Directions: Watch the video (if you have trouble accessing the video from Blogger, go directly to YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSO_d1svtfU).
What is the main argument of the video? How does the introduction of the video support this argument? What about the main support (what types of main support are there?)? What would make the middle part more convincing, if you feel it does not effectively support the main argument? How does the conclusion of the video work to wrap up the whole argument?
Note: If you wish to comment on the video, please perform the assignment first, and then comment.
(You might think that listening to parts of this video is torturous, but push through).
Due before class on Thursday, September 18th.
Reply to a classmate: Find a classmate you can politely disagree with, and comment on his/her blog.
Note: Disagree with what you think your classmate misdiagnosed or mislabeled as part of the argument, especially the evidence. If you wish to disagree with his/her opinion, do so, but please perform the assigned reply first.
Due by 5pm on September 19th.
Due by 5pm on September 19th.
The main argument of this video is to educate and persuade viewers to sign a silent petition to put a stop to music torture. This is Massive Attack’s “silent protest” against the US’ use of their and other UK musician’s music for purpose of torture. Their main support for their argument is the man’s experience in Guantanamo Bay, a US military prison. They also used the scientist for credibility to show that music can be damaging. I believe the middle was convincing enough, it demonstrated how the man in the video was mentally damaged for 2yrs by this method of torture and they played their music at different frequencies to demonstrate to viewers how it can hurt your ears. The closing of the argument wrapped up by flashing the website zeroDB.org which leads to a silent petition supported by artists against music torture. This video was very educating. I enjoyed this assignment very much, except for the fact it gave me a headache. I couldn’t imagine listening to this music for 2 ½ days.
ReplyDeleteI keep watching the video and can't find where he was mentally damaged. Does it say that somewhere? Or is it implied? Maybe I just keep missing it. Either way, I enjoyed your analysis very much and didn't look at the zeroDB.org until I saw you had mentioned it and found it made the video much more interesting and organic to the cause of the argument.
Deletefrom my perception he was mentally damaged after this experience as a whole, not knowing how to interact with people after being released
DeleteThis argument is meant to try to get people to be against the use of music torture. It’s mostly telling people that music torture is bad and they should be completely and utterly against it. The introduction of this video is helpful because it told people that loud noises over long periods of time can be very painful and can cause damage to a human’s ear. What I thought would have made the middle section of the video more convincing to me is if they showed slightly exaggerated animation of a human ear getting damaged from loud music. Otherwise, I believe that the entire video was very convincing. The end of the video mostly seemed to sum up what was shown, then showed what sound could really do, and then displayed a link so that you could learn even more about what this is. Overall, I thought this video had been very edifying and had effectively convinced me to see that this form of punishment is a very corrupt thing to do to anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument of the video was that music can be used as a form of torture and is used as a form of torture in a prison called Guantanamo Bay. The introduction actually plays sounds that they use in the prison to hurt the inmate’s ears. The types of main support are that they have an inmate that has experienced it first hand and a scientist that can prove it is harmful. It talked about over long periods of time how harmful it can be to a person. The middle part of the video was convincing that music torture is very detrimental to the inmates that are experiencing it. The inmate that was interviewed had a rough time when he was released back into society because of the two years or so he spent in the prison. He talked about how he was stuck in a little room for days with the music playing. The conclusion seemed to be cut off but it did show how the sound waves coming off the speaker reacted. The sound waves made the milk look distorted almost clay like.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on everything except for the fact that music torture has been used in other prisons besides Guantanamo Bay. I think to mention just this prison limits the argument. I think Massive Attack wants to shed light on the fact that many prisons are using this form or torture.
DeleteIn the video the main argument is that noise torture can be permanently damaging and should stop. By showing the viewer that the study was done at the Audio Lab at Cambridge University, a widely respected research university, the introduction to the video is establishing credibility. Part of the main support is the researcher explaining the damaging power of sound and what the human ear can handle. The second part of the main support is the ex-prisoner’s account of his own experiences at Guantanamo Bay. The third main support is the noise being played in the background. The middle of the video was informative and fairly convincing. I think it could have been more convincing if they had shown volunteers trying to tolerate the noise torture for short periods of time. The conclusion reinforces that sound is powerful with a visual of milk being distorted by the vibration of the sound.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the video the massive attack Saturday came slow, the main argument of this video is to persuade and make people try to stop using music to torture. The introduction helped the argument because it gives an idea to people how loud music turn to be painful to human and can cause damage to peoples hearing. The main support for this argument is the man in the video being prisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Because he was a solder, he was held as a captive and he was tortured. Also the video explained how the music sound was used as a tool for an experiment to show how the music can be harmful. It is clear that the middle part was more convincing. It explained how this young man’s head in this video was damaged by the sound for the time he spent as a prisoner. The conclusion of the video wrapped up the whole argument by explaining how the music was used in the place of torture. At the end of the video, they put dough on the speaker and played it loud until the dough turned into liquid. I think the video had a very good ending. It explained how powerful music sound can be and how it can damage humans when they hear it.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument of the video is to show how damaging music torture can be to a human, not only physically but mentally also, in order to petition the use of music for torture. The introduction of the video supports the argument because it is providing evidence that sound torture is physically damaging to the ear. The very first thing that the video shows is where this experiment has been done, Cambridge University's Audio Lab. This is a reliable and trustworthy source, so the audience should feel comfortable believing the facts about the decibel and the damage it can cause. The forms of main support are the facts that the man (scientist) gives about the pain levels the decibel can cause, the visual examples of what music or sound can do to objects, and the ex-prisoner from Guantanamo Bay's personal experience. The middle of the video, when the song is played and there is a visual of sand or dust being moved by the sound waves, could have been different to further show the affects that the sound can have on a person. They could show someone listening to the music or show a human ear as the sound hits it. Many viewers might not even understand what is going on during this part because there is no explanation and that portion of the video is almost abstract. The conclusion of the video, the sound waves from the speaker causing the cornstarch-water mix physically change from liquid to solid, gives viewers a visual example of how much sound can actually do. It connects the beginning of the video, where the man talks about the decibel and its affects, and ties it together with the main point of the damaging afflictions that music torture has.
