This is a sad fact of life. However, outside of the realm of military technologies, we also have to deal with the polarized American political climate. The use of individual composers music at political rallies and speeches without prior consent has been a slippery slope for some artists since they don't want their work associated in any sort of negative light. Not to mention the nightmare of consent not being asked from these artists in such a polarized manner.

I totally agree. Digging into the construction of diagetic/non-diagetic music and effects and sounds in general is super interesting. I also believe that sound and film have been reduced to the focus on Foley artists (which is absolutely necessary,) composers, and voice actors, but what of specific film musicians or sound engineers? The whole of film and sound is intertwined now and that means the workload to develop these films aurally is extremely in depth.

This is such a cool idea and it makes me wish I had more time for deep listening. Also, the exercises described within reminded me of deep breathing exercises that I did back in high school for marching band. Though they were definitely "breathing gym" style exercises they were still reminiscent of breathing improvisation.

I read that as the point of the section. However, I also agree with understanding my dog's bark. Maybe this example specifically was unclear. I was thinking more like a lawnmower or something similar to understand casual listening. It's not a sound most people would be analyzing so they usually just sound the same and are then reduced from being a certain lawnmower to just a lawnmower.

Me too! Learning about the brain's processes had always intrigued me and Huron's writing style did an excellent job of using terms and then defining those terms clearly. A lot of scholarly writing suffers from the understanding of who the audience is, so someone outside of that audience tends to have difficulty understanding the material.

I do agree with your disagreement of the quote. However, what of sounds that have no uniform sight (like a heavily processed synthesizer?) At what point does the brain's own processing and creation of imagery become the same as both seeing and hearing an object?

I appreciated the function of this paragraph. It feels like a sort of abstract in that it describes a ton of what happens in such a short passage. The paragraph also functions as an introduction to draw the reader in before the more specific analysis occurs. Which is great because a lot of analysis papers just assume the reader is interested in their topic without making much of an attempt to draw the reader in.

The discussion should definitely be had about the potential for appropriation here. Personally, I believe she handled the subject respectfully. However, there is something to be said for the fact that the topic is quite broad (enough so that a specific source isn't cited.)

This is a fantastic point. Ewell absolutely shoots himself in the foot with this single sentence or to be more specific the phrase "this is obviously my interpretation." There is absolutely a reason that in the realm of persuasive writing the words "I believe", "I think", and "my opinion" are red flags. The inclusion of these phrases devalue the entirety of everything to come before them. For Ewell to include this phrase his writing is instantly weakened especially since his writing before is passionate and poignant.

I enjoyed the quote you included here and totally agree. However, there could be a problem given the volatile nature of the phrase "cultural appropriation" and in the era of "cancel culture" saying something as bold as this could have negative results. Maybe it would be worthwhile to look into a new phrase with less pre-established opinions like "cultural inspiration" or something along those lines.

Love this sort of key for further explaining the terms you intend to use in your analysis! It is certainly beneficial to explain what you mean when analyzing any sort of experimental piece. Since there are fewer unifying terms in this realm, breaking down what you mean makes it easier on the reader!

The inclusion of the following paragraph is fantastic! I already understood the coyote as being a trickster sort of character, but before reading this passage I had not connected that idea to the piece!

While copyright law is the primary purpose of the article, I'd say there could be an argument made for the ethical use of this sort of material within the context of the article. To me the article felt like it was trying to convey a neutral or safe approach to the topic, but the act of reading the article was what solidified the argument for ethical use and proper credit being given where it is due.

This seems to be an idea that is hinted at in music history classes, but never outright stated. The common practice era is heavily rooted in nationalism which taken to the extreme encompasses racism. The fact that the "great" composers from that era are almost exclusively white and male is not a coincidence, but rather a product of the material.

I'm curious as to which method of reverb was used for this piece, given the time it was composed it could have been an earlier form of digital reverb and I'm sure the location would have had access to these early units. But then again given the context of the piece "natural" reverb like chamber would make sense as well.

Given that the piece is from an opera, I would actually love to see it performed live. I couldn't find any sort of recording of any sorts of performance though, so I'm left super curious about the details of the performance.

Yes! This idea was hard for me to fully understand since all of my experience with computer music has been relatively compact whether "in the box" or with a mixture of outboard gear. The idea of having to travel from location to location for simply recording a piece sounds strenuous and if any errors were to occur the time to fix them would be much longer.

I appreciated you breaking down the sounds being emulated. This piece along with Threondy for the Victims of Hiroshima have quite a lot in common, however the latter had the name assigned to the piece whereas Little Boy seems to have been written with the programatic elements in mind.