{ "config": { "base_url": "https://eartifacts.gitlab.io/", "theme": null, "title": null, "description": null, "default_language": "en", "languages": [], "translations": {}, "highlight_code": true, "highlight_theme": "monokai", "generate_rss": false, "rss_limit": null, "hard_link_static": false, "taxonomies": [ { "name": "tags", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" }, { "name": "genres", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" }, { "name": "years", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" }, { "name": "artists", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" }, { "name": "labels", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" } ], "compile_sass": false, "build_search_index": false, "ignored_content": [], "extra_syntaxes": [], "extra": {}, "build_timestamp": 1580166677 }, "current_path": "/tags/introduction", "current_url": "https://eartifacts.gitlab.io/tags/introduction/", "lang": "en", "taxonomy": { "name": "tags", "paginate_by": null, "paginate_path": null, "rss": false, "lang": "en" }, "term": { "name": "introduction", "slug": "introduction", "permalink": "https://eartifacts.gitlab.io/tags/introduction/", "pages": [ { "relative_path": "philosophy/introduction_to_eartifacts/index.md", "content": "

eartifacts is a small, informal museum of musical artifacts; in particular, the\nmuseum is a museum of articles, each one of which informally analyzes a single\nsong/track/composition. The focus is on “popular music” (in the\nbroad sense of “anything that is neither folk music nor\n‘classical’ music”). eartifacts is far from being the first\nliterature to focus on popular music: there exists plenty of scholarly (and not\nscholarly) popular music literature out there in journals, magazines, websites,\n&c. However, eartifacts is considerably different in a number of ways.

\n

\n

eartifacts is not a source for music reviews per se

\n

eartifacts makes no attempt to judge the (relative) merit of any works of art,\nmuch less assign something as silly as a numeric rating to works of art.\nBecause of this, eartifacts is not a source for music reviews in the\ntraditional sense.

\n

eartifacts also attempts to avoid the use of wishy-washy and flowery language\nthat is too glib to mean anything, instead focusing on precision of language.\nIt also attempts to entertain concepts that are musically literate, rather than\nleaning on (often outright incorrect) stereotyping of musical styles and\ntechniques. Because of these things, eartifacts is not a source for music\nreviews in the traditional sense.

\n

eartifacts does direct a critical eye towards (musical) works of art, and\ndoes so in an article/essay format that gives a — in some sense —\ncomplete overview of the work in question. Because of this, eartifacts is a\nsource for articles that resemble reviews (albeit vaguely) and can serve some\nof the same purposes.

\n

eartifacts is not a source for scholarly, peer-reviewed literature

\n

eartifacts articles are not academic in nature; no ties to academic\ninstitutions or other businesses are present, and eartifacts articles are not\nsubject to peer review.

\n

Rather than being academic, eartifacts articles are written from (and to) the\nperspective of a music listener who wants to casually take a critical look at\nthe music that they hear (and hopefully learn from it).

\n\n

There is a longstanding and venerable tradition on the Internet of “music\nblogs”. Music blogs are typically expected to act as a sort of\ncontinually updated gallery of music, where those that enjoy the musical tastes\nof the maintainer can browse the gallery for new music to listen to (especially\nsince such music blogs often provide low-quality digital copies of the\nrecordings themselves). In addition, each entry in the gallery (each entry\ntypically being on the level of a single band/artist) is typically expected to\ngive some sort of background information and/or description of the band/artist\nin question.

\n

Rather than being a kind of gallery, eartifacts calls itself a\n“museum” because the focus is as much on a detailed examination of\nthe content (and the history) of the subjects as it is on simply cataloguing\nthe subjects. eartifacts has somewhat of an anthropological bent, but is\nlargely focused on the “raw content”, so to speak, of the music\nitself. eartifacts also does not provide any of the audio that is the subject\nof its articles.

\n

However, like a music blog, eartifacts as a whole can only ever hope to reflect\na tiny sliver of the wide range of musical styles and tastes that exist in the\nworld. Also like a music blog, eartifacts may possibly function well as a way\nof finding new music.

\n", "permalink": "https://eartifacts.gitlab.io/philosophy/introduction-to-eartifacts/", "slug": "introduction-to-eartifacts", "ancestors": [ "_index.md", "philosophy/_index.md" ], "title": "introduction to eartifacts", "description": null, "date": null, "year": null, "month": null, "day": null, "taxonomies": { "tags": [ "introduction" ] }, "extra": {}, "path": "philosophy/introduction-to-eartifacts/", "components": [ "philosophy", "introduction-to-eartifacts" ], "summary": "

eartifacts is a small, informal museum of musical artifacts; in particular, the\nmuseum is a museum of articles, each one of which informally analyzes a single\nsong/track/composition. The focus is on “popular music” (in the\nbroad sense of “anything that is neither folk music nor\n‘classical’ music”). eartifacts is far from being the first\nliterature to focus on popular music: there exists plenty of scholarly (and not\nscholarly) popular music literature out there in journals, magazines, websites,\n&c. However, eartifacts is considerably different in a number of ways.

\n", "word_count": 589, "reading_time": 3, "assets": [], "draft": false, "lang": "en", "lighter": null, "heavier": null, "earlier": null, "later": null, "translations": [] } ] } }