Merging Pointless Information With Meaningful Information

Ellie Burket argues that technology could be more useful and beneficial to students because of the many accesses and commands it offer. Eric Moody argues that technology, internet use, could make a person socially emotional because there is a lack of face-to-face (FtF) communication but more of computer-mediated- communication (CmC). Even though Burket makes strong points about her handheld computer, I think she is mistaken because she overlooks the fact that technology could also effect people and things dramatically bad- the last of FtF and one-on-one (OnO) experience could be ruined. It could be a frightening sight to watch the overpowering of technology take over the classic way of communication which is FtF.

The invention of technology has side swept the world of its wonderful and easy ways of doing things. It is delusional to depend on it for everything we do, but some people approves of the advantages of technology. Some things are advanced for the use of technology, but the more simpler tasks could be handled without technology. Ellie Burkert, a teacher, claims that technology could be more useful for students at school. She introduces a handheld computer, i-guide, that are students used to help them with critiques of different art forms. The i-guide was used for the students to make observation notes and other templates that helped with critiques. The study of the i-guide amongst the students was a positive response. Burket’s methods that were used to prove the positive aftermath of the i-guide were interviews, video footage, journals, and sketchbooks. The evidence she put forth supported her claim that the students were in awe for the i-guide.



As I mentioned earlier, Burkert seem at ease with technology and view it useful and beneficial to students. Moody conducted a study of how people could become more socially lonely when technology is involved. He describes FtF as being able to use facial expressions, hand gestures, and OnO experience that cannot be found when using technology in an everyday life. The students in Burket’s study could be exposed at becoming CmC because they are starting off at an early age depending on handheld computers. The i-guide could be useful to help students with various activities and to those who are shy, but it can also be a downfall because technology can have its ups and downs. For example, at times the internet could be down or the handheld computer can break. That is why it is important to always have FtF experience because it is dependent upon. Eric Moody states that, “It is hypothesized that individuals with a high level of internet use, as defined by a relatively large numbers of hours spent online, will be more likely to experience social loneliness, but be less likely to experience social loneliness”, and it was proven that more internet use has higher rates of social loneliness. Burket seems content that the i-guide help the students. It may help, but it can possibly ruin the development of their FtF communication. As a believer that internet use could do that, I would have to disagree with Burket because she proves that the device had a positive effect but what about the negative effects?

In Moody’s paper, his hypothesis was based on one claim- the interent has some relation of steering a person to become lonely. Within his argument he presents evidence that supports his claim, however he does have some information of the opposite side of his claim. Moody is also being somewhat objective. He is trying to prove his claim, but he is not leaning on just one particular side. In opposition, Burket is definitely leaning on side- the i-guide which she claims that it is a postive factor for the students. Unlike Moody, Burket is being very subjective. Throughout out her argument there is only one positive facts of how the student interacts with the i-guide. Being on the outside looking in, I think there should have been more negative factors included. Even though I never used an i-guide, I can state that there is something negative about the i-guide, besides its ruining of FtF communication. Technology as a whole have flaws and I can expect that about the i-guide. Burket should have considered being more objective even though she is supporting her side.

Within the discussion of the i-guide Burket points out, “Students are being given the skills and framework to look and examine without the teacher, which in turn encourages them to take responsibility for their learning. As students relate the impact their experiences have had on them, I am led to question where this leave traditional methods of teaching and the role of the teacher”. I examined that quote as frightening because people do not recognize how technology can ruin things. The i-guide is definitely a technological disadvantage for students because it so advanced that the teacher may not be needed. Without the teacher being present, many things can fall out of place- learning and maybe the economy. Because Moody realizes the effects of technology, social and emotional loneliness, he questions what could be the long term effects of the internet. Burket questions the role of teachers in the long run, but she still embraces the positive gains that the students will have in the long run.





Moreover, everything that is man-made have flaws, and that is what technology consists of. I am not proclaiming that I am against technology, but I use it everyday and things go wrong from time-to-time. Burket puts the i-guide on a high pedistal knowing that it has some sort of wrong going. I possibly cannot see young students being dependent upon the i-guide because like Burket mentioned, what would happen to the teachers? People who ought to buy the i-guide could look at Burket’s argument for a more positive guideness because she did not present any negative points. Eric Moody presented his claim thoroughly because he not only supported his claim but he also provided information about the opposite side. Therefore, I actually promoted Moody side about technology because he provided well-rounded information opposed to Burket who leaned on one side.

File sharing VS Music Industry

Philip A. Gunderson is the author of Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, Mash-Ups, and the Age of Composition that discusses Jay Z’s Black Album and the Beatles White Album and whether the mash- up of the two is an appropriate style of music. Gunderson’s argument, “Music fans, fed up with the high prices of commercially available music, have opted to share music files via peer- to- peer file sharing networks, and record labels are attempting to coerce music fans back into the exchange relationship”. Gunderson however is against the music industry and their way of ripping people off. I believe he uses the terms “bedroom studio” and “digital communism” because he wants to inform others, that are often brainwashed by the music industry, how convenient and free file-sharing is.

