Facing fears leads to an academic win!

On the 1st April of this year, I posted the following to the ‘Women in Academia Support Network’:

Hello everyone*. I hope you don’t mind me sharing a rather long post, but I want to make this year, ‘the year I face my academic fears!’ I passed my PhD with very minor corrections in 2016 (I got 2 weeks for the corrections) and I had always planned to turn it into a monograph. The perfect book series was launched right at that time and I got in touch with the editors and asked if they would be interested in a monograph based on my PhD thesis. After getting the ok, I created a proposal, re-shaped a couple of the chapters, acted on feedback given from colleagues and sent it in. I was so happy to get a positive response from the commissioning editor who sent it out to readers.

I didn’t get a response for almost a year. After a few chasing emails, I finally heard back in October 2017 that my proposal had been rejected. The commissioning editor’s email was apologetic and tried to provide constructive criticism, even suggesting a way forward. The initial read of the email confused me, as it seemed she was trying to apologise for something other than only being able to provide one reader’s report…

Well, as soon as I opened the single reader’s report, I was met with such nasty, negative comments it still makes me sick. This came as such a shock. Up till this point, comments had been positive and I falsely thought things were moving in the right direction. Even since this experience, I have had so many people who have read my thesis ask when the monograph will appear and I have no answer. Clearly, there are people out there who want to see more of my work and I continue to question ‘why?’

Since 2017, this review made me hide from my thesis. I put it away in a digital box and seriously questioned my ability to research and write. I still get really nervous writing and don’t think my work is good enough. Up until this review, I felt productive and didn’t struggle to articulate my thoughts. Now, every piece I write is an up hill battle.

Not this year! This year, I plan to turn my thesis into a monograph. This year, I will take a deep breath, get my head down and shape it into something I am proud of. This year, I will submit a proposal elsewhere and if it gets rejected, I will act on the comments and send it out again. This year, I will grow from the negative experience of 2017 and turn a resounding ‘NO!’ into a ‘Yes!’

I hope you don’t mind me sharing this experience, and I know many of you have had negative rejections as well. I hope others can learn from my experience and are not faced with the complete shock I experienced. I know it has made me better at research and writing in the long-run, but I didn’t need to drown to learn how to swim!

*Edit to remove ‘ladies’ as a recent request was made to use a more inclusive term.*

I received so many kind and encouraging comments on this post that it inspired to commit! I even received a PM from an editor who encouraged me to send her a proposal for the series she edits, which I did.

This post didn’t come out of no where. Turning my thesis into a monograph had plagued my mind since the viva and the sickness only got worse after the first rejection. Despite thinking about it non-stop I avoided finding the time to write a new proposal.

At the 2019 American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies conference I visited one of the ‘Doctor is in’ volunteers and I spoke to a wonderfully supportive academic, who sympathised with my struggles and offered to turn the negative comments from the reviewer into kinder action points so I could more effectively work on the new proposal. I am so grateful to her for taking the time to do this and for telling me the proposal only need a little bit more work and certainly wasn’t as bad as the reviewer made it seem.

In the end, I didn’t use the old proposal as a template, rather I started with a new rewrite of the monograph introduction and from there I realised the new direction the book had to take. I worked on the rewrite while doing the Wendy Belcher task, which I posted about on here and got some feedback from my writing group colleagues on the chapter abstract. In truth, this chapter took about 3-4 months of work and I rewrote the opening several times, but what came out in the end really worked.

My writing group also gave me support with the proposal, with one very kind member sending me a copy of their successful book proposal. This was another month of work and thereafter I sent it to 5 wonderful colleagues who gave me comments on how to make the proposal and chapter even stronger.

And I can now say that I successfully have a contract with Routledge for my first academic monograph. This process was so different from my last experience. It was quick. The decision was clear and I felt supported by the series editors the whole time.

In respect of privacy, I have not included the names of those who helped me along the way but the intension of this post is to demonstrate the number of kind people who offered their free advice and time to help me throughout this journey and I am so very grateful to each and every one of them!

It took me 6 months from articulating my goal on #wiasn to actually achieving it and I am proud to go into academic year 2019-2020 with a contract under my belt. Fears are real and facing them is hard. But, with a little help from our friends it both possible and worth it!

