Jay C. Batzner is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida where he teaches theory, composition, and technology courses as well as coordinates the composition program. He holds degrees in composition and/or theory from the University of Missouri Kansas City, the University of Louisville, and the University of Kansas.

Jay's music is primarily focused around instrumental chamber works as well as electroacoustic composition. His music has been recorded on the Capstone, Vox Novus, and Beauport Classical labels and is published by Unsafe Bull Music.

Jay is a sci-fi geek, an amateur banjoist, a home brewer, and juggler.

Mark Your Calendars

I'm defending my dissertation on April 4.

I'm almost done with my committee's revisions. I've been thinking a lot about the nature of criticism. Should I be making these changes simply because my committee recommends them? I'm doing most of them since I believe they make the piece better. In the future, though, I don't know how often I'm going to change pieces based on other people's critical remarks. It will depend on the person making the comments, of course, and the scope of the comment.

This whole process is so artificial. When else in my life have/will a group of people question my compositional choices and have some kind of authoritarian approval over the work? The answer, I hope, is never. So, the question remains: why have this committee process? Any other committee that my music gets in front of will either accept or reject the piece based on matters that will, usually, have very little to do with the strength of the score.

I don't know what we should replace this committee process with. Sorry about ending a couple of sentences with prepositions. This is the internet, after all. If I was writing to Strong Bad, I'd be more careful.