Nettl, Bruno. 1988. “The IFMC/ICTM and the Development of Ethnomusicology in the United States.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 20: 19-25.
“IFMC/ICTM和民族音乐学在美国的发展”
主讲：高严夏子 专业：音乐学
作者介绍：
Bruno Nettl(1930~): 出生于捷克的美国音乐学家。1939年全家移居美国后，他先后在Indiana大学、Michigan大学读音乐学士、图书馆学硕士学位，1953年获Indiana大学博士学位（主修：音乐学，民族音乐学，副修：人类学，民俗学）。他从1964年开始在Illinois大学任教，一直到1992年退休，目前为该校音乐及人类学荣誉教授。除了教职外，Nettl还曾任民族音乐学会会长（Society for Ethnomusicology），并两度就任《民族音乐学》期刊的编辑，也曾任《传统音乐年鉴》的编辑。
相关背景：
ICTM（The International Council for Traditional Music)
该组织于1947年9月22日创建于英国伦敦，原称“国际民间音乐学会”（The International Folk Music Council）。它是以研究、实践和保存音乐以及舞蹈和其它表演艺术为目的国际性组织。第一次会议有28个国家参加。1981年，秘书处（secretariat）迁到美国哥伦比亚大学并改名为ICTM。
——资料来源于《新格鲁夫辞典》 ICTM词条
一：文章结构
w 引言
w 1950年在布鲁明顿（Bloomington)的会议
w 美国范式：Seeger 和Herzog
w 民族音乐学协会的建立：Merriam和Hood
w 学术机构、美国教育和美国文化
二： 文章背景
美国和欧洲学科的情况：二战以后，欧洲体系的学者流亡到美国，希望建立一种美国的东西：想和欧洲传统对抗，有意贬低欧洲传统，以民族音乐学（人类学）作为新的发展。问题是人类学看到整个群体的东西，但是没有承认音乐本身或个人的问题。因此我们要看到两者的共性。 这是当今学界存在的问题：欧洲学者仍用比较的研究方式来研究民族音乐；美国学者多把音乐看做文化中的一部分。这不是一个应该争论的问题。无论在哪个国家，只是用不同的研究方法，性质仍是延续的、不变的。
三： 作者目的
Bruno Nettl作为美国学者，些这篇文章更多的是从美国的视野出发，也想淡化欧洲和美国的对立。民族音乐学在教学和研究上的发展在美国民俗协会的建立和特色上有很多要做的，目的是支持这个新领域。希望能在这篇文章中介绍ICTM的作用，显示它与民族音乐学会的关系，试图看到美国教育文化的特征。
四： 文章主要内容
引言
通过讲述1662年为提高自然知识而成立的英国皇家协会为例，引出在1899年国际音乐协会（Internationale Musikgesellschaft）的成立为音乐学提供了国际论坛，并且促进欧洲整体的发展。文章旨在说明：美国民俗协会的成立、教学和研究，目的是支持这个新领域；ICTM在美国重要特殊的地位和作用，显示它与民族音乐学会的关系，试图看到美国教育和文化的特征。
1950年在布鲁明顿（Bloomington）的会议
Joseph Kerman (1985:159)最近一本关于音乐学的书暗示“民族音乐学在美国人之上发挥它的磁力。”这种特别的结果是将美国的音乐文化，阶级，政治，社会群体，宗教背景结合起来。美国从19世纪晚期在民族音乐学的研究上就有学术和机构的支持。Nettl觉得1950在布鲁明顿的IFMC的会议是一个转折。从IFMC第3卷的目录可以看出这些会议的研究范围和方向。这些文章大多是重分析性书写，轻描述书写。Nettl认为当时的IFMC不是一个致力于方法论和原理的会议。
《四本民俗的评论集》一书由IFMC许多会议编辑而成，Stith Thompson编辑。四本评论集分别是民俗的搜集，存档，可见，研究。这些评论集最主要的目的是找到保留濒临灭绝的传统的方法让人们对过去再次熟悉。这次ICTM会议全部的意图和目的就是希望能继续IFMC会议的脚印向前走。
以Marius Barbeau本人唱美洲印第安人音乐和Kurath夫人以边唱边跳的形式对她的论文进行发言为例说明：对资料和艺术的热爱，参与民俗文化和学术似乎是密切交织在一起的。
Nettl指出学者们似乎习惯于传统的学术会议，但他仍然觉得美国民族音乐中主要的分界是因为它能将描述的场景和实际场景联系起来。指出有两类学者：一类是以实践为主的民俗学家和音乐家；另一类是只强调理论的人类学家。这样2类人在1950年布鲁明顿的IFMC会议上已经有所显现。
美国范式：西格与赫尔佐格（Seeger and Herzog）
美国的民族音乐学就像其文化一样，很长时间内呈现出一种双重性，一方面是对欧洲模式和先祖的依赖，另一方面渴望独立地发展与革新。我们从George Herzog和Charles Seeger的研究中可以看出这种独特的范式。Seeger有着很长并杰出的作曲家、指挥家和学者生涯。Herzog通常被认为是将欧洲风格的民族音乐学带到北美的人，但通过折衷的手段，他也创造出了一种广为接受并影响深远的音乐学方法。Herzog这种混合不同观点的折衷手段对于创立独特的美国民族音乐学方法是很有必要及有益的。
