Again, again

That's right, revised again.

The complex and ostensibly contradictory beliefs within new music discourse, in combination with their polyvocal manifestations, encourage an interdisciplinary approach. In order to engage this discourse both critically and sympathetically, I combine methods from musicology, ethnomusicology, sociology, history, and cultural theory with my ethnographic work. My mixture of these approaches allows for a reading that addresses both the behavior of new music’s participants and my informants’ diverse perspectives. I embrace my own experience and perspective in order to show new music as intricately interwoven collections of sounds, behaviors, exchanges, and ideologies.
My approach engages too analytical frames with a “critical orientation” to examine broader contextual implications. (Prior, 2008, p. 303). In part, I treat theory as toolkit, a concept outlined by Michel Foucault:

The notion of theory as a toolkit means (i) The theory to be constructed is not a system but an instrument, a logic of the specificity of power relations and the struggles around them; (ii) That this investigation can only be carried out step by step on the basis of reflection (which will necessarily be historical in some of its aspects) on given situations (1980, p. 145).

Foucault’s call for historically oriented reflection encourages the adaptation, as necessary, of the theoretical models we employ. In other words, theory is not the end, but the means by which we demonstrate cultural significance.
My use of reading reflects the influence of anthropologist James Clifford (1986), who describes ethnography as a “partial truth” comprising both fact and fiction. I would add that all musical scholarship consists of partial truths constructed from other partial truths. In traditional musical scholarship, however, the dogmatic objectivism of music theory often promotes the goal of impartial analytic completeness and can hide the inherent subjectivity of the analysis and the music it treats.
Scholars thus often engage “music” as an autonomous object, free from external reference. Theorist Michael Kowalski, for instance, states in Perspectives of New Music: “Until willfully structured sounds are played by someone and enjoyed—as a structure—by someone else, there is no music” (1982, p. 6). Ethnomusicologist Henry Kingsbury argues that architectural terms commonly used to portray music, “such as ‘structure,’ ‘form,’ ‘level,’ and ‘bridge’” privilege fixity, “greatness,” and monument as crucial elements of musical value. (1991, p. 199). In Kingsbury’s examples and Kowalski’s statement, the veneer of written impartiality in fact betrays biases toward structuralism.
However, some of the ideas associated with structuralism can be reinterpreted and reapplied in useful ways. Criticizing approaches that restrict “musical structure” to form, musicologist Susan McClary advocates cultural consciousness and somatically awareness. She writes:

The power of music—both for dominant cultures and for those who would promote alternatives—resides in its ability to shape the ways we experience our bodies, emotions, subjectivities, desires, and social relations. And to study such effects demands that we recognize the ideological basis of music’s operations—its cultural constructedness (McClary, 2000, pp. 6-7).

Structures, both musical and cultural, prove fluid, encode power relationships, and speak to personal subjectivities.
New music’s cultural constructedness changes and reacts according to the subjective perspectives of those who produce and consume it. Like ethnography, the sociomusical domain consists of both facts and fictions, continually deconstructed and reconfigured. Something about three interdependent binaries that occur within and between classical and new music culture: traditional/ avant-garde, popular/art, modern/postmodern.

a revision

Did I mention the constant revisions? That's right, after spending hours and hours figuring what you want to say, you get to rework it all a few more times. Fortunately that part is way easier that the first part.

The complex and ostensibly contradictory beliefs within new music discourse, in combination with their polyvocal manifestations, encourage an interdisciplinary approach. In order to engage this discourse both critically and sympathetically, I combine methods from musicology, ethnomusicology, sociology, history, and cultural theory with my ethnographic work. My mixture of these approaches allows for a reading that addresses both the behavior of new music’s participants and my informants’ diverse perspectives.

In part, I treat theory as toolkit, a concept outlined by Michel Foucault:

The notion of theory as a toolkit means (i) The theory to be constructed is not a system but an instrument, a logic of the specificity of power relations and the struggles around them; (ii) That this investigation can only be carried out step by step on the basis of reflection (which will necessarily be historical in some of its aspects) on given situations (1980, p. 145).

In other words, theory is not the ends, but the means with which we determine meaning. Foucault’s call for historically oriented reflection encourages the adaptation, when necessary, of the theoretical models we employ. Along these lines, I engage my analytical models with a “critical orientation” (Prior, 2008, p. 303).

