A Beginner’s Guide to Essay-Writing
By Björn Heile
A Beginner’s Guide to Essay-Writing
By Björn Heile
How to Use This Guide
Where to Seek Help
What Do We Want from You and Why? Some Introductory Remarks
The Writing Stages: Before You Start, in the Middle, and After You Have Finished
Structure and Argument
Language Use and Style
‘Flow’
Sentence Structure
Spelling and Word Use
Citing and Quoting
Formatting and Bibliographic References
Online Sources
How to Use This Guide
Many new students feel ill-prepared to write essays, either because they lack confidence in
their own abilities or because they are unsure about what is expected of them. While you will
simply have to take the plunge eventually and while there is no better way of learning than by
doing, this guide is intended to help you on your way and avoid some of the commonest
pitfalls. It is based both on my own experiences as a writer and on what I perceive to be the
most frequent problems encountered by students.
The best way to use it is to read it carefully before you embark on your first essays. Not
everything will be of equal use to you at first, and you are not expected to get everything right
from the start. But if you do find some of the advice useful, you may want to keep the guide
in a safe place and consult it whenever you need it. Also keep in mind that the suggestions I
make in this guide are only that: suggestions – you are not to follow them slavishly if they do
not work for you. Everybody works differently, and it is for you to discover your particular
method; we can only help you with that. So, make your own experiences!
Obviously this is only a very short introduction and will not prepare you for every problem
you may face, but there are many books on the market that should provide further
assistance; Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to
Punctuation (London: Profile, 2003) has even become a bestseller! For music-specific
problems, such as how to refer to musical works or specify pitches, one specially
recommended book is D. Kern Holoman, Writing about Music: A Style Sheet from the Editors
of 19th-Century Music (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) (some of Holoman’s
advice concerns the specific journal he edits, and is therefore not universally applicable – he
also tells you to avoid Britishisms – but in general the rules are sound). This will be available
from both the main and departmental libraries as well as the university bookshop. But there
are many comparable publications, either for music in particular or for academic writing in
general (there’s a whole shelf load in the library under PF 290-292). Buying ordinary
reference books such as a dictionary, a thesaurus, and a grammar will likewise always be a
sensible investment: I personally prefer the Oxford and Longmans ranges, but there are
sound competitors which are often cheaper. These days of course, a lot of reference works
are
available
online:
check
the
library’s
link
list
at
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/reference/> (particularly note ‘Oxford Online Reference’, a
superb source).
Where to Seek Help
If this guide doesn’t solve your problems and more books only seem to make matters worse,
your first port of call should normally be your course tutor or your academic advisor. He or
she won’t sort out your grammar woes for you, but they should be able to point you in the
right direction. There are also student mentors in HUMS who give advice on study skills
(<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/hums/1-4-3-3-1.html>), and there are even writers-in-residence
(<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/hums/1-4-9.html>).
Additionally, the study skills page on the website of the Sussex Language Institute
contains a range of fantastic resources, including an introduction to essay-writing similar to
this one and a guide to punctuation: check <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/langc/skills/intro.html>.
If you are dyslexic, or suspect that you are, you should contact the university’s student
services
department
(if
you
haven’t
already
done
so):
check
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/equalities/1-2.html> for more details.
What Do We Want from You and Why? Some Introductory Remarks
In many of your courses essays form a large part of the assessment. You should see this as
an opportunity to tell your side of the story. Whereas many other forms of assessment, such
as unseen exams, focus largely on the reproduction of facts, essays bring your critical
intelligence into play. Although knowing the facts is indispensable for a successful essay, it is
your ability to make sense of them that really makes a difference. Another advantage of
essays is that you can learn a lot while writing them: firstly, how to research a topic on your
own, secondly, how to develop an original argument, and thirdly, how to fashion your ideas
into a written text. While there can be a great variety of positive examples, a successful
essay will normally demonstrate a sound grasp of the subject matter, present an original
argument, and support this argument persuasively in a well-structured text.