Herzog的学习过程中出现了三种方法。巴托克、 Hornbostel、Franz Boas对他产生了影响。Franz Boas的方法也很具有融合性，Herzog跟随他学习人类学，这也使得Herzog能够摆脱欧洲传统的方法论，建立一种具有广泛的音乐文化观念的新方法。之后，他对美国印第安音乐的研究方法成为了北美的民族音乐学方法中一种标准的模式。
如果说Herzog主张折衷与融合，那么Seeger则主张独立与破旧。他们两人在20世纪30年代关切同样的东西，积极建立各种组织，将东方音乐研究协会（Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der Musik des Orients）引入到了美国，1934年该学会更名为比较音乐学协会（Gesellschaft fiir vergleichende Musikwissenschaft），并在此基础上短暂建立了美国比较音乐学协会（American Society for Comparative Musicology）。当Herzog试图融合不同观点以达到单一目标时，Seeger则毕生都在不断追寻不同的目标。
当Herzog坚持欧洲传统的神圣性，并通过融合各种传统进行新的学术研究时，Seeger则试图寻找全新的方法，强调它们的“新”而不是它们与传统之间的联系。这两种方法与思路都被后继者们分别延续着。
民族音乐学协会的建立：Merriam和Hood
Joseph Kerman将美国民族音乐学的最近三十年描述为两种观点之间的一场对话。一种是人类学的观点，以Alan Merriam为代表；另一种是更传统的音乐学的观点，以Mantle Hood为代表。有人可能会将Hood视为作曲家Seeger的后继者，而将Merriam视为人类学家Herzog的后继者，这种诠释并不一定正确。在美国的民族音乐学家中，学者是对音乐还是文化更感兴趣从来就不是一个很大的问题。Hood在他的出版文章中清晰表明自己对音乐的兴趣只是他对文化兴趣中的一部分；Merriam则更倾向于提供具体的音乐细节分析与诠释，表明研究音响是音乐研究中理所当然的一部分。
1952年底，协会创立者们偶然地相聚在了一起，他们计划通过一系列的步骤行动以推动美国以及世界的民族音乐学的发展。他们进行讨论后的第一个结果，就是将简讯（Newsletter）发送到一组可能感兴趣的学者手中——这其中包括一些欧洲学者——用来建立国际规模的学术交流。
为什么我们不能通过IFMC来做同样的事情呢？Merriam认为IFMC只专注于音乐自身，对于民间音乐研究而言具有局限性。而SEM的创立则深深植根于人类学的背景当中。
在20世纪50年代早期和中期，美国音乐学协会（American Musicological Society）偶尔会欢迎研究非西方音乐和民间音乐的论文，人类学家则在民族音乐学领域有着巨大的影响力。民族音乐学的学者领袖通常都是要有人类学背景的学者。民族音乐学领域很长一段时间内都成为了人类学的子专业（sub-specialty），它与IFMC是相对立的，因为它所采用的是完全不同的偏理论的人类学观点。但这样的状况通过50年代另一个重要的事件而获得了扭转，这个事件就是Mantle Hood在加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）建立了民族音乐学项目。
与Merriam和Herzog相反，Hood希望将民族音乐学作为一门音乐学家研究的知识领域。这包括对于艺术音乐的集中关注，对于音乐家责任的设想，甚至参与到所研究音乐的演奏或作曲中去，以及一种必要的特定文化的、非比较的、实证主义的研究立场。民族音乐学应该成为音乐世界的一部分，使各文明之间通过音乐得以交流。从这个方面而言，Hood的观点与1950年会议上一些民俗学家的观点是很类似的，这其中包括Alan Lomax。这两人对于Charles Seeger都是很拥戴的。Hood成功地建立起了一个教育项目，促使北美的学术机构将民族音乐学纳入它们的课程当中，他还希望民族音乐学协会成为一个真正的国际性组织实体。
学术机构、美国教育和美国文化
在美国，SEM和IFMC的关系以及ICTM在美国民族音乐学中扮演相对较弱的角色，指出专业社团在美国学术生活和高等教育机构中扮演的角色。美国的大学和协会都会成立自己的研究机构，在体系上是非常专业的。ICTM在美国扮演的特殊角色在某些程度上起源于学者、制度和机构间特有的相互关系。
看我们领域的历史不仅是一种反省。音乐文化的研究必须包括机构的作用，甚至学者的组织性。理解我们领域的历史思维将会不可避免的让我们参与到文化背景的研究，学者的文化价值和他们确立的机构中。
五 总结
