Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCheng, William
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-09 03:00:32
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-01T09:35:39Z
dc.date.available2020-04-01T09:35:39Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier1006131
dc.identifierOCN: 993676512en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/24002
dc.description.abstractModern academic criticism bursts with what Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick once termed paranoid readings—interpretative feats that aim to prove a point, persuade an audience, and subtly denigrate anyone who disagrees. Driven by strategies of negation and suspicion, such rhetoric tends to drown out softer-spoken reparative efforts, which forego forceful argument in favor of ruminations on pleasure, love, sentiment, reform, care, and accessibility. Just Vibrations: The Purpose of Sounding Good calls for a time-out in our serious games of critical exchange. Charting the divergent paths of paranoid and reparative affects through illness narratives, academic work, queer life, noise pollution, sonic torture, and other touchy subjects, William Cheng exposes a host of stubborn norms in our daily orientations toward scholarship, self, and sound. How we choose to think about the perpetration and tolerance of critical and acoustic offenses may ultimately lead us down avenues of ethical ruin—or, if we choose, repair. With recourse to experimental rhetoric, interdisciplinary discretion, and the playful wisdoms of childhood, Cheng contends that reparative attitudes toward music and musicology can serve as barometers of better worlds.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::A The Arts::AV Musicen_US
dc.subject.otherMedia
dc.titleJust Vibrations: The Purpose of Sounding Good
dc.typebook
oapen.identifier.doi10.3998/mpub.9293551
oapen.relation.isPublishedBye07ce9b5-7a46-4096-8f0c-bc1920e3d889
oapen.relation.isbn9780472073252;9780472053254
oapen.pages181
oapen.place.publicationAnn Arbor
oapen.identifier.ocn993676512
peerreview.anonymityDouble-anonymised
peerreview.idd98bf225-990a-4ac4-acf4-fd7bf0dfb00c
peerreview.open.reviewNo
peerreview.publish.responsibilityScientific or Editorial Board
peerreview.review.decisionYes
peerreview.review.stagePre-publication
peerreview.review.typeFull text
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
peerreview.titleExternal Review of Whole Manuscript
oapen.review.commentsThe proposal was selected by the acquisitions editor who invited a full manuscript. The full manuscript was reviewed by two external readers using a double-blind process. Based on the acquisitions editor recommendation, the external reviews, and their own analysis, the Executive Committee (Editorial Board) of U-M Press approved the project for publication.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record