OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with some of the relevant bibliography for the three primary composers of this seminar, to evaluate those items, and to share your findings with the seminar.

In brief, you will do the following:

• Choose (with my approval) three (3) books (or other written items) of value to the study of Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein. You will examine one book for each of these composers.
• Read (or skim, in the case of larger works) the item and any published reviews that you might find.
• Prepare and submit to me a brief summary evaluation of each item and its scholarly value in the form of a professional book review.

Submissions from the seminar members will be posted on the course web site for all to consult.

Detailed Instructions

Do the following for each item in this order:

1. Identify the author and/or any agencies responsible for the book. Note in particular any close or continuing relationships with the book's subject.
2. Using your own bibliographic skills, identify any published reviews of the book, and acquire (and read) as many as you can in the available time.
3. Read (or skim, in the case of longer books) the item closely, with an eye toward its scholarly value, accuracy, etc. You should use published reviews to guide your own evaluation of the item.
4. Write a professional review (in the style of something in MLA Notes or similar journals) that indicates the contents and scope of the item and its scholarly value. Note especially the strengths and limitations of the item, including the currency and reliability of the contents, and look for any biases or potential concerns for readers of the item.
5. Submit your evaluation to as a WORD document (or compatible RTF format) to me via email.

Format of the Review

1. As noted above, the review should be consistent with reviews found in professional music journals like MLA Notes. Look at examples in recent issues of this journal (via Project Muse) or older ones in JSTOR for models.
2. Prepare a header that gives the full title of the book, author(s) and editor(s), and basic publication information. NB. This "header" must be within the body of text file (and not a header of the document file).
3. You should not include other descriptive information found in reviews, e.g., descriptions of pagination, illustrations, bibliography, charts, etc., but do conclude your header with the UCF Library call number in square brackets, e.g., "[UCF Library: ML 420 .G4 R7 1999]".
4. You may format the text of your review in either single space, 1.5 space or double-space as you prefer, but you must indent the first line of all paragraphs (using the format controls of the paragraph and not the "tab" key). If you use a tighter spacing (single or 1.5), you may add an extra line or half line (12 or 6 points) at the end of each paragraph, if you prefer. (Again, set your paragraphs to include this formatting, and do not simply hit an extra "return" at the end of the paragraph). Inconsistent formatting--even if visually neat--may be grounds for a reduction in grade.
5. The text of the review itself should be written in standard formal English. Avoid contractions and slang, provide full names of individuals on first mention, and set off titles in appropriate formatting.
6. If you reference any outside source, e.g. reviews, other authors, etc., do not use footnotes, but instead provide an inline citation with publication information. (Again, see recent issues of MLA Notes for examples, or consult with me on how this is done.)
7. The target length for the text portion of your review is roughly 750 words, with an absolute minimum of 500 words and an absolute maximum of 1,000 words.
8. Remember to "sign" your review with your full name at the end, below the last line of the text. Do not create a header above the review, as you might with some other written assignment.

Due Dates & Grading

Grading of each review is split 50/50 between contents (quality of your evaluation, i.e., how well you make clear your opinions of the book) and technical aspects of writing.

Special note on penalties related to formatting: Failure to follow any of the directions related to formatting and specific content (as noted immediately above) will result in automatic deductions of 2 to 5 points for each error (relative to the severity of the mistake.

Each review counts for 5% of your course grade.

Each review will be due roughly one week after we begin the work on the next composer.

• "Gershwin" Review is due by Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 5:00 pm
• "Copland" Review due date Friday, 8 March 2019 at 5:00 pm
• "Bernstein" Review due date Monday, 8 April at 5:00 pm