ReplyDeleteIn this video, Massive Attack Saturday come slow, the main argument is to show how music is used as a form of torture in some prisons. The introduction supports this idea by explaining to the viewer how when the music is turned up to loud, it actually causes pain to the human ears. The main support for this argument is proven through the man in the video. He explains his experience with this kind of torture while he was in prison in Guantanamo Bay. The middle part of the video was convincing because they were trying to prove that the loud music does in fact affect your hearing. When the man describes what he went through in the prison with having to listen to the music for two and a half days, he is trying to help prove that the music does affect you in the long run. The end of the video really just summed up the whole video by using the man that went through this experience firsthand, and him sharing how it affected him when he was released. Overall I think that the video was very eye opening because I had no idea that they used loud music as a form of punishment.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the man's experience in Guantanamo Bay was a major point of evidence in the video, but I believe there are other parts that you failed to mention. The part when the man is speaking in the background and giving facts on how sound can damage the ear and the visual experiments that are shown are also main supports of the argument.
DeleteIn the video the main argument is that music can be used as a form of torture and can be permanently damaging. In the beginning of the video when they have a professional speaking about the types of sound and the type of destruction they can cause its all to set a foundation of support for the argument. By playing different types of sounds, and giving the viewer and idea of what types of noise these inmates suffer through it is one of the main supports. The second support is having a actual past inmate of Guantanamo Bay talk about their experience with having sound torture done to them specifically, and how they were damaged by it and is destructiveness. The middle of the video was really convincing but could have been even stronger if they maybe showed a demonstration of some sort or a image possibly of the damage left to the ear if hurt by music torture. The conclusion wraps up the whole argument well because they have the man talking about his experience with music torture explaining how he was affecting greatly by the torture. Then they have the milk on the speaker flopping around all distorted, looking nothing like milk but more like clay. Demonstrating that if sound can change, even damage milks form, then it can do a whole lot worse to a humans ear.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument made in the video was how loud noise can be used as a form of punishments. This study was done at the audio laboratory in 2012. The introduction supported the argument by demonstrating the effect of loud noise through the noise played in the background. The main support of this argument was a man who shared his experience about how he was tortured while he was in the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He said he was isolated for 5month and they played the sound for 21/2 days. I can’t imagine this kind of torture. The middle part is more convincing because it shows the noise was painful and how loud the noise was. The conclusion shows how powerful the sound was. Milk was use to demonstrate this experiment which means if sound can deformed milk, it can do a whole lot more to peoples ear and this can cause deafness.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you explained in detail what it was about. Everyone wrote the pretty much the same thing about this video but you laid your explanation of the video out very well. If I did not watch it for myself I could have read your blog and knew what it was about. Good job.
DeleteI feel like we may disagree on what the main support includes. I thought there were three main supports and you've listed two of the ones I noticed. I agree that the sound and the ex-prisoner's experience were main support but I think that the researcher explaining what the human ear can handle was a big part of the evidence as well.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what you said about the music that was not of his choice, I didn't think that was the problem, but rather how loud the music was being played. I thought you did an ok job, it summed most everything up pretty well, and the sentence structure was a bit distracting.
ReplyDeleteThis video is an argument against the use of noise as a torture technique by the United States and U.K., specifically referring to it's use at Guantanamo Bay. The director uses narration with a point to how decibels can affect the human ear, an interview with a person exposed to this type of torture, and a song by Massive Attack called "Saturday Come Slow" to support their argument against the perceived injustice of this type of torture.
ReplyDeleteMassive Attack is one of my favorite bands. If I was stranded on a desert island and only allowed 10 albums to take with me, Mezzanine would be right there next to me. However, I don't see this particular song as congruent with the message of the video. If we look at YouTube videos like KONY 2012 or even the more recent ice-bucket challenges, they seemed more direct to the point and thus got more exposure and money. The KONY 2012 video alone has almost 100 million views and raised almost $20 million in 2012 alone. This video has about 100,000 views and has been around for 2 more years. That evidence suggests to me that the video was ineffective and I personally think that is because of the abstract nature of the video. We were never told why the interviewee was imprisoned at Guantanamo, only his story of the torture. We were also given a portrayal of the torture in the form of milk dancing on a speaker, which was supposed to be reflective of what sound can do to an eardrum. But in the end as the speaker turns off, the milk did go back to normal.
While I in no way condone the use of any torture technique in any setting, I also wish this video would have been more informative on the question of why it was being used in this scenario and a little less abstract about the message the director was trying to get across.
I like your approach to this blog a lot. Compared to mine and almost everybody else, I feel we all said about the same thing. I don't agree though that the video was ineffective. I found the video compelling and informative. I think that even though it hasn't been the most popular on YouTube that maybe it is well known through some other site and more effective there.
DeleteThe main argument of this video is that loud distortions of certain sounds can be used as torture. The narrator explains the way the ear can handle different pitches. At any pitch, sound can become painful to hear. The main support of this video is the interviewer who was held captive. He described the way they put on loud heavy metal music as a form a music. The narrator explained when music is displayed on cheap speakers, it creates a distortion that can be unbearable. In the middle of the video, instead of playing that lovely music, I would have demonstrated a sound that was distorted at different levels. This would represent the sounds that are not that bad to the sounds that can be torture. The conclusion of the argument is that playing loud music can be harmful to one’s ears, especially if distorted, and it also can be used as torture.
ReplyDelete