We are excited to announce the second Volume of the Journal of Creative Music Systems is now out to read online.
There are some great articles in this issue covering a range of exciting research including dance-driven music, models using deep learning and creative computer systems. All the articles are open access so can be read for free online.
This week is Peer Review Week, and the theme is Transparency in Review:
This year’s theme is Transparency in Review, exploring what the concept means to various
stakeholders participating in review activity – in publishing, grant review, conference
submissions, promotion and tenure, and more.
Last week the University of Huddersfield Press (represented by Megan Taylor and Kathrine Jensen) went along to the Northern Collaboration Conference 2017 at York University. The theme for the conference was Digital Transformation, and it was a great way to get us thinking about how our publishing practices are informed by digital technology, and particularity to look at how new platforms, technologies and opportunities can be used to enable open access publishing.
Our paper focused on four key questions:
• What does Open Access mean?
• How and why is the University of Huddersfield Press involved?
• What part does digital transformation play?
• How does all this impact on the scholarly community?
You can see the presentation slides here, but do feel free to get in touch with Megan Taylor (email@example.com) if you have any questions.
The day was a great opportunity to talk to other university press colleagues, and we look forward to getting involved next year too. Watch this space for a published article to come soon from the themes in our presentation.
The transformation from print to digital publishing, particularly open access digital, has provided new spaces for previously undiscovered research and allowed us to make our content more discoverable, accessible and relevant to an ever-growing diverse readership.
Exploring the journey towards open access publishing
In the run up to the Northern Collaboration conference, we are gathering some information on how people think about open access publishing and what it means in relation to their own experiences and fields.
We will be presenting a session at the conference titled: Embracing open access publishing for academic staff and student research where we will be exploring several key themes:
Why did the University of Huddersfield Press decide to get involved with open access publishing?
How has digital transformation played a part in this process?
How has open access publishing had an impact on our authors, students, research staff and wider scholarly community?
Share your views on open access publishing
We thought it would be beneficial to kick the session off by sharing some real views from the library and publishing community on open access, which is why we need your help! If you have 60 seconds to spare, please pop by our Answer Garden and put some of the keywords in you think of in relation to open access publishing. We will be discussing the anonymous feedback during the conference session.
Music student John Aulich published an article about his research in Issue 2 of our student research journal Fields. We caught up with him for a chat about his work and his experiences getting published.
In the summer of 2015, I was invited to prepare a piece I had written in the third year of my undergraduate studies for inclusion in the second volume of FIELDS. ‘Power, agency, deference and difference: Examining the politics of composer–performer relationships in the wake of recent innovations’ explored the notational praxes of three radically divergent composers to try and uncover the ways in which they might limit or encourage interpretative agency on the part of performers. The paper was one among a number of tentative early steps on a wider research trajectory concerned with the immediate political ramifications of particular pieces of music. In other words, to ask how a piece establishes hierarchies between performers, composers, and audiences at the moment of performance. For me, the emergent political microcosm that a performance inhabits is as integral to what music is or could be as more obvious specifics, such as notes, chords and rhythms.
While further research has since led me to new positions not entirely congruent with the implications and conclusions of that particular paper, being invited to publish and continuously advised by experienced scholars throughout the process gave me the confidence to develop new lines of inquiry. It was an indication that I might be onto something; that somebody somewhere thought it a valuable contribution of potential interest to the wider academic world. Further, participating in Fields allowed me to join a community of colleagues in the same position, whose incredibly diverse research interests caused me to see much more fertile grounds for cross-pollination than I had thought possible, from sociology to biomedical science. To borrow an illustrative concept from the urban sociologist Richard Sennett, the boundaries between our specialisms became fluid sites for the exchange and transformation of ideas: bustling hedgerows as opposed to concrete walls. Such was the impact of this realization that its resonances carried through my master’s research and into the heart of my current interests as a practising composer.
Inspired by the broadening sphere of influence on my creative world, my master’s research sought to turn the gaze of political analysis to my own work. By casting out the critical theory that strongly informed the paper published in FIELDS, I was able to reimagine musical processes and concepts as analogous with aspects of the material world, using post-structuralist materialist philosophy as a theoretical basis. I reimagined the score, for example, as a biological cell-like space with its own agency: it could both absorb and react to a specific performer’s energies, and resist them. To borrow a Tim Ingold idea, rather than read the score, a performer would instead correspond with it. In Condensation (Strike Work) (recording), the music can only take form through an exploration of possible speeds by a specific performer. Like Manuel DeLanda’s Deleuzean metallurgist, a performer cannot impose the final form so much as tease it out.
Where I had previously imagined freedom to be the degree to which a performer can exercise their interpretative will uninhibited, I now imagine it to be more akin to the potential for new possibilities to emerge from this kind of correspondence. For Πολυτροπος [Polytropos] (recording), a later piece which I developed with the bass clarinetist and improviser, James Wood, this notion of correspondence took a more qualitative form in what I called the ‘flow rate’ line. To quote from the performance notes, ‘When the line is at its thinnest, performers should dwell in the material, pay more attention to detail, and take as much time as is necessary to execute the particulars as given. When the line is at its thickest, performers should hack through the material, allow for a high degree of inexactitude, and move faster.’
Since completing my master’s degree, I’ve also explored the notion of correspondence with new technology. In an as-yet-untitled piece for fellow composer and violist Adam Sangster, the performer works with a computer algorithm that tends towards certain behaviours, but nonetheless reacts to his sounds in unpredictable ways. It has an agency of its own that he can try to subjugate, and he has an agency that it can also act to undermine by forcing him to switch between one of two staffs (see left).
In at least one respect since FIELDS, I’ve come full circle; a section of my FIELDS paper explored the implications of confusing cueing systems in some works by the composer Christian Wolf. For my first large-scale ensemble piece since participating, the composition of which is ongoing, I have developed a similarly confusion-inducing cueing system of my own. For now, the kinds of correspondence it might illicit among the players remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: I have no idea what I would be doing if it weren’t for FIELDS.
Engineering student Nick Horne has recently published an article about his research in our student research journal Fields. We caught up with him for a chat about his work and his experiences getting published.
How would you explain your research to someone new to the subject?
I would explain my research as a methodical approach to an engineering problem, starting with the objectives of the proposed solution in order to gain an understanding of what is required. It was important to understand the problems effecting power system quality, which the project aimed to address, as well as their causes and countermeasures, in order to understand the purpose of the system and produce a good technical report. My research covered the existing technology available, found the best suited to the application and evaluated the results against the highest benchmark I had access to.
As a first time author, how did you find the process of getting published?
I found the process of being published interesting and relatively straightforward. The editors of the journal were very helpful and constructive with their comments and suggestions which my work benefitted from. Ample time and support was given which made the process of writing my article enjoyable and ensured it was of the highest quality I could achieve. The whole experience has been rewarding and I’m proud that my work was selected for publishing in Fields.
How do you think this experience has helped you develop new skills?
The experience taught me how to better structure my sentences and make the journal flow better for the reader, better grammar and punctuation made the article easier to read. My journal was based on my final year project report which was a considerably larger body of work; this experience therefore provided experience in extracting key information and creating a more concise article. It also meant I was able to identify what information from my report would be suited to an academic style paper, adapting certain sections to explain terminology and provide context. Writing for a wider audience, with the aim to interest and educate the reader, was a challenge I enjoyed throughout the process.
History student Katie McAdam has recently published an article about her research in our student research journal Fields. We caught up with her for a chat about her work and her experiences getting published.
Give us a quick overview of your research area
My area of research has focused on societal gender norms surrounding masculinity and kingship in medieval England. By examining the downfall, death and conspiratorial narratives surrounding Edward II, my article analyses the way in which his failure to meet contemporary gender expectations ultimately doomed his reign, and were to shape the memory of his life and reign. The two areas of masculinity and kingship have been consistently linked throughout the historiography, with Edward often being remembered as a homosexual monarch, even as a gay icon, and his leadership failures are continuously linked with his perceived failings as the ideal medieval male. After Edward II’s death, a letter was written by a notable cleric, Manuel Fieschi, claiming the king was still alive and living out his days secretly as a devout hermit in Italy. My article then goes on to analyse the prevalent trope of secret survival which is associated with many famous deaths throughout history, such as Elvis Presley and Princess Diana and examines why this phenomenon of believing the dead are living on in secret occurs so frequently in history.
How did you find the process of publication? Did it help you to develop as a researcher?
The experience of becoming a first time author has been both exciting and eye-opening for me and has most certainly developed me academically in a number of different ways. I feel my ongoing studies have vastly improved due to the new level of scrutiny I can impose on my own writing and content after working with the Fields team so closely to re-draft and improve my work throughout the past year. Attention to detail was never a strength of mine, but this experience demanded a high level of this skill and so I can now apply this both academically and professionally to my other projects. Overall I also have a much greater appreciation for the level of work that goes into having work published, and as a result feel I hold myself to a much higher standard than before I got involved with the process, which is certainly paying off in other areas such as my grades and feedback.
I have really enjoyed the experience and the process, especially the dedicated workshop day where I could discuss research areas with other writers and learn from each other, and my involvement has definitely made me keen to strive to do similar things in the future.