My use of reading reflects the influence of anthropologist James Clifford (1986), who describes ethnography as a “partial truth” comprised of fact and fiction. I would add that all musical scholarship consists of partial truths constructed from other partial truths. In traditional musical scholarship, however, the dogmatic objectivism of music theory often promotes the goal of impartial analytic completeness and can hide the inherent subjectivity of the analysis and the music it treat. Scholars thus often engage “music” as an autonomous object, free from external reference. Theorist Michael Kowalski, for instance, stated in Perspectives of New Music: “Until willfully structured sounds are played by someone and enjoyed—as a structure—by someone else, there is no music” (1982, p. 6). Ethnomusicologist Henry Kingsbury has examined the language of musical scholarship, and argues that the terms used to portray music, “such as ‘structure,’ ‘form,’ ‘level,’ and ‘bridge’” express social stability (1991, p. 199). In the cases of Kingsbury’s examples and Kowalski’s statement, written impartiality betray a particular partialness.

However, some of the ideas associated with structuralism can be reinterpreted and reapplied in useful ways. Musicologist Susan McClary, for example, has criticized approaches that limit “musical structure” to denote the form of specific musical works. Rather, she advocates culturally conscious approach in our analyses, writing:

The power of music—both for dominant cultures and for those who would promote alternatives—resides in its ability to shape the ways we experience our bodies, emotions, subjectivities, desires, and social relations. And to study such effects demands that we recognize the ideological basis of music’s operations—its cultural constructedness (McClary, 2000, pp. 6-7).

For McClary and Kingsbury, the ways we describe and engage music constitutes our own subjective—and thus partial—positions.

New music’s cultural constructedness changes and reacts according to the subjective perspectives of those who produce and consume it. Like ethnography, it consists of both fact and fiction constructed and re/deconstructed over and over again. I embrace my own experience and perspective in order to show new music as intricately interwoven collections of sounds, behaviors, exchanges, and ideologies.

More from the thesis

The two paragraphs below represent pretty much all I've done since Saturday morning. This is the beginning of my methodology section in my thesis proposal. I've been pushing pretty hard to wrap it up, but it sometimes takes me a while to figure out what I'm doing. (hopefully this will answer your question, Daniel).

The complex and ostensibly contradictory beliefs within new music discourse, in combination with their polyvocal manifestations, encourage an interdisciplinary approach. In order to engage this discourse both critically and sympathetically, I combine methods from musicology, ethnomusicology, sociology, history, and cultural theory with my ethnographic work. My mixture of these approaches allows for a reading that addresses both the behavior of new music’s participants and my informants’ diverse perspectives. I treat theory as toolkit, a concept outlined by Michel Foucault:

“The notion of theory as a toolkit means (i) The theory to be constructed is not a system but an instrument, a logic of the specificity of power relations and the struggles around them; (ii) That this investigation can only be carried out step by step on the basis of reflection (which will necessarily be historical in some of its aspects) on given situations” (1980, p. 145).

Along these lines, I engage my analytical models with a “critical orientation” (Prior, 2008, p. 303).

My use of “reading” reflects the influence of anthropologist James Clifford (1986), who describes ethnography as a “partial truth” comprised of fact and fiction. Indeed, I would add that all musical scholarship consists of partial truths constructed from other partial truths. In traditional musical scholarship, however, the dogmatic objectivism of music theory often promotes impartial analytic completeness and can hide the inherent subjectivity of such work. Theorist Michael Kowalski, for instance, published the following statement in Perspectives of New Music: “Until willfully structured sounds are played by someone and enjoyed—as a structure—by someone else, there is no music” (1982, p. 6). Ethnomusicologist Henry Kingsbury has examined the language of musical scholarship, and argues that the terms used to portray music, “such as ‘structure,’ ‘form,’ ‘level,’ and ‘bridge’” express social stability (1991, p. 199). In the case of Kingsbury’s examples and in Kowalski’s statement, authors engage “music” as an autonomous object, free from external reference. Written impartiality reads as a particular partialness. Along similar lines, musicologist Susan McClary has criticized approaches to music as autonomous artifact that limit “musical structure” to denote the form of specific musical works. Arguing against such “idealist abstractions,” she writes:

The power of music—both for dominant cultures and for those who would promote alternatives—resides in its ability to shape the ways we experience our bodies, emotions, subjectivities, desires, and social relations. And to study such effects demands that we recognize the ideological basis of music’s operations—its cultural constructedness (McClary, 2000, pp. 6-7).

For both authors, the ways we describe and engage music constitutes our own subjective—and thus partial—positions. Kingsbury goes on to argue that, “…musicological discourse is not simply talk and writing ‘about music,’ but is also constitutive of music” (ibid, p. 201). New music’s cultural constructedness changes and reacts according to the subjective perspectives of those who produce and consume it. I embrace my own partialness in order to show new music as intricately interwoven collections of sounds, behaviors, practices, and ideologies.

YES HE DID!!!!

(NYTIMES map at 11:19 eastern)
Barack Hussein Obama has been elected the 44th president of the United States. Thank God. Clearly race relations have come a long way, though I still think that race is a major issue in America. Still, THANK GOD.