Herman Cai

Writing 2
De Piero
3/16/2015
WP2 Revised
"Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the
imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything." - Plato
The creation of music has charmed and fascinated ever since humans started roaming the
earth. Music finds its way through so many aspects of life. We hear it on the radio. We hear it in
the streets. We hear others singing at the top of their lungs. In this day and age, we take this
sound for granted. So how can such a commonplace slice of life possibly have the power to shift
the course of human history and evolution? For the past millennium, people have become aware
that music actually plays a significant role in both social group and sexual selection. Leonid
Perlovsky explores this concept that music is an influential mechanism on the mind in his
academic text The Cognitive Function of Music. The website The Economist publishes an
article Human evolution: Why music? that discusses several possible roles of music in the
development of humans as a social creature. While both articles use similar rhetoric tactics to go
in-depth on human relations with music, the scholarly publication "The Cognitive Function of
Music" makes a stronger argument based on its use of ethos and experimental evidence, which is
important for readers who want reliability and scientific proof.
The way an author identifies himself or herself can greatly change whether the audience
takes the writing seriously. As a peer-reviewed publication, "The Cognitive Function of Music"
already holds a considerable amount of credibility and authority, versus the online article from a
well-known website The Economist. A learned figures work demands more attention and regard
than someone who has only been established as a journalist. Losh and Alexander, two writing
professors, suggest in their educational comic that social contexts matter, and most people wear

lots of different costumes for their different social roles (Understanding Rhetoric, 118). The
writer of the academic paper presents himself immediately following and directly under the title:
Leonid Perlovsky, Harvard University, USA (1). Although not a famous or renowned name,
the mere fact that the author is an accredited professor of a university gives the article integrity
and legitimacy, two attributes commonly associated with scholarly publications.
In comparison to the site supplying the academic article, The Economist has a much
bigger audience of over 8 million subscribers, as a search of the site will clearly state. Although
the site holds the professional-sounding name The Economist and a vast amount of followers of
its articles on world culture and politics, it simply does not hold the same standing with writing
that has been reviewed and criticized by experienced scholars. In fact, the website does not even
offer the author's name. The article can be reliable to some degree due to the reputation of its
publisher, but the lack of identity further detracts from the credibility of the article.
As much as a papers successfulness depends on the ability of the author, it also relies on
the expectations of the intended audience; in this case, a purposeful audiences search for
specific research allows the academic text to prevail once again. Stedman, a college writing
professor, supports this idea in Annoying Ways People Use Sources by stating that "One of the
fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that speakers/writers/composers shape what they say/write/create
based on what they want it to do, where they're publishing it, and what they know about the
audience/reader" (244). This means that Perlovsky must tailor his journal while being aware of
his scientific audience. Since scholarly writing is meant for recording and sharing observed
experiments, the audience consists of other researchers and students, who must use specific
keywords and terms to find this particular article. This means the audience will begin reading
with preset expectations for the content. They expect to see the usual conventions of an academic

journal: an abstract, the experiment, data, analyses, a conclusion, and so on. By knowing what
format, tone, and information the readers want to see, the author can tailor the writing to make it
even more effective towards that specific audience.
The academic text will definitely have a stronger effect on those who are actively
searching for one particular topic, whereas casual readers using public websites may not be
likely to encounter it or consider it with much regard. As Birkenstein and Graft claim in their text
So What, an in-depth paper on one experiment would not be very effective if the author is
writing for general readers who dont necessarily have a strong investment in the particular
clash of views (96). The Economist simply relays information to the public. By the nature of the
internet, anyone can easily find and read the journals from this popular publisher without having
an explicit search in mind. For the most part, these writings are meant for casual consumption,
not deep analysis and criticism. An individual looking for non-specific and perhaps even
entertaining topics to read would find Why music? more intriguing.
The author of Why music? utilizes an informal style with certain rhetoric moves that
are not necessarily appropriate for an academic audience. While talking about musics seemingly
unneeded role in society, the author compares it as such: Like cheesecake, music sates an
appetite that nature cannot. By introducing the concept of musics role with a simile, the
audience can see the idea in a new perspective. However, the use of metaphors and similes may
not always be a good idea, depending on the purpose and style of the article. In the reading
Style in Arguments by Lunsford, she argues that for most academic arguments, fairly formal
language is appropriate Slang and colloquial terms may enliven an argument, but they can also
bewilder readers (310). Unrelated phrases that mainly serve the purpose of keeping writing
interesting are distracting and can break a readers concentration. Although metaphors may be

