Critical Review #2

Shelemay explores the participant-observation aspect of ethnomusicology, proposing to discuss the role of the ethnomusicologist in the field and not get caught up in trying to explain the tangible aspects of tradition. He places a specific emphasis on the process of tradition transmission, suggesting that ethnomusicologists inevitably (and unknowingly) become consumed first-hand in the process of passing down a tradition. Out of this examination comes the issue of “authenticity versus creativity in the act of musical reconstruction and performance practice” (142). He highlights three important ways in which they are involved: “preserving tradition, memorializing tradition, and mediating tradition” (149). What struck me the most was the distinction he makes between an anthropologically-trained ethnomusicologist and an ethnomusicologist without primary training in anthropology. He highlights the idea of reciprocity, a key concept in ethnomusicologists understanding of their respective study, defined as the ability to take what one has learned and apply it (in performance or composition) within traditional constraints. Additionally, he stresses the importance of bi-musicality in the preservation of tradition, claiming that it is essential for the genuine recreation of an act. Whether their involvement spurs change or continuity, ethnomusicologists engage in subliminal acts, blurring the line between what is study and what is life. 

Discussion Question: In relation to anthropologically-trained ethnomusicologists who "ensure reciprocity and/or test their understanding of musical data they have gathered" (143), how does one achieve a healthy balance between being immersed enough first-hand in a music culture, with the intention of becoming "bi-musical", and the possibility that one may become too involved, trying to exercise reciprocity, to the point of it becoming a colonistic approach?