I had a number of thoughts.
+: I liked the concept of using the music of the past to understand music later. That, in my opinion, is one of the major reasons to study music history.
-: I didn't like that the article was so vague and circumlocutive that the meaning was obscured. It was not a very well-written article, despite its intentions. More on that later.
?: The primary question I had upon finishing the article was "What?" The article created more questions than it answered.
Z: It made me think a lot. Mostly to try and make sense of that garbled mess. When I finally half-understood what he was getting at, I became interested, but it was so tough to get past the messiness of it all.
Finally, to expand on the negative, this article seemed to be almost going out of its way to not make sense. Academic articles tend to be full of jargon and whatnot, that's OK, but when it starts to seem that the article is using mucky wordings and strange choice of vocabulary to obscure the fact that it isn't quite ready to explain its point, it is simply a case of poor writing and lack of preparation. It would seem that the author is aware of his topic, perhaps understands it somewhat, but not enough to relate it in a clear and concise manner. It is not a very good article. It is too bad that there isn't a better article on the same topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment