The Musicology Topic That Outgrew Its Question
A Musicology candidate proposed a 4000-word essay on 'the influence of gamelan on twentieth-century Western art music'. After research, the draft has grown to 6500 words and now covers Debussy, Ravel, Britten, Reich, and three Australian composers, with a separate section on tuning systems. The candidate has four weeks left and has written no conclusion. The teacher notes that the essay currently describes six composers' use of gamelan but never argues a thesis. The syllabus requires a focused research question, sustained argument, and critical use of sources.
1. Diagnose the draft's problems and propose a narrowed research question with a rationale.
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis. The draft has three structural faults:
- No thesis. The essay surveys influence rather than arguing anything about it. A survey can be accurate and still fail the 'sustained argument' criterion, because there is no claim to sustain.
- Scope creep. Six composers plus a tuning-systems section is roughly two essays. The tuning section in particular is a technical digression that does not serve the stated topic.
- Word overrun without a conclusion. 6500 words with no conclusion means the argument, such as it is, has no destination, and the candidate is 2500 words over with four weeks left.
Proposed narrowing. A workable question: 'To what extent did Western composers' engagement with gamelan involve genuine structural borrowing rather than surface colouring, and how does one tell the difference?' This is arguable, comparative, and testable against scores.
Rationale. It converts description into analysis: each composer becomes evidence for or against a claim, not a chapter. It permits dropping the tuning section unless a specific piece requires it. It allows cutting to three or four works in depth - which is what 'critical use of sources' rewards - rather than six in brief. It also gives the conclusion something to conclude: a criterion for distinguishing borrowing from decoration.
2. The candidate objects that narrowing will make the essay 'less comprehensive'. How should the teacher respond, and what concrete revision plan follows?
Read the worked answer
Response to the objection. Comprehensiveness is not a criterion; focus and argument are. A 4000-word essay that argues a claim about three works with close score analysis will score better than a 6500-word survey that touches six and concludes nothing. The candidate is trading a strength (breadth of reading) for a weakness (no argument) - the reading is not wasted, because it now supports a sharper claim and can appear as brief comparative evidence.
Revision plan (four weeks):
- Week 1: Rewrite the introduction around the new question and state the thesis in one sentence. Build an outline in which every section advances or tests the claim. Cut the tuning section to a footnote or remove it.
- Week 2: Reduce to three or four works in depth. For each, extract two or three specific score examples that show structural versus surface use. Demote the remaining composers to a single comparative paragraph.
- Week 3: Draft the conclusion, which must answer the question directly and acknowledge the strongest counter-argument. Check every source for critical engagement - quoting a source is not using it critically.
- Week 4: Cut to the word limit, check referencing, and do a final read for whether the thesis is visible in every section.
Safeguard: Set a hard rule that no paragraph may exist unless it serves the thesis; this prevents the draft re-expanding.