Once again… Where have I been?

The last few blog posts were many months ago and I realised I jumped from regularly posting about Wendy Belcher’s Write Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks to a brief post about my adventures in Australia. I really wanted to post more, but instead I spent the summer actually writing. And I worked, and I worked and when I felt like I had had enough, I worked some more. In fact, by mid August I was feeling pretty burnt out and pessimistic about the whole academic thing. Seem strange? Why would I feel down and out after working so hard? Well, there are a few reasons and it is only after taking a step back (and following some much needed advice).

1. There were pieces I wanted to write, pieces I had to write and pieces that I probably should have written but didn’t…

Unfortunately, I am one of those easily distracted workers… Not in the sense that I get easily distracted from a task. I will work until I see a project through to completion, but I am interested in so many things (and I have worked on so many different projects) I now have a very diverse skill set. I tend to get asked to do more and I like being able to say yes and see that project through efficiently. The only problem is I say yes to more than I should, the projects don’t align, which means there is no logical, progressive pattern and while it may give me the satisfaction of finishing something, it’s not giving me the long-term momentum I need to establish myself as an expert in one particular field. Cathy Mazak describes this as building an academic brand and to my surprise, my line manager asked me this very question in my annual progress review. What is my brand? What do I want to be known for?

To be perfectly honest, I have lived for so long, desperately building a diverse skill set in the hopes of securing a permanent academic post, I never thought about what came next. Even after I got the permanent job, my mindset never changed. I have spent the last two years living as if I still need to prove myself to everyone, rather than decided who I want to be. That is a subject for a different post, but it explains why I worked so hard throughout the summer, but didn’t feel like I have benefitted much from it.

In my past posts I have often talked about following Cathy Mazak’s academic writing programmes, and she had recommended setting up a Trello to help see projects through from idea to completion. I started my Trello board at the start of the year and it has been really useful to see how much I am actually completing. It is more than I thought, which is great, but once my line manager pointed out my lack of a brand, I was able to go back to the board and see just how much my work varies from project to project.

I have a long list of ideas on all different subjects. Similarly, my completed pieces of work are also diverse. A range of funding applications – all different subjects, blog posts, conference papers also on a diverse range subjects, and pieces I have been asked to write, again mostly different subjects. All of these pieces of work have one thing in common – external deadlines. They need to be done because someone else depended on me to do it. There are only two pieces I have written of my own volition and this was partly because I got in touch with editors and had deadlines in place. In effect, these pieces became work I needed to do for someone else rather than work I should do for me. In these two cases, the end result was mutually beneficial but that won’t necessarily work for every future project.

So the real question is: can I work without an official deadline? The answer is yet to be determined…

That brings me to the next reason why I felt done…

2. I worked solidly every day, rarely took breaks and barely had contact with anyone other than my husband and my virtual writing group.

My virtual writing group are a wonderful bunch of academics. They provide support and encouragement and while I checked in with them and worked alongside them doing pomodoro sessions, and longer co-writing sessions, it isn’t quite the same as engaging with live people. On the other hand, it takes me a long time to get into the writing flow. A a result, I was reluctant to schedule anything other than writing days to ensure I got through all my projects. It worked, but at the cost of my physical and mental health. I stayed in and wrote all day, every day and such seditary behaviour caused me to put on a few pounds (which I hate and I am now working hard to correct). Mentally, I was frustrated, angry and emotional. I lacked confidence in my work and replayed past blows on my mind. I still feel uncomfortable when I receive praise and internally question I the person giving the praise is just being polite. Imposter syndrome is a hard condition to cure. I have experimented with a couple of writing styles to help with flow, so I don’t feel like I need to write all day, every day to finish writing project. They have helped and I will share that experience in another post as well.

3. I know change is in my future, but I’m terrified to move into the driver’s seat and take control of my own career.

An academic’s life is odd. Years are spent in training, and even after graduation is over and hopefully the student moves into their first post docs or lectureships, it still feels like driving with P plates. (I am going to continue with a driving analogy for while…) How does an ECR know when it is time to go the distance alone? To upgrade from their parents’ hand-me-down car –you know, that car that’s safe and reliable but fully expected to get a few dings– to a BMW or a Mercedes. It’s risky to do it too soon and maybe some never want to make that kind of investment, but if you are that person, if I am that person that does want the upgrade, when is the time?

