Objective: The purpose of this project is to learn how to evaluate scholarly writings.
Rationale: Just because something is in print does not mean that it must be true. Indeed, the range of possibilities for any kind of writing is quite broad and can extend from cases where the “evidence” or “facts” are clear and unequivocal, i.e., “truth” (or as close as we can get to it), to those cases where “evidence” has been manipulated, omitted, or incorrectly interpreted, i.e., “not truth” (or deliberate lies and misrepresentations).
In reality, most writings will fall somewhere in between those two poles, and it thus becomes important for the reader to look with a critical eye on the arguments and evidence put forth by the author. In most scholarly writing, fortunately, deliberate lying and falsification are very rare, and, in fact, most scholarly writing must be approved by an editor/editorial board and often outside readers (called referees) before it goes into print.
Nevertheless, the same evidence may often be interpreted honestly in two different ways by two different scholars. In such cases, it becomes difficult to judge the “truth” of each scholar’s argument, particularly when the same evidence is used to draw two different conclusions. To bolster different arguments, scholars may present evidence in different ways, omit information (that is claimed to be irrelevant), and draw on other facts (that are necessary to a preferred interpretation). Personal bias toward one interpretation or animosity against another interpretation may also play a role. All of these conflicting forces will be hidden (at least most scholars try to hide them) under the guise of “objectivity.” In fact, there are very few “objective” statements in scholarly writing, and the good reader knows this.
The Project: One of the most hotly contested scholarly arguments of
the past twenty years concerns the way in which J.S. Bach may have performed
his sacred choral works. Two of the most
distinguished Bach scholars of recent times, Joshua Rifkin and Robert Marshall,
first argued this point in public at the 1981 National Meeting of the American
Musicological Society in
The Method: You will read the basic arguments put forth by both scholars, as well as one supporting document written by Bach. You will also have a modern copy of the score of Bach’s B-minor Mass and access to at least one recording of the work. The purpose of your reading will be to evaluate these two arguments and come to some conclusions of your own concerning the viability of each argument. You will present your own interpretation of these arguments in a typed paper, roughly five (5) pages in length (details on format below).
Begin by first reading the Bach document. Then read the Rifkin, Marshall and Rifkin articles in order. Try to follow the arguments as each scholar presents his own evidence, drawing on your own knowledge of Bach and his music. This first reading will be primarily to familiarize yourself with the problem. Do not be too concerned with note-taking, etc.
Once you are familiar with the arguments, re-read Bach and the three articles carefully and with a more critical eye. Note the kinds of evidence that each scholar presents, and how convincingly the evidence supports one viewpoint over another. Look especially for the ways in which evidence is (re)interpreted by the opposing scholar, and also be on the lookout for points that are only suppositions or which cannot be easily refuted. In short, look at every part of this argument.
The Materials: The articles that you will read have been photocopied and placed on reserve, as have an English translation of the one document from Bach cited in the argument and a recording of the B-Minor Mass. You may make photocopies of these articles for your own use.
At a minimum, you must read the following four items, all of which are on reserve.
Should you prefer to read these last three items in their original format they are in the UCF library’s collection of bound periodicals. (High Fidelity = UCF: ML 1 .H452)
For additional information when reading, you may want to use the following items, most of which are on reserve.
Finally, this controversy has continued to engage scholars, even to this day, and literally dozens of articles have been written on the subject. For a sample of just some of the commentary on this issue in only a single journal, Early Music (= UCF: ML 1 .E18), read the following:
Content of the Paper: Your paper will be an evaluation of this argument. Note immediately that there is no simple, correct answer. Both Rifkin and Marshall have put forth reasonable arguments with some kind of supporting evidence, but neither has been able to make an air-tight case. You must do the following in your paper:
In short, what is your belief on this question and why? In addition to simply evaluating the Rifkin/Marshall controversy (which you must do), you may also bring in some of the later arguments of other scholars. You might also indicate how you, as a performer, would use this information to prepare your own performance of Bach’s choral works. Finally, remember that you are to tell me why you believe what you do. This is not simply a matter of “I like” a certain type of performance.
Format of the Paper: Typed double-space in a 12-point font on white, 8-1/2” by 11” paper, with 1” margins on all 4 sides of the text. Include a title page, listing your name, a title, my name, the name of this course, and the date on which you submit your report.
You should include footnotes primarily to indicate specific passages or points in these articles and documents that you are discussing. (Note that this will help me to grade your paper by telling me exactly what you are discussing.) Notes are especially important if you include information from sources other than Rifkin and Marshall.
You may write more if you wish, but the minimum acceptable length is 5 pages (about 1,200 words), not counting the title page or any bibliography page.
Grading: The grading criteria for this project will be: