#the words resources references and sources are too damn similar in that context?

[art-of-mathematics]

Hello! I was wondering what textbooks you would recommend for someone looking to get into mathematical proofs and introductory physics. I don't have physics in my courses this year so any notes would be helpful. Thanks!

Hello there!

I am glad you approached my ask box (or me).

Unfortunately I may not have the answers you might be searching, but I found Keith Devlin's book Introduction to Mathematical Thinking helpful as an intro. (It's neither a textbook nor is it exactly about mathematical proofs.)

Do my fellow math peers here know some good textbooks and want to share? Please feel free to reblog with some infos and references. (I would like to know some good books about mathematical proofs as well.)

As for physics I consider the Feynman lectures merely well-written.

[Caltech has uploaded the Feynman lectures as digital format/website:]

Another source I enjoy is Hyperphysics. [... although it is not a textbook either, but a good website]

It's a very neat and very basic html website with many good javascript boxes to directly play with some equations, as well as it contains well-summarized information and an overall good visualization and explanation of the concepts.

The mindmaps with topics (and sub-topics) are clickable:

Sub-topics are chunked into well-summarized: boxes:

And the plain/simple javascript forms are helpful for getting a quick intuitive feeling for the concepts when playing around:

(It helps me to make it compatible with my imagination. I don't know if other people might find this helpful as well.)

I consider this website merely neurodivergent-friendly, as it's well-summarized, well-structured, well-visualized, chunked, minimalist and quick-to-the-point, while also using very basic design, which makes it quick to load as well as more minimalist to look at - meaning less distraction and more focus for the depicted topics/concepts.

And you have an index window on the side which you can close:

[enderspawn]

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

[historyy]

The Oxbridge Applications Masterlist✨✨✨

I’ve had a ton of people both online and irl ask me for this, so here it is. I’m sorry its a month or so later than I initially promised but I’ve been pretty busy. This is basically a breakdown of the application process, some advice, and my experiences as an applicant for History and Politics to Oxford in 2018-19; because of that its pretty Oxford / humanities specific. I was lucky enough to have some great resources available at school but applying for Oxford was still daunting, so I wanted to demystify it and give some advice. Hopefully you find it helpful!

Personal Statement

How you write it: 

My main advice with the PS is to get started early, because Oxbridge is early entry so you’ll have months less time than your friends. Do a first draft of your personal statement in summer Y12. Mine was pretty much done by September and it made that early deadline much easier to reach.

Keeping a list of everything relevant you’re doing will be useful when you come to write the PS, as well as for developing your ideas for interview. My list was split into Books, Academic Papers, Extracts, Documentaries, Podcasts, Lectures / Online Lectures, Other Publications, Courses, Newspapers, and Extracurriculars. I also had a list of my particular interests related to my subject. 

It will need lots of editing, but thats what teachers, friends, and former applicants are for! I edited so many personal statements for people in my year, because they knew I was a writer and thus good at cutting words and finding shorter ways to express.

With your first draft, write big. Go way over the character count and put everything you want to in it, then cut. A few tips for cutting: 

Don’t waffle on about irrelevant anecdotes 

‘Such as’ ‘like’ ‘indeed’ ‘including’ are useful but overused 

Rearranging sentence structure can cut lots of characters and make your syntax snappier. E.g I interviewed a civil servant which showed me… versus Interviewing a civil servant showed me…  

Semicolons will save your life.

It will hurt, but kill your Oxford commas 

You don’t need to give each author / source a bio, assume the reader knows their stuff, and you don’t need to use full names / titles 

What you write in it:

With the PS, a catchy opening is vital; you need to show why you’re interested in your subject and why you’re the right choice. Mine was:

The 2015 Leaders’ Debate sparked my interest in politics and the language surrounding it, when I realised I was focussed both on what the debaters were saying and how they were saying it.

The best advice I got is to treat your PS like you’re narrating your journey with your subject. Start with why you got into your subject, show what you did following on from that sparked interest, then how you built on that action, and so forth. You might want to map this out before you start writing. An example might look like this (this isn’t mine, but assume its for HistPol):

Saw an exhibition on Renaissance artists - interested in social and political context of the art - researched Italian city states focussing in on famed patrons of the arts who were politically eminent  - read Machiavelli’s The Prince as is based on Cesare Borgia - interested in other theories of rule and governed/govt relations - read Locke and Hobbes to compare later theories and the development of these ideas - entered an essay competition about the development of the state citing Locke’s ideas on the social contract

Then you build on this journey, talking about your reading and research. Cite specific papers / books / articles you’ve read, and engage with them. Did you agree with everything they said? Or not? How do they link to other things you’ve read? For example, I wrote:

D’Ancona’s ‘Post-Truth’ with its discussion of disinformation and the collapse in trust also influenced me, though I disagreed with his assertion that the post-truth era only began five years ago (Orwell springs to mind).

