Critical Review 2

Shelemay, Kay K. “The Ethnomusicologist, Ethnographic Method, and the Transmission of Tradition.”  Shadows in the Field.  Ed. Barz and Cooley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 141-156.

I found Kay Shelemay’s description of the active role of the ethnomusicologist in the transmission of tradition convincing.  She addressed the differences in the field work of anthropology and ethnomusicology, and ultimately she came to the conclusion that ethnomusicologists must reconcile the commitment to preserving musical heritage from the musicological standpoint with the reciprocity and responsibilities that anthropologists worry about.  After citing her own field experience, she outlines the ways that ethnomusicologists will inevitably become involved with the transmission of a tradition and then lays out a set of rules or guidelines that they should follow.   She effectively makes the point that the ethnomusicologist must work reflexively, acknowledging that he or she will have some effect on the people with whom he works, and that he must make conscious choices in his work, understanding their consequences at all times.

Shelemay mentions “concerns regarding reciprocity and social responsibility” on page 143.  She later writes of an “implicit contract between the ethnomusicologist and the tradition’s native carriers” (150).   What does this focus on responsibility mean for the field of ethnomusicology, and how does it differ from studying Haydn and Mozart in “historical musicology”?