In an article about culture appropriation in the music industry, author James O. Young gives us his information on the difference between “taking” or “making”  music from an artist or genre. He then soon explains how music can be labeled as taking. The term he used to describe the factor that creates a negative label for the artist is because they had some sort of aesthetic difference. An aesthetic of something is a set of principles underlying and guiding the work of a particular artist or artistic movement. So, what he is trying to say is if an artist doesn’t necessarily follow the same kind of guidelines, they will receive a lot of criticism and disrespect for misusing this society’s culture in a bad way. From the genre’s culture there is a good chance the artist will not be respected because the rest of the culture could feel disrespected for not being aesthetically aware of who they are representing when making the song. Here I believe the author makes a good understandable point from the readers point of view of his message. He later explains more claims to how one’s music can be offensive to a culture, “ there is the question of the offensiveness of cultural appropriation. Ill-informed appropriation, sacrilegious appropriation, and appropriation that does not acknowledge its sources, can be objectionably offensive.” (Young para. 14) This relates to the claim of having the right aesthetics to the music in order for it to be approved. If you were to paraphrase somebody’s work in your paper, you would need to give them credit for what they have done. What the author is trying to say is not only does the music need to be original but you must give credit to the ones who made this possible for you in some way, shape,or form. But, The word sacrilege means to violate or misuse the use of something sacred. So, if you misuse something sacreade to a culture or group, they would not welcome you back if they don’t punish you. Personally, I think that Jame’s view upon the difference in taking or making music and his diagnosis of how somebody can misuse another cultures practices in ways that make it disrespectful. Honestly, I agree with his way of figuring out what these artists are doing wrong but I also believe it is the way they present it as well as making the song itself disrespectful in the first place. Which turns out, these are some of the respected beliefs as to why this happens in today’s society.

Author, Matthew Strohl had a few points in his argument about cultural appropriation. He defined how white rappers have failed in the industry mainly because of the disrespect and over glorifying themselves in a place where they don’t belong in. Such assumptions of white rappers can be countered by some new aged artists but, Strohl uses a specific word to help give the reader an image of what he’s trying to say when a  white female or male is shunned by their music culture. The word he uses is “wanton disrespect”, this action means to show a violent or cruel action or even meaning secually unrestrained women. This phrase is used in his article to help the reader understand how and why artists such as Miley Cyrus are basically getting kicked out of hip hop.” Iggy and Miley have become such thoroughgoing rap pariahs because they have shown wanton disrespect to the very form they borrow from. But the case of Macklemore shows us that respect isn’t sufficient for acceptance. If anything, he’s nauseatingly obsequious. By all appearances, Macklemore’s main problem is that he sucks.Also, he has fallen under fire for trying to speak on behalf of Black hip hop culture in condemning other white rappers.His presumption in branding himself “one of the good ones” is another way of overstepping, akin to appropriation.” (para. 2)  Here he addresses his reason for how people are stepping over the line without even thinking it’s a problem. But, we can understand how if one was to do the same to something we love and call it theres and participate in disrespectful acts while representing “their” music, it can really drown an artists success. I can see where Stroh is coming from, if you come from a different place and you are lucky enough to be welcomed in a new kind of society. Then, you disrespect your original culture by talking down to them. You will not get much respect from your current place with your new culture because they now could look at you differently. What I like about Stroh’s argument is that he explains how people who’ve had success switching their styles always made their music to an original style that they clearly made. Once somebody makes the switch it better be good and unique or there’s a chance they could become an embarrassment to the culture they are trying to represent.