Challenge Question Response

Key to addressing the deviations from the normal ethnomusicological format is identifying the important elements of that norm. Ethnomusicology expects face-to-face interactions, a certain amount of time spent in the field, a group of multiple subjects, and sometimes participation in the music being studied. Additionally, when the groundwork was being laid in the early issues of Ethnomusicology Magazine, those doing the laying had no way of accounting for/addressing the internet. Each of the articles mentioned deviates from one or more of these expectations.

Whether these deviations are a dangerous departure or a positive evolution depends on both their motivation and effect, and really can be only considered on a case-by-case basis. Ethnomusicologists should deviate from the norms only when there is something unique to be gleaned via the deviation, and preferably this information or perspective should supplement a more traditional approach. The fact of the matter is that people mistrust small sample sizes, personal involvement, and interactions over the internet. Hinging an entire ethnography on any of these things is risky, but can be warranted. Sometimes the deviations are only practical ways of accomplishing the fieldwork. Asking Les Back to take a participatory role in White Power music, or for Kiri Miller to reach a large community of Grand Theft Auto players through some means other than the internet, or to discredit Deborah Wong’s work until she could find more Asian-Americans to corroborate the musical history of her subject would be unreasonable. The choices that these ethnomusicologists made were not motivated by laziness or an attachment to comfort zones, but rather practicality. Other times the effect is worth the deviation - Wong’s in-depth analysis of one person’s musical past speaks both to larger cultural trends and provides a mirror with which to examine our own methods and motivations of music consumption.

However, the guidelines of ethnomusicology, while in some ways arbitrary and flexible, are there for reasons. This unique structure of constraints is intended to produce a unique experience, and a unique set of results and perspectives. A part of that experience is a departure from one’s comfort zone and into a position of vulnerability. The process of gradual immersion enables the ethnomusicologist to communicate effectively with outsiders of the musical culture, but at a depth level approaching that of musical insiders. If an ethnomusicologist is deviating from the typical setup to stay within a comfort zone, then he or she is “just plain missing the point.” To some extent, if a researcher wants their work to be considered to be ethnomusicology, he or she must play by the rules of ethnomusicology, or at least make a best effort. If not, that doesn’t make the research not valuable, it just makes it not ethnomusicology.

In some ways, there is room for similar research outside of the realm of ethnomusicology. For example, one could argue that Wong’s article is not ethnomusicology because it is not “the study of people making music” but rather “the study of people (or in this case, a person) consuming music,” which is just as interesting and valid a field. It might even be more useful in a music economy like that of the mainstream of the United States, where there is a relatively small number of well-known artists/bands being consumed by comparatively massive amounts of people. It is just as interesting and enlightening to look at the other side of the equation, even if it means a separate field of research.