The Ed Sullivan Show and the Sounds of the Sixties

Section 2: Bob Dylan’s refusal to perform a different song depicts that he was a man of originality and a fighter for his rights who can stand against the culture. His motivation for music was not to only show his appearance on some stage but to portray his work, talent and what he is passionate about rather than performing with a modified version of his work.
Section 3: Mick Jaggar’s insistence that he said “mmmm” instead of “time” suggests that many musicians consider censorship as modifying their work for a certain occasion or a situation so that their work can be represented in its original form at another place in order to ensure its acceptability and fame in its original form.
Section 4: The Doors’ response to the act of attempted censorship on The Ed Sullivan Show turned into their own favor because they proved themselves as a group who do not give up so easily and they are someone who represents themselves and their work the way it is rather than modifying it on external demands.
Section 5: According to Inglis, it is imperative to analyze the whole situation and its pros and cons before imposing any censorship. The reason being, certain situations themselves allow taking a step of commanding censorship however in certain conditions things like audiences’ entertainment, acceptability and profitability it is bringing to the industry also need to be focused on. Moreover, the negative reactions by the musicians on the imposition of censorship might also disturb the economy and audience so everything needs to be considered.
The Ed Sullivan Show’s motivation for allowing groups they found too controversial was to gain commercial profits and attraction of youth towards because such groups attract the young generation that ultimately increases the number of audiences in the show.
Section 6: Based on the conclusions, it is evident that Inglis is taking the side of the musicians as according to him even if the musicians of that era did not gain a lot of fame but they kept on fighting for their rights and freedom (Inglis).
1.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. Clarity of purpose [Is there a clear statement (or statements) of purpose in this article? Do you understand what the author is trying to do?] 5
2.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. Comprehensibility [Is it clear what claims Inglis is using his examples of censorship (Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Doors) to support? Is the article understandable, or too complex?] 5
3.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. Effective examples (Are Inglis’s arguments about censorship effective? Is his evidence logical?)&nbsp. 4
4.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. Organization (Is the article organized well? Does Inglis make connections between ideas?) 5
5.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. Convincing conclusion (Does Inglis reach a convincing conclusion about censorship in the end? Do you feel he “proves” the claims he makes about censorship?) 4
“But such generalized descriptions do not help us to distinguish between "the twin axes of offense and causality" (Cloonan 289) employed by the proponents of censorship. nor do they illuminate the specific grounds on which censorship is introduced—sexual content, swearing, blasphemy, drug references, political content, and violence. nor do they sit easily with the frankly conservative or sentimental ideology of much of the last five decades popular music” (Inglis 565).