Shelemay 2001 Critical Review #7

Shelemay argues for the convergence of historical musicology and ethnomusicology at the crossroads of "Western Music," using early music as a specific example. She basically wants each field of study to do the one thing it has always been inclined not to do: for ethnomusicology, to study music not regarded as "other; for historical musicology, to study music and musicians in a present setting. She wants to encourage the collapse of Western/non-Western and past music/present music binaries.

In her specific study, she shows how the early music movement in Boston really is its own entity, existing in the current day, with musicians making creative decisions, forming a scene, reacting to demands of the current day and geographical opportunities.

Shelemay makes some good points about why her proposed direction would be appealing: finally bridging the gap between these two fields which would result in mutual gains, an intensely reflexive topic for fieldwork, and a situations where power relations are relatively symmetrical. But it seems to me that these two fields are fundamentally different because in each, the researchers want to focus on different aspects of the musical process. It seems like Shelemay is desperately trying to force this idealistic convergence between two fields that perhaps are separate for a very good reason, and want to stay that way.

Discussion Question: Do you think the binaries Shelemay talks about (Western/non-Western and past music/present music) can ever be collapsed, or are they here to stay?