Well, if I understand my line manager correctly, now might not be time to buy the Merc, but it is time to start saving and by saving I mean mapping my own path. It’s time to soul search and figure out exactly what I want and then to have the courage to go for it.

I didn’t come to these conclusions right away, in fact, it has taken me a good few weeks to get to where I am and I still have a long way to go in terms of work-life balance and understanding who I am as an academic, but at least it’s a start.

Belcher workbook: the end of week 3

This week has been a real challenge! Trying to keep on top of this work while also sitting in endless meetings throughout the week is a real test of my commitment. I have started to feel those ‘guilts’ creeping in, knowing that I should be working on my chapter but I cannot find the time to do so. That being said, I have been actively thinking about it and grabbing small amounts of time to work on the Belcher exercises or do some reading. I even redrafted the chapter on Wednesday night and have found time to type the redraft into the computer. Since the argument of my book has completely changed from the thesis, I felt I couldn’t work on the argument task, until I had created something new. Is this really procrastination? I hope not! A fresh start is sometimes necessary. Next week’s Belcher tasks are dedicated to finding the right journal, which isn’t entirely suited to my project. I will take the opportunity to develop what I have so far, expanding and refining it. Can I be trusted to work alone without prescriptive tasks? We shall see…

Do I state my argument early?

Revision task: In its new form, the argument is much clearer but I could do better to state it up front. I need to change paragraph 1 so that it explicitly states the argument rather than setting up an abstract narrative that meanders to a point.

Have I organised my introduction around my argument?

This question doesn’t necessarily work for an introductory book chapter, since the whole chapter is dedicated to setting up an argument. But I can do better to organise the opening around the argument. I need to read examples of other book introduction, to make sure this falls in line with what is expected in my field.

Have I organised the body of my chapter around my argument?

It is much better than the original thesis as it makes a clear, succinct point. It wrote itself in this form which bodes will for how my ideas are forming, but a lot of the initial ideas need to be expanded. Examine each paragraph, make sure everything is unpacked that needs to be and reference where everything is coming from. The argument needs to be really concrete.

Have I presented evidence related to my argument?

In this draft form, I haven’t done this as yet. I need to go back to each paragraph and make sure it is really solid in its evidentiary base. I will do what Belcher suggests and write as I read, while also making sure my data recording is sound.

Do I restate my argument in the conclusion or does it disappear?

I don’t really do this, the argument meanders in a slightly different direction. I need to get it back to the initial point!

Belcher workbook day 11: too busy to do yesterday’s task

So yesterday, my day was taken up with meetings and a BBC recording (which if any of you are interested to find out more, I will be doing a blog post about this on the 27th April. In the meantime here is a sneak preview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004lv3). Though I really wanted to stick to my Belcher tasks for the week, I didn’t have a second to spare yesterday. Never fear! I will be doing both tasks today.

This first task was very interesting as it has forced me to hone in on my argument and gather key pieces of evidence. I have never thought to take this approach before, but I can see how useful it is (particularly if one is doing this for an article as oppose to a chapter). So here are the results of my work so far:

Week 3 day 2

Drafting your argument

In this chapter, I argue that Venanzio Rauzzini’s continued association with ‘bed hopping’, even long after his death has disguised his greatest contribution to the world of music as an innovative and skilled pedagogue. Rauzzini’s training style relied on developing a close relationship with his students, placing much weight on the one-to-one lesson, a training style which persists today. However, I further my argument by pointing out this closeness often put Rauzzini in the firing line of scandal and speculation. I argue that taking a microhistory approach and combining it with archival documentation, and treatise analysis allows me to dig deeper into Rauzzini’s training style, while also considering the impact scandalous rumours have had on his legacy as a pedagogue.

Evidence

Recent articles published in The Guardian and Catherine Botts BBC Radio 3 The Early Music Show describe Rauzzini as a ‘bed hopper’ / ‘ladies man’.

–          https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/apr/12/bath-castrato-bicentenary

–          https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sv6th

Michael Kelly’s 1826 memoirs sensationalise Rauzzini’s departure from the Munich court, giving more credit to scandal than Rauzzini.