Don’t just name drop books etc, actually engage with them, or you might as well not have read them.

In terms of what to include, Oxbridge don’t give a damn if you do Grade 5 piano or were the lead on your ballet show; you should focus your PS on the subject you’re applying for. When I mentioned extracurriculars it was in relation to the subject; I was editor of the school magazine, and I interviewed a senior civil servant on Brexit’s impact for it, increasing my understanding of current affairs and I gave a presentation on sexuality in the Weimar Republic at our LGBT society, exploring oft forgotten facets of history.  

I would suggest that only 10% of your PS should be about extracurriculars, and even those should be related to your subject, or linked to transferable skills.

You should end your PS with a brief concluding statement or paragraph which summarises why you want to study your subject.

Aptitude Tests 

I did the HAT so this is skewed towards that, but other tests are similar.

The aptitude tests are stressful but formulaic, so once you’ve worked out the formula and done as many practices as you can, you should be fine. You don’t need to get a high mark, only pass the benchmark to secure an interview, so it won’t be perfect. No one gets full marks; I think the benchmark for the HAT was 60% last year. 

My main advice on the tests is to go to all the sessions on them with your teachers that you can, and if your teachers don’t offer sessions ask them to hold some, or find a former applicant. Do lots of practices, starting not in timed conditions and work up doing them in time. Talk through your completed papers in detail with your teachers. If there are other applicants doing the same test, talk with them — orally write the essay together and bounce ideas off one another. 

Learn how to pull together an argument in a way which will grab the reader’s attention and show that you’re interested and engaged, and that you think outside the box and are different to the other candidates. For example in our HAT, the source was on a 16C woman’s relations with her servants, and I talked about her household as a microcosm of a class stratified and hierarchical society with moral expectations of servitude.

Basically, its an exam paper, treat it as such! 

Interview

The interview is, on the whole, more important than the PS. If you’re lucky enough to get one it means you’ve already done better than most people. I found the experience to be a mix of absolutely terrifying and weirdly enjoyable. 

I had two interviews, one for History and one for Politics, but you can be called to interview at other colleges. I know someone who had six…

The interview is basically like a tutorial will be if you get in, and there are different types (this is a bit humanities specific, sorry). You can get asked about your PS and reference, though this is rare. Extract interviews are common, for my Politics I was given an extract about citizenship. You can also get asked about your submitted work, as I was for History. 

In terms of prep, make sure you’re familiar with your submitted work and PS, as well as all the stuff you say you’ve done in your PS and your reference. You can get asked about any of it. Bring copies of these and your reading notes with you to interview so you’re familiar with them. Also look into some other key concepts of your subject, for example I looked at a lot of historiography, and in the interview talked about the concept of history as teleology and how I disagree with it. I think I was actually asked if I agreed with the Idea of Progress, having read on that a lot I felt equipped to answer it. 

Do as many practice interviews as you can. I got lucky as we had teachers who could do these, and I also did one at my sister’s school. However even if you don’t have that access, ask a friend, parent, teacher, a previous applicant, or even someone online. Even just talking about your subject helps. On the flip side of all this, don’t do so much prep your answers are stale and formulaic, you need to show you’re thinking on your feet. 

Both my interviews were only 20-25 minutes. My Politics interview was really chill, I had an hour reading time before in which I made notes on an extract and basically wrote a script for myself. The questions I was asked were actually given to me in this time so I had lots of material to work with. The man was really nice as well, and I enjoyed the experience. In contrast my History one was a disaster and I felt like I was being interrogated by the two women the whole time, though they were nice.

Don’t be scared if you screw up, in my History interview on my Tudors essay on Tudor parliamentary changes (which I’d been studying only 2 months), my interviewer was an expert on Tudor parliament, writing a book on the subject. This one question about groups of people represented strongly in parliament really threw me, and I went through three answers before I found the right one (lawyers). At another question I blanked for thirty seconds before speaking. I came out in tears and was certain I’d failed, but clearly I did okay…

General advice

Don’t be afraid to ask for help. Go chat to that scary teacher who told you your essay was too journalistic and not historical enough and just because you want to be a journalist you can’t write like one in academia (personal experience? me?). Ask them for advice and just talk to them about the subject! 

