Two songs that are covered during the first four lectures will be compared and contrasted. The songs must be chosen from the provided lists – one from list one and one from list 2 -and the paper should be no shorter than 3 pages (excluding bibliography). A bibliography must be included with proper citations for the songs themselves and at least 2 proper references.
One of the references should be âStinging Like Tabascoâ by Imani Perry
Be sure to listen to all of the songs and choose ones that you feel that you may have a lot to say about, and remember, youâre comparing the songs not how you feel about the songs.
Rubrik
Starting Points
You do whatâs asked â2 songs from the lists, 3 pages long, bibliography, both compare and contrast the songs, offer equal opinion and insight into both songs, offer proper support for info=15 pts before deductions.
Miss major elements âonly one song, songs are from the same list or are not on the list, no bibliography, 1.5 pages or less. â7.5 points before deductions.
Deductions at the discretion of the TA, but examples include unsupported/wrong information, incorrect citations, obviously poor effort, didnât compare songs but wrote about how one feels about the songs, skate.
Cheat = 0 and a report to AI
Song lists for the assignment
List One
De La Soul âMe, Myself and I
Roxanne Shante – Roxanne’s Revenge
Grandmaster Flash âThe Message
Public Enemy âDonât Believe the Hype
List Two
Kurtis Blow âThe Breaks
Snoop Dogg âWho Am I ?
ODB â Brooklyn Zoo
2 Live Crew – Me So Horny
Some content ideas:
Use Imani Perryâs âStinging Like Tabascoâ to compare the types of flow.
Compare the way that the beat is created
Compare the use of âSignifyinâ in the lyrics.
Compare the environments that the songs came from and how we hear them.
Compare the intention of the lyrics.
Compare anything else that you hear and that you feel is important to understanding the songs
Sample Solution
he primary information collected during the researchers direct observations of participants, being the production of interview transcripts is un-biased, as the researcher collected it themselves, giving them more control in the data being original. Nonetheless, participants may have unknowingly held back information or might have given answers that they thought would give the known researcher what they wanted and/or needed to hear. On the other hand, some answers were not as detailed, this could have been due to withholding information due to the knowing of each other. The data was reported in the language of the participant and was analysed by themes from the description given. When using thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006), several themes were identified: Theme 1- Both participants have jobs and can financially support themselves. Theme 2- Both are concerned with their time management. Theme 3- No problems were mentioned from either, when adapting to new peers or environments. Theme 4- Both have active family and social lives, making the workload a concern for both. The main concern was identified as time management and workload based on the summary of the similarities and differences from both interviews. Additional support of this result can be found in the wider reading journal articles published by Burston (2017), Anderson et al (2017) and Graham (2015). In accordance with the literature review articles, each acknowledged the main concern of time management but considered it was not the primary concern. Furthermore, by not using a leading title question, the research data was considered non-subjective, which in regard made strength in providing qualitative data accessible. Then again, the word âconcernâ wasnât suggestible in each question, therefore not focused upon to influence answers. This made the advantage of forming a conclusion more viable. However, by carrying out the interviews, advantages of using open questions res>
he primary information collected during the researchers direct observations of participants, being the production of interview transcripts is un-biased, as the researcher collected it themselves, giving them more control in the data being original. Nonetheless, participants may have unknowingly held back information or might have given answers that they thought would give the known researcher what they wanted and/or needed to hear. On the other hand, some answers were not as detailed, this could have been due to withholding information due to the knowing of each other. The data was reported in the language of the participant and was analysed by themes from the description given. When using thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2006), several themes were identified: Theme 1- Both participants have jobs and can financially support themselves. Theme 2- Both are concerned with their time management. Theme 3- No problems were mentioned from either, when adapting to new peers or environments. Theme 4- Both have active family and social lives, making the workload a concern for both. The main concern was identified as time management and workload based on the summary of the similarities and differences from both interviews. Additional support of this result can be found in the wider reading journal articles published by Burston (2017), Anderson et al (2017) and Graham (2015). In accordance with the literature review articles, each acknowledged the main concern of time management but considered it was not the primary concern. Furthermore, by not using a leading title question, the research data was considered non-subjective, which in regard made strength in providing qualitative data accessible. Then again, the word âconcernâ wasnât suggestible in each question, therefore not focused upon to influence answers. This made the advantage of forming a conclusion more viable. However, by carrying out the interviews, advantages of using open questions res>
