Blog Post 10: November 19
I had no idea that recording copyrights were deemed to be ruled under common law and had no public domain date. This seems like a totally ridiculous notion that this is the best way to handle recording copyright laws. We are only hurting ourselves by making it "illegal" to use historical recordings, especially when some of them deal with our own history. Access to historical recordings should be easy and encouraged. If we are telling scholars that they cannot access historical recordings for research purposes, then what new research will be done? I sincerely hope that the ARSC and other organizations are able to get the copyright holders to understand the dilemma and reach an agreement. We need to find a way to fix this problem, or we run the risk of possibly losing large amounts of historical recordings entirely.
I am glad that Congress conducted a study on the effect of bringing pre 1972 sound recordings into the federal copyright system. It seems that based on the summary of their findings the deemed it to be a good idea. I did find it interesting that they would allow copyright holders to apply for an extension of protection provided that they make their recording available to the public for a reasonable cost.
I agree as much as anyone that performers need to get paid, but the proposed law in Tennessee seems to go a little too far. The way I read it the performers have complete protection, while consumers have no protection at all. Essentially every time you play a track it could count as a "public performance" and you would owe royalties. While I would say that this is a step in the right direction for getting compensation for performers, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the federal level. Approving a law this radical in only one state will surely cause more issues than it solves.
The Belfer Audio Archive has a very cool collection of online audio files. I was very impressed with the large amount of subject matter it covered. I found a very cool and unique recording under saxophone music called The Bird and the Saxophone. It involves the music trading between someone whistling and someone playing the saxophone. The link for it is below.
http://digilib.syr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cylinder&CISOPTR=696&CISOBOX=1&REC=13
The National Jukebox collection also has a very cool collection of online audio files. I chuckled a little though when the first thing that popped up on the website was the warning that files could contain offensive or inappropriate language. I found an old recording under the yodeling category called Hi-le hi-lo. The link is below.
http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/recordings/detail/id/966/autoplay/true/
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Blog Post 9: November 12
The introduction on analysis in Oxford Music Online presented a very interesting thought by stating that analysis is a form of criticism, or the construction of interpretations in order to make the work appreciated more. This is striking to me because I have never really considered analysis in this way before. Typically when I think of analysis it involved harmonic analysis and notating the chords that the composer used throughout the piece. While I do realize that this is a tool used to help better understand the music, I had never really thought of it as criticism before. I realize that criticism is one extreme of what analysis is, but I still find it to be an interesting thought.
I find it interesting that we do not know the exact origin of musical criticisms. Today I just expect to be able to read a criticism of almost anything new that comes out. Personally I always enjoy criticisms, even though they can be controversial at times. I think part of the reason I enjoy them is I like to compare what my own opinions to what they have to say. Honestly, if something gets a bad review it doesn't always entirely deter me from seeing or listening to that work myself. I think it is very healthy for many different opinions to exist on various subjects, and when these opinions are present it makes for great discourse. I also wonder, before The Times of London first appointed a professional musician as critic, who served as critic? It seems to me that the best possible option for a music critic would be a professionally trained musician.
I absolutely loved the article "Music Criticism has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting." It perfectly summed up my frustrations with pop music and our culture in the recent years. There is very little new music released each year that I would consider to be quality music and I think it is impart due to this issue. By reporting on artist's lifestyles rather than actually critiquing the musical output, we are making consumers and listeners only care about an artist's way of life. We have created a culture where artists who flaunt money and live recklessly are popular, rather than artist who actually create something new and meaningful. I would love to see this issue fixed and go back to actual quality criticisms of new music.
The article "Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking" made me laugh a little. In the beginning of the article he pointed to Gioia's article about music criticism stating that he probably went a little too far, but it seemed to me that Seitz went just as far when complaining about filmmaking criticism. This article seemed to further my thoughts that criticisms need to be more in depth. Seitz's main argument was that critics need to know more about the filmmaking process, which I would totally agree with and say that music is the same way. To me this seems like an obvious truth, if you're going to write about something, you should probably know how it works. But, somehow we've strayed from this in our culture. Both authors presented great points and I would love to see their suggestions implemented in criticisms.
The Taruskin Challenge is an excellent project. I have often wondered what it would take to read through a work like the Oxford History of Western Music but these guys actually did it! I am very impressed at their dedication, and it seems like their project ended up being much larger than they expected. The plan they set forth did not seem too strenuous, 10 pages per day seems very reasonable. Perhaps it is worth a shot!
The introduction on analysis in Oxford Music Online presented a very interesting thought by stating that analysis is a form of criticism, or the construction of interpretations in order to make the work appreciated more. This is striking to me because I have never really considered analysis in this way before. Typically when I think of analysis it involved harmonic analysis and notating the chords that the composer used throughout the piece. While I do realize that this is a tool used to help better understand the music, I had never really thought of it as criticism before. I realize that criticism is one extreme of what analysis is, but I still find it to be an interesting thought.
I find it interesting that we do not know the exact origin of musical criticisms. Today I just expect to be able to read a criticism of almost anything new that comes out. Personally I always enjoy criticisms, even though they can be controversial at times. I think part of the reason I enjoy them is I like to compare what my own opinions to what they have to say. Honestly, if something gets a bad review it doesn't always entirely deter me from seeing or listening to that work myself. I think it is very healthy for many different opinions to exist on various subjects, and when these opinions are present it makes for great discourse. I also wonder, before The Times of London first appointed a professional musician as critic, who served as critic? It seems to me that the best possible option for a music critic would be a professionally trained musician.
I absolutely loved the article "Music Criticism has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting." It perfectly summed up my frustrations with pop music and our culture in the recent years. There is very little new music released each year that I would consider to be quality music and I think it is impart due to this issue. By reporting on artist's lifestyles rather than actually critiquing the musical output, we are making consumers and listeners only care about an artist's way of life. We have created a culture where artists who flaunt money and live recklessly are popular, rather than artist who actually create something new and meaningful. I would love to see this issue fixed and go back to actual quality criticisms of new music.
The article "Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking" made me laugh a little. In the beginning of the article he pointed to Gioia's article about music criticism stating that he probably went a little too far, but it seemed to me that Seitz went just as far when complaining about filmmaking criticism. This article seemed to further my thoughts that criticisms need to be more in depth. Seitz's main argument was that critics need to know more about the filmmaking process, which I would totally agree with and say that music is the same way. To me this seems like an obvious truth, if you're going to write about something, you should probably know how it works. But, somehow we've strayed from this in our culture. Both authors presented great points and I would love to see their suggestions implemented in criticisms.
The Taruskin Challenge is an excellent project. I have often wondered what it would take to read through a work like the Oxford History of Western Music but these guys actually did it! I am very impressed at their dedication, and it seems like their project ended up being much larger than they expected. The plan they set forth did not seem too strenuous, 10 pages per day seems very reasonable. Perhaps it is worth a shot!
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Blog Post 8: November 5
IMSLP is a very cool resource and it was fun to read about in the article. Two of the things that stood out to me the most are the copy-right laws they must follow and the fact that has been built and maintained entirely by its users. The copy-right laws it has to follow seems like it would be very complicated to keep up with. It would be a lot easier if it were only one set of laws but IMSLP must follow three separate countries copy-right laws. This means one composer's works may be considered public domain in one country, but not the others. I wouldn't be able to handle keeping up with that myself. I guess this is partly why Guo elected to shut down the site entirely in 2007. It is very impressive that IMSLP is maintained by users. I think this is part of what makes it so unique and has allowed for so many items to be posted on it. One user even submitted over 200 items! This seems like a great way to tap into people's private collections and get to see what exists today.
I found "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" to be very fascinating. Taruskin did a very good job of pointing out how we put on "historical" performances that are typically completely inaccurate. I did find it interesting though how he was seemingly criticizing people for putting on inaccurate historical performances, yet applauding them at the same time. While I always like the idea of a historical performance, I have come to the conclusion that I will never hear a Mozart composition exactly the way he would have heard it performed. It is just impossible to recreate. The line that stood out to me the most in the article was when Taruskin stated: "Being the true voice of ones time is ... roughly 40,000 as vital and important as being the assumed voice of history." Ultimately what I took away from this article is that we should perform these pieces to suit our own tastes. These works should be appreciated for what they are, but we should not be too wrapped up in the composer's intentions.
"Composers Intent? Get Over It" took the ideas stated in "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" and applied them to 20th serialist music. Kozinn had some interesting things to say and I was particularly struck by a comment he made about a certain interpretation of serialist music may make the tumblers tick for someone to begin to understand and enjoy that music. I had never really though of it this way. Personally I am not a huge fan of serialist music, but then maybe I am in that boat. Perhaps if I hear an interpretation of a piece that I like, then I will begin to appreciate serialist music more. (Honestly I had never really considered the fact that one could even interpret serialist music.) This is a very cool idea and I really liked what he had to say. Maybe all orchestra should start doing what the Berlin Philharmonic did when they came to Carnegie Hall and include at least one recent piece of music in their programs. This could please all audience members, with the inclusion of classic and new music, and introduce listeners to content they may have never heard before. This would be a fun experiment.
IMSLP is a very cool resource and it was fun to read about in the article. Two of the things that stood out to me the most are the copy-right laws they must follow and the fact that has been built and maintained entirely by its users. The copy-right laws it has to follow seems like it would be very complicated to keep up with. It would be a lot easier if it were only one set of laws but IMSLP must follow three separate countries copy-right laws. This means one composer's works may be considered public domain in one country, but not the others. I wouldn't be able to handle keeping up with that myself. I guess this is partly why Guo elected to shut down the site entirely in 2007. It is very impressive that IMSLP is maintained by users. I think this is part of what makes it so unique and has allowed for so many items to be posted on it. One user even submitted over 200 items! This seems like a great way to tap into people's private collections and get to see what exists today.
I found "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" to be very fascinating. Taruskin did a very good job of pointing out how we put on "historical" performances that are typically completely inaccurate. I did find it interesting though how he was seemingly criticizing people for putting on inaccurate historical performances, yet applauding them at the same time. While I always like the idea of a historical performance, I have come to the conclusion that I will never hear a Mozart composition exactly the way he would have heard it performed. It is just impossible to recreate. The line that stood out to me the most in the article was when Taruskin stated: "Being the true voice of ones time is ... roughly 40,000 as vital and important as being the assumed voice of history." Ultimately what I took away from this article is that we should perform these pieces to suit our own tastes. These works should be appreciated for what they are, but we should not be too wrapped up in the composer's intentions.
"Composers Intent? Get Over It" took the ideas stated in "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" and applied them to 20th serialist music. Kozinn had some interesting things to say and I was particularly struck by a comment he made about a certain interpretation of serialist music may make the tumblers tick for someone to begin to understand and enjoy that music. I had never really though of it this way. Personally I am not a huge fan of serialist music, but then maybe I am in that boat. Perhaps if I hear an interpretation of a piece that I like, then I will begin to appreciate serialist music more. (Honestly I had never really considered the fact that one could even interpret serialist music.) This is a very cool idea and I really liked what he had to say. Maybe all orchestra should start doing what the Berlin Philharmonic did when they came to Carnegie Hall and include at least one recent piece of music in their programs. This could please all audience members, with the inclusion of classic and new music, and introduce listeners to content they may have never heard before. This would be a fun experiment.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Blog Post 6: October 28
The article from Oxford Music online about sources brought up some very good points. The part that interested me the most was when they discussed copies that were sent to the engraver that may have not survived. I can see how this would lead to a major gap in the information we have about a particular piece of music. If all that is available is the autograph manuscript and the modern printed parts then it can be very difficult to determine what is actually correct. In any case I think that the original manuscript should be consulted whenever possible. If nothing else, it can be very helpful in determining what the composer was thinking about when they were writing a particular piece.
I find sketches very interesting, and very exciting to look at when learning a piece of music. For myself, as a performer, they can provide more information than even a full score. It can allow the performer to see exactly what the composer was desiring before they wrote the full piece. This can help with determining style, voicing etc. I think it is interesting that Oxford Music Online mentioned that Beethoven's sketches vary from simple melodies to almost fully completed scores. It would be fascinating to see his works in the various states as he was working on them.