Leading on to: JUST TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT. Talking nonstop about History and Politics helped me know my interests inside out and it gave me a way to develop my speaking skills as well as my love for my subject.

Also, read. JSTOR is your bff for academic articles and Niche Stuff here, but you can find plenty of good books at libraries and shops. The A Very Short Introduction series is amazing for this, as they’re all really short and written by Oxbridge academics, I read tons of them. You can even just dip into longer books or collections of articles. 

Keep asking yourself And so? — take your ideas further. This was my History teacher’s advice for essays, but it works for PS, tests, interviews, and general critical thinking. 

For example in the HAT (I’m making up this example, it might have asked you what you could learn about social norms of a time from a source): You could say: The woman bosses her servants around but is subordinate to her husband so we can learn about gender and social roles. Or you could say: The woman commands her servants, yet remains servile to her husband, indicating the prevalence of hierarchical gender and class relations in the society of the time; her role as wife is clearly interlinked with her position as ‘head of the household’, which she is unpaid for. Viewing this through the lens of feminist theory, one can infer that an unequal sexual division of labour exists in this society, and women’s contributions to society are not appreciated, as when the husband ‘dismisses’ his wife. While her command of the servants shows she is elevated by her ‘great wealth’, her subordination to her husband suggests that a woman in this society was unable to further her position as easily as a man could. 

Don’t fret about choosing a college on the form, 1/3 of people (including me) get pooled. 

And finally, don’t set your heart on Oxbridge. They’re by no means the only good universities out there, and they’re not for everyone. If you’re not enjoying the research for the PS, or are finding the aptitude tests unbearable and the interview style uncomfortable, it might not be for you. But if you do decide to apply, good luck!✨

[oneweekoneband]

Making Kazakhstani Music / Making Kazakhstan Through Music: An Interview with Megan Rancier

Sadly, very few people have chosen to spend time writing in an academic setting about Kazakhstani pop music. But I found an exception for y’all! Her name is Megan Rancier, and she currently teaches at Bowling Green State University, having previously received her Ph.D. in ethnomusicology from UCLA for writing a dissertation about the use of the qyl-qobyz, a traditional Kazakhstani string instrument. (Spoiler: there is no qyl-qobyz in Ninety One’s work to date.) She also wrote a very interesting paper, “Resurrecting the Nomads: Historical Nostalgia and Modern Nationalism in Contemporary Kazakh Popular Music Videos” (Popular Music and Society, Volume 32, Issue 3 [2009], pp. 387-405), which analyzes, among other videos, the one for Batyrkhan Shukenov’s “Otan Ana”:

“Otan Ana” dates back to 2002 (and the video to 2005), but it was nevertheless, according to Wikipedia, the very first video played by Gakku TV when it launched in 2015, because “Otan Ana” is a big damn deal. Dr. Rancier’s article describes it as a “pseudo-anthem”. Shukenov died in April 2015, and tributes to him are not hard to find, including this performance of “Otan Ana” at an ethnic music festival in Almaty later that year.

It’s not hard to see how the song became anthemic, between the powerful drums and Shukenov’s strong yet controlled voice. It’s not hard to see how Shukenov, too, became a powerful ambassador of Kazakhstani music; “Otan Ana” is in Kazakh, but his previous group, A’Studio, had recorded in Russian, and become popular with such songs as “Julia” in 1991--in other words, just as Kazakhstan was breaking away from the Soviet Union.

And “Otan Ana,” despite its pointedly nostalgic-patriotic video, is a pop song, as Dr. Rancier notes in her paper:

The cinematic quality of the video and the reverential tone of the music and images creates a powerful “symbol of the fate of humanity” (Kasimzhanova 61); likewise, Batyr himself has described the birth of the child as an “embodi[ment], maybe, of the birth of our new state, the birth of life, its continuation” (ibid.). In a similar vein, the percussion that introduces the song—identified by Batyr as the ancient Kazakh Drum dauylpaz—represents, to some, an “an alarm call that wakes up the soul” (ibid. 62). Besides this one Kazakh musical element, the song resembles a conventional Western pop ballad: the melody written by Kazakh composer Kuat Shil’debaev does not contain noticeable “folk” or “traditional” qualities, Batyr’s voice is lyrical and smooth (with occasional Kazakh-style ornamentations at the ends of phrases), and the background instruments and percussion are synthesized.

