MSA Home > AGM Minutes > SGM 4/7/99

 Report
 Statement regarding changing the name of the Society
      For - Stephen Wild
      Against - Margaret Kartomi
      For and Against - David Symons

Musicological Society of Australia Incorporated
Special General Meeting
Held at The University of Western Australia, Fox Lecture Theatre,
Sunday, 4 July 1999, 9.00 am
 

REPORT

Craig De Wilde, Society President, welcomed members to the meeting and explained that, as this was a Special General Meeting, business would be restricted to those items already on the agenda sent to members in June. He confirmed that the Society’s Annual General Meeting will be held on Sunday, 12 September 1999 at the Riverine Club, Wagga Wagga.

John Phillips, National Secretary, proposed to the meeting that, in lieu of the more usual minutes, a report on the SGM should be written by National Committee member Jennie Shaw for distribution to members. This was agreed to by all present.

Present: Bronwen Arthur, Margaret Bakker, Michael Burns, Kimi Coaldrake, Craig De Wilde, Christopher Draber, Anne-Marie Forbes, Dris Kartomi, Margaret Kartomi, Elizabeth MacKinlay, John Phillips, Peter Platt, Thérèse Radic, Rosemary Richards, Peter Roennfeldt, Victoria Rogers, Jennie Shaw, Mark Smith, Jan Stockigt, David Symons, Jula Szuster, Judy Thönell, Patricia Thorpe, Shirley Trembath, David Tunley, Lewis Wickes, Stephen Wild, Carol Williams (Anthony Briggs, technician).

1. Apologies

Apologies had been received from: Roland Bannister, Reis Flora, Malcolm Gillies, Royston Gustavson, Jennifer Hill, Robyn Holmes, Daniela Kaleva, Jaki Kane, Steven Knopoff, Allan Marett, Kerry Murphy, Gordon Spearritt, Christopher Wainwright

2. Website Report

2.1 Website access and background

John Phillips outlined the current state of the Society's website which can be accessed at http://www.msa.org.au . Phase 1 of the site is now complete. John thanked Peter Campbell for setting up the entry page architecture, hosted by the ANU, but outlined a number of problems members had encountered in attempting to access the website. Following Peter's move to Melbourne, and in view of the need to develop the MSA website to a level where it could be of practical use to members, the Executive unanimously agreed to proceed with the development of the site by qualified professionals. Initial advice and quotes had been obtained from Annie Leverington of Quality Essentials and Theo Politis of Symagy.

2.2 Website tour

John then took members present at the meeting on a tour of the website entry page, home page and links. Annie Leverington was available on-line from Adelaide to answer members’ questions.

John explained that the first phase of development included relocating initial files to an independent server from which the site could be readily accessed, posting all of Newsletters 49 and 50 and completing pages for the links already specified on the home page of the site as devised by Peter. To the original five pages on the site, Quality Essentials has created and uploaded an additional 17 pages. These include the Society's primary policy documents and proposed amendments, the Draft Strategic Plan for the Society, recent AGM minutes, listings for the National Committee, Musicology Australia information, Newsletter contributions, thesis registration form, information on Conferences and State Chapters and subscription information.

2.3 Future developments

Once members vote on the issue of the Society’s name in September, John explained that the site will be relocated permanently under either www.msa.org.au or www.asmr.org.au with a link to the present site. Already, ‘msa’ (along with 60 related subject keywords) is currently listed with over 800 search engines worldwide and the American Musicological Society has agreed to crosslink to our site. John explained that there are many options for the site that would fall within the brief of the Draft Strategic Plan, such as the posting of Musicology Australia abstracts and the inclusion of much more information on Chapter events. Nevertheless, the Society needs to balance the amount of information it provides on the site to members and non-members alike against benefits and services which it should provide to members only. Moreover, while a commercially-developed site should reflect the MSA’s high professional standards and international status, the Society needs to ensure that the site provides sufficient information both to encourage current members to renew their subscriptions and to persuade new members to join.

