Oh my! I seem rather to have rather gotten tied up in parentheses.  I meant to say something along the lines of "it's (usually tacitly) accepted in many communities that citing certain works, whether or not they have any especial link to you work (or, more constructively maybe, to try and get your work to tie in with existing works), when submitting to certain journals, rather increases your change of getting published".   I think that was the perspective from which I though that reading Alistairs comment of "ersatz scholars who habitually resort to such name-droppiong and footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance" made the most sense.


I *looked* for a postmodernism thread but didn't seem to be able to find it. I'll look again. 

EDIT:  Which postmodernism thread? the postmodernism in music thread?

Sure, that certainly happens, though on the other hand I think there's no harm in consciously trying somehow to bring one's work into a dialogue, or to tie in, with existing works.

OK - I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't part and parcel of the totally dismissive anti-intellectualism that is Alistair's own modus operandi. Also if there was some evidence of familiarity with the large and diverse bodies of work that constitute his 'other'.

That's what I was thinking - but alternatively one could have a new more general postmodernism thread? Or on more widely on cultural and critical theory?

Yes.

Wearisome as it is to reiterate what I am about to reiterate yet again, it seems that I have once more to clarify my position on this, since there appears to be further evidence of inflexible determination to misunderstand or misinterpret it.

1. On footnotes in scholarly works
I agree with you that citing literary and other sources where appropriate as reference points in scholarly documents is valuable and indeed necessary, as well as having the potential to make reading them more interesting by widening the spectrum of what the author is writing about - but that is, of course, for the potential benefit of the reader, who then has the choice either to refer to the footnoted sources or not as and when he/she may choose.

There is, however, a world of difference between this bona fide and potentially enlightening cross-referencing and the more gratuitous footnoting (that sometimes can even threaten to swamp the main text in terms of sheer quantity) the principal purpose of whose presence is to simply prove that the writer has read - or more likely is aware of - the sources cited, merely in order to justify his work from an academic standpoint so that it will hopefully attract the kudos in academic circles that the author hopes thereby to secure; this latter is also sometimes used as a hoped-for method of concealing the possible paucity and threadbareness of real individual thinking and research on the author's own part.

2. On "anti-intellectualism"
As in 1. above, my concern is not about intellectuality per se but the difference between the genuine article and the falsified one. It should be plainly obvious that no bona fide researcher will be capable of producing worthwhile work without the pre-existence of considerable intellectual attributes. This fact does not, however, prevent some other people from seeking to contrive what purports to be the results of genuine intellectual exercise by creating something that attains something of a life of its own outside the actual subject matter rather than making a valuable contribution to genuine reserch - hence certain (but of course by no means all) musicological work; now I know that you will want me to cite instances here, but what I will instead do is refer you to those musicological writings of which you have yourself expressed reservation.

Now I also know that the very mention of a certain composer whose name begins with "S" will likely cause you to vent spleen and such spleen-venting will only be the greater when I requote his definition of the intellectual as "someone educated above his intelligence"*, but it might also be as timely as it is evidently necessary to point out here that the mere fact of that composer having written thus does not of itself signify that I accept verbatim this or indeed anything else that he said or wrote. My position on this is that, whilst I can see his point to the extent that it may well apply to some people, the term "intellectual" is not one that I regard as a catch-all pejorative in itself. If that statement convinces you at last that I do not necessarily believe every word that "S" said or wrote, I might at least have achieved something, I suppose.
* Letter from Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji to Alistair Hinton, 29 March 1972)

Best,

Alistair

Once again, can you give some examples? ? ?!!!!! I would like to see some evidence you've actually investigated the things you pontificate on - until then, I won't take your comments seriously at all.

Please define 'genuine research' in your book.

Total cop-out - I do have reservations about various musicological writings, and do sometimes express them in print, but only after reading and re-reading them in great detail. But can't you possibly come up with some of your own?

[predictable Sorabji invocation also snipped]

I look up the title on google and the first result I got was

"Living With Border Collies
Give your Border Collie a routine to follow for sudden loud noises. Practice this routine (use a leash or a long-line during practice sessions) by using ..."

(http://www.google.com/search?q=%27Living+On+%28Border+Lines%29%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a)

This is very interesting - is this move confined for the moment just to mathematicians? It seems to me that their gripes are pretty universal across the disciplines, or are mathematicians just naturally more militant?