It is no surprise to me that historical editions have become more desired fairly recently. The process of acquiring accurate, and complete historical editions though, I think would be very difficult. I think it is interesting how the approach to publishing these editions has evolved over time, with complete editions being expected more recently. I also found it interesting that when historical editions first became popular one of the things they wanted to do was also to publish consistent editions of popular works. I had never really considered that this would be a problem, but it makes sense given that people could have gotten their hands on an almost complete sketch and published that. I also found it interesting that after 1950 they revisited and republished the works of many major composers. It would be interesting to see how different these publications are from each other.
Urtext seems like a very interesting idea to me. It seems like this would allow someone to see the evolution of a piece of music based on it showing what was edited when. This is not a term, or technique, that I had heard of before. I do think it is interesting how they pointed out that some people argue that the composer didn't care about how the piece was performed because there were multiple versions. I would argue that this is likely not the case. I have never met a composer that was not extremely particular about how their music was played. I think people make this argument simply because composers like Beethoven and Mozart are not here to yell at them when they get things wrong.
The passage about Urtext in the Slonimsky made me laugh. While mostly it is making fun of how much people value urtext, it brought up some very good points. Every composer is different, so how are we to know exactly what they are desiring without being able to ask them ourselves. I think the contrast between Ives and Rimsky-Korsakov summed it up perfectly.
The article on the shelf life of urtext was very cool. For me it just emphasized the need to be able to compare editions of a work all together. This can help a lot with deciphering what a composer actually wrote if their writing is illegible. Even if just a couple of notes are changed in editions of urtext, it can be very important. One of the others things I found interesting was when they mentioned editions or manuscripts that are in private collections and are inaccessible. It seems to me that if you own an autograph manuscript you should let at least a couple scholars look at it so that it can be studied and analyzed. It is probably more complicated than them just not letting people look at the manuscript, but it still seems kinda dumb.
The article on Brahms's "Hungarian Dances" is an excellent example of how one minor detail can completely change how we know or perform a piece. This discovery of his notes changed how a very important passage was being interpreted and played. It is incredible that this information was published over 100 years ago, although incorrectly, and was not discovered until recently. Just another reason as to why our understanding of music is always changing and there are always new editions of urtext.
It was cool to see Struck's instructions for this passage after the discovery of what Brahms wanted. He did an excellent job of presenting what Brahms said about the passage and analyzing how it should be played based on this information, versus how it is normally played. I liked his note at the end about how Brahms should have notated it differently than he did if that is actually how he wanted it played.
The article from Oxford Music online about sources brought up some very good points. The part that interested me the most was when they discussed copies that were sent to the engraver that may have not survived. I can see how this would lead to a major gap in the information we have about a particular piece of music. If all that is available is the autograph manuscript and the modern printed parts then it can be very difficult to determine what is actually correct. In any case I think that the original manuscript should be consulted whenever possible. If nothing else, it can be very helpful in determining what the composer was thinking about when they were writing a particular piece.
I find sketches very interesting, and very exciting to look at when learning a piece of music. For myself, as a performer, they can provide more information than even a full score. It can allow the performer to see exactly what the composer was desiring before they wrote the full piece. This can help with determining style, voicing etc. I think it is interesting that Oxford Music Online mentioned that Beethoven's sketches vary from simple melodies to almost fully completed scores. It would be fascinating to see his works in the various states as he was working on them.
It is no surprise to me that historical editions have become more desired fairly recently. The process of acquiring accurate, and complete historical editions though, I think would be very difficult. I think it is interesting how the approach to publishing these editions has evolved over time, with complete editions being expected more recently. I also found it interesting that when historical editions first became popular one of the things they wanted to do was also to publish consistent editions of popular works. I had never really considered that this would be a problem, but it makes sense given that people could have gotten their hands on an almost complete sketch and published that. I also found it interesting that after 1950 they revisited and republished the works of many major composers. It would be interesting to see how different these publications are from each other.
Urtext seems like a very interesting idea to me. It seems like this would allow someone to see the evolution of a piece of music based on it showing what was edited when. This is not a term, or technique, that I had heard of before. I do think it is interesting how they pointed out that some people argue that the composer didn't care about how the piece was performed because there were multiple versions. I would argue that this is likely not the case. I have never met a composer that was not extremely particular about how their music was played. I think people make this argument simply because composers like Beethoven and Mozart are not here to yell at them when they get things wrong.
The passage about Urtext in the Slonimsky made me laugh. While mostly it is making fun of how much people value urtext, it brought up some very good points. Every composer is different, so how are we to know exactly what they are desiring without being able to ask them ourselves. I think the contrast between Ives and Rimsky-Korsakov summed it up perfectly.
The article on the shelf life of urtext was very cool. For me it just emphasized the need to be able to compare editions of a work all together. This can help a lot with deciphering what a composer actually wrote if their writing is illegible. Even if just a couple of notes are changed in editions of urtext, it can be very important. One of the others things I found interesting was when they mentioned editions or manuscripts that are in private collections and are inaccessible. It seems to me that if you own an autograph manuscript you should let at least a couple scholars look at it so that it can be studied and analyzed. It is probably more complicated than them just not letting people look at the manuscript, but it still seems kinda dumb.
The article on Brahms's "Hungarian Dances" is an excellent example of how one minor detail can completely change how we know or perform a piece. This discovery of his notes changed how a very important passage was being interpreted and played. It is incredible that this information was published over 100 years ago, although incorrectly, and was not discovered until recently. Just another reason as to why our understanding of music is always changing and there are always new editions of urtext.
It was cool to see Struck's instructions for this passage after the discovery of what Brahms wanted. He did an excellent job of presenting what Brahms said about the passage and analyzing how it should be played based on this information, versus how it is normally played. I liked his note at the end about how Brahms should have notated it differently than he did if that is actually how he wanted it played.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Blog Post 5: October 8
The study performed by Antelman gave a lot of great insight as to how open access articles impact research. It seems like common sense that articles that are available to the general public would be accessed more often than those that are not, but at the same time the more important question might be which articles the academic world is using. The only thing I did not like about this study is that the articles they selected seemed to be at random. I really like that they looked into multiple fields of study, but it seems to me that they should have had a formula based on publication type and/or author to follow in the selection process. The conclusion that she came to seems spot on. I think that given the amount of access we have to articles that are online, it would be very easy for someone to only cite sources that are easily available to them, also called citation bias. I know that I am generally guilty of this technique whenever I need to do quick research on a topic. I would be very interested to see this study performed strictly on how open access articles affect student research. I have a feeling that the results would be staggeringly in favor of open access.
One of the problems that I had been pondering while reading the first article about open access journals was how to tell if the articles, or publishers as well, are any good or trustworthy. The article "As Open Access Explodes, How to Tell the Good from the Bad and the Ugly" did a very good job of pointing this issue out. Just because an article is open access and online does not mean it is any good, so then how can we tell if it is a credible source? The point that stuck out to me the most was about the transparency of the publishing process. I am not surprised at all that the journals that clearly state their publication and acceptance procedures are the ones that are most trustworthy. After all, the only reason not to clearly state this information is if there is something to hide. I also found it curious when they stated that open access journals are essentially finding new ways to lower the bar on acceptance policies article standards since they make more money for each new article that they accept. This seems like a conflict of interest for academic integrity more than anything else.
I think Jeffrey Beall hits the nail on the head with his article on predatory publishers. Its sad that these publishers exist but it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Beall makes a really good point when he state that the people being hurt the most by these publishers are the scientists themselves. Even if an article is legitimate and of good quality, it can danger the author's reputation if it is published alongside plagiarized articles. It seems to me that this problem has come somewhat out of a way to circumvent the peer review system. These predatory journals obviously do not use legitimate peer review if they are publishing plagiarized articles. That may make this issue more open access vs peer review. Both have great advantages, but both have faults. Really neither of the systems are perfect, but maybe there is a middle ground that can be found to benefit everyone involved.
Upon reading the article from the New York Times, it seems that this issue is much more intense than I would have expected. This is truly like spam emails and phishing for the academic world. I think it is great that Beall keeps a "black list" of predatory publishers, but I think it might actually be a better idea for there to be a "white list" of approved publishers. Given the nature of this issue a "black list" would never be complete, new predatory publishers appear every single week. A "white list" on the other hand could be much more comprehensive and easier to check before submitting articles. This could help prevent new authors from living the horror stories that were told about well respected scientist being unable to alienate themselves from these predatory publishers.
I thoroughly enjoy the TED talk on "Battling Bad Science." It was extremely informative, as TED talks always are, and the speaker was excellent. It was refreshing to hear someone explain all of the ways that studies can be rigged in order to generate a certain result. I think the same logic can be applied to the predatory publishers. They aim to shield the true process, as Goldacre explained the medicine companies do, and never really reveal their true intentions. My take-away from this lecture was that we need to have more insight to the full process. Essentially, if a publisher does not have full transparency on their publishing process and standards, then they should not be trusted.
The DOAJ is a very cool website that can be very helpful when looking into open access publications. They aim to provide the best open access articles in one place while still maintaining academic integrity. In order for a publication to be included in the DOAJ it must go through a strict application process, this helps them determine the legitimacy of the source. One of the main requirements for inclusion is that the articles in the journal must be subject to peer review before publication. The website is extremely easy to navigate and has an excellent search feature. Users can search by platform, subject, publication type, date of publication, country of publication, and other identifiers. The DOAJ is a good place to browse open access articles without having to worry about whether or not they are trust worthy.
The study performed by Antelman gave a lot of great insight as to how open access articles impact research. It seems like common sense that articles that are available to the general public would be accessed more often than those that are not, but at the same time the more important question might be which articles the academic world is using. The only thing I did not like about this study is that the articles they selected seemed to be at random. I really like that they looked into multiple fields of study, but it seems to me that they should have had a formula based on publication type and/or author to follow in the selection process. The conclusion that she came to seems spot on. I think that given the amount of access we have to articles that are online, it would be very easy for someone to only cite sources that are easily available to them, also called citation bias. I know that I am generally guilty of this technique whenever I need to do quick research on a topic. I would be very interested to see this study performed strictly on how open access articles affect student research. I have a feeling that the results would be staggeringly in favor of open access.
One of the problems that I had been pondering while reading the first article about open access journals was how to tell if the articles, or publishers as well, are any good or trustworthy. The article "As Open Access Explodes, How to Tell the Good from the Bad and the Ugly" did a very good job of pointing this issue out. Just because an article is open access and online does not mean it is any good, so then how can we tell if it is a credible source? The point that stuck out to me the most was about the transparency of the publishing process. I am not surprised at all that the journals that clearly state their publication and acceptance procedures are the ones that are most trustworthy. After all, the only reason not to clearly state this information is if there is something to hide. I also found it curious when they stated that open access journals are essentially finding new ways to lower the bar on acceptance policies article standards since they make more money for each new article that they accept. This seems like a conflict of interest for academic integrity more than anything else.
I think Jeffrey Beall hits the nail on the head with his article on predatory publishers. Its sad that these publishers exist but it is a problem that needs to be addressed. Beall makes a really good point when he state that the people being hurt the most by these publishers are the scientists themselves. Even if an article is legitimate and of good quality, it can danger the author's reputation if it is published alongside plagiarized articles. It seems to me that this problem has come somewhat out of a way to circumvent the peer review system. These predatory journals obviously do not use legitimate peer review if they are publishing plagiarized articles. That may make this issue more open access vs peer review. Both have great advantages, but both have faults. Really neither of the systems are perfect, but maybe there is a middle ground that can be found to benefit everyone involved.
Upon reading the article from the New York Times, it seems that this issue is much more intense than I would have expected. This is truly like spam emails and phishing for the academic world. I think it is great that Beall keeps a "black list" of predatory publishers, but I think it might actually be a better idea for there to be a "white list" of approved publishers. Given the nature of this issue a "black list" would never be complete, new predatory publishers appear every single week. A "white list" on the other hand could be much more comprehensive and easier to check before submitting articles. This could help prevent new authors from living the horror stories that were told about well respected scientist being unable to alienate themselves from these predatory publishers.
I thoroughly enjoy the TED talk on "Battling Bad Science." It was extremely informative, as TED talks always are, and the speaker was excellent. It was refreshing to hear someone explain all of the ways that studies can be rigged in order to generate a certain result. I think the same logic can be applied to the predatory publishers. They aim to shield the true process, as Goldacre explained the medicine companies do, and never really reveal their true intentions. My take-away from this lecture was that we need to have more insight to the full process. Essentially, if a publisher does not have full transparency on their publishing process and standards, then they should not be trusted.
The DOAJ is a very cool website that can be very helpful when looking into open access publications. They aim to provide the best open access articles in one place while still maintaining academic integrity. In order for a publication to be included in the DOAJ it must go through a strict application process, this helps them determine the legitimacy of the source. One of the main requirements for inclusion is that the articles in the journal must be subject to peer review before publication. The website is extremely easy to navigate and has an excellent search feature. Users can search by platform, subject, publication type, date of publication, country of publication, and other identifiers. The DOAJ is a good place to browse open access articles without having to worry about whether or not they are trust worthy.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Blog Post 4: October 1
The article on periodicals from Oxford Music Online was very informative. While I did not know much of the information about the specific periodicals they mentioned, I did know most of the basic information about periodicals and how they work. I had a fair amount of exposure to periodicals whenever I would do research for papers during my undergrad in Colorado. I did chuckle a little when it mentioned that Wagner provided music copy for journals briefly during a "miserable" time.
I found both of the articles on peer review to be rather interesting. I have always grown up hearing that peer review should be conducted on a new article, so as a result I have never really considered the fact that this process may in fact be flawed. To be honest, after reading these articles I may now be convinced that this is a rather biased process that can inhibit productivity. I really liked that in "The promise of peer review" the author suggested that we take the recommendation for publication out of the review process and instead have reviewers highlight what is good and bad about a particular article. I think that this would be an excellent way to improve the peer review process. I would agree with both authors that the solution to this biased process is not to eliminate peer review all together, but to find ways to improve it for the future. The second article out of JSRM mentioned the same issue that at times recommending whether or not an article should be published can at times not even be relevant to the article itself. I loved that they also mentioned at times reviewers will feel that nothing can be published since they may have had an article rejected recently. This seems very immature but would be one of the many flaws of using peer review. Overall I think peer review is an excellent idea. We do the same type thing in studio class every week, one student performs and then the rest of the studio will give comments and "peer review" the performance. I think this can be a process that is beneficial for everyone involved, it just needs some tweaking in order to become less flawed.
Journal retractions have always fascinated me. While I think it is good for an article to be retracted if the data is unfounded, the information has already been published and some of the public may have fully subscribed to the article's statements. Much like the journal on the potential danger of vaccinations. Even though the original research has been found to be biased, many people still believe that these vaccines are unsafe really for no reason at all. I think this partially goes back to what was mentioned in the peer review articles about approval of publications being based on faith that the researcher is actually presenting the truth. While I would like to believe that everyone is always honest in their intentions, this is not always true. In this case the author was subject to serious financial gains if he could prove this point. At the end of "The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, Refutation, Retraction, and Fraud" the author points out that scientists have an ethical responsibility to represent only the facts in their findings and publications. Given that Wakefield did not do this, he put many people at risk of disease due to parents not having their children vaccinated. Part of the root of the peer review problem are examples like this where the data was taken on trust but turned out to be completely unfounded and false. I'm really glad that we have a system in place to pull unfounded and fraudulent articles, but I think it also proves why peer review needs to be taken so seriously. It may seem like a pain-staking process that prolongs the amount of time required to publish an article, but it can help things like this from happening in the future.
I found the article from the New York Times to be very shocking. That would be a lot of effort to go through in order to help get articles published. It makes me wonder how often this happens but goes undetected. This is further proof that the peer review system is flawed, but I still think that it can be worthwhile if done correctly. The most surprising thing to me in this article was at the end when they mentioned that academic institutions in other countries have a formula for promotions based entirely on the number of articles a professor has published, not necessarily based on how good they are. That seems totally backwards to me. I could write 30 articles by the end of the month. They may all suck, but I could still write 30 articles. I don't think at all that what I produce would be worthy of any kind of recognition.
It is really cool to see a blog based entirely on keeping track of retracted articles. One of the posts I found on there was entitled "Author of alcohol paper retracted for plagiarism defends copy-and-paste strategy." This was pretty fascinating because it had arguments from both the authors and the journal defending their stances. And spoiler alert, there are some pretty good reasons why the article was retracted. I'm really glad to know that sites like this exist. I have always wondered how people get word that a particular article or essay has been retracted and all of the news surrounding the issue.
The article on periodicals from Oxford Music Online was very informative. While I did not know much of the information about the specific periodicals they mentioned, I did know most of the basic information about periodicals and how they work. I had a fair amount of exposure to periodicals whenever I would do research for papers during my undergrad in Colorado. I did chuckle a little when it mentioned that Wagner provided music copy for journals briefly during a "miserable" time.
I found both of the articles on peer review to be rather interesting. I have always grown up hearing that peer review should be conducted on a new article, so as a result I have never really considered the fact that this process may in fact be flawed. To be honest, after reading these articles I may now be convinced that this is a rather biased process that can inhibit productivity. I really liked that in "The promise of peer review" the author suggested that we take the recommendation for publication out of the review process and instead have reviewers highlight what is good and bad about a particular article. I think that this would be an excellent way to improve the peer review process. I would agree with both authors that the solution to this biased process is not to eliminate peer review all together, but to find ways to improve it for the future. The second article out of JSRM mentioned the same issue that at times recommending whether or not an article should be published can at times not even be relevant to the article itself. I loved that they also mentioned at times reviewers will feel that nothing can be published since they may have had an article rejected recently. This seems very immature but would be one of the many flaws of using peer review. Overall I think peer review is an excellent idea. We do the same type thing in studio class every week, one student performs and then the rest of the studio will give comments and "peer review" the performance. I think this can be a process that is beneficial for everyone involved, it just needs some tweaking in order to become less flawed.
Journal retractions have always fascinated me. While I think it is good for an article to be retracted if the data is unfounded, the information has already been published and some of the public may have fully subscribed to the article's statements. Much like the journal on the potential danger of vaccinations. Even though the original research has been found to be biased, many people still believe that these vaccines are unsafe really for no reason at all. I think this partially goes back to what was mentioned in the peer review articles about approval of publications being based on faith that the researcher is actually presenting the truth. While I would like to believe that everyone is always honest in their intentions, this is not always true. In this case the author was subject to serious financial gains if he could prove this point. At the end of "The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, Refutation, Retraction, and Fraud" the author points out that scientists have an ethical responsibility to represent only the facts in their findings and publications. Given that Wakefield did not do this, he put many people at risk of disease due to parents not having their children vaccinated. Part of the root of the peer review problem are examples like this where the data was taken on trust but turned out to be completely unfounded and false. I'm really glad that we have a system in place to pull unfounded and fraudulent articles, but I think it also proves why peer review needs to be taken so seriously. It may seem like a pain-staking process that prolongs the amount of time required to publish an article, but it can help things like this from happening in the future.