Return to MSA Newsletter No. 51

2.4 Members’ questions and suggestions

Members present directed questions and suggestions to the Executive and to Annie Leverington. Stephen Wild asked whether the Annotated Membership List would be posted. Craig De Wilde explained that the Executive had unanimously agreed not to include the Annotated Membership List at this time, since this would require separate entry levels for members/non-members and would add unnecessarily to the cost of the site.

Stephen also asked whether the Society had made arrangements for the site to be updated on a regular basis. Annie suggested that a Society member should be asked to maintain the site. The member would need access to software with the appropriate html editing capacity and would have to be prepared to go through the usual lengthy checking process each time the site was amended.

David Tunley asked Craig to outline the advantages of an independent server over a university server. Craig explained that, in discussions with National Committee members, it was clear that members felt there were two key areas in which the independent servers excelled; ease of access (a priority to members) and accountability. The majority of National Committee members also did not want one institution to become associated with the site.

Margaret Kartomi suggested that it was important that the site be linked as soon as possible to sites of the New Zealand Musicological Society, the ICTM, SEM and other affiliated organisations.

Victoria Rogers questioned whether Annie’s analogy between the Society and large commercial organisations was appropriate, especially over the issue of possible changes to the Society's logo. Annie explained that the purpose of the website is indeed to provide information to current and potential members, but agreed that there were obvious distinctions. John Phillips pointed out that the issue of any possible changes to the logo design and its appearance on the website was to be decided by the Society’s membership after the September AGM. It was agreed to keep the issue of the logo distinct from development of the website.

Judy Thönell expressed support for the commercial layout and costs involved and suggested that the Society might follow the CIRCME model at UWA, in which students monitor the site in exchange for letters of recommendation from the University. John commented that the Society, unlike the UWA, was not in a position to do this, but that the Society would consider Judy’s suggestions. Judy also suggested that a site counter might be useful. Annie cautioned that a counter and many other features, such as chat lines and bulletin boards, might be options for the future, but are not justified expenses at this stage.

In response to a request by Stephen Wild re costs to date and ongoing expenses, John explained that Annie Leverington’s costs have come to a total of $2,144, including two months of site hosting fees, initial domain name registration and Search Engine Keyword Lodgement. Ongoing expenses at this stage are $49.95 per month, plus a moderate annual fee (currently $100) for maintaining the registered site name. Annie estimates that another $2,000-$3,000 will be needed to complete the site and to establish all links and email access points. Lewis Wickes suggested that perhaps future issues of the Newsletter could be emailed to members and just a limited newsletter text provided on site, thereby reducing site costs. In response to this and a related question posed by Margaret Bakker, Annie calculated that the 21 pages posted on the site currently use under 2 megabytes: up to 10 MB can be used without any increase in the current monthly fee, so site space is not a problem at this point.

2.5 Website thanks

John thanked Peter Campbell for all his efforts in devising the initial site and proposed a vote of thanks to Annie Leverington for her excellent work in upgrading and expanding the site so far.

It was moved that: The MSA website continue to be developed to a professional standard.

Moved: Stephen Wild      Seconded: Margaret Bakker         Carried unanimously

It was moved that: The Society authorise the Executive to spend a further $2,000–$3,000 to upgrade the website.

Moved: Margaret Kartomi    Seconded: Stephen Wild        Carried unanimously

It was moved that: The Society create a position of Website Coordinator to be appointed by the National Committee.

Moved: Stephen Wild         Seconded: Margaret Kartomi   Carried unanimously

3. The new MSA brochure

John Phillips commented that, while initial responses to the design and layout of the brochure had been very favourable, it had been intended as an interim measure only. The final design would be decided once the future of the Society’s name had been settled. Thérèse Radic suggested that the cover artwork needed to look clearer. John thanked Anne-Marie Forbes and her team in Queensland for developing the text of the new brochure, which had also been used as the basis of a “What is the MSA” page on the website.

4. Proposed Amendments to the National Constitution of the MSA

Craig De Wilde explained that the wording of the amendments was to be discussed at the SGM: the changes are to be voted on at the AGM in September. A two-thirds majority of voting members would be required for the changes to Articles to pass, a simple majority for by-laws. The full text of the proposed changes can be viewed on the Society’s website.

4.1 Membership year, Membership Secretary, Team Elections

Craig De Wilde outlined various proposed amendments concerning the membership year (Articles III and VIII), addition of the position of Membership Secretary (Article IV), duties of the Membership Secretary (Article IV) and election of the Membership Secretary (Article V, By-Law 1d).

In response to discussion following the 1998 AGM, provision has also been made for office bearers to stand either individually or as a team (Article V, By-Laws 1d and 6). No further discussion of these points was deemed necessary at this SGM.

4.2 Indigenous Recognition (Article VI, new By-Law 2d)

The proposed amendment reads: Indigenous custodians will be recognised at the principal place of all National MSA public events in a manner appropriate to the MSA and to the custodians.

Elizabeth MacKinlay outlined the background to this proposed amendment, which is intended to enact a motion passed at the 1997 AGM at the University of New England. In response to members’ suggestions that the wording of the original motion needed to be clarified, Elizabeth and Stephen Wild had drafted a “Welcome to Country” document, since ratified by the National Committee, which is posted on the Society’s website. There was some discussion of the wording of Article VI, new By-Law 2d, the main purpose of which is to ensure that indigenous custodians are recognised by the Society at Society events, such as national conferences. Craig De Wilde and John Phillips reminded members that the SGM was not in a position to overturn the AGM’s decision. David Tunley asked about the procedure to be followed if no traditional owners could be located for an MSA event. Elizabeth MacKinlay explained that it was quite appropriate in those circumstances for someone other than an indigenous custodian to welcome conference delegates on behalf of the traditional custodians. Society members at ATSIS, University of Queensland, would be happy to advise conference organisers in any case. David Tunley remarked that he fully supported the indigenous welcome ceremony that opened the 1999 MSA Conference at the University of Western Australia and John Phillips noted that the inaugural indigenous welcome at the 1998 MSA Conference at The University of Adelaide had also been a successful and significant event.

Stephen Wild proposed a number of changes to the wording of the amendment, but these were not seconded. Margaret Bakker commented that, in any case, the By-Law would have to be amended further if/when the Society elects to change its name.

4.3 Proposed change of Name for the Society (Article I)

The proposed change reads: The name of the incorporated association shall be The Australian Society for Music Research Incorporated.

Stephen Wild mentioned that the Society’s Long Range Planning Committee had met twice, once in 1997 and once in 1998. As a result of the two meetings a Draft Strategic Plan for the Society was published in the August 1998 Newsletter and discussed at the 1998 AGM in Adelaide. The document is posted on the Society’s website. One of the goals of the Draft Strategic Plan was to “project a new and modern image of the Society” by “adopting a name which better reflects its role as an umbrella organisation for all kinds of music research”. Members of the Long Range Planning Committee felt that the name ‘Musicological Society of Australia’ did not represent fully the wide range of music research activities pursued in Australia, even within university communities. There was consensus that the Society needed to become more inclusive, or the Society would risk losing current/potential members to other organisations that were perceived as filling specific niches.

While the Long Range Planning Committee had suggested that the Society change its name to The Australian Society for Music Research (ASMR), this had not been the only name proposed. It was also agreed that the name of the Society’s journal should be retained for practical reasons as Musicology Australia. Committee members agreed, however, that the term ‘musicological’ represented a barrier to inclusion and that the Society itself needed to be seen as representing more than ‘musicologists’.

Carol Williams cautioned that the Society would need to demonstrate that a name change could indeed make a difference and that perhaps the Society needed to research the issue further. Lewis Wickes suggested that, rather than a change of name, the Society should establish a number of subcommittees to represent the range of members’ interests. Jennie Shaw pointed out that, while this was certainly feasible in a large organisation such as the American Musicological Society, the MSA did not have sufficient members to risk factional divisions. Shirley Trembath also stated that, while she felt excluded by the term ‘musicology’—given that the term is often restricted in meaning to historical musicology—she believed it vital that the Society not split into sub-groups, but that a name change was a better solution. Craig De Wilde pointed out that the issue of the name change should be separated from any perception of divisions within the Society. Stephen Wild agreed: a goal of the Draft Strategic Plan had been to devise ways in which the Society could reach out to a wider range of music researchers. Patricia Thorpe pointed out that the term ‘musicological’ is not understood by the general public and this alone stands as a major barrier to general appreciation and understanding of our Society’s activities. In response to general discussion about name associations with similar societies, Stephen Wild mentioned that the ‘musicological’ link was just one of many possible links that could be fostered with other national and international music organisations.

Margaret Kartomi opposed the idea of a name change for the Society on several grounds. She did not feel that the change justified a break with the Society’s own 35-year history and the risk that the Society would lose some of its international reputation through the change. She also felt that ‘musicology’, as understood in Australia, represented a broad range of interests and was not itself a narrow or exclusive term. She was also concerned that a new acronym, such as ASMR, might be confused with that of the Australian Society for Music Education (ASME). The change would also be more than symbolic: there would be financial costs involved too. She concluded that any name change would have to be demonstrated to be for the clear benefit of the Society’s members.

David Symons agreed that ‘musicology’, as understood and practised in Australia, was inclusive rather than exclusive, but he had also come to believe that the name change was necessary in order to indicate the Society's intention to remain inclusive. He pointed out that ASME itself had, in its early days, also been intended as an umbrella organisation for all music education, but that, over time, it had come to be perceived as having a more restricted role: consequently, separate pedagogy organisations had been set up to fill perceived gaps. While he agreed that there is perhaps now only a perception that the Society is exclusive, he felt that it is time for the Society to address that perception.

It was moved that: Statements from Margaret Kartomi, David Symons and Stephen Wild concerning the proposed name change for the Society be sent to members before the AGM.

Moved: Jennie Shaw         Seconded: John Phillips         Carried unanimously

5. Proposed changes to the Society's Logo

Annie Leverington of Quality Essentials had suggested that the Society’s logo could be updated to reflect the goals of the Society. John Phillips reiterated that any changes would be decided by the Society’s members. There was general agreement at the meeting that a draft logo displayed on the Society’s website was not representative of the Society's interests. Margaret Kartomi considered that, if changes were to be made to the logo, the indigenous portion of the original design needed to be retained in some way.

6. Motions of appreciation

Craig De Wilde proposed a motion of sincere thanks on behalf of the meeting to Conference Convenors David Tunley and David Symons, Secretary Victoria Rogers, Treasurer Patricia Thorpe, Conference Administrator Jan Wood and the University of Western Australia for their outstanding organisation and management of a most interesting and successful conference.

The motion was carried unanimously by the meeting.

The meeting closed at 11.10 am.

Jennie Shaw

Return to MSA Newsletter No. 51

STATEMENTS FOR AND AGAINST
A CHANGE OF NAME

THE CASE FOR CHANGING THE NAME OF OUR SOCIETY

The Long Range Planning Committee was appointed at the 1997 AGM to recommend measures to enhance the long-term future of the Society. A Draft Strategic Plan was written at its second meeting, drawing on ideas discussed at the first meeting. Not all members of the Committee attended both meetings, but most attended one or the other. One of the proposals was to change the name of the Society to the Australian Society for Music Research.

The general thrust of the Plan is to modernise the way the Society does its business (eg by developing our then embryonic world wide web site), to try to project music research out into the broader world of scholarship and industry, and to make the Society more inclusive in its activities. The Committee was very conscious of the variety of music research carried out in Australia and the variety of locations where it occurs. It felt that the Society does not fully represent this range of research activities, even within universities let alone the world outside. If the Society does not become more inclusive in the way it conceptualises itself and in its activities, there is a danger that other organisations will fill the gaps and the Society will become increasingly narrow and exclusive.