作者以比较隐晦的说法来写此文章，其实更多的是从美国视野出发，也想淡化欧洲和美国的对立。欧洲民族音乐学者仍以比较的研究方式来研究他们国家民族的音乐传统，关注主要在历史上的收集整理工作，例如出版乐谱、唱片等。欧洲的民族音乐学现在仍以这些学术活动为重点；美国的学者有2类，即使Kerman所说的2种视野（人类学的视野和音乐学的视野）。Seeger和Herzog支持IFMC，但是Merriam和Hood是不支持的。在实质上，IFMC已有其组织系统，是“欧洲的”、“音乐的”。从这篇文章中我们可以看出，美国的学者在学术观点和成立音乐协会的出发点上是有不同的视野的。我们对待民族音乐学的研究要弄清源头，看到学科的实质，不要被不同的研究方法所影响。无论是在哪个国家用不同的研究方法，但是性质仍是延续的、不变的。
1 音乐学的研究内容和研究方法
方法学的不同：Hood直接对象是音乐，把音乐放在本身的生态环境中去研究；Merriam开始认为在音乐是文化的一部分，后来认为音乐也是一种文化；切入点的不用：Hood直接对像是音乐，切入点是音乐的音响，解决的是音乐的问题。解决不了再从文化中去寻找答案；Merriam后来所认为的音乐也是一种文化，在方法学上即使人类学的方法。
但是现在我们不能只单一的研究音乐作品本身的形态，应该把音乐放置在它所处时代当中，看出现在的音乐对当时风格的传承和关系。
2 学科的建立要有体系：必须要在大学里有教学体制和组织机构
我们可以参看Guido Adlers 《"The Scope, Method, and Aim of Musicology" (1885): An English Translation with an Historico-Analytical Commentary》。Alder对音乐学的学科体制的建设对欧洲及美国的民族音乐学学科建设起到了基础作用。在Nettle这篇文章的引言中就提到教学即传承。因此我们要想更好的成立一门学科，让学科得以发展必须要依靠大学的教学体制和组织机构。只有让学科成为体系，才能使学科的研究更加全面，才能使学科的发展更加全面。
曹老师是的点评：
这也是一篇从学会组织回顾学科历史中欧洲~美国关系的文章。与上一篇文章不同的地方是，上一篇文章的作者身为ICTM秘书长的Christensen，他必须从ICTM的立场出发，但因为他又是任职在美国大学的教员，故行文隐蔽圆滑；而Nettl则更多的倾向从美国视野展开话题。两人都试图在字面上淡化美、欧之间的对立关系。但读者不难从字里行间觉察到问题的存在。
Structure of the Article
Introduction
The Bloomington Conference of 1950: Division between the Doer and the Talker
American Paradigms: Seeger and Herzog
n 3 approaches
The Founding of the Society for Ethnomusicology: Merriam and Hood
Scholarly Societies, American Education, and American Culture
以下是曹老师希望同学注意的文章段落：
Introduction
p. 19
…association, discussion, exchange of information, and debate among scholars and scientists are essential to the development of scholarship and research. …the Royal Society contributed to the strong development of science, particularly in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and much was accomplished as a result of the associations therein formed. Similarly, the establishment of the Internationale Musikgesellschaft in 1899 provided for musicology an international forum and fostered the development of general European rather than simply national approaches. In the United States, the establishment of the American Folklore Society, just a hundred years ago, brought together literary artists and scholars, musicians, and anthropologists in a way that made possible the peculiarly interdisciplinary configuration of American folkloristics.
