Dr Ian Shanahan

57 Yates Avenue
Dundas Valley NSW 2117
AUSTRALIA

Sydney, 16 November 2015

KEZIA YAP: Report on BMus(Hons) Thesis

THESIS MARK AND GRADE: 67% = Low Credit.

The thesis is certainly satisfactory in its presentation. However:

A. Aside from her thesiss Appendices (which are not included in any word-count, and consist merely of
material concerning ethics approval!), the remainder of Yaps document falls considerably short of the
required word-count of 8,000 words. This is a serious matter. I decided, therefore, to examine it out of a
maximum 80% (and not 100%). In this instance, such a penalty is truly regrettable, because the content is
meritorious and would greatly benefit from being expanded: despite a small number of minor infelicities
throughout the text, her literature survey and case studies are thorough and wide-ranging; her analysis of
the results (Chapter 3) are quite deep and cover a broad range of relevant areas. Were it not for the
abovementioned penalty of 20%, I would happily have awarded this thesis a High Distinction 87% (i.e. the
67% grade plus 20%).

B. It is a relatively minor matter, but even in the thesiss Abstract, there is taxonomic confusion: Yap
presents electroacoustic as a separate musical category, when in fact it subsumes the other musical
categories that she lists Acousmatic music (i.e. fixed electroacoustic media, such as a CD), and Mixed
music (i.e. a mixed medium comprised of non-electroacoustic instrument(s) supported by electroacoustic
sound-producers themselves, in turn, either fixed [Acousmatic], or live electronics, itself either
predetermined or improvised).

Yours faithfully,

Ian Shanahan, BMus(Hons), PhD USyd.