Blog 10

While the creative commons video looked a bit like a high schooler's midterm, I did quite like the sound of everything. This "age of information" is a strange and new one and everyone is still getting used to it. The lines of copyright, privacy, and fair use are constantly blurred and I seem to hear about a new case of these almost every day. For the most part though, the creative commons seems to be a more convenient way to communicate one's intentions of one's creative property. After reading their page on Wikipedia, they seem to listen to their user base, but are not without their flaws and controversies. But, is anything. As I said, the lines are constantly blurred in many facets of information and I don't think there will ever be a perfect way to regulate all of those things.

On the topic of critical thinking, it is certainly important to the musician. I find myself just repeating passages and becoming frustrated when practicing. I become dissatisfied and many times stay that way because I don't think about things often enough. That happens in my lessons all the time. "Did you try singing it?" No. Sometimes all it takes is ending a phrase on a note later than I was and it changes the whole thing. I know that I can figure those things out, but don't do it often enough. As a performer, thinking critically can completely open up a piece. I had a terrible time trying to learn Sor's Fantaisie Éligiaque. I was always whistling the melody and it's one of the few classical era guitar pieces I enjoy hearing, but I couldn't get into it when I was playing. I'm sure if I actually sat back and thought about it and analyzed it I could have done it. But, my recital was fast approaching and I was worried and stressed and decided to scrap it. In any case, critical thinking is of the utmost importance to the musician. It is a skill that does not come easily to all (myself included) but must be learned.

Now, on bib. Did I enjoy it? Sometimes. Was it important? Absofruitly. But, don't take that the wrong way. Not all classes are meant to be enjoyed. I learned from this class. I was made more aware of the massive amount of information available to me and am now better equipped to navigate that landscape. I never would have read about open access or the changing state of copyright or really any of what we read about if I didn't have to. More knowledge is never a bad thing. I'm almost finding myself thinking that I enjoyed the scavenger hunts. Maybe I did, but I can't just say that! No, no, that wouldn't do. They were frustrating, but I suppose it was similar to video games in some senses. I love video games, but they frustrate me to no end sometimes and I'll leave it at that. I'm certainly well equipped from this class. Though *spoiler alert* I'm not terribly happy with how my Annotated Bibliography turned out, I am happy with what I learned from it. I feel better about acquiring valuable sources and a better judge and a better navigator of information because of it.

This became much longer than I was planning, so I'll wrap things up.

...I was trying to come up with a nice closer, but it's almost 2:00 am and I have to work tomorrow. So...


 

Blog 8

American beaurocracy is incredibly annoying. 95 years after publication or 70 years after the author's death is too long. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that all the complexities with the time "loopholes" (1923 and 1976) and the federal and state powers on the matter make it even more frustrating. It's also interesting (not in a fun "Ohhh that's interesting" way, but more a sarcastic "wow, really?" way) to learn that all other countries give recordings shorter copyright times than the written material. Of course the US has to be different. This issue creates more frustration and ties into the second article about streaming. It seems libraries really have to jump through hoops to obtain permission to stream music. The example given, while I'm not sure how typical it is, is certainly absurd when compared to just getting a tangible recording e.g. CD. It also seems strange to consider that something intangible is so much more strictly regulated than something tangible. One thinks of internet resources as widely available and easy to access, but in this case it seems quite the opposite: one can do whatever they want with a CD, but must pay to use the content for only a finite amount of time. Yet another frustrating issue is that regulation and law of internet resources develops so much slower than the resources themselves.

I had quite a bit of fun searching through the Belfer archive's cylinder collection. There are tons of interesting and strange recordings and a very wide range of genres as well. I'm sad to say the National Jukebox Project failed to work on my computer. No matter what I tried to do, it seemed to just perpetually load and never get anywhere. So, I will share some links from the cylinder collection. It was difficult at first to choose as I kept finding more and more interesting recordings, but I've landed on two:

First: http://digilib.syr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cylinder&CISOPTR=1230&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

I think Olivier Messiaen would have bowed down to this man. These are some seriously impressive imitations of birdsong and I love me some birds: I was pursuing ornithology before deciding to study music.

Last: http://digilib.syr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cylinder&CISOPTR=98&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

A recording of President McKinley's funeral service. This one stood out to me for several reasons. One: what a strange thing to find and two: I happen to have a tumbler from the 1901 World's fair where he was assassinated.

Blog 7

The articles presented this week seem to all center around change: a change from the physical to the ethereal. In the speech transcription, Watt recalls nostalgically of his days as an undergrad where he viewed the library as somewhat of a level playing field. He, a budding researcher, alongside his well-learned professors, toiling away among the collections of their university library. It all sounds lovely until the issue of money is brought up. It is seldom an issue of which we like to speak, but it is unavoidable: some universities have more money than others and thus, more and perhaps better resources. With the online archives and resources available to us today, I'd happily forego Watt's nostalgia.

But!

Money. Sadly, money matters on the internet as well. The internet is a human invention and humans are rather big fans of money. Also, legalities are an issue, particularly those surrounding copyright. Copyright is a strange thing and as one sees in the IMSLP review, regulated differently in different places. IMSLP is a terrific resource, but I do recall when using it that it is a bit hard to navigate and a bit frustrating that so many pieces, 20th century pieces especially, weren't available due to copyright. That said, it is still a fantastic resource and a tremendous idea.

In the articles dealing with Google, I have some differing opinions. I doubt in Google's early days that they could have predicted the company would become the superpower it is today. While it is unfortunate they seemed to abandon the projects such as Google books, I can't say I would expect anything different from anybody. It's a wonderful idea, a noble one even. Even though librarians might have felt betrayed and Google could have been a bit more (a lot more) clear in their intentions, they are, after all, a business and they like money. It seems Google books isn't where the money was. But, as we see in the Baio and the Lepore, there is a light: The Internet Archive. This is a wonderfully bold endeavor and indeed a noble one. To archive all of the internet's information is an incredible goal and if achieved (though it is always growing), I believe the founder will one-up the Greeks.

Blog 6

Oh how I enjoy reading academics argue and call each other stupid. 

"I want to remain faithful to the composer's intent."

*rolls eyes* "That's dumb."

But in actuality, I do agree that trying so hard to play early music as it was heard then is too difficult a task to complete. There is no way to know if what we do in these "reproductions" are correct. Slonimsky calls urtext a "magic word conjuring up an idea of absolute authenticity..." which is a wonderful definition. Magic because we are unable to achieve absolute authenticity. Playing early music exactly as written is wrong, as it was full of improvisation. That is something that has changed tremendously in classical music. Beethoven and Mozart and their contemporaries were adept improvisers. Today, such skills aren't necessary to be a classical musician. This fact alone attests more to the fact that our early music reproductions are more of interpretations from 20th century minds. As Richard Taruskin repeatedly says, that's ok! 

Speaking of Mr. Taruskin, I found his article to read very quickly. I really ripped into those involved in "historical performances." What he say, I agree with. We should just call these historical performances 20th century interpretations, which is what they are. He cites several examples of historical performers doing things so wrong. It seems like early music performers want to stay true to the composers' intent, but not the parts with which they disagree. I know this is a heavily biased article, but the examples he gives make the early music performances seem a bit silly as the level of accuracy they are going for is wholly unattainable.

 I should say, as a clarification, that I am generally not a fan of early music. I listen to baroque music on occasion, but I find most music of the classical era uninteresting (with exceptions, of course). I am far more interested in 20th century music and new music. So, those are where my biases lie. With all of that said, I quite liked the Kozinn article. The author stated that music was just as much a performer's art as it was a composer's. Interpretation is where so much of music's beauty lies, in my opinion. 

Blog 5

Starting with the definitions, the most significant thing I learned was the difference between holograph and autograph. I suppose I never really knew the definition of autograph, but I always assumed it was what a holograph actually is. Aside from that, I was rather confused by the definitions: urtext especially. It says it's the earliest version of a certain text, but then brings up the case of revisions made by the composers, themselves making several urtexts for one source? Then there is facsimile that seeks to reproduce an autograph. So, it is original, but not the original. Perhaps I'm in the wrong mindset for reading these, or perhaps it is because there are so many similarities between all of them that they all seem to join in my head and confuse me.

The first two documents both dealt with the same area in Brahms's Hungarian Dance No. 5. It's quite interesting to discover something that has been a topic of debate among so many performers for so long, that so specifically solves the issue. I also think it's funny that part of the reason why it was so open to interpretation was because Brahms had terrible handwriting. That makes me feel kind of powerful, as a person with terrible handwriting. What horrible problems could I cause simply because nobody knows what I'm trying to say? But, I suppose I'm not important enough for that. Anyway, it makes me think of what other important things we're missing because of similar issues.

The last article started to disperse the fog around urtext for me, but still left me a bit confused on the subject. It makes sense that the "original" source can be revised when one finds newly discovered information on it, and thus more accurately presents the author's vision. With the Schumann piece they discussed how an earlier version of the same work is sort of looked upon as a different work, but both as urtext? And the fog came creeping back in. 

