I am writing a paper and is has to have a thesis. I have a couple, please post your opinion.
1) Censoring music will not change the way people feel about the words, it will only prevent the words from being said.
2) Censoring music will not change what the artist has said, it will just prevent profanity from being said on the radio.
3) Music censorship will not change peoples attitudes towards certain artists, they are still going to make more CDs.
please tell me which is better if anyone has any suggestions by all means please help. VERY OPEN TO CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. By the way i am a COLLEGE STUDENT.
2006-08-21 11:57:28 · 10 answers · asked by 2good4hem 3 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
Censoring music limits one's right to speech and the artistic value of the artist's work.
2006-08-21 12:04:54 · answer #1 · answered by inLaLaLand 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, when answering this you really need to look at your paper and work out which statement applies most appropriately to what your arguement is!
Are you just having a hard time choosing between topics? If so, maybe you should look at which one of these arguements is most strongly supported / validated through the research...? It makes sense to choose a topic in which you have the greatest amount of work and resources avaliable for empirical validation. It is not enough to just say something, you have to illustrate that it does happen in real world settings.
Take argument #1: Censoring music will not change the way people feel about the words, it will only prevent the words from being said.
Now, this seems to suggest to me that censorship of music will ultimately be fruitless: it will not change people attitudes, just force them to change the avenue in which they express this attitude through.
BUT....
That's just me making a dissertation based on the one sentence which was provided. It seems logical to me, but that doesn't mean that that is the way it will actually happen out there in the real world. Is there empirical evidence that censoring music serves no other purpose (ie. attitude change) than removing profanities from the lyrics of songs?
These are the things you need to look at when deciding on your thesis statement (which is, ultimately, your whole paper digested down into one sentence). Also things like real world relevance? There may be a gross amount of information on a certain topic, but if the topic does not have any real world relevance or, essentially, if your work does not add anything of help or relevance to society as a whole you may want to ask yourself if there is any point writing about it? Also, do not be afraid to focus on some ideas which you have a particular interest in. Chances are your work will be more orderly and make more sense, and you will strive harder to write a complete and comprehensive paper on something which you understand intimately and have an appreciation of.
Personally, I cannot tell you which one seems "better" because, again, it depends on so many other variables. Do a thorough and comprehensive literature review: look at what is out there already and think about what might be beneficial but hasn't yet been talked about. Think about your own personal interest and standing (ie. are you pro or anti censorship?), and finally, look at the specifics of your paper. How many words are required? What form should it take? Facts like these will guide you as to how much depth your topic should take, how much detail you should go into when writting the paper,and also what sort of articles you should be looking for (ie. critical analyses, reviews, contrasting comparisons etc. etc.).
Good luck with your paper and your education!!
2006-08-21 12:48:39 · answer #2 · answered by Lucy Goosey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Censoring Music Lyrics
2016-10-19 10:09:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the second one. Perhaps "Censoring music for profane words will not change the meaning of the artist's work, but will simply prevent profanity from reaching the airwaves".
2006-08-21 12:07:51 · answer #4 · answered by lonely_girl3_98 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
number one's the closest i'd go with, but it's a little rough, nonetheless. censorship can almost always be gotten around, so it's not so much that the words won't be said, but that people will have to find new ways to hear them and get them heard. for example, if a radio station won't play a song because of profanity, buy the cd. if wal-mart won't carry the cd, because of the profanity, shop elsewhere. and so on. see?
2006-08-21 12:07:42 · answer #5 · answered by altgrave 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
how about something like this "with all emphasis on free speech in the united states today, censoring music lyrics will only encourage artists to write more vulgarity into the music.
2006-08-21 12:08:07 · answer #6 · answered by dumbdumb 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
#1 is the best by far....it shows a limit on freedom of expression and can be extended, the rest are a bit more antagonistic against the issue of music censorship and it seems better if you take a more neutral standing.
2006-08-21 12:15:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Use neither. Develope a completely different angle starting with the power of music and how it DOES effect people. peace.
2006-08-21 12:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
congradualations on being a 'college student' .............. Here is a thesis; DO YOUR OWN WORK!!!
Dont forget to buy your books online, only suckers get ripped off by the bookstore, I recomend Textbook411.com , I always save atleast 1/2
2006-08-22 08:08:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hope this helps!
2016-02-23 21:06:33 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