My latest piece of writing has appeared at Musicology Now, the group blog of the American Musicological Society. It's a short analysis of a solo cover song on YouTube, and it represents the first steps of a new project. Check it out here:
It’s pretty common, in this age of “peak TV,” to discuss prestige dramas in cinematic terms: a 10-hour movie, a 12-hour movie, etc. The implication of these labels is that their stories unfold over entire seasons, rather than in the “anthology” style of older dramas and sitcoms, in which a story takes 22 or 42 minutes (you know, after commercials), and then everything returns to the status quo the next week, with very little indication that our heroes even remember what’s already happened.
But the “12-hour movie” label also effaces the episode as a unit of narrative, implying that the five-act structure of a television episode is less satisfying than 12-hours of...stuff. As the pushback to this attitude indicates, episodic storytelling is still useful, and still, I would argue, the norm: I'm hard-pressed to think of an epsiode of Mad Men, or even Game of Thrones, that doesn't develop themes and present narrative arcs (or several, parallel arcs) that come to some sort of end as the credits roll. Yes, things build, and stories continue, but individual episodes are generally still valid as units of narrative.
One thing I’ve found very interesting about internet TV shows is their variable length. (We can include HBO in this as well, since they don't worry about commercials). Most episodes of House of Cards, for example -- one of the earliest major internet shows -- stay close to the traditional length, albeit with a few extra minutes. Episodes average 47 to 53 minutes long, with season premieres and finales occasionally running a full hour. Game of Thrones varies a bit more, with episodes running between 52 and 70 minutes (and a whopping 92 minutes for the finale of the seventh and most recent season). I sort of like this variability: it lets a show "breathe" in a natural way across an entire season: some episodes are short, some need a bit more space. Small-to-medium arcs can arise and resolve themselves within the larger structure, taking a bit more time when necessary, and shorter, more self-contained episodes can break up the flow. I confess, however, that even I don't always notice the structure of episodes: when I was binge-watching the first six seasons of Game of Thrones over the summer or 2016, for example, I stopped and started whenever it was convenient, paying little to no attention to where individual episodes began or ended -- it was an undifferentiated flow that I dipped into at the gym, or when I had a spare fifteen minutes to kill.
Which brings me to Longmire. Longmire is a police procedural about a sheriff and his small team of deputies in a fictional Wyoming county. It's one of those shows that Netflix rescued from cancellation. The sixth and final season came out last fall, and we've been watching it this week. It's a ten-episode season, and the thing I've noticed is that they're all about 65-70 minutes long, yet they tend to adhere to an absolutely old-school procedural structure. It's not all case-of-the-week stuff, there are long-term arcs. But they seem to be highly compartmentalized. The show left itself with several long-running threads to tie up, but it seems as if the producers decided to do so by devoting one mega-episode to each. The crazy survivalist who's been a thorn in Longmire's side gets one mega episode; a civil suit against the sheriff gets another. A cursory look at the episode list tells me that most of the same people are still involved, and the writing/directing duties are no more or less evenly distributed than in other seasons. Maybe some of this is just the liquidation process that happens when the writers know it's the last season, but I've found the effects interesting. The consistent use of 65-70 minute episodes in a police procedural (that is, longer than standard, but still much shorter than the "feature length" 90-120 minutes found in a series like Sherlock, for example) seems to carve out some kind of new territory, in which the undifferentiated, multi-season momentum of binge-watching collides with the conventions of episodic storytelling. I've found myself checking my watch more often than usual, not because the show is boring, but because conventional markers of timing don't seem to apply. I've sometimes wondered aloud to my wife, "has this all been one episode?" because they feel so long.
I'm not sure this observation is particularly deep, but I wonder about the way in which formal/narrative structures collide with the practical constraints of episode length, production schedules, etc. I wonder if this might reflect some new era of post-broadcast TV production: not the "breathing" sense of variable episode length found in many online/premium cable shows, but some new standard of episode length. In the case of Longmire, I'm not sure this is always entirely successful -- but at least it's interesting.
[As a postscript: perhaps I'm just being too conscious of the timing of my entertainment these days, since the other recent time I checked my watch was during the last reel or two of The Last Jedi. Not because I was bored -- anything but -- but because I knew how long the movie was, and couldn't imagine how things would possibly be tied up in only 15 minutes or so - particularly once Luke showed up. Maybe the solution is simply not to pay attention to how long a show or movie is, at all, in order to stop this sort of meta-framing from intruding...]