The development of ethnomusicology in teaching and research had much to do with the establishment and character of the societies whose purpose was (and is) the support of this new field. In the United States the ICTM had had a significant but actually rather special place. In this paper I would like to trace its role, show its relationship with the Society for Ethnomusicology, and try to view what has happened in the light of the character of American education and culture. 【文章的目的】
The Bloomington Conference of 1950
p. 19
的毛病。】
p. 20
…another publication that emanated from a conference which immediately followed the IFMC meeting and was thus attended by most of the same people: the “Mid-Century Conference on Folklore.” The conference was…a continuation of the IFMC meeting, and the book, Four Symposia on Folklore…is a faithful record of the discussions, including lengthy position statements, laying bare the purposes and attitudes of the scholars present (Thompson 1952). It tells us a lot about the issues of the time.
The four symposia deal…with the collecting, archiving, making available, and studying of folklore. The issues include…authenticity, the degree to which urban and modernized forms are to be accepted for study, the need to make “complete” collections; the study of the history of forms and units of folk literature, and the existence of the “folk” as a distinct unit. 【collecting, archiving, making available（出版乐谱，唱片等）… ——欧洲的民族音乐学现今仍也以这些学术活动为重点】Finding ways of preserving dying traditions to re-acquaint people with their past was a chief aim of these symposia….
If youll allow me to reminisce, the scene I perhaps remember best occurred during a paper of Marius Barbeaus, in which he himself sang examples of American Indian music. As he was singing, …Gertrude Kurath, moved to dance by Bareaus melody, improvising her art. And the next day, …one began to hear the singing of an Iroquois song approaching, and shortly, a dancing and singing Gertrude entered, sat down and delivered her paper. There were many such moments, at which love of the material and the art, participation in the folk culture, and scholarship seemed to be closely interwoven. 【这个情况在中国传统音乐学会、更多的在中国少数民族音乐学会的年会上也不时见到】
pp. 20 – 21
Scholars accustomed to traditional academic conferences might have been mildly scandalized by such goings-on, but at this meeting, no one seemed to have serious trouble reconciling these elements.… And still, I have the feeling that one of the major divisions in American ethnomusicology as it was to manifest itself later relates to the scenes Ive just described. One group of scholars – mainly those with an interest in the discipline of folklore and those who came from the world of practicing musicianship 【the doer/实践者】 – seemed to move between intellectual and artistic modes …. A second group, including some who came mainly from anthropology, might indeed love music and play it, but typically not the music in whose study they were engaged. 【the talker/”学者”】 And to them, the musician-folklorist-scholar might seem to be involved in frivolous folderol. It was such rather stiff-backed critics, however, who were later to provide much of the intellectual leadership of American ethnomusicology and who were among the principals in founding the Society for Ethnomusicology. Not many of them came to Bloomington in 1950. 【如此说来，Bloomington会议的“landmark significance”是在于它预告了“学术”与“实践”分家的美国民族音乐学发展方向。但“学术”是否便是如此的“纸上谈兵”呢？】
American Paradigms: Seeger and Herzog
p. 21
…In ethnomusicology, as in American culture generally, there has long been a kind of dualism between the dependence on European models and forebears and the desire to act and innovate independently. 【确实，欧洲文化渊源是美国文化组成因素之重要部分。这是不可否认的事实。但同时美国人又用各种手段试图摆脱欧洲的影响，树立“自己”。“美国”文化这种的“精神分裂症”使他们自我、自大、吹嘘、却又天真。故有“the loud Americans”、“the ugly Americans”之说。美国民族音乐学学者在建立他们学科的过程之中，不乏刻意低调化、甚至歪扭学科的欧洲渊源（音乐学和比较音乐学）的书写。这是我们在阅读民族音乐学的西方（北美的英文）文献时要警戒的】 In our field, the two sides of the American character had been foreshadowed by such figures as the European-trained Theodore Baker and the essentially autodidact Frances Densmore. But for more characteristic paradigms, we should look briefly at the work of George Herzog and Charles Seeger.... Seeger…had a long, distinguished career as a composer, conductor, and scholar. Herzog has frequently been named as the person who brought European–style ethnomusicology to North America, but significantly, his ability to compromise and strike a balance among them created a generally acceptable and ultimately highly influential approach. Not that the blending of views is an American specialty; but something like it was actually necessary for the establishment of a uniquely American culture. In the same way, I think that Herzogs blending of viewpoints helped to create one side of the distinctively American approach to ethnomusicology.
l 3 approaches
pp. 21 – 22
Three approaches stand out. Herzog began his studies at the Royal Conservatory in Budapest, …he regarded Bartok’s approach to folk music research as a kind of canon, a methodology to be emulated in other areas of the world, and he made use of aspects of it in his later research in American Indian music. He proceeded to study in Berlin with Hornbostel, working for a time as his assistant, becoming a disciple.
…Herzog left Europe without completing his doctoral studies …emigrated in 1925 and took up the study of anthropology at Columbia University with Franz Boas, whose approach to that field was similarly many-sided and syncretic. …his studies on American Indian music combined the elements of his [European] background and became models for the holistic approach to music that came to be widely used in ethnomusicology in North America. 【包容对音乐和文化的关注——对Herzog的如此高的评价，不见于其他美国学者（如Meyers之类）的描写民族音乐学历史的文章，包括Nettl后来的书写。】
…Seeger was a loner and iconoclast. The two had similar concerns in the 1930s, … helping to bring to America the defunct Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der Musik des Orients (renamed Gesellschaft fur vergleichende Musikwissenschaft in 1934), establishing in its place the short-lived American Society for Comparative Musicology. But while Herzog tried to get various viewpoints to bear on a single goal, Seeger throughout his career looked successively to different goals, from composing to high-tech, … from studies of a totally theoretical and philosophical nature to the most hands-on of technicality…. In his American character, the grand sweep of his mind, his occasional incomprehensibility, 【“occasional”还是“consistent”？Seeger的文章一向是难懂的】 the tendency to say simple things in complex ways…. His articles consistently provide new ideas as well as new contexts of presentation for established ideas.
So, while Herzog insisted…on the sacredness of the traditions from which he came, making new scholarship by combining them, Seeger sought for new methods, emphasizing their newness rather than their relationship to tradition. The two approaches were continued by students and successors, but for a short time at the meetings of 1950 I saw them brought together as Seeger and Herzog were both present. At that time, one might have worked to establish a strong arm of IFMC in North America. I have no idea about the personal relationships of the time, or of conversations that might have taken place, but it is a fact that this rather climactic moment in American musical scholarship was very shortly followed by the establishment of the Society for Ethnomusicology, an event to which Charles Seeger’s contribution was pre-eminent.
【3个方向：（1）欧洲传统（Herzog和Seeger都是）；（2）欧洲+美国（人类学）的综合（Herzog）；（3）自创（Seeger）】
The Founding of the Society for Ethnomusicology: Merriam and Hood
【注意：Nettl 这里用的是“viewpoints”——“人类学的视野”和“音乐学的视野”。（但是，Nettl犯了一个不应该犯的错误——误解了音乐学即是研究音乐本身；他应该再回头看看Adler对“音乐学”的规划）。在西方学界，“the anthropology of music” 从来没有学科的含义，只是民族音乐学研究音乐时采用的一个视野（viewpoints）而已，故“音乐人类学”作为“Ethnomusicology”的学科中译是有问题的。】
p. 23
Curiously, while Seeger and Herzog, in 1950, seemed to support the IFMC wholeheartedly, neither Merriam nor Hood ever did so to a great extent. 【当然，美国学者更有兴趣建立他们自己的王国；但这Merriam、Hood、Nettl等人，特别是Merriam和Hood之间不是一个“联手共建”的关系，而是各自自建，且互相攻击（较多的是Merriam对Hood的、和其他人的攻击。同学可以在后面Merriam写的一篇文章中看到他如何攻击他人）】
One of the pervasive bits of oral tradition in SEM is the story of the founders of the society, who met at the end of 1952 more or less by chance, and proceeded to plan a series of steps to further ethnomusicology in America and in the world. The “four founders” were Alan Merriam, the most activist; David McAllester, then a recent Ph.D. in anthropology; Willard Rhodes, long-time collector of American Indian music; and Charles Seeger, who seems to have acted as a kind of elder statesman. The first result of their discussions was the sending of a newsletter to a group of presumably interested scholars, including a number of Europeans, for the purpose of establishing communication on an international scale. 【所谓的“国际”，主要只是美国和欧洲而已】