Thus Shukenov looms large over Kazakhstani and Kazakh-language pop, Ninety One included; but, as we’ve talked about, there’s a fair bit of distance between the images in the “Otan Ana” video and the likes of “Kaytadan,” so I reached out to Dr. Rancier to ask her a few questions about her studies in Kazakhstan and the social and cultural roles of music she found there. After the jump, her answers.

What inspired you to study music in Kazakhstan?

Great question! And it’s one that I get a lot, because most Americans have no frame of reference for where Kazakhstan is, or what its culture and language are like.

What’s also funny is that many ethnomusicologists have stories that begin with them falling in love with the music or a similar romantic/emotional beginning; that is not how my interest in Kazakh music started! My story is much more pragmatic in nature.

When I was in graduate school at UCLA, I realized that Central Asia was the place where my interests and abilities aligned best. I actually already knew fellow grad students who were working in Uzbekistan and Xinjiang (Western China); so I chose Kazakhstan because it was the most politically stable country in Central Asia at the time, and I found that I could study Kazakh language in the U.S.(and Indiana University) and in Kazakhstan through a program offered by the American Councils organization. And fortunately, there was funding available for fieldwork in Central Asia! All the pieces gradually fit together.

Once I arrived in Kazakhstan for my first visit (to study Kazakh), I began to learn about a Kazakh fiddle called the qyl-qobyz. As a violinist, I was drawn to this instrument because the playing technique was more familiar to me, but the sound it was really drew me in. As I learned more about the qyl-qobyz, I decided to focus my fieldwork on its history, symbolism, and music. Later on, I became more interested in how traditional music serves as a resource for Kazakh popular music and musicians, and how nationalism and national identity become expressed through the use of traditional sounds in contemporary contexts.

A strong theme in your work is how music has become a venue to talk about a common ethnic Kazkah identity. can you explain that a little further, for readers unfamiliar with music in Kazkahstan? Why music? (And what would that mean for non-Kazakh residents of Kazakhstan?)

This is a really complicated subject, but basically the connection between Kazakh music and ethno-national identity starts with the Soviet Union, which took over Central Asia starting around 1924 (until 1991). Although Kazakhs have probably always identified their music as a marker of their group identity – as most ethnic/national groups do with their music – during the Soviet Union, this connection was made explicit and was intensified to the point where specific instruments, songs, clothing, patterns, and many other cultural practices were labeled exclusively Kazakh, and those practices became cultural “emblems” of the Kazakh ethnic group. The use of these cultural “emblems” was part of a larger project by Soviet cultural authorities to “divide and conquer” the various ethnic groups of Central Asia – historically a dynamic multicultural region with fluid political and cultural boundaries – by crystallizing their various ethnic identities and encouraging Central Asians to think of themselves as discrete “nations” based on ethnic identity. Even though Soviet rule ended in 1991, many of the peoples of formerly Soviet territories still conceptualize “ethno-national identity” (including various cultural “emblems” of that identity) in almost the same way that it was developed during the Soviet period.

Music was obviously an area of interest in the development of cultural “emblems” for each ethno-national group. Every Central Asian ethnic group had instruments, songs, and contexts that could be adapted to the Soviet project of fostering ethno-national identities. So you began to see specific musical instruments suddenly proclaimed the Kazakh national instrument, folk songs became adapted to the genre of opera and the resulting work became national opera, previously solo instrumental traditions became arranged for national folk orchestras consisting of folk instruments. The list goes on!

But as for “why music” – that’s complicated. Because music is performative, it undoubtedly facilitated the types of public spectacles that Soviet cultural authorities valued as demonstrations of their policy successes. The phenomena of folk orchestras and other “mass music” strove to involve as many people as possible in cultural activities as a way of educating and indoctrinating them. But music also brings people together, whether they are singing a song together or listening to a professional performance. It is an important outlet for emotion as well as a potential source of influence. The music of a people can represent that people; the music of a nation-state can represent that nation-state. No matter the government, state structures understand that music is a powerful way to move people – and sometimes states seek to control that power.

When you were doing your fieldwork there in 2008, how did you experience music on a day-to-day basis? What are the main channels for disseminating music in Kazakhstan?

In 2008, I mostly encountered music through live performances and through mass media such as radio, television, audio or video recordings, and the internet (although the internet wasn’t as accessible or widespread in Kazakhstan then as it is now). Live performances were a little tricky since you had to know where to find information about upcoming events; often the only form of advertisement was a poster that I might see while walking down the street!

