Music as an Argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiPzU75P9FA


The "Stand by Me" video uses elements of rhetoric to propose their argument. Their argument is that people are the same and should come together as human beings. They used images and clips of people from all around the world singing the same song whose lyrics are, "and darlin, darlin, stand...by me". Those lyrics state that whoever you are no matter race, religion, height or weight you will need somebody to stand by you.

The elements of rhetoric that they use in the video, for one the invention of the idea. The creator of the video must've me with artist from around the world before he even began to formulate such things as payments and prices. Even before that he probably wrote down and conveyed with himself the ways to execute.

The disposition of the idea was next, which means the way he executes. He probably met with the artist who none of those are professionals, and talked prices ad flight plans. Then he had to get a camera crew, and pay for their tickets to all of these places around the globe.

The style of the video was emotional in a sense. it made you feel that we should come together as a people and support one another. He achieved this by the choice of the song and the appearance of the people who were seen performing on the video.

The memory was kept by rehearsals and practice by the performing street artists. I'm guessing that this was not a one take situation, and that it took days of  recording and do overs to perfect it into the famous video it is today.

The delivery was put into a five minute short film of emotional singing from street artists from different parts of the world. It cut from artist to artist, and ended back with the first singer it started with. The way it was put together made it seem powerful.

Critical Response

Although Gerard Jones makes good points in his argument that violent media is good for kids, his theory is flawed. All in all I agree with his position on the matter, but there are still some things he made mistakes on.

The first thing he didi well was that he used real life scenarios to help his argument seem realistic and relatable. When you use a real life example it shows that you actually have experience with the topic at hand, and that you are blindly speaking about something you have no experience in.

Something he did not so well was that he was too broad in the case subject. Just saying kids is not specific enough. There could be many outliers when it comes to this topic. Kids could have many different psychological problems, some kids are more gullible than others, and some are influenced easier than others.

Another positive to his argument was that he used a credible quote from a physiologist that supports his theory. Uses a person with credibility is important because it shows that there is proof behind and a science to your argument. People also believe others that have a reputation rather than those who are just saying what is in their mind.

The last negative was that he only used two case studies in his argument. Two pieces of evidence is not enough to make a legitimate argument, and definitely won't be enough to persuade people to believe what you do.