#rheoricalanalysis

"Rock 'N' Roll Is Dead. No, Really This Time." by Danny Ross and "Is Rock 'n' Roll Dead, or Just Old?" by Bill Flanagan are two articles that delve into the possibility that rock 'n' roll is dead, but neither one gives you a confident answer.  Between the two articles presented, Bill Flanagan comes out on top, because he makes a stronger and overall more thoughtful case, while Danny Ross' version is much more careless and unrefined.  Flanagan tells the tales of rock 'n' roll and takes advantage of the opportune moment as rock legends fade away, exceeding Ross' inefficient attempt at proving rock 'n' roll is dead.

Bill Flanagan's article is cohesive and precisely structured in a direct attempt to inform the audience of what rock was and what it is now.  Stylistically, his writing is original and not biased like Ross' article is.  Flanagan is methodical in his approach to his audience but also in his appeals to the current times.  Seeing the perfect opportunity, he uses it to his advantage when he opens his article with reference to the recent passing of iconic music legends.   Flanagan gives a background of music but also the evolution of rock from 1950's to now.  This gives credibility to Flanagan's argument because he took the time and put in the effort to inform his readers, giving his readers the tools to make their own decisions.  He painted a better picture of what rock really was through the ages, therefore giving himself another dose of credibility.  

His entire article is thorough and connective, he gives valid topic-related information and doesn't stray too far from his main thesis.  For example, "At the Desert Trip festival in Indio, Calif., last month, about 150,000 tickets were sold for two weekends of shows featuring six legends of 1960s rock."  Here Flanagan informs you that rock is in fact not dead and still sought out by many.   Even though Flanagan stays on topic throughout the article, he never truly answered the main question, is rock 'n' roll dead?   Although he does not give a clear answer, he definitively hinted that rock is just old.  He provides enough proof in the evidence he presents for the reader to connect the dots themselves.  Rock is clearly not dead, it is still well and alive for those who seek it out.  

On the other hand, Danny Ross takes a much different approach to the topic.  He isn't as thoughtful as Flanagan, and the result makes his writing sound careless.  In the beginning, Ross appeals to the readers emotions as he mentions the passing of Chuck Berry.  However, his tone of voice it exaggerated and hyperbolic, desperately trying to evoke a sense of nostalgia in his audience while still being genuinely sincere.  Although Ross is confident in his statistics, he gives no tangible proof that people aren't listening to rock.  First Ross helped his credibility by using Billboard Hot 100 and Spotify Global charts to give supporting evidence to his argument. Then he immediately throws his credibility out the window when he contracts himself in the last sentence of the sixth paragraph: "Rock still does well in digital sales, but digital sales are declining." He gave proof in this one sentence that rock is in fact not dead.  

Another fatal flaw Ross makes is not finalizing his main thesis and moving on to another completely different topic, jolting you from where rock is today to the production of music.  He tries to compare Max Martin to Lennon McCartney, but he fails to give a proper background on Max Martin, which takes his credibility down yet another notch.  Ross' conclusion was altogether terrible and disorganized compared to Flanagan's.  Ross didn't even wrap up his main topic, but instead he made another comment on Max Martin.