Your history of Dubstep...

debate, appreciation, interviews, reviews (events or releases), videos, radio shows
flashharry
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: wivelsfield

Post by flashharry » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:54 am

Baron_von_Carlton wrote:Surely writing about a cultural revolution which has influenced society for the last 60 years or so is more interesting than writing about a little known genre of electronic music, largely unknown by the vast majority of the worlds population.
hmm nah but its done to death init



best to put wiki in ur appendix... dont cite it obviously but u cud bring in its relevance cos it shows that bare ppl do wanna understand this dubstep ting n that seems to be a place of discourse where ppl on the front line can update it n whatnot.. so u can still mention wikipedia article as evidence of like how the movement is manifestin itself for the youth in new media.. just not as an academic source

if ur havin probs findin relevant academic critique then just draw parallels with someting similar from the past that can contextualise it.. like theres bare shit written on 90s warehouse vibez, that cud be useful?

Littlefoot
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:45 pm
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Post by Littlefoot » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:55 am

contact a couple of the main players for an honest truth

you'd be surprised how nice they might be to you
Subsequent Mastering - http://www.subsequentmastering.com
Online Mastering Service
(LOL GURLZ, Geiom, Dexplicit, Bass Clef, Lost Codes Audio, Car Crash Set recordings)

User avatar
seckle
Posts: 12404
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:58 pm

Post by seckle » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:10 pm

juliun_c90 wrote:
seckle wrote:if you're one of the people that argue that it's bullshit, then see it from the perspective that all you need is an internet connection and you have free knowledge. there's millions of people in this world that can't afford an education or university. think about them for a minute.
@seckle: get off your high horse man. i said nothing about whether wiki was a valid source/good idea or not, merely reflected an attitude which is quite prevalent within higher education in this country. don't turn it into a democratisation of information/class issue.

the key to its use in an academic context is demostrating that you've gone through a process of critical evaluation in terms of the information that it contains.
juliun_c90 wrote:word of warning: if your lecturers are anything like 90% of the academic staff at the uni i work at they'll take one look at a piece of work that is heavily based on wikipedia and dismiss it.


class issue?

i spoke nothing of "class". you did. i'm just making the point that while one set of people are quick to write it off, others see it's adaptability as it's ultimate success.

slow down man.

slothrop
Posts: 2655
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:59 am

Post by slothrop » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:55 pm

seckle wrote:i spoke nothing of "class". you did. i'm just making the point that while one set of people are quick to write it off, others see it's adaptability as it's ultimate success.
This is getting like an argument over whether a lumphammer is a useful tool - someone saying that it's bugger all use to someone who designs microchips isn't saying it's got no use in general. The fact that Wikipoedia isn't acceptable as a reference in an academic work isn't denying that it's got a lot of other uses, it's just saying something about what a reference in an academic work needs to be.

The changeability of it is a big part of this, I think - if I reference something to back up my argument, I need to know that it'll still say the same thing in a week or a month or in ten years if someone decides to go through my paper looking for holes. But what I can do is look at the list of references in the wikipedia article, to find out where the information came from. Most of those are print magazines or books, so if use them directly and then give a reference to them, anyone who wants to check my source can go to the British Library or whatever and look it up.

Also, if I'm going to trust something that's written on the internet enough to use it in an academic argument that other people are going to try to knock down, I want to know where it comes from so I can evaluate how trustworthy it is. In the case of wikipedia, I have no idea whether a fact about the history of dubstep was contributed by Hatcha talking about something that happened when he was there or by some kid who thinks that it's all dnb records played at 33.[1] Again, the information on wikipedia where I can evaluate the accuracy of the source is the stuff where it comes pretty directly from a magazine article, an interview, a book or something like that. I may evaluate it as being 'pretty weak' if its a two paragraph NME article or 'pretty good' if it's an unedited transcript of a lengthy interview from the Wire, but the important thing is that I can evaluate it.

So why reference wikipedia when you can go back to the original sources for anything on it that's actually good enough to be worth quoting? Better to use it as a first port of call and then follow through it's references for the stuff to actually quote. Even from the point of view of someone writing an academic piece, I think it's really useful because of this.


[1] Maybe this isn't such an issue with dubstep, but if I'm writing about history and politics I really need to know where information is coming from, because a lot of people have the incentive to talk bullshit.)

User avatar
juliun_c90
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:33 am
Location: Sheffield, UK

Post by juliun_c90 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:37 pm

ramadanman wrote:you're at leeds yeh juliun?
nah i work in sheffield.

seckle you're a mod. try reading posts and digesting them before responding mate :roll:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests