Couldn't get into Sunday's Skype, so was immensely frustrated when I couldn't join this evening's Academic Writing Skype. Though on the outbound journey I had continued to take part in an NHS governors' meeting on Teams, Skype was not willing to offer me the same courtesy on my return. Joining half way through was better than nothing. I did at least get something of an answer.
Music writers, the ones I have read, don't use academic language to speak of. Peter Thomas suggested some work written by a Music lecturer at Mdx. Not any different, but I did get a lead from it on Google Scholar. I'll spend some time with the texts I found tomorrow. I then remembered I have three music-related friends who have PhDs, so looked up some of their work. Once again, it's not language they use.
I hold no fear of complicated language, if I could find it relating to my subject, I would happily use it. I think my only hope is via Somatics. I'm sure therein will yield a rich seam of complex language, even if the discourse is relatively simplistic.
I do find myself torn. The notion of dressing uncomplicated ideas in complex language looks more like self aggrandisement than good communication. Peter Thomas said there are differing schools of thought surrounding definitions of some of the academic terminology. This then goes against the idea of using this language for specificity. It does not make for ease of communication if I am then providing my own definitions. However, he did say that it is important to use appropriate language for the subject about which you are writing. If that can be agreed upon, I shall take that and run with it.
Iconoclast it is then. Unequivocally.