I've never done one of these before, but I thought maybe I'd try it for 2017, especially since I actually sort of did things and published things this year.
First up: I finished my dissertation and started a tenure-track job. I still haven't posted it online, but I haven't yet had the chance to clean it up - some last minute formatting issues seem to have resulted in some fuzzy figures. Those pixellated monsters will be enshrined on ProQuest forever, but at least I can circulate a clean version on my own. Once I get around to it. Until then, check out the public talk I gave at my final colloquium.
I effectively took 2016 off of conferences (only partly by choice, as those things go). But I came roaring back this year, and did almost too many: IASPM-US in Cleveland in February; MTSNYS in April; the Amy Beach/Teresa Carreno Anniversary Conference at the University of New Hampshire in September; and SMT in November (same paper, linked here, as MTSNYS). One of the big tasks for 2018 will be polishing those talks up and doing things with them.
I also published a few things this year:
- A short essay based on some dissertation material, in the Newsletter of the Mozart Society of America. Read "Momigny's Mozart" here.
- A short piece on Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, as part of a "Quick Takes" forum over at Musicology Now.
As I said, publication in my major goal in 2018. I now have two pieces under peer review and one which I need to revise and resubmit, so hopefully next year (or maybe more realistically 2019, given the speed of academia), I'll finally have a major byline. I'm also working on writing more for the public. I've had lots of conversations with colleagues about this interest, and have participated on Musicology Now, but I'd like to do a better job of really writing for the public this year. Part of that is maybe blogging some more. The other part is working with Gettysburg's communication office, which has a consultant on retainer to help profs place op-eds and other writings with various publications. This process is much tougher than I would have thought: I pitched two pieces in November and December, and our consultant said 'no' to one and 'completely re-work this' about the other. The first essay will appear in the opening days of 2018 in Musicology Now; the second I'm going to re-write now that the holidays are over.
It's also time to stop talking about the dissertation I wrote, and start thinking about the book I'm going to turn it into. Need to find some good resources on book proposals, and start writing/revising.
Finally, I'm really looking forward to starting the year off with the North American Conference on Video Game Music in Ann Arbor in a few weeks; it'll be great to talk about games (and hopefully play some) for two whole days. This past spring I taught a really enjoyable (and I think, successful) seminar on music in video games at Tufts. I'm re-working it as a course for non-majors this coming semester, so it'll be fun to network and share/hear some ideas for the course.
Finally, personal goals: better work/life balance, and more consistent workouts. I think these are pretty self-explanatory. Better, more focused work when I'm at the office, and harder lines between family time and research time. I was really good about getting to the gym the first month or two of school, but dropped off when things got busy. In 2013 I committed to going to the gym 150 times (roughly three times a week); it completely turned my fitness around, so I'm going to set that goal again, and track it occasionally on Twitter.
Happy New Year, everyone, and good luck in 2018. Godspeed, Rebels.
This past weekend, I gave a presentation at the 40th annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, in Arlington, VA. I was really happy with the talk, and I got some great feedback for its upcoming revision and expansion.
For those who weren't able to be there this weekend, I'm posting a version of the typescript online here!
Harvard's Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, where I worked for most of my time as a Ph.D. student, caters to several audiences: graduate students just learning to teach, junior faculty finding their way in the classroom, and senior faculty who are interested in exploring new pedagogical frontiers or renewing and reinvigorating their teaching. But most of these interventions are focused on undergraduate education; projects related to the actual teaching of graduate students are few and far between.
One notable exception was a project that I worked on in the Spring of 2016. Music professor Emily Dolan came to the Bok Center with a unique challenge: she and McGill professor Jonathan Sterne were teaching a collaborative graduate seminar, which would connect not only students from multiple disciplines, but from multiple universities. While many colleges have undertaken remote lectures or self-paced, internet-based courses, this situation was relatively unique: a discussion-oriented graduate seminar that depended on real-time communication, and which combined both in-person and online conversations. Emily worked with my colleagues and I throughout the semester to test various experiments with what we came to refer to as the "Digital Bridge."
She and Jonathan Sterne recently wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education detailing their experiences. Here's a quick passage about the problems, and the lessons learned:
To further contextualize the article, I'm posting two of the short videos that I made this past year about the project, featuring reflections from Emily and her graduate students. These segments amplify and deepen some of the lessons that she and Jonathan detail in their column.