"Ripped" at the bar with musicology grads
Last night I organized a bar-outing with four of my favourite musicology grads. Of course, the chatter included recent research we were doing, our classes, different ways of thinking/writing about music and such. It was awesome for all but the last hour or two.
I had no idea how bitter and disillusioned one of the grads was. This one particular guy has stopped pursuing any coursework because, as he explained to us, he doesn't have the motivation to finish this "bullshit degree." When the subject of high school reunions came up and he talked about how useless his education was. To him, nearly all musicological scholarship was (to roughly remember his words) ego-boosting masturbation and nearly all of the writing he had read was masking its real intent to bring prestige to the author and consecrate the music that it was writing about.
He used one of our profs, William Caplin as a prime example, stating how he "hated everything the man stands for." (Prof. Caplin is the president of the Society for Music Theory and his book on Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn won the society's annual award for the best book of the year). This bitter grad accused him of studying a narrow repertoire so that he can know it better than anyone else, force his views on his readers, gain power, and selectively teach courses to only students who would be likely to further disseminate his ideas - apparently he only teaches grad seminars and certain performance courses (performers will bring out his theoretical notions through their playing).
These are pretty serious accusations and many of them seem to be negative attitudes towards writing in general (e.g. "forcing" ideas on a reader) that use Prof. Caplin as a target. If Prof. Caplin is writing about a narrow topic, could he just be following the maxim of writing about what he knows best? While my summary of the bitter grad's arguments is based on my drunken memory, I can't help but think that he might be missing some important details. How can he assume Prof. Caplin's motivations despite all the circumstantial evidence? Perhaps Prof. Caplin is more interested in research than instruction. Maybe he no longer wants to spend time teaching fundamentals, not because he wants his reputation to be more efficiently furthered but because his seniority allows him to select teaching positions that he finds more stimulating.
I tried to think of counterarguments at the time but I imagine many of them betrayed my misunderstanding of methodological debates and my infancy in the discipline. The worst moment of the night for me was when this guy's roommate interrupted me by saying, "Before [name withheld] rips into you, let me just say that what he's talking about is about something totally different than [whatever I had said at the time]...okay, [name withheld], you can rip into him now."
I was really pissed off and hurt by that. I might have missed something big but why did he have to respond in such an antagonistic (bordering on bullying) manner? The roommate is a 2nd-year PhD student who has read a tonne more than I have, been to far more conferences, talked to Susan McClary (an academic giant who spearheaded a lot of the ideological arguments we were discussing) in-person about these sorts of issues, and generally knows more about it all than I do. Fine. I'm not going to just sit there and swallow all of their ideas without questioning them to the best of my ability. Granted, he had been drinking, but if he actually wanted to spare me of being "ripped into," couldn't he have stated his arguments without publicizing how much worse my position was? Lately whenever I argue with him it feels like he is trying to teach me to adopt his ideas ("Do you see how far you've come since 5 minutes ago?") rather than contesting an issue with me.
Being new to academia, I know that if I am going to ask a question or make a point at a conference or even during a seminar, I'm risking making a mistake in front of others who know a lot more than I do. That's a necessary part of learning the ropes that I try to counter by "writing what I know about" and by reading as much as possible. I know it's also important to acknowledge my lack of background whenever it exists and be aware of when it's important to phrase my thoughts humbly. But last night I didn't think I was being arrogant or unreasonably naive (maybe the alcohol made me a poor judge of that).
I'm just left feeling really upset by it all. To say the least, the conversation was uninspiring (although the topic was important) but I also felt attacked by someone I generally look up to.
The girl who sat with us through all of this was visibly uncomfortable also. I'm sure it wasn't her idea of a Friday night at the bar. The other guys made really awkward subject-changers ("SO...how 'bout them Canucks?") but I didn't let the topic go although I should have. On a side note, I also looked quite foolish when I had to tip the waittress. Drinks were $4.75 and I gave her a $2 tip. She kept her hand held out and I had no idea what to do. One of the grads said, "Give her all the change and she'll love you." I panicked and did it. 100% tip. Oops.