Today, the main channels for disseminating music are radio and internet radio, music television channels, and online social media. Surprisingly, local artists in Kazakhstan do not seem to sell a lot of their own recordings in local music stores; they more frequently offer recordings at their live performances or online (e.g., MySpace or artist website). An important venue for performers in Kazakhstan is at weddings (toys) – which one of my contacts referred to as “toy-business.”

What, in your opinion, are the biggest influences on popular music in Kazakhstan?

Kazakhstan is in a unique position, geographically and culturally situated between several highly influential regions producing their own styles of popular music, including Russia, the Arab World, South Asia (especially India), and East Asia (especially Korea and Japan). Although physically removed from Kazakhstan, the United States has also heavily impacted its popular music since American pop music is so widely distributed globally. Kazakhstan’s popular music draws from all of these influences to varying degrees, depending on the artist in question. Stylistic influences such as hip-hop, K-pop and J-pop, Bollywood, and Arab “bellydance” music regularly find their ways into popular music in Kazakhstan; music videos by Kazakhstani artists also feature imagery from these places.

Russia is also very influential because it is Kazakhstan’s biggest trading partner; if a Kazakhstani artist wants to be successful, then they have to break into the Russian popular music scene.

So there are lots of different influences, and Kazakh music represents only one possible source of musical influence. In fact, the majority of popular music that I’ve seen in Kazakhstan emphasizes typical “pop” elements rather than explicitly Kazakh “national” elements.

In your paper you cited three different examples of "ethno-rock,” with varying degrees of popularity, “Otan Ana” being the best-known. How widespread was, or is, "ethno-rock" as a musical/cultural phenomenon? Also, can you talk about how ethno-rock dovetailed with official government policy--were the artists celebrated? Tolerated? Criticized?

Ethno-rock is still not a hugely popular genre (similar, maybe, to the position of “world music” in the United States), but there are numerous ethno-rock bands of various types still working in Kazakhstan. I don’t know whether I can fully explain why their reach is rather limited; people seem interested when I’ve attended performances in the past, but there doesn’t seem to be a strong demand for this type of music. Part of the problem may be that the music is seen as too “academic” or intellectual, as it is often produced by Conservatory graduates who have spent years learning about Kazakh music history, instruments, and repertoires. Not everyone wants to be educated through pop music!

As far as government reception, I can’t point to a specific policy that ethno-rock either supports or refutes. However, I do feel that ethno-rock has been embraced (if not outright promoted) by the state. I’ve seen ethno-rock performers featured at state-sponsored national holiday celebrations. More recently, though, I’d say the clearest indication that the state feels positively toward ethno-rock is its support of the “Spirit of Tengri” music festival, which features ethno-rock artists from all over Central Asia (and beyond). In 2017, the festival was held in Almaty for its fifth year; but it was also transplanted to the state capital, Astana, to be featured as part of the entertainment for EXPO.

I think the Kazakhstani government likes ethno-rock because it represents something that is both old and new, traditional and modern, rooted and globalized–which is what Kazakhstan itself aspires to be.

You referenced pan-Turkic YouTube comments on some of the music videos you studied. How much of a role does pan-Turkism play in music-making and music consumption in Kazakhstan? (To put it a different way: how big a deal is it that Kazakhstan is hosting the 2017 Turkvision Song Contest?)

To be honest, I think that for many Kazakhs pan-Turkism is a nice idea – inspirational, a source of pride in a shared identity (which is meaningful for Kazakhs since they often go unrecognized by the world community). At the “Spirit of Tengri” festival, for example, attendees and artists have commented positively on the shared heritage of nomadic and Turkic peoples, and you can tell that being part of this shared identity gives people a larger sense of belonging. But I’m not sure that it actively drives people’s music tastes in Kazakhstan (i.e., people probably would not go out in search of music that fits the “pan-Turkic” description but they would likely enjoy it if they happened to encounter it).

Regarding Turkovision 2017, I wasn’t even aware that Kazakhstan was hosting it until you told me! But I think that this actually is a big deal for Kazakhstan because the country seems to view any opportunity to host an international event or competition to be a chance for recognition by the world (which Kazakhstan still seems to strongly desire). And I’m sure that the government also relishes the opportunity to symbolically act as a cultural leader of the Turkic world by hosting the competition.

Finally: any artists whose work you want to tell readers to check out?

traditional music: Raushan Orazbaeva (a virtuoso qyl-qobyz player)

popular music: Aldaspan (Kazakh metal band), Lampy Orchestra (Kazakhstani rock band)

Central Asian popular music: Sevara Nazarkhan (Uzbek classical-turned-pop musician)

introductory post / all Ninety One posts