Response to Jonah's Reponse!

I agree with Jonah's answer, "it all depends," but think that statement itself depends on whether or not you believe that music should be preserved or advocated for. He mentions two papers that outline the importance of advocating for the music they have studied, but warn people to do so responsibly, offering a few guidelines. In such a case, it is easier to say that these musics should be preserved.

However, the Back article on White Supremacy portrays a culture that is repulsive to mainstream Americans. Though repulsive to me, it appeals to a group of people who have chosen to make it their lifestyle. Beyond arguments of cultural relativism, I feel uncomfortable drawing a line between "objectionable" and "acceptable" music to study and I think that such a line is impossible to draw because when talking about music, you will undoubtedly end up in a conversation about culture.

It is very messy to have a code on what music is allowed to be "advocated" for, because the researchers we're talking about have an obligation to accuracy and to unbiased reporting. Jonah brings up a point that is impossible to avoid--it is impossible to avoid bias. However, you can reduce conflicts of interest. Furthermore, preservation and advocacy increase the chances for misrepresentation and blocking the musical culture from organic changes it would have undergone without intervention. Though it is sad when musical cultures die, there is merit in studying why it died out in the first place.

Qhen the academic writes about a musical culture, are they playing a part in its advocacy? What is advocacy really? I personally feel that explicit instances of preservation and advocacy conflict directly with the goal of accurate ethnography.