1. Short Paragraph 1: Describe your evidence. (150-200 words)
As an analytic writer, remember that detail/description is a separate move from interpretation/analysis! When describing your evidence stick to in-depth description and avoid interpretations/opinions/judgements. Experiment and get poetic with how you describe your evidence to a reader who might not know who Jimi Hendrix is, what the Star Spangled Banner is, even what an electric guitar is, etc.
Write a description of the performance, giving as much detail as possible. Discuss what you heard, but also, choose at least 1-2 feelings/bodily responses that came up during your noticing session. Experiment and get creative about what words you use to describe your embodied experience.
What happened first? What happened next?
2. Short Paragraph 2: Discuss Context. (150-200 words)
Briefly discuss the context of Jimi’s performance as it relates to your analysis and helps Readers understand your ideas/claims/argument–context can include where was the performance, when did it take place, what was happening in the world, key information about Jimi’s personal life for example his relationship to the Vietnam War, etc.
3. Short Paragraph 3: Performance analysis applying keywords for performance theory. (200-250 words)
How does Jimi Hendrix’s sonic performance of the Star Spangled Banner offer a counter-narrative to the ideology of American freedom?
Choose 2-3 keywords from the list below to build/deepen your analysis of your evidence. Apply the keywords to your EVIDENCE–for example, how does the concept of restored behavior help your Readers understand the feeling of familiarity that sweeps over you as you begin to listen to Jimi’s performance? What ritual behavior/s are called up by Jimi’s performance? etc.
restored behavior
master/counter narrative, script
deconstruction
representation
soundtrack, composition
improvisation
4. ASK/INQUIRE/QUESTION
What are you curious about? What would you like to know more about? What might you be interested and inspired to learn about more in-depth?