I found the article from the New York Times to be very shocking. That would be a lot of effort to go through in order to help get articles published. It makes me wonder how often this happens but goes undetected. This is further proof that the peer review system is flawed, but I still think that it can be worthwhile if done correctly. The most surprising thing to me in this article was at the end when they mentioned that academic institutions in other countries have a formula for promotions based entirely on the number of articles a professor has published, not necessarily based on how good they are. That seems totally backwards to me. I could write 30 articles by the end of the month. They may all suck, but I could still write 30 articles. I don't think at all that what I produce would be worthy of any kind of recognition.
It is really cool to see a blog based entirely on keeping track of retracted articles. One of the posts I found on there was entitled "Author of alcohol paper retracted for plagiarism defends copy-and-paste strategy." This was pretty fascinating because it had arguments from both the authors and the journal defending their stances. And spoiler alert, there are some pretty good reasons why the article was retracted. I'm really glad to know that sites like this exist. I have always wondered how people get word that a particular article or essay has been retracted and all of the news surrounding the issue.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Blog Post 3: September 17
Plagiarism is something I have known about for as long as I can remember. My father is a university professor and teaches all graduate courses, so I have heard all about the importance of quoting sources since the day I started being required to write papers for school. I have often heard stories of my dad catching students blatantly plagiarizing entire chapters of books or complete articles thinking that he would never catch them. I have also heard countless stories of international students copying works because that is what their culture dictated and they did not want to listen or change what they were doing. Due to my dad ensuring that I have always known these facts, I found much of what was covered in the chapter on "Style Manuals and Citations of Sources" to be fairly straight forward. To me it all seems like common sense, you should always give credit where credit is due. For this reason I try to be extra careful when citing references in any of my work. Unintentional plagiarism is always my biggest fear. When I was working on my undergrad at the University of Northern Colorado, we were required to submit all papers online through a system that would generate a plagiarism report. I don't know the exact program that was used but I imagine it is probably similar to Turnitin. I have friends that were caught plagiarizing via this program and there were always severe punishments. Thanks to my dad, I have also seen what happens when you plagiarize at the graduate level. While my friends may have received failing grades for courses, some of my dad's students have been kicked out of the graduate program entirely. That is definitely not something I want to have happen. This chapter was very good for reviewing what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. With the availability of technology today it can be very easy to plagiarize almost anything. I do like however, that they point out that technology also makes it easier for professors to catch plagiarism in students work. Essentially, it is never worth plagiarizing a source, always cite it. I always take the approach that if it already exists somewhere, then a professor can find it, and they will call you out for plagiarism.
The IC plagiarism guide was also good for reviewing what needs to be cited and how to properly cite these things. All the examples seemed pretty easy to me. The part that I struggle with the most is citing a paraphrase of something. Sometimes it isn't very obvious that I have used another persons work to come up with a way to say something myself. As a result I typically read the original text and then my own work to make sure I have not copied anything. I also always cite something if I am in any doubt at all. I found the animations in the quiz a little comical, and sometimes distracting! Although with the animations it kind of felt like a real life test. I easily get distracted when writing so it was nice to have a couple distractions while trying to identify plagiarism.
I found what Kenneth Goldsmith had to say very interesting, and honestly I'm not really sure what I think of it. Given what I have heard from my dad for so long and what almost everyone in academia has to say, I would completely disagree with him. The fact that he demands his students to abandon all attempt at creativity is almost mind boggling. But he makes some incredibly valid points. It is widely accepted to use sampling today in music, whether pop or classical many composers do it. In hip hop, many artists will use the original recording from a piece of music, splice it into whatever beat they are creating and call it original. This is fairly similar to what Goldsmith is doing with poetry. He is taking parts of poetry from other authors works and splicing them together with everyday things like a traffic report to create a unique piece of poetry. I would have never thought of using a word for word transcription of a traffic report as plagiarism but that totally makes sense. I really like the reference he made to John Cage saying that music is all around us so long as we listen. I would have never thought that a traffic report was poetry but he is able to convincingly present it that way. I suppose that in a way his argument is valid, poetry is all around us, we just need to be able to see it. He states that there are plenty of things that people have published online waiting to be realized as poetry, so why create more? I would counter with saying that it is a great idea to realize the poetry in things that are already created, but we should never strive to cease creativity all together. In my opinion, once we completely deviate from creativity then we will almost entirely lose our personal identities. People will just be regurgitating information in nonsensical ways all of the time. This technique may be good for poetry, but I think it would be a terrible idea for it to translate to academia.
The excerpts from the book served as a good reminder of why we document sources. I do like that it points out that plagiarism is more of a moral and ethical issue than a legal one. Personally I don't ever want to be charged with stealing someone else's work. It was also good to review the proper citation methods for various sources. MLA is what I have been required to use in the past so I already feel fairly comfortable with it.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Blog Post 2: September 10
While reading the "Foreword" by Roger Angell, it was really nice to hear someone say that it is difficult to write even for professional writers. I have always found that inspiration for writing does not come easily. Often when I am writing it is perfectly described by the image Angell gives of E.B. White sitting down to type in his office. Either the words are few and far between, or I procrastinate until I am forced to just keep writing. The steps that he outlines for writing "Write in a way that comes naturally," "Revise and rewrite," "Do not explain too mush," and "Be clear" make it sound as if writing is so easy. I do agree though that the world we live in today does not help our writing very much. Most of us are now used to sending quick short emails, or even talking to people via text message which can be composed of just a few words. It is not very often that we have to sit down and write something formal. Our culture certainly does not help much in that aspect, but the 5 tips that he gives are excellent.
