Late Submissions

Unless a Special Consideration request has been submitted and approved, (a) a penalty for lateness will apply – two (2) marks out of 100 will be deducted per day for assignments submitted after the due date – and (b) no assignment will be accepted more than seven (7) days (including weekends) after the original submission deadline. No late submissions will be accepted for timed assessments – e.g. quizzes, online tests . Assignment Grading All assignments of this unit are aligned to the standards outlined in the Macquarie University Assessment Policy (https://staff.mq.edu.au/work/strategy-planning-andgovernance/university- policies-and-procedures/policies/assessment). A marking rubric for each of the assignment is available on iLearn. Students are expected to read the rubric before working on the assignment.  

Feedback

Feedback will be given to students via the following ways:  

Whole class:

• Comments from the unit convenor in the forum discussions and unit activities
• Through the ‘announcement’ function in iLearn, if there are points of relevance to the whole class
• Consolidated feedback on whole of class assignment performance, summarising key strengths and weaknesses (in class and/or via video feedback for technical concepts requiring revision)

Individual

• The ongoing opportunity discuss assignment progress with the convenor via email or face to face student consultation. This provides a mechanism to provide feedback on progress made, prior to submission.

Formal

• Text based comments attached to assignments marked in Turnitin/GradeMark

Marks are made available through the Gradebook function in iLearn  

Examples of work

Examples of relevant and related assessment tasks will be made available via seminars

Assessment standards - rubrics

Rubrics for each assignment are made available on the iLearn. Students are encouraged to consult these before commencing an assignment.

Attendance

Students are expected to attend all scheduled classes. Classes are not optional. They deliver important content and are a central component of meeting the learning outcomes in this unit. Classes provide students with the essential production skills required to successfully complete assignments. Academic and/or technical staff cannot deliver technical instruction to students that is already covered in the timetabled classes. This is why attendance is essential. Students who elect to not attend classes will miss out on unit content and technical demonstrations risk failing the unit. Students who miss classes due to illness should speak with the convenor as soon as possible to discuss how to catch up on the missed content. Attendance will be recorded.  

Commencement of teaching

Seminars will commence in Week 1. No advance reading or preparation is required.  

Recommended Unit Readings (digital access via MultiSearch)  

Azenha, Gustavo S. “The Internet and the Decentralisation of the Popular Music Industry: Critical Reflections on Technology, Concentration and Diversification.” Radical Musicology 1 (2006).

Baade, Christina, and Paul Aitken. “Still ‘In the Mood’: The Nostalgia Aesthetic in a Digital World¹.” Journal of Popular Music Studies 20, no. 4 (2008): 353–77. doi:10.1111/j.1533-1598.2008.00169.x.

Barbour, E. “The Cool Sound of Tubes [Vacuum Tube Musical Applications].” Spectrum, IEEE 35, no. 8 (1998): 24–35. doi:10.1109/6.708439.

Berger, Harris M., and Cornelia Fales. “‘Heaviness’ in the Perception of Heavy Metal Guitar Timbres: The Match of Perceptual and Acoustic Features over Time.” In Wired for Sound: Engineering and Technologies in Sonic Cultures, edited by Paul D. Greene and Thomas Porcello, 181–97. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 2005.

Cole, Steven James. “The Prosumer and the Project Studio: The Battle for Distinction in the Field of Music Recording.” Sociology 45, no. 3 (June 1, 2011): 447–63. doi:10.1177/0038038511399627.

Crowdy, Denis. “Chasing an Aesthetic Tail: Latent Technological Imperialism in Mainstream Production.” In Redefining Mainstream Popular Music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett, and Jodie Taylor, 150–61. Routledge, 2013.

Frith, Simon. “Art versus Technology: The Strange Case of Popular Music.” Media, Culture & Society 8, no. 3 (July 1, 1986): 263–79. doi:10.1177/016344386008003002.

Glasgow, Joshua. “Hi-Fi Aesthetics.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65, no. 2 (April 1, 2007): 163–74.

Grinnell, C. K. “From Consumer to Prosumer to Produser: Who Keeps Shifting My Paradigm? (We Do!).” Public Culture 21, no. 3 (October 7, 2009): 577–98. doi:10.1215/08992363-2009-009.

Hamm, Russell O. “Tubes Versus Transistors - Is There an Audible Difference?” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 21, no. 4 (1973): 267–73.

Horning, Susan Schmidt. “Engineering the Performance: Recording Engineers, Tacit Knowledge and the Art of Controlling Sound.” Social Studies of Science 34, no. 5 (October 1, 2004): 703–31.

Jones, Steve. “Technology and the Future of Popular Music.” Popular Music and Society 14, no. 1 (1990): 19. doi:10.1080/03007769008591380.

Leyshon, A. “The Software Slump?: Digital Music, the Democratisation of Technology, and the Decline of the Recording Studio Sector within the Musical Economy.” Environment and Planning A 41, no. 6 (2009): 1309–1331.

Lockheart, Paula. “A History of Early Microphone Singing, 1925–1939: American Mainstream Popular Singing at the Advent of Electronic Microphone Amplification.” Popular Music and Society 26, no. 3 (2003): 367–85. doi:10.1080/0300776032000117003.

O’Connell, Joseph. “The Fine-Tuning of a Golden Ear: High-End Audio and the Evolutionary Model of Technology.” Technology and Culture 33, no. 1 (January 1, 1992): 1–37. doi:10.2307/3105807.

Porcello, Thomas. “Speaking of Sound: Language and the Professionalization of Sound-Recording Engineers.” Social Studies of Science 34, no. 5 (October 1, 2004): 733–58.

———. “‘Tails Out’: Social Phenomenology and the Ethnographic Representation of Technology in Music-Making.” Ethnomusicology 42, no. 3 (October 1, 1998): 485–510. doi:10.2307/852851.

Rothenbuhler, Eric W. “For-the-Record Aesthetics and Robert Johnson’s Blues Style as a Product of Recorded Culture.” Popular Music 26, no. 1 (2006): 65–81. doi:10.1017/S0261143007001134.

Thompson, Emily. “Machines, Music, and the Quest for Fidelity: Marketing the Edison Phonograph in America, 1877-1925.” The Musical Quarterly 79, no. 1 (April 1, 1995): 131–71.

See iLearn