The Committee proposed several strategies to enhance our inclusiveness, and we considered that the current name of our Society is in itself a barrier to inclusiveness of all music researchers. Within universities, scholars in departments of sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, history, linguistics, Asian studies and European languages may be doing research on music but do not think of themselves as musicologists. Outside universities, we do not want, for example, only the ABC to think of music research as relevant to their business, but also Triple J, Community Radio and a variety of FM stations. We want to hear from everyone who is doing music research or who might sponsor music research if we encourage them to do so.

It was for this reason that the Long Range Planning Committee proposed a change in the name of the Society to the Australian Society for Music Research. If the membership agrees to it, individual members may still call themselves musicologists if they so desire, and it should be noted that the Committee recommended that the name of our journal, Musicology Australia, be retained. In some ways the proposed change is symbolic, since our overall objectives and major activities would remain the same. However, the change would signal a shift in the way we perceive ourselves, from a tendency to be inward-looking and mutually reinforcing in our attitudes and practices to an outward-looking body embracing a variety of approaches to music research. Those who made this proposal believe that the continued viability of the Society may depend on such a shift.

Stephen Wild

THE CASE FOR NOT CHANGING THE NAME OF OUR SOCIETY

We should not change the name of the Musicological Society of Australia to the Australian Society for Music Research because:

It is illogical to oppose the use of the word ‘musicology’ on the grounds of its supposed narrow connotations and yet to keep the name of the journal as ‘Musicology Australia’, as is being proposed. If we don't like the word ‘musicology’ in the name of our organisation, then it follows that the word should not be used in the journal title.

The Musicological Society of Australia has a history of accepting any kind of quality music research in its rubric at its conferences, in its journal articles, in its student activities, etc.; it has never been narrow in its approach, as is being implied by those wanting a name change. I have heard and read papers in MSA outlets ranging from historical and systematic musicology to music therapy, ethnomusicology, music in popular culture, and other music culture studies, including gender studies, and this is our great strength. We have been able to avoid the sub-disciplinary splits found in sister societies in North America and Europe. Like the Israeli Musicological Society and the Musicological Society of Southern Africa, we have always thrived on the broad approach to music studies which we have adopted and our refusal to exclude any scholar or kind of scholarship  on narrow disciplinary grounds. There is therefore no need to change the Society's name so that it will be perceived as being broader in scope. Instead we should keep explaining to those who may doubt it that our Society is and always has been broad in scope, and encompasses all kinds of music research of quality.

If one segment of our membership, for example, ethnomusicologists or music-cultural studies scholars, wanted to have separate meetings, we could form specialist Study Groups within MSA, as in other similar organisations.

To change the name of the Society will involve members’ fees being paid out for printing and legal costs. It will be expensive, as all our letterhead, other stationery  and publications will have to be thrown out and new ones printed. Such expense would be incurred with little to no benefit to members and the results of the change would be confusing to libraries, other institutions, and individuals in Australia and around the world. To keep the name will promote the continuity of our activities over the decades.

The name change would confuse members of close sister organisations, such as the International Musicological Society and the International Society for Traditional Music and many others, who would have to learn that we have changed our name to something very similar in meaning. It would be difficult to explain the reason ; arguably, there is no clear reason (for ‘musicology’ simply means ‘music research’). No other Society around the world has changed its name, to my knowledge, and that is not surprising.

Indeed, the name change might make Australian music scholars look immature. If we are too ready to change our name, it may imply that we don't really know who we are. There is great value in our name, built up over 34 years of hard work and experience. The name of MSA was adopted in 1965, from the beginnings of the establishment of music research as a serious discipline in Australian universities. It took a great deal of effort and devoted service on the part of many members to establish and develop the Society to the stage where it is now. Do we really want to negate our past, or do we want to show our respect for our past and  build on its foundations?  There are so many substantial, urgent matters needing attention to promote and develop the Society and its membership, and a name change would detract our energies away from the important things.