My first reaction when reading "Introduction" by E.B.White was that Professor Strunk would have a heart attack if he saw my writing. I ten to embellish my writing with unnecessary words and phrases. While Professor Strunk seems to be the very definition of grammar police, I think he is very right in his message. By cleansing the fluff out of our writing we can make our job as writers much easier. The writing will be a lot clearer and the purpose will be very evident. I do like the point that White makes at the end. He describes "the author's deep sympathy for the reader." I really like that he brings this up. I think if we keep the reader in mind while we write then there will be more solid content and less fluff in our writing. The reader should not have to hunt for the purpose of a writing, rather it should be obvious. Based on what White had to say, I think I could definitely learn a lot from Professor Strunk.
The first thing that struck me in the article by David Watt were the questions that he posed. The first questioned posed has to do with historians gossiping on the steps of a library. This made me realize that with the digitization of today's libraries people do not often bump into colleagues and students in libraries as often as before because they are likely searching resources from home. I am curious to know how many great scholars have run into each other in libraries in the past and as a result came up with groundbreaking theories and discoveries. Watt mentions later that when he was a student he would run into his professors in the library and as a result feel as if they were part of a common goal. I feel as if my professors and I are aiming for a common goal but often feel as if we are fighting it separately. When I was an undergrad it was always striking to me to run into the grad students in the library. They always seemed so much older and wiser, and yet we would be searching for the same recording or music. I would agree that this is a part of research that we miss out on today. The few occasions that I have run into faculty in the library has always been very fun. The other question that Watt posed that I can relate to is the one about skepticism, when the student asks if an author actually said something. It reminded me of something that I see passed around online from time to time. A quote by Abraham Lincoln "The problem with the internet is that you never know if it is actually true." This has always made me laugh, given that he obvious never said this at all. But at the same time I feel like I have to approach sources this way when researching. While there are always sources available on a topic, they may not always be the most accurate. I would agree with Watt that there are some problems with today's online libraries but at the same time it makes research far easier. I would love to see a day when all scholarly articles are available in one online database that any student can access. (Although I don't even want to begin to think how hard this would be to search.) Hopefully overtime we can find a balance between the positives and negatives of online libraries.
"How Streaming Media Could Threaten the Mission of Libraries" made a lot of excellent points that I had never considered. I am so used to buy CDs and record albums that I hadn't realized that some recordings are only released on digital media. If every company starts charging libraries the way that the LA Phil publishers wanted to charge the University of Washington's library then how will music libraries survive? As a musician I rely heavily on having access to numerous recordings of any one work. I understand that there are multiple outlets for finding these recordings, but the first place I always check is the University library. Surely companies have to realize that they need to find a way for libraries to have access to these resources at a reasonable cost. Licensing fees are good for when they are selling recordings to the general public but if all publishers are worried about is money then they might single handily kill music libraries in the future. I realize that I am likely preaching to the choir here but surely we can come up with a solution to this issue. We can only hope that publishers will realize the issue that they have created.
For my first bibliography I would like to focus on the early French school of saxophone performance and works written by Marcel Mule, and Jean-Marie Londeix. Mainly I will be focusing on the Paris Conservatory and how it established the saxophone as a legitimate classical instrument. Given that I play saxophone this is a very interesting topic to me. Marcel Mule began teaching at the Paris Conservatory in 1944 was the first saxophone professor at the Paris Conservatory after Adolphe Sax left in 1870. Jean-Marie Londeix studied with Marcel Mule at the Paris Conservatory and went on to become one of the leading performers on saxophone. Between the two hundreds of works have been commissioned for them for performance and each have produced numerous books and articles regarding saxophone performance. The IC library only has recordings of Marcel Mule but he published over a dozen books on saxophone performance. The library does, however, hold about 6 books by Jean-Marie Londeix on saxophone performance and literature. I will need to use ILL to obtain some of the necessary resources but there are definitely plenty to use.
While reading the "Foreword" by Roger Angell, it was really nice to hear someone say that it is difficult to write even for professional writers. I have always found that inspiration for writing does not come easily. Often when I am writing it is perfectly described by the image Angell gives of E.B. White sitting down to type in his office. Either the words are few and far between, or I procrastinate until I am forced to just keep writing. The steps that he outlines for writing "Write in a way that comes naturally," "Revise and rewrite," "Do not explain too mush," and "Be clear" make it sound as if writing is so easy. I do agree though that the world we live in today does not help our writing very much. Most of us are now used to sending quick short emails, or even talking to people via text message which can be composed of just a few words. It is not very often that we have to sit down and write something formal. Our culture certainly does not help much in that aspect, but the 5 tips that he gives are excellent.
My first reaction when reading "Introduction" by E.B.White was that Professor Strunk would have a heart attack if he saw my writing. I ten to embellish my writing with unnecessary words and phrases. While Professor Strunk seems to be the very definition of grammar police, I think he is very right in his message. By cleansing the fluff out of our writing we can make our job as writers much easier. The writing will be a lot clearer and the purpose will be very evident. I do like the point that White makes at the end. He describes "the author's deep sympathy for the reader." I really like that he brings this up. I think if we keep the reader in mind while we write then there will be more solid content and less fluff in our writing. The reader should not have to hunt for the purpose of a writing, rather it should be obvious. Based on what White had to say, I think I could definitely learn a lot from Professor Strunk.
The first thing that struck me in the article by David Watt were the questions that he posed. The first questioned posed has to do with historians gossiping on the steps of a library. This made me realize that with the digitization of today's libraries people do not often bump into colleagues and students in libraries as often as before because they are likely searching resources from home. I am curious to know how many great scholars have run into each other in libraries in the past and as a result came up with groundbreaking theories and discoveries. Watt mentions later that when he was a student he would run into his professors in the library and as a result feel as if they were part of a common goal. I feel as if my professors and I are aiming for a common goal but often feel as if we are fighting it separately. When I was an undergrad it was always striking to me to run into the grad students in the library. They always seemed so much older and wiser, and yet we would be searching for the same recording or music. I would agree that this is a part of research that we miss out on today. The few occasions that I have run into faculty in the library has always been very fun. The other question that Watt posed that I can relate to is the one about skepticism, when the student asks if an author actually said something. It reminded me of something that I see passed around online from time to time. A quote by Abraham Lincoln "The problem with the internet is that you never know if it is actually true." This has always made me laugh, given that he obvious never said this at all. But at the same time I feel like I have to approach sources this way when researching. While there are always sources available on a topic, they may not always be the most accurate. I would agree with Watt that there are some problems with today's online libraries but at the same time it makes research far easier. I would love to see a day when all scholarly articles are available in one online database that any student can access. (Although I don't even want to begin to think how hard this would be to search.) Hopefully overtime we can find a balance between the positives and negatives of online libraries.