Some students find it hard to accept the second and third items of this list. However, as
mentioned above, being able to reproduce the facts is only the beginning in an essay; being
able to evaluate them critically and making one’s case articulately are at least of equal
importance. Demonstrating your capacity for independent thought does not mean that you
have to square the circle or reinvent music history every time you write an essay, nor is it an
invitation for purely subjective judgement. Rather, you should be able to show that you can
critique what you read in books and complement it with your own assessment of the subject
matter. Admittedly, getting the balance right is not always easy, but this can be learned over
time. Moreover, there is more than one ‘correct’ spot on the continuum between a neutral
summary of published material and completely independent ideas. As with so many things,
learning by doing is the best method. What all this implies is that what counts is not which
answer you give to an essay question, but how you substantiate the answer that you do give:
what we look for as examiners is not the ‘right’ answer but consistency in your argument and
in the evidence you cite.
What many students take issue with is that such aspects as language use, essay
structure, and writing style form part of the assessment. At this stage, I could content myself
with citing university legislation, but, as it happens, I support the legislation in this particular
instance. What seems to have happened is that these students have fallen victim to a
popular belief according to which there is a clear distinction between the content of an essay
and the words used to express it. Proponents of this view regard language simply as a
conduit for the ‘message’. Linguists have known for many years that this is erroneous: textual
meaning only resides in words, not outside them. To put it closer to home: we can only give
you credit for what you do say, not for what you may have wanted to say. As I mentioned
above, part of your task is to make a persuasive argument, and this requires a certain facility
in language use. (Interestingly, when I discuss books with students, they are more likely to
critique the writing than the content, arguing that one is ‘more comprehensible’ than another,
or that it makes a ‘more convincing case’ – you should follow the same ideals in your own
writing.)
But more importantly, being able to argue your case articulately and eloquently is one of
the greatest assets you can gain while at university: there is no profession or walk of life
where this skill is not a prime advantage. Finally, from my personal experience the old maxim
that clarity of language shows clarity of thought is mostly true (with the exception of such
cases as dyslexia). Accordingly, acquiring greater verbal dexterity may help you to achieve
deeper insight too. This is not so surprising since mental processes are influenced by
language, while, conversely, language structures to a certain extent reflect cognitive
processes, that is the working of the mind.
In case this sounds intimidating – which it isn’t meant to be – help is at hand. Firstly, we
as lecturers are aware that writing is a skill that isn’t acquired overnight: we are all still
learning and few of us like to be reminded of our first efforts. This is reflected in our marking.
But in order to improve you should read our comments carefully and try to take them on
board: they are not designed to ‘tell you off’, but to help you progress. Furthermore, the good
news is that, to a large extent, essay-writing can be learned; following the ground rules below
may make the plunge easier! Before I go into details, however, here’s the most important
rule: the best way of learning to write is to read. The publications we cite in our reading lists
should normally be good models: try to emulate them (not slavishly of course). This may also
teach you how to read more critically: you have probably been taught to distil the contents of
books and articles; now try also to analyse how they are structured, how authors present the
material to make their points, how they write, and how they cite. This skill may lead you to
revise your opinion of certain publications, and this may in turn come in handy when it comes
to demonstrate your personal judgement of which I spoke above.
The Writing Stages: Before You Start, in the Middle, and After You
Have Finished
Let us imagine you have done all your research (normally the research and writing phases
overlap because your writing may take you in unexpected directions – which is generally a
good sign – or you discover that you are unclear about certain aspects, but let’s leave all that
aside): how do you start writing? For most people it is not advisable to start writing the actual
text straightaway, but first to produce drafts. This can take the form of keywords that reflect
the structure of the argument, an abstract presenting the whole of the essay in a compressed
version, or a mind map which represents key issues and their interrelations graphically.
Experiment with these or other ways of sketching the basic ideas to find out what works best
for you. In any case, it is almost always better to have a clear idea of what you want to say
before you start writing – even if you revise your ideas at a later stage (that’s generally a
good sign too!).
