Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I have to say, I think this is one of the most enjoyable, refreshing and stimulating threads on here for a long time, not least due to the thread drift. So, thank you Fox, for taking us in such an unexpected direction.
However, I dont think it is fair of you to suggest that the argument (that an academic article presented to a non-academic audience is inappropriate), is indicative of an anti-intellectual approach. There are places where an academic article would be necessary, and places where it would be helpful, and places where it is the very last thing you would need or want. If one is blind to the requirements of the context, then one probably wont be successful as a writer.
Suffice to say, I enjoyed my time doing musical analysis and was quite good at it, and Im quite sure my musical education has added a valuable dimension to my appreciation of music. In that respect, I completely agree with you.
Where I disagree, is in your somewhat uncompromising stance regarding any other approach to music and music writing, as somehow invalid, unworthy or contemptible. If a reader has no understanding of the difference between a mode and a key, and may never have encountered the term mode in the context of music, then it will make sense to describe a change as a key change if that is what the uneducated listener will likely perceive. Similarly, changes in time signature or beaming across the bar may be perceived by a casual listener as a change in tempo, even if the notation gives the lie to that.
Occasionally it pokes my inner pedant, too, but I can see that it may sometimes be valid. There is nothing wrong in describing something in the way that the intended readership will better understand, and everything wrong in deliberately writing several feet above your readers heads, to make some sort of pseudointellectual point.
However, I dont think it is fair of you to suggest that the argument (that an academic article presented to a non-academic audience is inappropriate), is indicative of an anti-intellectual approach. There are places where an academic article would be necessary, and places where it would be helpful, and places where it is the very last thing you would need or want. If one is blind to the requirements of the context, then one probably wont be successful as a writer.
Suffice to say, I enjoyed my time doing musical analysis and was quite good at it, and Im quite sure my musical education has added a valuable dimension to my appreciation of music. In that respect, I completely agree with you.
Where I disagree, is in your somewhat uncompromising stance regarding any other approach to music and music writing, as somehow invalid, unworthy or contemptible. If a reader has no understanding of the difference between a mode and a key, and may never have encountered the term mode in the context of music, then it will make sense to describe a change as a key change if that is what the uneducated listener will likely perceive. Similarly, changes in time signature or beaming across the bar may be perceived by a casual listener as a change in tempo, even if the notation gives the lie to that.
Occasionally it pokes my inner pedant, too, but I can see that it may sometimes be valid. There is nothing wrong in describing something in the way that the intended readership will better understand, and everything wrong in deliberately writing several feet above your readers heads, to make some sort of pseudointellectual point.