Soon after, I had occasion to ask Merriam why one could not have done the same thing through the IFMC…the replies involved his perception of IFMC as interested specifically in music alone; the notion that folk music scholars were interested in only a small segment of the music of any society; and the idea that IFMC included a substantial practical component, that is, was in large measure a society of folk singers and dancers. The beginning of SEM was deeply rooted in the anthropological background of its most influential leaders. 【都是借口，实质上是，IFMC已有其组织系统，且是“欧洲的”、“音乐的”（相对“人类学”来说），不受美国人（人类学）的控制，更不是“Merriam的”】
So, while the American Musicological Society occasionally welcomed papers on non-Western and folk music, it was at meetings of anthropologists that special panels in the field of ethnomusicology typically took place in the early and middle 1950’s. The intellectual leadership of ethnomusicology rested …with scholars with an anthropological background... because of the broad view of anthropology espoused by Franz Boas and his school. The field of ethnomusicology might have gone on for a long time as a kind of anthropological sub-specialty, scorning IFMC because it took a totally different viewpoint from the theory-oriented field of anthropology. Yet this situation was modified by another important event of the 1950’s, the establishment of the ethnomusicology program at UCLA by Mantle Hood.
pp.23 – 24
…Hood wished to present ethnomusicology as a field that did in essence what all musicologists do, or at least what they professed to do. This included concentration on art music, 【这有误导的成分。Hood并没有排斥“high culture”以外的其他音乐。】 also the assumption by the scholar of a musician’s responsibility even to the extent of participating in performance or possibly composition of the music studied, and an essentially culture-specific, non-comparative, 【“musicology”是要做比较的；这与Nettl自己刚在本段前面说的“Hood wished to present ethnomusicology as a field that did in essence what all musicologists do”有矛盾了】 positivistic stance. Ethnomusicology should become part of the world of music, help cultures communicate through music. In this respect, Hood’s viewpoint paralleled that of some of the folklorists who appeared in the 1950 meetings, including Alan Lomax – except that Hood wished to concentrate on art music, and Lomax, on the “favored song style,” folk music (Lomax 1968:133). Interestingly, these two scholars, who have clearly disagreed at various times, both continue to maintain a strong allegiance to Charles Seeger. Mantle Hood, enormously successful in establishing a teaching program and encouraging North American institutions to include ethnomusicology in their curricula, wanted to see the Society for Ethnomusicology become a truly international body…
Scholarly Societies, American Education, and American Culture
p. 24
The question of an officially “international” status for SEM was first raised formally in 1965, when a large number of non-US residents were elected to the Council in the belief that this would be a way of giving the international membership a greater voice. The notion of internationalization, foreign chapters, and plenary meetings outside North America is still being raised in the 1980’s…【至今SEM年会仍没有在北美以外的国家召开过】
In the course of the 1960’s and 1970’s, many Americans welcomed the existence of two societies in their field, one principally though not officially North American 【SEM】, the other unabashedly international though with emphasis on European membership 【IFMC/ICTM】…the history of IFMC in the period since 1970 involves greater approximation of the services and publications of SEM, and greater participation of residents of North America in the management of the organization. American membership increased to …. But the large-scale participation of Americans in ICTM also has to do with changes in the services provided by ICTM, and by its movement from a partially amateur to an essentially professional organization, and by the role that ethnomusicology plays in the American academy.
p. 25
And so, even if there is an IFMC or ICTM available for us, we in the U.S.A. are likely to say, fine, but let’s also have our own organization, our own journal…. And let’s have overlapping societies; they will increase our support from the institutions which…will give us financial help. And so we have not only SEM, and its chapters, but the Society for Asian Music…. The system encourages American scholars to live professionally through their organizations.
Looking at the history of our field is not just introspection. The study of musical culture must include the role of institutions, and even organizations of scholars.