When you think you know what you want, start writing. It is important to note that you do
not have to start with the very beginning; in fact, most writers write their introductions last so
they know what it is they introduce (personally, I generally prefer starting with the introduction
as it forces me to clarify what I’m really after). Whatever you start with, remember that you
can always revise, reorder or erase what you write – and rigorously do so if you don’t find it
satisfactory! Word processors have made this a lot easier. Particularly if you suffer from
writer’s block, it may help you to know that whatever you write is only provisional. You may
also want to start with what you are most certain about.
The third phase after planning and writing is revising. In my experience, students greatly
underestimate the importance of this. At this stage, you have to be very hard on yourself:
read your own text very carefully, always asking yourself whether you have actually written
what you wanted to, whether this is the best way of expressing it, whether your text is
consistent and the order of the material reflects the stages of your argument, whether
syntactical structures used exist and whether they mean what you think they do, whether
words used mean what you think they do, and so forth. It is always useful to give your essay
to a friend to read (to avoid academic misconduct, this friend should not take the same
course and should not comment on the actual subject matter). If you think that this is taking
friendship too far, how about exchanging essays? If you are not quite happy with your text,
try to analyse what is wrong (this may not be easy) and rectify it. Obviously, time is limited,
but in your planning always leave some space for rigorous revision. I sometimes spend more
time revising and rewriting a text than it has taken me to write it in the first place.
What is important about these three phases is that they overlap. While you are writing you
will almost inevitably amend some of your initial assumptions. As I mentioned above, this is a
good sign because it shows that writing helps you develop your thoughts. However, you may
have to go back to your planning phase and reconsider what the consequences of your new
line of argument are. Moreover, you may also have to revise some of your earlier text as this
was written with an argument in mind that you have since altered. Therefore, always ask
yourself whether what you have just written really continues to serve the function in relation
to your argument that you originally had in mind (e.g. illustrating, supporting or challenging
it). This implies that, just as you are going back to the drawing board while writing, you are
also already revising. Obviously you should try not to be too obsessive and labour endlessly
on your first paragraph – on the contrary, it is often a better idea to keep going and see that
you ‘find your way in’ – but analysing your own writing is never a bad idea.
This may all sound more complex than it really is: the chances are that you are already
working in this way – perhaps without being aware of it – and it will come quite naturally with
more practice. Nevertheless, it needs saying as a mismatch between the ostensible
argument of an essay and the evidence cited to support it is a fairly common flaw. A system
of checks and balances between the three writing phases should ensure an argument that
appears to flow naturally. Needless to say, this process takes some time, so don’t leave
things for the last minute! This does not mean that you are going to spend more time writing:
on the contrary, if anything, a well-planned and properly drafted essay will make for easier
and more fluent writing. But ideas need time to mature.
Structure and Argument
In the following, I present some basic hints for the construction of essays, starting with the
hierarchically highest level, that of the whole essay, and moving successively downwards to
the smallest unit, that of the individual word.
The most common flaw in students’ essays is the lack of a central proposition. The result
is often a conglomeration of perfectly useful insights and observations which, however, do
not add up to something like a coherent picture. If you are not quite sure about what you
actually want to say, how can you say it well? Hence, from your researching the topic and
planning the essay, always think about what your hypothesis is going to be (it can happen
that you only really find this while writing, in which case you may have to go over what you
have written as mentioned in the previous section). This presents problems for some
students because they are not used to developing their own views. Apparently, schools tend
to train pupils not to express their individual opinion, but instead summarise other people’s
arguments as neutrally and objectively as possible. By contrast, while you need to be able to
do this, we are also interested in your own ideas, and you should aim to communicate these
in your essays. These views do not have to be ‘balanced’: they can be passionate and even
polemical – provided you can support them through rational argument and proper use of
evidence.
