From its genesis in 2004, Music as Performance (MAP) has taken as its charge the creation of a bedrock for an admittedly hybrid field that combines the traditionally separate disciplines of performance studies and music.Footnote1 If we generally concede that performance studies is located at the intersection of theatre and anthropology, then we can situate MAP at the crossroads of performance studies and musicology. Of course, scholarship can never be distilled down to such simple binaries. Philip Auslander, along with Richard Pettingill and Elizabeth Patterson, steered MAP into existence as a working group of the Performance Studies Focus Group (PSFG) of the Association for Theater in Higher Education (ATHE) in 2001 and expanded its scope over the last decade.Footnote2 Always aware of being between disciplines, MAP sought to embrace a broad theoretical approach to the central question ‘What is the relationship between performance and music?’
Philip Auslander was at the forefront of much of the early scholarship in MAP, looking at issues of the persona within popular music. It was in an article published in CTR in 2004 that he laid out his manifesto for this new field. He was ‘interested primarily in finding ways of discussing what popular musicians do as performers – the meanings they create through their performances and the means they use to create them’.Footnote3 While Auslander was certainly not the only scholar writing on music as performance, it is to his work that many of the authors presented in this forum look.
Featured in this forum, Derek Miller's article challenges Auslander's view of the musical persona as something rather than someone. Miller contends that the relationship between the human manipulating the instrument and the instrument itself complicates who or what is performing. Blending performance theory, musicology and technology, Miller hints at a post-humanist point of view in a medium reliant on human presence. Miller's consideration of how instruments can perform as technology hints at new directions for scholars in MAP.
The documents presented in this forum both continue MAP's multidisciplinary approach and demonstrate the discipline's continued relevance for popular music and culture. Sam O'Connell looks at the double persona in performance, taking Rufus Wainwright's revival of Judy Garland's landmark performance at Carnegie Hall as his cue. Keith Nainby writes about Bob Dylan, digging into the relationship between performer and persona over the course of Dylan's storied career. Moving from the concert stage to the family room, David Roesner picks up his gaming guitar to investigate the hugely popular video games Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Roesner's article poses the question of how music is produced, a question seemingly at home in musicology. However, Roesner tempers this musicological point of view with considerations from the growing field of gaming studies and, of course, the ever-present notion of the persona. Paul Carr takes up the thorny legal implications of performing music, specifically that of Frank Zappa. Carr's exploration of Zappa's musical legacy concentrates on who controls the performance of copyrighted music. Carr not only raises legal matters, but also queries the role of cultural inheritance in relation to the persona - namely, do Frank Zappa's children have special claim on their father's persona?
When Auslander made his initial call for music as performance to emerge as its own discipline, there was no established canon or accepted methodology for scholars to follow. The question then becomes: can one discern a canon or methodology emerging over the last decade? What is exciting in the collection of authors represented in this forum is that the answer to this question seems to be ‘not necessarily’. While these authors may share common sources, the manner in which they employ the ideas is not wholly consistent. Each author pushes and challenges assumed conclusions. The varied arguments and argumentation again emphasize MAP's complexity and richness.
The variety of methodology represented in the work of these MAP scholars reflects the multiplicity of views that has always been at the core of MAP. The ability to draw appropriately and respectfully from an array of related fields allows for new connections and ideas to be produced. The canon for MAP is still being formed. What music as performance and performance studies have done for scholarship is to challenge the seemingly impenetrable borders of disciplines. Whereas Auslander originally called for scholars to study what musicians do, the forays here into musicology, technology studies, and gaming challenge us to focus on how music and performance should consider the moment of interface and mediation.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Todd J. Coulter
This editorial serves as an introductory essay to the forum on music as performance.Notes
I would like to recognize and thank Elizabeth Patterson, who originally had the idea to feature MAP in the pages of CTR.
Music as Performance is also affiliated with Performance Studies International (PSi).
Philip Auslander, ‘Performance Analysis and Popular Music’, Contemporary Theatre Review, 14.1 (Spring 2004), 1–13 (p. 3).