There are several accounts of castrati causing ladies to faint, which demonstrates the reputation of castrati as ‘lover’s’ during the Georgian period.

–          See Helen Berry’s The Castrato and his wife

–          Wendy Heller, (2008). ‘Varieties of Masculinity: Trajectories of the Castrato from the Seventeenth Century’. Journal for Eighteenth-century studies, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-0208.2005.tb00304.x

–          Roger Freitas, (2003). The eroticism of emasculation: confronting the Baroque body of the castrato, Journal of Musicology.

The most recent large study by Paul Rice only dedicated half a chapter to his teaching and claimed Rauzzini did this to ‘recoup costs lost’ in the Bath concerts. I argue this isn’t the case since he was training students right from the beginning of his vocal career.

One further article focusses on his teaching but mainly biographical:

• Venanzio Rauzzini – The first master of teaching in the universe, By Sheila Hodges, Feb 1991, The Music Review, Vol. 52. Mainly biographical and no substantial conclusions.

Other articles on Rauzzini discuss his vocal career and time in Bath, but these only providing a limited discussion on his teaching.

–          Venanzio Rauzzini -singer, composer, traveller by Mollie Sands, The Musical Times, January 1953

–          Kenneth James, Venanzio Rauzzini and the Search for Musical Perfection (rest of reference in EndNote).

An article published just prior to Rauzzini’s death in 1810 describes Rauzzini as the father of a new style in English singing. I will examine how this statement came about, demonstrating the need for a study of this kind.

–          The monthly mirror, 1807 (full reference in Endnote)

My evidence is that Rauzzini trained 5 of the most famous British soprani including Nancy Storace, Elizabeth Billington, Gertrud Mara, Rosamund Mountain and Catherine Stephens and 2 of the most famous tenors: Charles Incledon and John Braham. After their training with Rauzzini, they all gained a glittering singing reputation. These singers will be discussed throughout the book.

 

 

Belcher workbook day 10

Week 3: Day 1

Task 1: Reflection

Belcher asks us to reflect on last week’s writing experience for the first task this week and even though I did this during the previous post, I want to add my thoughts from the weekend. I have spent the weekend focussing on a Fellowship application, so I have still been writing, but I actually missed working on the book project. I thought about carving out time to work on it a little, but ultimately decided to take the weekend as a *rest*. It wasn’t really a rest at all. This was just an excuse I told myself and, in the end, I fell back into old habits, spending enormous amounts of time on one thing. This week I am committed to working at least 15 minutes ever day, so let’s see how that goes.

Task 2: Does my book chapter have problems with focus?

In its original state, yes. I talk about too many issues, and too many problems. I was trying to prove to the examiners that it this was an original study while also aligning it with several others. There wasn’t one clear idea. I feel the opening chapter needs a fresh rewrite to make it work.

Task 3: Is my book appropriate for the publisher I have selected?

This question was originally ‘is my article appropriate for the journal I have selected?’ which is a very important question to ask. Asking it for a book chapter doesn’t quite work. My answer for now is, I hope so. My aim is to get the chapter in its best state, construct and book proposal and then select an appropriate publisher.

Task 4: Does my book chapter have problems with scholarliness?

Yes. After reading chapter 2 and through chapter 3 of Belcher, I realise that my data collection is sloppy. I have loads of pictures that are not labelled or catalogued correctly. I note quotes, but don’t note down the full citation. I try to write what I know from a memory of what I have read rather than going back to the original source and then I get frustrated when I realise, I misread the original source. However, in my main research jobs (which is working on a project for someone else) I try to be meticulous and detailed about the data, building vast spread sheets of information. I need to do this for my own work. This will mean going back to a lot of my original research and putting it into a format that improves its scholarliness. I know this will take a lot of time, but the aim is to do this chapter by chapter and really make sure that what I write is accurate.

Task 5: Does my chapter have problems with defensiveness?

Yes. Again, since this was written for an exam, I was trying to assert confidence by pointing out the flaws of others. I was determined to make a statement and ended up muddying it by trying to stick it to other scholars. I plan to re-read the work of these authors and demonstrate how my work builds on what was previously done, showing collegiality rather than contention.

Task 6: Does my chapter have problems with originality?