If you have an hypothesis, the structuring of your text will seem quite natural: you first
state the problem and introduce your hypothesis (if you don’t want to save it for later), then,
in the middle section, you cite the evidence supporting it – also mentioning possible counterarguments – before concluding on how the evidence supports your proposition. What you get
is a three-part structure with an introduction, a main body containing the evidence and most
of the argument, and a conclusion. This is often summarised as ‘say what you are going to
say, say it, and say what you have just said’. This sounds inane, and, if you follow the recipe
too slavishly, it is, but more often than not, this structure works remarkably well (you can find
out yourself if you think about how many of the articles you find convincing use this structure:
that’s what I meant when I said that reading is a good guide for writing!).
Another important advantage of having a central argument is that it orders your material in
arguments for and against, as well as in more important and less important points. Without
such a proposition, a fact is just a fact, and there are any number of them and all seem
equally important. Consequently, essays lacking a clear proposition often suffer from a
multitude of scarcely related facts scattered among the text whose relevance and function is
often unclear. Therefore one of the ground rules is: only cite the material that is related to
your proposition and subject matter. Essays are not primarily about showing how much you
know, and additional information can be confusing if there does not seem to be a reason why
it is mentioned.
Even if you have a central proposition and a clear overall structure, it may sometimes be
necessary to guide your readers through the argument. You may know how any given
passage relates to the overall argument, but for a reader this is not always clear. Therefore,
ask yourself whether the relation of any given passage to the whole is clear and, if not, draw
the necessary connections. If, for instance, writing about the relation between the publishing
trade and the evolution of sonata form in Beethoven’s time, you want to include a passage
about the increasing importance of domestic music-making among the burgeoning middle
classes, you could include something like this: ‘the relation between such social conditions
as the rise of the middle classes on one hand and changes in musical form on the other may
not be entirely evident at first sight. However,...’; or: ‘while the influence of commercial
publishers has been duly noted, the importance of the greater availability of affordable pianos
for the new middle classes has often been overlooked’. This should ensure that readers
know why you are mentioning these things. Sometimes it may be useful to foreshadow your
argument so your readers know where they are: this is what I did at the beginning of this
chapter. This approach can seem a little over-didactic and inelegant, but sometimes it is
helpful.
If you find it hard to develop a clear structure – many do – you may want to include subheadings. Sub-headings force you to stick with a topic for a while and deal with only one
issue at a time (in too many essays one gets the impression that students are writing about
everything and nothing all the time). In the example I used above, the sub-heading could be,
for instance, ‘The Rise of the Middle Classes and the Piano Trade’; but you can also use
generic sub-headings such as ‘Introduction’ or ‘Conclusion’. Sometimes you may want to
erase your sub-headings at a later stage just as you would dismantle a scaffolding after the
actual edifice has been built. In other cases, you may find that the sub-headings help readers
to orient themselves too – this is why I use sub-headings for the present text. As with
different methods for planning and drafting a text, what works best for you depends on the
subject matter and on what kind of writer you are: experiment with it.
Language Use and Style
As with all aspects of writing and language, there is no one ‘correct’ style; individual
variations are not only inevitable but also desirable. If there is a general rule, however, it is to
aim for a relatively simple, clear and factual style. Colloquialisms, florid prose (beware of liner
and programme notes!) and emotive or emphatic language are best avoided, unless for
special expressive purposes (and these should be rare). It is best to get used to different
registers of language: the language you use on a Friday night at the club is normally
inappropriate in academic contexts, but the style you use in an essay shouldn’t be a foreign
language to you either, as it easily sounds stilted otherwise. While language use is an
expression of individuality, it does not follow that only one style can be yours: we all use
different languages in different circumstances. As with other matters, follow the example of
recommended books that you like and consider our suggestions.
‘Flow’
If your essay has a clear argument and is well-structured, it should be easy to read.