"How Streaming Media Could Threaten the Mission of Libraries" made a lot of excellent points that I had never considered. I am so used to buy CDs and record albums that I hadn't realized that some recordings are only released on digital media. If every company starts charging libraries the way that the LA Phil publishers wanted to charge the University of Washington's library then how will music libraries survive? As a musician I rely heavily on having access to numerous recordings of any one work. I understand that there are multiple outlets for finding these recordings, but the first place I always check is the University library. Surely companies have to realize that they need to find a way for libraries to have access to these resources at a reasonable cost. Licensing fees are good for when they are selling recordings to the general public but if all publishers are worried about is money then they might single handily kill music libraries in the future. I realize that I am likely preaching to the choir here but surely we can come up with a solution to this issue. We can only hope that publishers will realize the issue that they have created.
For my first bibliography I would like to focus on the early French school of saxophone performance and works written by Marcel Mule, and Jean-Marie Londeix. Mainly I will be focusing on the Paris Conservatory and how it established the saxophone as a legitimate classical instrument. Given that I play saxophone this is a very interesting topic to me. Marcel Mule began teaching at the Paris Conservatory in 1944 was the first saxophone professor at the Paris Conservatory after Adolphe Sax left in 1870. Jean-Marie Londeix studied with Marcel Mule at the Paris Conservatory and went on to become one of the leading performers on saxophone. Between the two hundreds of works have been commissioned for them for performance and each have produced numerous books and articles regarding saxophone performance. The IC library only has recordings of Marcel Mule but he published over a dozen books on saxophone performance. The library does, however, hold about 6 books by Jean-Marie Londeix on saxophone performance and literature. I will need to use ILL to obtain some of the necessary resources but there are definitely plenty to use.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Blog Post 1: September 3
The sequence of these three articles really helped my understanding of how to approach and read a scholarly article. In the past I have always found myself confused and easily distracted when it comes to trying to digest the information within a scholarly writing. I feel like after this exercise I am now more prepared to read scholarly articles in the future.
"It's Not Harry Potter" really made me think about the context in which scholarly publications should be approached. I have always known that scholarly articles are written for a specific audience but it has never really registered that I need multiple reading strategies for an article of that nature. Typically I just sit down and try to read it, which honestly does not usually end well. I found the list of strategies the author provided to be very helpful. Some of them, like skimming and moving on, I was a little surprised to see. When I am trying to understand something I don't usually see skimming as a good strategy. I do like, however, that he recommends small doses and at the end coming back to the purpose. Those seem to be very helpful in trying to understand something that is so information heavy.
I used "How to Read a Scholarly Article" and "It's Not How Much, It's How" in tandem. After reading "How to Read a Scholarly Article" I tried to implement the suggested techniques while reading "It's Not How Much, It's How." I found that this helped out my understanding a lot. I felt like I knew what I was looking for after reading the discussion and conclusion first. This definitely helped as I read through the main body of the article. I then went back and read the whole article again, this time in the correct order. When I was finished I had a full understanding of the information in the article.
I have been struggling to come up with a composer that I really want to use for the 2nd annotated bibliography. One of the ideas that I have come up with is John Mackey. John has written numerous works for band as well as orchestra in recent years and is still somewhat early in his career. The only problem I have with doing this project on John is that I don't know how much has been published about him. He is very active online and on social media but other than that I don't know what else is out there. I am very familiar with most of his music, I have had the privilege of playing a lot of it as well as working with him a couple of different times. I already know that he attended Berkley school of music in Boston and that he loves to take pictures of food. Another one that I have thought of is Chris Potter. Chris is a jazz saxophonist who has been very influential on the jazz scene. I am familiar with only a handful of his works and really do not know much about him besides his music. Chris would definitely be interesting to learn about, especially since I am a saxophone player myself, and I'm sure I could easily find sources relating to him. He would be a good choice, but I definitely want to do some more research before making a final selection.
The sequence of these three articles really helped my understanding of how to approach and read a scholarly article. In the past I have always found myself confused and easily distracted when it comes to trying to digest the information within a scholarly writing. I feel like after this exercise I am now more prepared to read scholarly articles in the future.
"It's Not Harry Potter" really made me think about the context in which scholarly publications should be approached. I have always known that scholarly articles are written for a specific audience but it has never really registered that I need multiple reading strategies for an article of that nature. Typically I just sit down and try to read it, which honestly does not usually end well. I found the list of strategies the author provided to be very helpful. Some of them, like skimming and moving on, I was a little surprised to see. When I am trying to understand something I don't usually see skimming as a good strategy. I do like, however, that he recommends small doses and at the end coming back to the purpose. Those seem to be very helpful in trying to understand something that is so information heavy.
I used "How to Read a Scholarly Article" and "It's Not How Much, It's How" in tandem. After reading "How to Read a Scholarly Article" I tried to implement the suggested techniques while reading "It's Not How Much, It's How." I found that this helped out my understanding a lot. I felt like I knew what I was looking for after reading the discussion and conclusion first. This definitely helped as I read through the main body of the article. I then went back and read the whole article again, this time in the correct order. When I was finished I had a full understanding of the information in the article.
I have been struggling to come up with a composer that I really want to use for the 2nd annotated bibliography. One of the ideas that I have come up with is John Mackey. John has written numerous works for band as well as orchestra in recent years and is still somewhat early in his career. The only problem I have with doing this project on John is that I don't know how much has been published about him. He is very active online and on social media but other than that I don't know what else is out there. I am very familiar with most of his music, I have had the privilege of playing a lot of it as well as working with him a couple of different times. I already know that he attended Berkley school of music in Boston and that he loves to take pictures of food. Another one that I have thought of is Chris Potter. Chris is a jazz saxophonist who has been very influential on the jazz scene. I am familiar with only a handful of his works and really do not know much about him besides his music. Chris would definitely be interesting to learn about, especially since I am a saxophone player myself, and I'm sure I could easily find sources relating to him. He would be a good choice, but I definitely want to do some more research before making a final selection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)