In some ways yes and in other ways no. I don’t ever state what my argument actually is, but this is because I am trying to argue several things at once. However, I do state what is different about my study from others. I need to ensure the chapter is focussed and then make it clear what is original about contribution.

Task 7: Does my chapter have problems with structure?

Yes, but this is also part of focus. I am also guilty of the ‘mystery structure’; keeping my cards close to my chest and only revealing my hand towards the end. This is a habit I will break!

Task 8: Does my chapter have problems with significance?

Not really. I do state what is new about it. In fact, I almost say it too much.

Task 9: Does my chapter have problems with theory?

I don’t ever talk about methodology and this is a problem. In the rewrite, I need to position what I am doing within a specific framework. I have already identified one in my abstract and now I need to make sure I have a clear grasp of how to use it and explain why.

Task 10: Does my chapter have problems with spelling and grammar?

I have always had issues in this area, but over the last couple of years I have really tried to get better at editing my working. I will consider getting a copy editor, but the expense is something I am constantly weighing up. I will need to think about this…

Final thoughts

These are all things I have been thinking about, almost to the point that I was tempted to ignore this task. That being said, it is useful to write this down and see how I am going to tackle each part. This will help me account for what I need to do and how I am going to do it!

 

Belcher workbook day 7: harder than I thought

Week 2: day 3 – Drafting your abstract

Today’s exercise was much harder than I thought. I started by re-reading the section on today’s activity, reading abstracts for monographs, since an article abstract is slightly different to a book and then looking at articles specific to methodology (a suggestion by my writing partner yesterday). This part led me down a rabbit hole and even though I was keeping my eyes on the time, I could see it slipping by quickly. For me, this was anything but a 15 minute exercise. While I was very aware of Belcher’s advice to just get going and stop reading, reading, reading I felt I needed to be sure of what my methodological approach actually was, otherwise I run the risk of making the same mistakes in the redraft of this book!

Reading took me about an hour, but writing the abstract took over 1 1/2 hours in total! Why so long? Part of the issue was writing on the computer. I had thought about breaking out a notepad instead, but stupidly opted to stick with a digital version. I found myself writing, deleting, writing, deleting. Then I stopped and thought about what I wanted to say, wrote a bit and deleted. This is the problem with a digital word processor. When I hit delete, it is gone. At least on a notepad, I can still see what I have discarded! And I didn’t set a timer. I just let the clock tick past. What a mistake. Tomorrow, I will be more disciplined with myself, partly because I have less time to focus on the activities. But for now, here are the fruits of my labours:

Old version of the abstract:

Though the castrato has been absent from the operatic stage since the nineteenth century, this voice is often described as the mysterious link in understanding the vocal techniques attributed to bel canto. The mystery lies in the fact that the voice of the operatic castrato cannot be heard by modern ears; and yet its legacy can be seen in the vocal tuition of several successful opera singers at the turn of the nineteenth century. What is unusual about this period is that some of the most successful singers of the day, including Nancy Storace, John Braham and Elizabeth Billington were British and shared the same vocal teacher. The castrato Venanzio Rauzzini (1746-1810) began his career as a primo uomo on the continent and while he established himself in various areas of musical activity, his main contribution and legacy was as a vocal teacher. During his residency in Britain from 1774 until his death, he trained several leading British professional singers who were the stars of opera in London and on the continent. They each demonstrated a use of techniques associated with the castrato vocal aesthetic and popularised a new vocal style, which can be traced to Rauzzini.
Through this thesis, I will draw attention to the importance of Rauzzini’s impact on vocal teaching practice in Britain and his wider influence on the development of vocal style. I will demonstrate that Rauzzini should be considered part of the vocal teaching canon to which Pier Francesco Tosi (c.1653-1732), Nicola Porpora (1686-1768) and Manual García II (1805-1906), three other foreign vocal teachers, who were resident in Britain, already belong. By examining exactly what the expected vocal aesthetics were for all singers, castrato, non-castrated male and female during the period in which Rauzzini was active, I will demystify the castrato technique and provide a more tangible understanding of what this encompassed, demonstrating that many of these techniques were learned, performed and popularised by other voice types such as the female soprano and the male tenor.