However, some texts are still somewhat clunky, and this often has to do with the connections
between sentences and paragraphs – or rather the lack of them. First of all, you should use
the sentence as a unit thoughtfully: make the full stop your friend! Quite often, one comes
across passages that look as if the material as been poured over the paper without being first
divided into ‘edible chunks’. Separate your material into units of information and group these
into sentences (this seems obvious, but isn’t always easy). If you find this hard, the chances
are that you haven’t thought enough about your material and therefore don’t know which are
the important bits and which are only supplementary. Sometimes it helps rearranging
different phrases to form new sentences.
If you have your sentences, these may need to be linked to one another. On the simplest
level, a sentence is a statement of fact, but lining up statements of fact does not produce an
argument. The question is how sentences relate to one another. As far as I am aware, there
are four basic types which account for most relations between successive sentences, the first
three of which are particularly important in academic writing: a sentence may, firstly, add to
the preceding one, secondly, illustrate it or follow from it, thirdly, refute it (or seemingly so),
and fourthly, introduce a different time level. All these relations can be expressed through
conjunctions (or adverbs used as conjunctions), normally introduced at the beginning of the
second sentence, as follows:
1. If a sentence supports the preceding one and adds to it (consecutive, the ‘and-type’):
Furthermore; Moreover; Additionally/In addition to that; Besides, And (this was generally
not sanctioned by traditional style manuals, and for good reason, but is now quite
accepted).
2. If a sentence illustrates the preceding one or follows logically from it (causal, the ‘sotype’):
Thus; Hence; Therefore; Consequently/As a consequence; Accordingly; As a result; So
(somewhat colloquial)
3. If a sentence refutes the preceding one or presents a counter-argument (the ‘but-type’):
However; Yet; Nevertheless/Nonetheless; By contrast; Though; But (like ‘and’ this is not
traditional)
4. If the action of the sentence precedes or succeeds that of the preceding sentence
(temporal: this is usually unproblematic)
Before; After; etc.
Using these conjunctions judiciously may sometimes be enough to transform a stodgy
passage into a nicely flowing one. Moreover (!), this helps you to analyse your own writing: if
you cannot decide which of these relations fits your passage, the meaning of the sentences
may be unclear. As a rule, though, conjunctions should not be overused as this can make a
text appear pedantic and over-written.
Paragraphs are used to bundle information into more easily consumable parcels. There
are no particular rules for this, but if your paragraphs are consistently one sentence or a
whole page long, the reason may lie in your not organising your material properly.
Sentence Structure
Syntax is a perennial problem for many students and one that should have been dealt with at
school level (the same is true of punctuation which I can’t deal with here: there’s an excellent
guide
by
Larry
Trask
on
the
<http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node00.html>).
web:
While
good grammar takes a lot of practice, observing some basic principles may make a
difference. It would be going too far to enumerate all possible sentence structures in English;
these are listed in grammars (such as John Eastwood, Oxford Guide to English Grammar
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)) and style manuals. You should be aware, however,
that there aren’t all that many different constructions, and it is well worth being acquainted
with them so you can use them deliberately. Syntactical structures reflect logical and
temporal relations between different clauses. If what you are trying to say doesn’t fit into any
of those, then maybe you are unclear about how the different things you want to say are
related to one another (this is the main reason why clarity of language may signify clarity of
thought – in the absence of disabilities such as dyslexia).
Apart from interpolated clauses and relative clauses, which do not normally cause great
problems, the relations between different clauses within a sentence are normally the same
as between different sentences which I dealt with above. Being aware of this may make it
easier to survey the jungle of syntactic structures. There are also alternative structures for
practically all the major types of sub- or coordinated clauses. See, for instance, different
versions of the ‘but-type’ which all produce a slightly different emphasis (although not all
work equally well, ‘whereas’ and ‘while’ – normally also yielding similar meanings – don’t
seem to work at all):
1. His string quartets are among Béla Bartók’s best-remembered works, but he himself was
a pianist.
2. Although he was a pianist himself, Bartók’s string quartets reveal a rare mastery of the
genre.
3. Bartók’s string quartets are milestones of the genre; however, he was a pianist himself.
4. Bartók never played a string instrument; nevertheless his string quartets rank among his
finest works.