Primarily, Gunderson is a member of the English Department at San Diego Miramar College and from his occupation his audience mainly consists of intellectuals who are familiar with his style of writing. File- sharing may not be the typical topic of educated individuals, but to get their attention he has to impress them by using fancy and large vocabulary. Considering his occupation, Gunderson is not the type of individual who has experienced file-sharing because his views seem to research based. For example, Gunderson expresses that “music fans” are not to happy about how high prices are, and that is why most people are engaging in sharing files. He is a supporter for what the music industry declares illegal, but not once he mentions himself actually participating in file-sharing.

Gunderson article includes different views on mash-ups, file sharing, pricing and the music industry itself. The argument he makes for file-sharing is to inform music fans about easier access and low pricing that can be obtained when exchanging files. The message he is conveying for file-sharing is by criticizing the music industry and insulting producers.

The term “bedroom producer” refers to individuals who makes music within their homes, basically anywhere but a recording studio. By using that particular word, Gunderson is trying to attract artists who participate in creating their own music and distributing it online. Gunderson argues, “Artists once had to play the record companies games in order to gain access to precious time in a recording studio, today a “bedroom producer” can create a professional sounding album with a personal computer alone”. That change has occurred over the evolvement of the technology and music industry. He directly proves that artist could be successful without the interference of recording companies or a super producer who has the “magic touch”.




As Gunderson makes a strong case of how “bedroom producers” could be successful, he also argues that the “digital communism” is what keeps the heavy flow within the music industry. The way Gunderson combine the words digital and communism it catches a reader’s attention because when a person thinks of the word communism it is often thought of in a bad way. In this new age of flourishing technology, Gunderson refers to it is as “digital communism” because music has its own source of gaining control because of the radio, commercials, and videos that are introduced to the world. Before the sudden outbreak of technology, the music industry had music fans brainwashed into buying albums. Now that certain individuals have easier access to gain music, the music industry lose consumers more and more because consumers depend upon their own sources- Internet, file-sharing.



Today individuals practice file-sharing, independent producing and sales on the Internet that record company considers as illegal. Gunderson states, “They preach a new economics: the communism of simulacra, the unrestricted sharing of digital copies without originals. This new economics deterritorializes the culture industry; it threatens all industries that have gatekeepers of information. As a supporter for file-sharing, Gunderson explained how it creates both pleasure and pain. For artists who wants to break into the business those methods are useful for them, but as for artists who wants to sell albums their outlook would not be so good. Gunderson explains how people Gunderson states that communist countries centuries would not be able to withstand the usage of cheap commodities. He states that a century later those same countries became vulnerable. He provide factual evidence of how today everybody uses some “illegal” process of gaining access to music.


As I have mentioned, Gunderson used terms such as “bedroom producer” and “digital communism” to attract readers beside his intentional crowd. He provided good evidence that proved what he was arguing which supports homemade work over the record company’s. Gunderson’s purpose of writing this article is to inform individuals who have no clue as to gaining easier access to free music. The targeted audience may read this article to see does Gunderson’s argument worth to support. Overall Gunderson paper is tough to understand the meaning but looking between the lines and the large vocabulary words, his argument had a purpose. It take the words of one man to spread knowledge and Gunderson informed many on both sides of the argument.

Response to Danger Mouses's Grey Album, Mash-Ups, and the Age of Composition

First Reading Log
Immediately after reading the article- Danger mouse’s Grey Album, Mash ups, and the Age of Composition- I formulated several questions and feelings towards it. The author Philip A. Gunderson has animosity towards independent producers, or which he refers to as a “bedroom producer” about their contribution to the music world. The article was not appealing to me because I feel that individuals have their own ways of expressing themselves, and Danger Mouse is just one of many. The words that he chose were difficult for me to understand the article as a whole, however his article may have been directed towards a more intellect audience. Maybe it was his professor that he is trying to persuade because several music fans would not be quick to grasp the meaning at all. Although I don’t quite understand the article as a whole, I definitely understand components of it. Gunderson’s response to Burton’s music mash ups of “The Beatles” and “Jay-Z” together the two albums, The White Album and The Black Album , was basically his terminology as an insult because the crossing of pop music and hip-hop. The Beatles, the legends that they are, in the music industry and Jay-Z, an upcoming rapper at that time, was seen as two totally different genres of music. He stated that music forbears was being made fun of because of someone’s use of combining two artists’ music together. Another topic that was mentioned was the file sharing and its popularity in the Internet world. Because the use of sharing files have become popular nowadays, Gunderson’s refer to the change as “digital communism” because its taking over the music industry. Everything that was here before independent acts came along, such as producers, record labels, and increased album sales are decreasing day by day. Overall, I think the article was good and provided points with evidence that supports his claim but it should have used more simple words.