Quote:
Originally Posted by niklas_sn7  Speaking of generalities - I admit that I had a problem to find the right amount of scientific depth versus a more general overview readable online. On the other hand - all the hypotheses I put in there may sound trivial in conclusion but to get there I gathered all the material and analyzed it carefully. That's science sometimes, conclusions sound trivial, but real arguments are hard to find. Kafka, what do you do actually? Studying something? |
I'm an EE, although I once did a master's thesis in materials science. I was working for a doctoral candidate and our advisor, and they needed some very specific research to support his doctoral dissertation. It was a lot of sweat, and nobody outside of the field would have understood a word of it. But it was real science because it was specific, and it was eventually given as a presentation at a scholarly conference. It met the standard of publishability, which is generally what a master's thesis has to be.
What I don't get from your conclusions is how the presentation before it
necessarily lead to it, nor do I really get what the significance is of your conclusions. "Music Production Changed" and "Let's Participate" are not conclusions. I would rework them to something more specific, that can easily come from the research you've done. Exactly how you do this would depend on the program. Is it a scientific program, or is it in the social sciences (i.e. are you doing a labor study)? Is this being done through the music department?
If I were going to write a thesis on plugins, I would have first done some research into how they are written. What algorithms actually appear in them? Exactly
how do programmers try to model analog equipment with them? And why do they bother? What things are they successful at? Where do they fall short? What are the limitations they face? Is it CPU? RAM? Disk transfer speed? Will DSPs always be inherently faster? What algorithms do DSPs usually accomplish? What algorithms can be done efficiently given current limitations, and what can be done of technology changes?
If you're looking at how the practice has changed, you would need some surveys or interviews with practitioners. Also, try to quantify the differences. What time or budget changes have occurred due to or prompted these changes? Are practitioners using more processing, or "effects"? Or are they now trying to get cleaner recordings than they could? Are are they spending a lot of time trying to recreate old sounds? How did the role of the amateur change due to changes in technology? Are amateurs
creating technology now? What did they create in the past?
Is it a music program? You didn't seem to do any research or make any conclusions on how musical arrangements changed due to changes in technology. But, such a subject would be interesting. How does not having to pay for a musician affect what sounds are incorporated into the arrangement? How are effects used to occupy even more space or to highlight a performance? Or what about incorporation of additional sounds that are
not supposed to be noticed? Was any of this foreshadowed in an earlier musical era? What is ensemble playing, and what does it now mean? How about parts that are physically impossible to play? How about the concept of repetition and looping? How has repetition been explored in "serious" music before (i.e. the influence of Indian music on composers such as Reich and Glass), and why is it so significant in popular music now?
And most importantly for any thesis - exactly what further research is needed on the subject (so your advisor can get more funding), and why was it impossible to include in this thesis? You mention improvement of the timeline, but honestly, why wouldn't the timeline in this master's thesis be complete? If there's a good reason, explain
why. You have to show that you sweated.