5. Despite being a pianist himself, Bartók’s string quartet writing shows great sensitivity for
instrumental techniques.
6. Bartók’s string quartets are admirable creations, especially considering/given that he
was a pianist himself.
Note too that in most cases the two phrases can also be exchanged (although this is a little
awkward in this case), producing yet another emphasis in meaning: ‘Béla Bartók was a
pianist by training; however, his string quartets are among his finest works’. It is best to get
used to juggle around sentences in this manner, and many of you will already do so; it
becomes an automatic process after a while. In any case, never just write what comes into
your head first: always take care to construct proper sentences that communicate your
meaning! Again, this may mean that you need more time than you have originally envisaged.
For an inexperienced writer, a rushed essay will never be a good essay.
Spelling and Word Use
At this stage, I can only give you some ground rules:

Always use a spell check. Consistently faulty orthography is unnecessary and will be
penalised. However, using a spell check does not free you from ‘manual’ proof-reading.

Use a dictionary. Imprecise or wrong word use is very common in student essays. For
technical terms, use the Grove dictionary (which can be accessed online under
grovemusic.com – use ‘sussexuni’ as username and ‘oxford’ as password if you’re offcampus, or through the electronic library: <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/electronic>).
Imprecise or erroneous use of terminology can devalue your whole essay and can easily
be avoided.

Use a thesaurus. If you find yourself constantly using the same words or not quite
finding the right ones, see what alternatives you find in a thesaurus. For Microsoft Word
users the Word thesaurus can be accessed by highlighting a word and pressing Shift+F7
(it’s not as good as a proper thesaurus, but much faster. I use it all the time).

Related to that, a note on repetition: you have probably been taught to avoid repeating
words. This is generally a sound rule. However, if you cannot find a proper alternative to
the word you are using, better stick to that, lest your text becomes vague and imprecise.
If the choice is between a lack of elegance and imprecision, opt for the former!
Furthermore, you can and should of course repeat technical terms and terms you are
writing about (see, for instance, how often I repeat the word ‘essay’ in the introduction to
this text: I don’t see this as a problem, and choosing synonyms would have been less
clear). Technical terms have been coined precisely because there is no other way to
unequivocally refer to the matter at hand.

Apostrophes: this is a major stumbling block for many students. However, there really
are just a handful of rules in English for using them. If you are unsure, look them up in a
grammar
book
or
on
Larry
Trask’s
punctuation
guide
(<http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node00.html>).

Foreign names and titles: make sure you copy these correctly; it does matter! Also use
diacritics such as accents and umlauts where appropriate (these can be accessed
through the ‘insert’ menu of your word processor). It is ‘Götterdämmerung’, not
‘Gotterdammerung’; ‘Bartók’, not ‘Bartok’; ‘Pelléas et Mélisande’, etc.
Citing and Quoting
This is a major part of any essay since you want to demonstrate that your text is the outcome
of research and not simply conjecture and opinion. What many students are unaware of is
that all use of sources has to be acknowledged; otherwise it technically counts as plagiarism
(even if you do not quote verbatim)! The only exception to this rule is when what you say can
be considered common knowledge (e.g. ‘Beethoven was one of the most influential
composers of the early nineteenth century’). Phrases such as ‘it is often said that...’ or
‘Beethoven is often considered...’ do not free you from giving examples of who or what you
refer to.
There are three main ways of using written material: firstly, as factual background
information, secondly, by paraphrasing it, and thirdly, by quoting it. The Beethoven example
used above may illustrate the use of background information. Say, you give a factual
introduction to the works written in Beethoven’s ‘middle period’. In this case you make a
footnote at the end of the passage mentioning your source(s) (for instance: ‘see Dahlhaus,
Beethoven...‘ or ‘cf. Dahlhaus...’).
Paraphrases are mostly used when the specific source is important, for instance, when
you are dealing with matters of interpretation rather than fact. If, for example, you want to
refer to an author’s characterisation of the most common sonata forms of Beethoven’s
‘middle period’, you may say something like ‘according to Rosen,...’ and summarise Rosen’s
views in your own words, followed again by a footnote specifying the source. Formulations
like this are among the most common in scholarly literature.
You should only quote verbatim if the exact wording is important. An example would be:
‘Abbé Dubos’s famous exclamation “Sonata, what do you want from me?” aptly characterises
the low status of instrumental music in early eighteenth-century France’. Short quotations like
this should be integrated into your text, using quotation marks (not italics); phrases such as
‘according to Tyson,...’ (this works for both paraphrase and quotation), ‘as Kramer puts it,...’,
or ‘in the words of Keller,...’ can be useful for this purpose. Longer quotations – from around
sixty words or four lines – are normally separated from the main text through indentation
(without quotation marks or italics). In these cases you cannot integrate the quotation into
your own sentence structure. Instead you need to introduce it, for instance by using such
formulations as ‘Burney characterises the Rondo from Beethoven’s Op. 31 thus:’, or ‘Adorno,
by contrast, regards it as a critique on the conventions of rondo finales, as in the following
passage:’. In all cases, you will of course have to name the exact source. Note, however,
that literal quotations are actually quite rare in scholarly literature; students, on the other
hand, almost always quote too much and cite too little.
Formatting and Bibliographic References
There are different ways of citing someone else’s work. The most common is to make a
footnote which contains the name of the author; the title of the publication; place, name of
publisher and year of publication; and the page number(s) – in that order (for more general
references page numbers may not be necessary, but if you do refer to a specific passage,
you have to name them – this is always the case in literal quotations). Remember that in
titles everything except grammatical words are normally capitalised, and that titles of
independent publications (e.g. books, journals, dictionaries, but not articles) are usually
italicised (or underlined). There are differences between different kinds of publications. A
book is referenced in the following way:
David Metzer, Quotation and Cultural Meaning in Twentieth-Century Music (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), 54-67.
In the case of journal articles the title of the article is normally in single quotation marks, and
the title of the journal is italicised – place and name of publisher are not necessary for
journals, but the volume is:
Michael Hicks, ‘Text, Music, and Meaning in the Third Movement of Luciano Berio’s
Sinfonia’, Perspectives of New Music 20 (1981-1982), 199-224.
Chapters in a volume of articles are referenced in a similar way to journal articles:
Krin Gabbard, ‘The quoter and his culture’, in Jazz in Mind: Essays in the History and
Meanings of Jazz, ed. Reginald T. Buckner and Stephen Weitland (Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1991), 92-111.
An entry in a dictionary is referred to in a similar way, at least when the author is named (e.g.
in the Grove; there’s also a special link about how to cite the online version of the Grove on
grovemusic.com):
J. Peter Burkholder, ‘Borrowing’, in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd
edn., ed. Stanley Sadie (London: MacMillan, 2001), vol. 4, 5-8.
If you have referred to the same publication before, you can reference in short form, e.g.
‘Metzer, Quotation, 78’.
At the end of your essay there should be a bibliography containing all the works you have
used (including those you have read but not mentioned). The individual entries can have the
same format as your footnotes. However, they have to be in alphabetical order (as regards
the authors’ last names). Therefore you may prefer to put the last name before the Christian
names, e.g. Metzer, David, Quotation...
Specific titles of musical works are italicised, whereas generic titles are simply capitalised:
Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde, Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 (but Beethoven’s Pastoral
Symphony). (For more music-specific formats refer to Holoman’s Writing about Music).
Online Sources
The internet has become a formidable research tool, and it contains a wealth of useful
information on most topics. In terms of research materials, the ‘internet’ actually falls into two
parts. The first is ‘professional’ material written by qualified experts which has often migrated
from traditional printed sources to the internet or – as in many journals – is available in either
medium. This kind of material is often not freely available, but can be accessed through the
university’s electronic library; among them are the online Grove, the RILM (a professional
music bibliography), and online journals (with search functions). Generally, these sources
can be used like traditional library resources although the methods are obviously different.
The
library
has
compiled
a
good
list
of
music-specific
resources
at
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/subjects/music.php> (the list of openly available web
resources is very short, but the amount available has simply become unmanageable).
The second part is the ‘open’ part of the web, that is freely available material, and this has
to be used with caution. The first rule is that web research can complement traditional library
research, but it does not replace it: the average university library still holds a lot more
academically relevant material on most topics than the internet. Examiners will always spot
whether you’ve done proper research or have just made a google search, and in the latter
case they will penalise your work for being under-researched. The second rule is that online
sources need to be referenced in the same way as other materials (for formatting see below);
otherwise this will constitute plagiarism! The third problem is that internet sources are often
unreliable. While you cannot believe everything that’s been printed, usually there are some
safeguards and quality controls in publishing. By contrast, everyone can put up stuff on the
web: why do you assume that the writer of an online document knows more than you, since
you could have published the material yourself? So, always try to find independent
confirmation for information gleaned from the web – and this does usually not mean other
websites, since online authors tend to plagiarise one another (there is a proliferation of
misinformation on the web). Very often online sources are more useful at the beginning of
the research process than in later stages. A case in point is the (in)famous
<http://www.wikipedia.org>. Many lecturers ban usage of wikipedia altogether: I don’t find
this attitude helpful as it is undeniably a fantastic resource which I frequently use myself. But
it’s much more useful for first delineating your research topic, identifying bibliographic
sources etc., and all information has to be double-checked. Moreover, for music-related
issues (e.g. composers, terms) you should always use the Grove: if you are using wikipedia,
rather than a reputable source, for such issues as biographical data or musical terminology,
you will always be penalised unless no other source is readily available.
The third issue is that proper web research takes at least as much time as traditional
library research and is not easy. Many students seem to be content with whatever comes up
first after an ordinary google (rather than google books or scholar google) search, with scant
regard to the quality of the material or its relevance for their topic. You often have to trawl
through loads of pages and make dozens of searches using different search terms and
search engines before finding something that is genuinely useful. Again, the library has
compiled a very helpful list of tutorials on online (and traditional) research at
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/subjects/onlinetutorials.html>. There are now hundreds of
pages on practically every canonic work; but given anyone – including other students – can
have written them and that they could be on any aspect of the work, what makes you think
that anything anybody may have written on a piece you’re working on is worth citing? So use
online sources with great discrimination.
Finally, some notes on referencing of online sources. Remember that the basic point of
referencing is that a reader can find and identify the exact material you have been using. So
you have to name the complete URL (‘internet address’); the easiest way is to copy-paste it
from your browser. It has become the norm to delineate URLs with ‘<’ and ‘>’ symbols as I
have done throughout this text, and a URL normally starts with ‘http://’, not with ‘www’. Since
online content changes notoriously quickly you also have to include the date when you last
accessed your source. Take wikipedia as an example again: the moment your reader checks
an entry you have referred to, this may – and often does! – say something completely
different from what you are suggesting, so it is worth pointing out when the document said
what you claim it did.
Here’s an example:
Shoemaker, Bill. review of Uri Caine: Live at the Village Vanguard, Downbeat,
<http://www.downbeat.com/review_detail.asp?rid=850> (accessed 27 July 2006).
Note that I’ve provided the author and a short description of the contents. That
isn’t always possible (many web sources are anonymous) or appropriate, and the
second line would often suffice. In bibliographies it is not uncommon to have a
separate section for web resources (their ordering is difficult), but where you know
the authors it is also possible to integrate web resources into a conventional
bibliography.
The
online
Grove
has
a
link
about
how
to
cite
it
at
<http://www.grovemusic.com/shared/views/help.html?topic=H090> (accessed 22 July
2007). There can be a little variation as you may use a slightly different format in the
rest of your text, but the general issues are fine.