 

New version of the abstract:

Venanzio Rauzzini (1745-1810) cannot be described as a castrato of untainted character, since throughout his career he was involved in a number of sexual scandals with his aspiring professional and amateur students; scandals which continue to intrigue and inspire in the 21st century. Despite this, in 1792, The Bath Chronicle declared: ‘A singer untutored by Rauzzini is only half taught’ hailing him as ‘the father of a new style in English singing’. Though Rauzzini trained 2 of the most famous British tenors performing at the turn of the 19th century, the vast majority of his students were female sopranos, several of whom gained enviable levels of celebrity. Using a microhistory approach, to hone in on specific relationships between Rauzzini and his female sopranos, this study will be the first to focus in on the relationship between a castrato and his female students. The study will demonstrate that Rauzzini refined his training style over the course of his career, tutoring his students in a blended Italian and British style of singing that positively engaged London audiences. However, his involvement in the establishment of his students’ careers went beyond the music lesson. While his attention, determination and skill as a vocal master ensured the success of many of his female students, this study will show it opened him up to gossiping speculation, a growing problem in Georgian Britain that threatened the reputation of music masters, particularly Italian music masters. As the quote from The Bath Chronicle shows, by the end of his life Rauzzini moved beyond his scandalous past and earned credible and trusted name as a vocal master of note, and yet, his name and vocal treatises are rarely cited among the canon of influential vocal educators. The findings suggest that a traditional biographical analysis or analytical examination of Rauzzini’s writings on vocal tuition do not effectively explain how he gained a glittering reputation as a master of standing, nor the hardships he endured prior to gaining this reputation. Rather, Rauzzini’s personal relationship with his students were the key to both his and their success.

Belcher workbook day 6: Rereading your paper

Today, I was quite excited to re-read the introduction to my thesis, but as I read I felt an uneasy feeling in my chest. It didn’t quite turn into a panic attack, but I did experience that uncomfortable tightening as my body slowly moved into ‘flight’ mode. This is partly because of past experiences and my fear that the thesis just isn’t (and wasn’t) good enough to begin with. Re-reading it through, the introduction fulfils the requirements of a PhD. It is a clear literature review that sums up the debates and arguments of others, but positioning my study in these debates is less successful. Though I am definite with my aims, the aims are broad and lack focus. I am both general and specific at the same time (and I am not entirely sure how I managed to do that!) In any case, three years on from the PhD I can now see these glaring errors, which not only proves a certain amount of distance is required before making a fresh start but also demonstrates how I have grown as a researcher and writer during this time.

Belcher recommends being kind to oneself and making brief, clear notes on what to do. The issue is, this introduction needs a lot of work, so much so, starting from scratch seems to be the best way forward. That being said, I stuck to her advice and made notes throughout the chapter. I have recommended where to take bits out and move to another chapter and told myself where to expand an argument or debate. Going through this exercise helped to clarify my overall argument and approach. While a lot of work still needs to be done, at least I have a clear idea of how and why!

The first thing is methodology. Throughout my thesis I wasn’t always clear about how I was going about things. I was essentially a lost sheep, trying to follow the mob of other PhD students around me. Methodology never really came up in my supervisions and I just assumed whatever I was doing was the correct thing. Well, when I received feedback on my original book proposal, the number 1 critical comment on the list was that my methodology wasn’t clear. To this I say, fair enough and re-reading my introduction is confirmation that no discussion on methodology is present. Today, I took two books I admire from my book shelf and read their preface. One states a clear methodology, the other is less explicit but no less clear about how it went about things. I am not exactly going to copy what these books have done, but I am going to investigate different methodological approaches and see what best fits what I did (or if nothing fits, re-do the research).

The second thing is having a clear argument and position without bashing other authors. As a PhD student, I falsely thought that I needed to point out where others had got it wrong. I thought this was the best way to form an argument. Belcher quite rightly points out that is the a successful way to turn your reviewers off! Instead, a humbler approach is recommended. Politely joining the end of the queue is going to turn a lot less disgruntled heads than pushing oneself into the middle of it!

Finally, I need to avoid doing too much in too little a space. My thesis fires off in a million directions all at once. This is partly because I so  desperately wanted it to say something about the ‘now’, while also being about the ‘then’. I knew I had something to say, but I didn’t know how to say it. Instead I was distracted by every tiny detail and decided blurting everything out in a scatter gun approach was bound to land on a target. Well it did. I got a PhD but my days as an inexperienced student are now over and I need to be much more strategic, firing like a skilled sniper.

