SPEC Kit 347: Community-based Collections · 145
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
American Musicological Society records
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/ead/ead.html?q=american%20musicological%20society&id=EAD_
upenn_rbml_MsColl221&%23ref8
American Musicological Society records, 1934-1992
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/ead/ead.html?q=american%20musicological%20society&id=EAD_upenn_rbml_MsColl221&%23ref8[6/23/15, 2:33:45 PM]
library element of the field he devoted considerable energy to the proposed
establishment of an American Library Center for Musicological Research in Rome (see
also Music Library Association and Special Topics, American Library Center in Italy).
Richard S. Hill, the editor of MLA’s NOTES, was also active in the AMS, especially in
the committee on RISM. In 1975 Don Krummel applied to the AMS to endorse his
NEH Grant application for a Directory of Source Materials in Early American Music.
Arthur Mendel served on AMS committees and frequently applied to the board for
political action or reform, including appointments to NEH and the cutback on hours
at the Library of Congress. James Pruett of the Library of Congress wrote in 1990 to
draw the attention of the AMS to the copyright legislation which he believed
threatened musical scholarship. In 1954 Alex Ringer wrote to express his feelings
about the Howell Bill, then under consideration.
There were of course those members who brought problems and complaints to the
attention of the Board. Tim McGee offered the Canadian viewpoint to the Society,
and incited debates on the treatment of Canadian members by the AMS and on the
possibility of establishing a Canadian chapter. Alex Main, for some time a member of
the Chapter Fund Committee, wrote several letters in 1990 to enquire about the
AMS policies for selecting papers to be read at annual meetings many prominent
scholars, he argued, were rejected time and again in favor of less qualified
presenters.
In the years after its founding the AMS was forced to define the parameters of its
intellectual projects. This effort at self-definition necessarily excluded some members
and, as a result, splinter groups often formed. Some groups were formed to provide
an alternative to the AMS. As the head of the American Institute of Musicology in
Rome, Armen Carpetyan was a difficult correspondent for many decades. On several
occasions the AMS tried to form a lasting affiliation with the AIM, but with limited
success. While the AIM and the AMS did collaborate on the publication of the
Arcadelt volume, Carapetyan remained distrustful of the Society and often accused
them of exclusionary practices (see also in Correspondence, AIM, in Publications,
Arcadelt Committees, AIM and Affiliations, AIM). Gilbert Chase was an early
member who was heavily involved in Latin American Musicology. He too was
sometimes disappointed by the AMS’s willingness to support ties with other
Musicological organizations. The American Musical Instrument Society was another
interest group organized out of the AMS. Its members, notably former AMS registrar
Cecil Adkins, were often sensitive about what they saw as the AMS’s exclusion of
their interests. The Society of Ethnomusicology and the Society of Music Theory
were both created out of AMS membership pool, and often the societies met jointly.
Charles Seeger was a prominent figure in the early years of the AMS, but as time
wore on he began to associate himself more firmly with the SEM, which he had
founded in the 1960s Seeger and Strunk corresponded on the possibility of a
merger between the AMS and SEM. Of course the AMS looked warily at first on what
might seem to be a fragmenting of their unified organization. As time went on,
however, they welcomed the new perspectives afforded by these younger societies.
Throughout its history the AMS constantly renegotiated its ties to various
professional and scholarly organizations they both depended on the support and
resources of these organizations, and also wished to maintain their own separate
group identity. The American Council of Learned Societies elected the AMS a
constituent member in 1951. It is through the ACLS that the AMS expresses its
views on arts and education in America. The ACLS also offers funding to the Society
(see also, Affiliations, ACLS). The International Musicological Society was another
important affiliation for the AMS. They occasionally held their annual meetings in
conjunction with the IMS Congress, and AMS officers often served on the board of
the IMS. In addition to correspondence relating to their joint meetings, the IMS also
wrote regarding projects they helped to fund, including the Doctoral Dissertations in
Musicology Series. For many years the AMS was a member of the National Music
Council, until they resigned their membership in 1969. Through its contact with the
American Association of University Professors, the AMS maintained its interest in the
professional lives of its members.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
American Musicological Society records
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/ead/ead.html?q=american%20musicological%20society&id=EAD_
upenn_rbml_MsColl221&%23ref8
American Musicological Society records, 1934-1992
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/ead/ead.html?q=american%20musicological%20society&id=EAD_upenn_rbml_MsColl221&%23ref8[6/23/15, 2:33:45 PM]
library element of the field he devoted considerable energy to the proposed
establishment of an American Library Center for Musicological Research in Rome (see
also Music Library Association and Special Topics, American Library Center in Italy).