I had no idea how bitter and disillusioned one of the grads was. This one particular guy has stopped pursuing any coursework because, as he explained to us, he doesn't have the motivation to finish this "bullshit degree." When the subject of high school reunions came up and he talked about how useless his education was. To him, nearly all musicological scholarship was (to roughly remember his words) ego-boosting masturbation and nearly all of the writing he had read was masking its real intent to bring prestige to the author and consecrate the music that it was writing about.
He used one of our profs, William Caplin as a prime example, stating how he "hated everything the man stands for." (Prof. Caplin is the president of the Society for Music Theory and his book on Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn won the society's annual award for the best book of the year). This bitter grad accused him of studying a narrow repertoire so that he can know it better than anyone else, force his views on his readers, gain power, and selectively teach courses to only students who would be likely to further disseminate his ideas - apparently he only teaches grad seminars and certain performance courses (performers will bring out his theoretical notions through their playing).
These are pretty serious accusations and many of them seem to be negative attitudes towards writing in general (e.g. "forcing" ideas on a reader) that use Prof. Caplin as a target. If Prof. Caplin is writing about a narrow topic, could he just be following the maxim of writing about what he knows best? While my summary of the bitter grad's arguments is based on my drunken memory, I can't help but think that he might be missing some important details. How can he assume Prof. Caplin's motivations despite all the circumstantial evidence? Perhaps Prof. Caplin is more interested in research than instruction. Maybe he no longer wants to spend time teaching fundamentals, not because he wants his reputation to be more efficiently furthered but because his seniority allows him to select teaching positions that he finds more stimulating.
I tried to think of counterarguments at the time but I imagine many of them betrayed my misunderstanding of methodological debates and my infancy in the discipline. The worst moment of the night for me was when this guy's roommate interrupted me by saying, "Before [name withheld] rips into you, let me just say that what he's talking about is about something totally different than [whatever I had said at the time]...okay, [name withheld], you can rip into him now."
I was really pissed off and hurt by that. I might have missed something big but why did he have to respond in such an antagonistic (bordering on bullying) manner? The roommate is a 2nd-year PhD student who has read a tonne more than I have, been to far more conferences, talked to Susan McClary (an academic giant who spearheaded a lot of the ideological arguments we were discussing) in-person about these sorts of issues, and generally knows more about it all than I do. Fine. I'm not going to just sit there and swallow all of their ideas without questioning them to the best of my ability. Granted, he had been drinking, but if he actually wanted to spare me of being "ripped into," couldn't he have stated his arguments without publicizing how much worse my position was? Lately whenever I argue with him it feels like he is trying to teach me to adopt his ideas ("Do you see how far you've come since 5 minutes ago?") rather than contesting an issue with me.
Being new to academia, I know that if I am going to ask a question or make a point at a conference or even during a seminar, I'm risking making a mistake in front of others who know a lot more than I do. That's a necessary part of learning the ropes that I try to counter by "writing what I know about" and by reading as much as possible. I know it's also important to acknowledge my lack of background whenever it exists and be aware of when it's important to phrase my thoughts humbly. But last night I didn't think I was being arrogant or unreasonably naive (maybe the alcohol made me a poor judge of that).
I'm just left feeling really upset by it all. To say the least, the conversation was uninspiring (although the topic was important) but I also felt attacked by someone I generally look up to.
The girl who sat with us through all of this was visibly uncomfortable also. I'm sure it wasn't her idea of a Friday night at the bar. The other guys made really awkward subject-changers ("SO...how 'bout them Canucks?") but I didn't let the topic go although I should have. On a side note, I also looked quite foolish when I had to tip the waittress. Drinks were $4.75 and I gave her a $2 tip. She kept her hand held out and I had no idea what to do. One of the grads said, "Give her all the change and she'll love you." I panicked and did it. 100% tip. Oops.