I thought the video sources were both quite beautiful. Books, just as compilations of information and thoughts and creations are amazing. The power of words and knowledge is truly humbling. But, I imagine a book made by these methods is surely more valuable. The amount of equipment, time, energy, skill, and dedication needed to make a single book is incredible. Truly, the text made on a press and a binding in that old style are far more beautiful than today's mass produced methods. It also makes me think about a binder or a printer in the seventeenth century talking about work:

"How was work?"

"It was terrific! I must have made in excess of four books!"

It can also be said, that while a book might have meant more, or been more treasured in the times when they were made with such techniques, that the true wonder of a book is the knowledge it holds. Today, we can print books so much faster and give so many more people all of the knowledge they contain, which is perhaps more wondrous and beautiful than the most beautiful of books.

Blog 4

Plagiarism has always a topic of confusion for me and I know most other students feel the same way. On the surface, it's so simple: credit given where credit is due. Obviously. But, then there is accidental plagiarism and the issue of common knowledge among the general public and intended audiences and it has me worried that my blog for my bibliography class will be pulled because a sequence of words ended up being too similar to a song that I didn't know existed by an artist I've never heard of before. Or worse: Metallica. When I've written papers in the past, frantically citing in fear of being expelled I've always felt that I flooded the paper with them. Many times, upon completing the paper I wasn't sure if I'd incorporated any independent thought at all. And I don't feel much better after reading the cases in the Sampsel. I suppose anybody can say it was an honest mistake and be lying about it, but the thought of having funds held because of one is terrifying to me.

In the Sands article, she talked about two things that had particular impact on me: the first being about double standards of plagiarism and the second about cultural differences. I find it especially interesting that I know of Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, Elvis Presley, and Randy Rhoads being accused of plagiarism but I had no idea that powerful figures such as Joe Biden and Rand Paul were. Why is there more attention given to those in the former rather than the latter? Since I just mentioned music, I think it's worth noting that using another's work in one's own was not always considered wrong. Composers quote each other all the time and back in earlier times might have inserted another composer's work into theirs for various reasons. That was standard practice at the time, and it wasn't different in academia. It's sort of akin to the issue of sampling in hip-hop. Then, there is the issue of cultural differences where what would be considered plagiarism in the West would be considered praise in another culture. It's very difficult to find where one should draw the line in many cases.

Onto the Goldsmith interview.

I'm not quite sure where I stand with Goldsmith's views. I thought immediately of Marcel Duchamp when I started reading the interview and then saw he mentioned him, so I felt reassured. I feel the same way about Duchamp in that I don't really know how to feel about Duchamp. Both of them say and do similar things with which I agree and they deal with expression in choice. My choices in music and fashion and literature say something about me much like a short story I write would. As Goldsmith says "There's so much information out there already," which is almost painfully true. It's hard to come up with independent ideas that others haven't already had. But, I'm not entirely convinced in the second half of Goldsmith's thought: "...that really one need not create any more." I think it's worth trying, because any new information is valid and important: it's just becoming increasingly difficult to come by.

Blog 3

I read all of these in order, but I wish I would have read the Weir first. I found myself really suffering through the Wagstaff in the same way I've always found myself suffering through most academic articles. After reading through the Wagstaff, I summarized it  as "This is what a periodical is, here are a bunch of them." But, it shouldn't be read the same way as a narrative, like Weir says. I feel Wagstaff is saying is that there is a scholarly periodical for pretty much everything in music.

I found the Weir tremendously valuable. I've had to read through scholarly articles before and always found myself drained mentally after the fifth time through and still not really knowing what I've read. I suppose I've always thought the author put those words together in that order to be read that way. It should be read the way the author wrote it, but in many cases (probably most actually) of scholarly writing, it just doesn't work. One gets far too caught up in the erudite and specific vocabulary and tough to penetrate tone of the article to actually retain any of the information. This sort of writing isn't intended for any average person, rather, a very specific type of person. Knowing that is the first step towards extracting the information one needs from the article. I also think the Weir article wonderfully illustrated the importance of the title. As I read some of my colleagues' blog posts I noticed their attention was grabbed by the inclusion of Harry Potter in the title (myself included). All I had to see was Harry Potter and I was drawn in, even when that title explicitly stated that it wasn't Harry Potter. Perhaps I'm no Ravenclaw after all :'(

I'm going to assume the fourth article was given as an exercise to employ the strategies laid out in the previous two, or at least I hope so, because I didn't read most of it. Instead, I read the introduction and conclusion and summarized it as "Do open access articles have greater research impact? Yes." But there are a lot of problems with that, as one finds in the last two articles. Open access is a wonderful idea, assuming that everybody is a good person, but they aren't. I believe this comic sums up predatory publishing (as well as many other things on the internet) very well. The internet is wonderful in that it allows so much information to be available to millions of people, but it isn't so wonderful at displaying what information is valuable and what isn't. This really opens the door for all kinds of unethical behavior and mistrust among academics. However, like so many other issues with the internet, it is very difficult to solve. It breeds more and more mistrust and makes it even harder to find reputable information and is a terrible shame.

Blog 2: "...that every word tell."

"Read," spoke the Archangel Gabriel. "Read ACTIVELY!" wrote Ashley Leyba. Now, Gabriel was a divine messenger so his one word demand certainly carries some weight, but I've always liked specifics.

Reading actively is certainly a learned skill. Marking the reading up, much like we would do with a score, would do wonders for drawing conclusions and making one's research that much more efficient and important. "Do not be a passive consumer of texts," she says. It is certainly important to obtain and retain information, but it is even better to analyze, question, and contemplate on what one has found.

I rather enjoyed the readings of Angell and White. Several things really resonated with me. "It isn't good enough," "I wish it were better." Nothing ever is, is it? There is always more to be done, more improvements to be made. We in the field of music are always working toward the next level. We try and try to improve and we do, but we are never finished. I am reminded of a quote from Pablo Casals: upon someone asking why he still practiced when he was 90 years old, he replied "Because I think I am making progress."

I found the most important piece of information in the foreword by E.B. White was the quoted passage of his professor William Strunk which ended with the phrase "...but that every word tell." This, in a way, recalls the readings we looked at for our last blog assignment, specifically the Barzun, whose central point was that one remains clear in one's writing. "Omit needless words!" said Strunk. The fact that he gives such special attention to the omission of such needless words that muddle the minds of those reading the sentences illustrates the fact that it is an issue with which all prospective researchers and writers struggle. Without this necessary step, many writings would serve to confuse and exhaust the reader, losing them in the swamp of commas and fluff that serve no purpose other than to fill  a page, which is superbly unpleasant to the reader (which I hope I've properly illustrated here). I sometimes struggle with using too many words and sounding like academics more concerned with displaying their armory of big words rather than getting my point across.

The fourth reading by Provost wonderfully illustrates the importance of variance in writing; One must keep the reader engaged. If they are not, they will not read it and without a reader, the writing has little purpose.

Blog 1

I remember being assigned my first annotated bibliography in Music History III with Dr. Haefeli and being terribly confused and stressed about the whole thing. Being a transfer student from a community college, I had never done it before. I had also transferred my Music History I credit and thus, did not take the class at IC: when one learns how to write the annotated bibliography. Perhaps needless to say, the assignment was sent back to me to review further and resubmit.

I think I tend towards making my focus too broad, as there are so many interesting things to talk about in so many subjects. Indeed, "What is my subject?" has always been the hardest question to answer because I never know where to start. I especially like the section in the Barzun article when the question "What does Roman Empire mean?" is posed. There are seemingly infinite ways to answer this question, so many of which are so different but all correct. The answer simply has to be complete. I say simply, but I know from past experience it isn't so simple to make something complete. While I've been terribly frustrated at cutting and reworking entire pages of material, I knew that, as the article states, it is necessary to omit information to keep the subject together and standing on its own. I recall an example from my history class at community college where I started a paper on the 20th century American music pioneers and as my paper went on it developed into a paper entirely dedicated to the music of Henry Cowell.

The next two articles, while not as thought-provoking as the first, were indeed very helpful. I find the Knott article's point on the problem very valuable. To know what problem is being solved, what question is being answered is a massive obstacle for me and is a very helpful jumping-off point. I was encouraged to see in the Toledo article that it is important to include a writer's qualifications and biases. I hadn't really considered those in the past and they are tremendously important in evaluating a source. It is also encouraging to see the differences in the two articles, allowing some freedom in something I considered so cut and dry.

Going back to "The Prime Difficulty," I'm not at all sure of what my topic will be. I've never done any research on Takemitsu's guitar music and he is my favorite composer. I've also never taken much of an interest in the music of the early masters of the guitar e.g. Giuliani, Carulli, Sor which would certainly be good things to know as a graduate student studying guitar performance. However, I also love topics concerning cultural identity in music and folk music. These are actually more ideas than I thought I had, so that's a bit reassuring to my indecisive brain.