I have decided to summarise my edits rather than uploading them. I can’t give the whole game away after all!

Belcher workbook day 5: Starting your article (well, in my case book chapter)

So for this exercise, I am going to try it with both my book chapter and an article. This is partly because Belcher recommends maintaining several writing projects at once. While I might not be able to keep up 2 pieces of writing for the whole 12 weeks, this may help me gain headway with another piece of writing allowing me to switch out my book chapter if I ever get stuck/bored. So here we go…

Week 2 day 1

Book

What type of book is this?

This is definitely a humanities book. It focusses on one particular area of history.

Is my book type not recommended?

This particularly question doesn’t fit with a book publication.

What is new about my book?

John Potter in his ground-breaking article The Tenor-Castrato Connection discussed the influence the castrato voice had on the tenor and showed how singing technique for the tenor voice developed throughout the 19th century. He used a combination of contextual musicology and analysis of treatises to justify his reasoning. My book will show the castrati actually had an even bigger impact on the female soprano voice, long before the tenor. I focus my study on Venanzio Rauzzini and though one publication has already been dedicated to this castrato, he didn’t not address Rauzzini’s teaching nor his relationships with women, which were constantly under scrutiny. My approach uses a combination of treatise analysis, contextual history, critical history but also Helen Berry’s approach – microhistory – where I move beyond written texts to recover the relationship that developed between Rauzzini and his students including the process of training.

What revisions do I need to make?

My methodological approach and premise of the for the book are not clear in the introduction. While it summarises a lot of literature, it is trying to deal with contemporary and historical issues all at once, which muddies the actual study. The overall argument and direction needs to be clear. The story needs to be clear. My voice needs to be mine.

My book is about?

My book is specifically about Rauzzini and the women in his circle, but it also hones in on larger issues of scandal, marketing, style, technique. training, skill and genius. While training is a big part of the study and was clearly important in the late 18th century, reputation, and networks are also a big part of the study. One could have all the training in the world but be a flop if they haven’t develop the correct relationships. Microhistory could be a potential method for this study – focussing on an individual – but social history could also be a valid approach.

What I learned from this experience?

I learned that I need to have a clear idea of methodology and approach. This isn’t clear in my thesis and is partly the downfall of the study. While I am inspired by other authors, I need to make sure that whatever methodology I choose it is consistent. I am a little worried that the study is dealing with 2 different issues and I need to ensure the narrative flows from one chapter to another to make a convincing story-ark.

Original abstract

Though the castrato has been absent from the operatic stage since the nineteenth century, this voice is often described as the mysterious link in understanding the vocal techniques attributed to bel canto. The mystery lies in the fact that the voice of the operatic castrato cannot be heard by modern ears; and yet its legacy can be seen in the vocal tuition of several successful opera singers at the turn of the nineteenth century. What is unusual about this period is that some of the most successful singers of the day, including Nancy Storace, John Braham and Elizabeth Billington were British and shared the same vocal teacher. The castrato Venanzio Rauzzini (1746-1810) began his career as a primo uomo on the continent and while he established himself in various areas of musical activity, his main contribution and legacy was as a vocal teacher. During his residency in Britain from 1774 until his death, he trained several leading British professional singers who were the stars of opera in London and on the continent. They each demonstrated a use of techniques associated with the castrato vocal aesthetic and popularised a new vocal style, which can be traced to Rauzzini.
Through this thesis, I will draw attention to the importance of Rauzzini’s impact on vocal teaching practice in Britain and his wider influence on the development of vocal style. I will demonstrate that Rauzzini should be considered part of the vocal teaching canon to which Pier Francesco Tosi (c.1653-1732), Nicola Porpora (1686-1768) and Manual García II (1805-1906), three other foreign vocal teachers, who were resident in Britain, already belong. By examining exactly what the expected vocal aesthetics were for all singers, castrato, non-castrated male and female during the period in which Rauzzini was active, I will demystify the castrato technique and provide a more tangible understanding of what this encompassed, demonstrating that many of these techniques were learned, performed and popularised by other voice types such as the female soprano and the male tenor.

Revisions after partner work

This is a task for day 3 of week 2!