nice in a casual journal or blog, this type of move does not fit into an academic setting where
readers want relevant important statements.
While the Economist author builds upon several separate ideas in the article, Perlovsky
discusses his own findings and ideas; both the academic and non-academic sources serve their
own different purposes. Why music, the non-academic article, is clearly not trying to make a
claim or fully support one hypothesis. The author simply writes to raise awareness to the topic.
The author provides contrasting concepts of music as seen here: The third hypothesis, however,
is that music is a cross between an accident and an invention. By offering several opposing
ideas, he takes no sides in the argument. The reader has a choice to support one view of the
subject, or remain ambiguous and simply observe the various possibilities. In this way, the nonacademic text accomplishes the goal of being open to all perspectives instead of trying to support
one specific claim. In contrast, The Cognitive Function of Music focuses and bases its
evidence on the one hypothesis that music performs a fundamental cognitive function, helping
to maintain psychic balance in the face of the diversity of the world. The author does not offer
additional standpoints that may possibly undermine the evidence used to support the original
idea. The scholarly text tries to use concrete evidence that revolves around proving/disproving
one idea. By staying on one idea, the text can convince the reader that the hypothesis is true
through proper use of evidence and research.
Perlovskys use of his own primary research data sets the scholarly publication apart as a
more successful piece for academic readers. In The Cognitive Function of Music, Perlovsky
gathers and records his own research. Meanwhile, Why music uses quotes and statements from
other people to support his ideas. The author provides many claims from different individuals, as
seem here: Robin Dunbar of Oxford University does not go quite that far, but unlike Dr. Miller

he thinks that the origins of music need to be sought in social benefits rather than the sexual
benefits of seduction. The writer seems to be relying heavily on ethos to appeal to the audience
by naming professors and taking advantage of scholars credibility. While using names to back
up a concept is useful for creating a sense of validity, an audience that wants to see actual
scientific data will find the article unhelpful. A disciplined writer who has had first-hand
experience in their topic is generally more reliable than someone who is almost indistinguishable
from any other authors for The Economist.
As with most genres of writing, there are limitations that stifle the effectiveness of any
piece, depending on the expectations and motives of the reader. The scholarly article does not
have the ability to reach out to a wider audience because the average individual is not likely to be
interested in specific research; they must go through a very particular search procedure to find
the article in question. Meanwhile, the Economist journal does not have scientific evidence to
actually support its claims. Written by an unknown author and published by a collective source
The Economist, the credibility and authority of the article falls short due to its lack of scientific
backup and ethos.
Of course, in conclusion of the article aspects that have been discussed, no one genre of
writing can never be truly more effective than another genre. Its effectiveness depends heavily on
the intended audience the people the author is actually writing for. For an audience that wants
to look into specific research, a scholarly publication fulfills the purpose much better than an
online article that has not been peer-reviewed. The use of firsthand primary research gives the
academic text a lot more credibility as opposed to an online journal that has no scientific
backing. Through ethos and the proper presentation of evidence to support a concept, the

scholarly publication is arguably more effective for an audience that wants professional scientific
writing.
Bibliography

Perlovsky, Leonid The Cognitive Function of Music Part II June 1, 2014 Web. February 17,
2015 http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5a36e3ca-011c-4045-81d5f8f9dd83d990%40sessionmgr112&vid=22&hid=101

Human Evolution: Why music? December 18, 2008 Web. February 17, 2015
http://www.economist.com/node/12795510

Losh & Alexander Understanding Rhetoric Spaces for Writing Print. February 17, 2015

Stedman Annoying Ways that People Use Sources Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing Print.
2011 February 17, 2015

Lunsford Style in Arguments Research and Arguments Print. February 17, 2015