Richard S. Hill, the editor of MLA’s NOTES, was also active in the AMS, especially in
the committee on RISM. In 1975 Don Krummel applied to the AMS to endorse his
NEH Grant application for a Directory of Source Materials in Early American Music.
Arthur Mendel served on AMS committees and frequently applied to the board for
political action or reform, including appointments to NEH and the cutback on hours
at the Library of Congress. James Pruett of the Library of Congress wrote in 1990 to
draw the attention of the AMS to the copyright legislation which he believed
threatened musical scholarship. In 1954 Alex Ringer wrote to express his feelings
about the Howell Bill, then under consideration.
There were of course those members who brought problems and complaints to the
attention of the Board. Tim McGee offered the Canadian viewpoint to the Society,
and incited debates on the treatment of Canadian members by the AMS and on the
possibility of establishing a Canadian chapter. Alex Main, for some time a member of
the Chapter Fund Committee, wrote several letters in 1990 to enquire about the
AMS policies for selecting papers to be read at annual meetings many prominent
scholars, he argued, were rejected time and again in favor of less qualified
presenters.
In the years after its founding the AMS was forced to define the parameters of its
intellectual projects. This effort at self-definition necessarily excluded some members
and, as a result, splinter groups often formed. Some groups were formed to provide
an alternative to the AMS. As the head of the American Institute of Musicology in
Rome, Armen Carpetyan was a difficult correspondent for many decades. On several
occasions the AMS tried to form a lasting affiliation with the AIM, but with limited
success. While the AIM and the AMS did collaborate on the publication of the
Arcadelt volume, Carapetyan remained distrustful of the Society and often accused
them of exclusionary practices (see also in Correspondence, AIM, in Publications,
Arcadelt Committees, AIM and Affiliations, AIM). Gilbert Chase was an early
member who was heavily involved in Latin American Musicology. He too was
sometimes disappointed by the AMS’s willingness to support ties with other
Musicological organizations. The American Musical Instrument Society was another
interest group organized out of the AMS. Its members, notably former AMS registrar
Cecil Adkins, were often sensitive about what they saw as the AMS’s exclusion of
their interests. The Society of Ethnomusicology and the Society of Music Theory
were both created out of AMS membership pool, and often the societies met jointly.
Charles Seeger was a prominent figure in the early years of the AMS, but as time
wore on he began to associate himself more firmly with the SEM, which he had
founded in the 1960s Seeger and Strunk corresponded on the possibility of a
merger between the AMS and SEM. Of course the AMS looked warily at first on what
might seem to be a fragmenting of their unified organization. As time went on,
however, they welcomed the new perspectives afforded by these younger societies.
Throughout its history the AMS constantly renegotiated its ties to various
professional and scholarly organizations they both depended on the support and
resources of these organizations, and also wished to maintain their own separate
group identity. The American Council of Learned Societies elected the AMS a
constituent member in 1951. It is through the ACLS that the AMS expresses its
views on arts and education in America. The ACLS also offers funding to the Society
(see also, Affiliations, ACLS). The International Musicological Society was another
important affiliation for the AMS. They occasionally held their annual meetings in
conjunction with the IMS Congress, and AMS officers often served on the board of
the IMS. In addition to correspondence relating to their joint meetings, the IMS also
wrote regarding projects they helped to fund, including the Doctoral Dissertations in
Musicology Series. For many years the AMS was a member of the National Music
Council, until they resigned their membership in 1969. Through its contact with the
American Association of University Professors, the AMS maintained its interest in the
professional lives of its members.