Article

What type of article is this?

Again, it is a humanities article.

Is my article type not recommended?

It is, but there isn’t a lot of guidance from Belcher on this type of article.

What is new about my article?

There are a couple of things it is trying to suggest. number one is that I suggest the songs were included in Ramsay’s Gentle Shepherd because the headmaster was experimenting with a more integrated, arts-led learning strategy. This builds on what previous scholars have said about him using theatre as a more innovative form of education. Number two: I suggest Lesley was campaigning for a music master that had more strings to his bow than just music. This ultimately led to the hiring of David Young, who would become rector of the grammar school. Number 3: I suggest the songs were common tunes in circulation because the current music master in the employ of the school was more familiar with this colloquial repertoire. Number 4: the current music master was dismissed because of his political affiliation, which worked to the headmasters benefit since he could employ a music master with a diverse range of skills.

What revisions do I need to make?

There are perhaps too many ideas here. While integrative arts teaching is building on previous scholarly work, but tying in music as well, I am not entirely confident in this area and more work needs to be done to make it solid. In some ways I can see how it all ties together, but I am worried there are several disparate ideas emerging and not one succinct idea. That being said, I don’t think one or two of the ideas is enough for a whole article… I need to have a solid understanding of previous research into theatre, music and provide solid evidence of the two being used in an innovative teaching strategy proposed by the headmaster for it to carry any weight. The argument perhaps falls down with the introduction of David Young who did not incorporate music or theatre into the boys general education, though he himself was a polymath master.

What I learned from this experience:

Ultimately, my writing partner pointed out that this article isn’t quite as strong as the book abstract, partly because I haven’t been thinking about it for as long. It needs a more time to develop.

Original Abstract

Allan Ramsay’s The Gentle Shepherd was an undeniable success. It has a rich performing history that spans two centuries with further evidence demonstrating a national and international reach. It was performed throughout the Scotland, England, North America and even Australia by professional and amateur companies. Most of these performances typically took place in an indoor theatre, particularly in later 19^th-century performances where The Gentle Shepherd’s musical and rhetorical framework was standardised to its recognisable model. However, the early performance history of this work is not as neatly packaged, with Ramsay even making significant changes to the text creating a 22-song ballad opera out of the original work, which was mainly spoken though did include 4 songs. Who performed this work in either iteration? Where and in what way was the performance carried out? New evidence found at The John Gray Centre in Haddington provides more in-depth information regarding these very questions. In this paper, I will discuss the reason why these questions must be asked of The Gentle Shepherd’s first performances, particularly since Ramsay was heavily involved in its initial production, and how this information can extend its performance possibilities in the 21^st century.

Revisions after partner work

This is a task for day 3 of week 2!

Belcher workbook, day 3: Choosing your writing site

So today’s task is very simple – choose your writing site. Initially when I read this, I thought Belcher was asking me to use an online tool like ‘Writebox‘; a cunning plan to help one start and keep writing distraction free. Well, a few sentences into this chapter and I realised I was almost entirely wrong. Belcher is actually encouraging me to select the right place/space to write. So here we go with the next exercise!

Week 1, Day 3

Regular writing site

Monday: In the office

Tuesday: On the train to and from work

Wednesday: On the train to and from work

Thursday: On the train to and from work

Friday: In the office

Saturday: At home in the office or in the living room

Sunday: At home in the office or in the living room

Back up writing site

Monday: Whittard coffee shop

Tuesday: In the office

Wednesday: In the office

Thursday: At home

Friday: At home in the office or in the living room

Saturday: Coffee shop

Sunday: Coffee shop

Regular writing site improvements

Headphones!

A timer so that I stop every 30 minutes and move a bit (avoid getting stiff!)

Backup writing site improvements

Disconnect the internet!

Preparatory writing activity

Hand-writing the initial draft

Thoughts

While this task might seem a little mundane, and I was very aware while doing it that my schedule changes so often it is almost impossible to nail down a regular writing site, the important thing is consistency. I consistently need to travel to and from work on the train, so why not partner that regular commute with regular writing. Moreover, my commute is about 30 minutes with sketchy internet, which is just the write amount of time to get the initial ideas going while also avoiding distraction. I may come back to this post and adjust it as I gain more consistency and momentum in my writing.