declining in all aspects literally everywhere, because the "real people" aren't taken into account by the outgroup coastal elite media that is opposed to the ingroup Real Americans (according to the populist)

And therefore illegitimate to lead the nation, as Obama is a representative of the outgroup and not the in-grouped "real Americans". Thusly, because he is not legitimate in the eyes of Right-Wing populists, try to make him not legitimate legally: cast doubts on his Constitutional right to be President

Define an ingroup as the authentic citizens of the nation (here being white segregationists), claim sole representation of them, and direct them to fight the outgroup enemy (blacks, civil rights advocates, etc). Authoritarian divide and concur, see Nazis sowing distrust of Jews, Freemasons, etc in Germany

Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The populist defies real people, what they believe, and states that these two things are representative of the entire nation by being the only authentic group/ideology -- argument that their rule is the only one with legitimacy to govern, authoritarian

This is getting to the logical conclusion of the "real Americans" shtick: fascism. Fascism's unique trait is that it is a government of perpetual warfare, in which the citizens are controlled by constantly having some sort of enemy to defeat. This is executed via two methods: foreign policy and domestic policy. Nazi Germany, for example, was constantly at war or claiming another nation's territory for its entire existence, and constantly kept its citizens pre-occupied internally with purifying society from the Jew, or the Bolshevik, the Unionist or the non-White. When a politician begins laying claim to authenticity, like who "real Americans" are, that claim is inherently fascist, because it designates one group in society as an external foe who must be defeated.

See again Hitler and the Volk-- not trying to compare Trump to Hitler, but that the "people's voice" trick has been used by every tyrant of the 20th century. Hitler as the leader of the German Volk, Stalin as the Dictator of the Proletariat, Kim il Sung as the Supreme Leader of the people of Korea, etc

Populism is bad but protest is good-- argue that legitimate protest is the result of individual choices, whereas populism is the use of candidates to manipulate ingroup/outgroup ideas of authenticity to ride into power?

Incredibly important-- populists manipulate anger of citizens with current government to fuel their own rise into power. Subversion of current rulers with new rulers, as identified by Lenin and Orwell

Incredibly important. Use position of influence to make claim to authenticity, pit the authentic against the inauthentic, ride to political power through wave of opposition to the "inauthentic" other

Why does a custom exist where men do not directly approach women? What purpose does this serve within the community, from where could this have originated?

I cannot help but notice the juxtaposition between the law's lack of regard for African American life, and the immediate transition to the narrator attending a social event with music, drinks, and men trying to interact with her. Do you think this is a subtle way for the author to communicate that her experiences show a duality for African Americans between joy and existential threats?

Comely-- my word! Used it to speak about how the use of traditional English poetic diction combined with more common-man subject matter to form a synthesis between the lofty cosmopolitanism of contemporary poetry and the rural man Wordsworth so admires.

Through this passage, Wordsworth seems to attempt a sequestering of the reader from the outside world of modernity, urbanization, and industrialism, so that they can understand the simplicity of the Shepherd's tale without any prejudice or outside influence.

Looking forward to this! I hope we get to examine/debate many different things from a wide variety of perspectives

Can you expand on this? How will we turn these drafts in to you? Online?

The second part of this quote is incredibly important, as we noted in class. In our discussion we discussed two possibilities: going so far into the fake that it becomes the real you, or going so far into the fake that you completely break free of the real/fake binary.

What happens, however, when we think about being fake? Could one argue that if you are self-aware and self-analytical, you are no longer being your true self due to the internal change caused by introspection? If this were true, then the mere act of considering one's own authenticity or fakeness would make them different from their original "true" form, meaning that no matter what you cannot escape inauthenticity at any point so long as you are questioning your authenticity.