Case #1: Why did Ozzy Osbourne get rhetorical protection that Bob Seger didn't?
Ozzy Osbourne had rhetorical protection because he was much more recognized, which allowed him to create a large and loyal fan base. This was because he was an influence to heavy metal and he also created the annual Ozzfest concert which made him much more popular. Bob Seger did not have as much recognition which is why he had no rhetorical protection. Case #3: What charges can be made agains Milli Vanilli that could not also be made against the Sex Pistols? Can the depiction of the Sex Pistols as "an early boy band" be defended logically? What specific aspects of the case study here do you find to be most important in evaluating the status of each of the two music groups?
Milli Vanilli were like frauds when it came to their music and had tricked many into believing that they actually had talent. The Sex Pistols were created with a certain image by Malcolm McLaren and that is why they were not seen in the same way as Milli Vanilli were. The depiction of the sex Pistols being an “early boy band” cannot be logically defended because there is no real proof of that assumption. The most important aspect of the case study is the outcomes of both the artists. 3) Looking at any or all of the musical acts described through page 228, how does the ancient rhetorical issue of ethos apply to modern-day performers? Which of these acts do you see as more genuine than others? Do you see any as completely fraudulent or "fake"?
It applies to them because ethos is about credibility and some of the modern-performers have that because they can be credited with singing their own songs while others are not. I see the Sex Pistols as more genuine because they never tried to fool anyone into thinking something else about the image of their group other than that they were a group of guys who had no idea how to play their instruments but were brought together to make noise and put on a show. I see Milli...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document