If the Society changes name it will become known by the acronym ASMR which will be pronounced ASME, and will unfortunately be confused with ASME, the Australian Society for Music Education. ‘MSA’, on the other hand, is not only an  already well-known  name but it is also clearly distinguishable from similar organisations such as the ASME, IMS, AMS, ISME and ICTM.

We should beware of changing our well-established name without doing a lot of marketing research first to see what impact the change might have on our membership numbers, potential financial support, and grant earning potential.  Other organisations (such as AMEB) which have considered changing name have decided not to do so, because like  brand names, they find that it can be costly in terms of the support of its members or clients for the organisation's activities, indeed that they can lose members by so doing.

In summary, MSA is already an umbrella organisation for all kinds of music research and does not need to change name on the basis of the imagined perceptions of some, especially as others have different perceptions.  We cannot keep chopping and changing our name to suit everyone, and there will always be different perceptions attached to different words. If ‘musicological’ is inappropriate as part of the name of the Society, then it follows logically that it must  be inappropriate in the name of the Society's journal. If other Societies around the world were to change their names as is proposed for MSA, we would all be in a state of confusion and chaos.

PS. I was a member of the MSA’s Long-range Planning Committee, but could attend only the first, not the second meeting. In my view, the findings of the Committee are excellent, with the exception of the proposed name change.

Margaret Kartomi

FOR AND AGAINST

The arguments for both the retention of the name ‘Musicological Society of Australia’ and also the move to a new name are indeed very persuasive and well made. Both possible moves also have problems associated with them.

Perhaps, in our consideration of the issue, we need to address the question of how the Society may be perceived in the future—by both its members and potential new members—through the retention of the existing name or the adoption of a new one. One of the most important and valuable features of the Society has been its vision of unity and inclusiveness over at least its 21 years or so as a fully constituted national organisation. It has embraced the fields of historical musicology, ethnomusicology and music theory and analysis with equal vigour; and more recently it has welcomed such areas as jazz and popular music studies as well as gender, gay and lesbian and cross-disciplinary studies—all now producing significant results as witnessed by publications and conference papers. In short. MSA has steadfastly upheld Guido Adler’s early notion of musicology as an all-embracing ‘science of music’ with its many sub-categories and specific methodologies—historical, theoretical, cultural and many others—included within it.

By adhering to our existing name, MSA would in effect be reaffirming a commitment to this ‘inclusive’ understanding of the term ‘musicology’. Yet it is also true that there are powerful perceptions among professionals involved in music research both in Australia and elsewhere that the term is far more narrowly associated with the historical study of Western art music. This is especially the case in the USA where, of all the ‘sister’ societies with which MSA has equally valued links, only one—AMS—contains the word ‘musicology’ in its name, and this is the one which represents overwhelmingly the sector of historical studies. In the UK, too, ‘musicology’ has largely this connotation. The question is, therefore, whether MSA, by adhering to the ‘inclusive’ meaning of ‘musicology’ is going ‘against the flood’ and is therefore likely to become increasingly marginalised in the process through the rise of specialist societies catering for such research areas as music theory, ethnomusicology, jazz and popular music studies, psychology of music and others. Indeed there is some evidence that such  developments may be imminent. A fracturing of the music research community in a relatively small population such as Australia would surely be disastrous, more especially in a context of ever-decreasing funding of humanities and the arts.

So: should we reaffirm our commitment to the ‘undivided garment’ of ‘musicology’ in the hope that we can convince our constituency (present and projected) that the traditional term does not exclude anyone with an interest in, or commitment to, music research in all its manifestations; or do we now need to achieve a continuation of our inclusive ideals through an acceptance of current perceptions of the term ‘musicology’ and the consequent adoption of a more obviously ‘umbrella’ title such as ‘Australian Society for Music Research’? (As a name there would seem to be nothing objectionable about this one whatsoever – save perhaps the fact that an identical acronym – ASMR – already exists for the Australian Society for Medical Research – does this matter?) And if we feel strongly that ‘musicology’ is too narrow a term, why are we happy to keep this name for our journal? (Perhaps we need an Australian Die Musikforschung!)

Some questions to ponder!

David Symons