The Vanderbilt report on music studies. Just out - it is US-focused but gives numbers and percentages relating to the subsumption of the discipline of musicology into social justice ideology.
‘The 505 individual papers on the AMS program of the meeting (a joint AMS/SMT meeting; the concurrent SMT sessions are not included) were each coded for political framing, with 0 indicating no meaningful social/political/identity framing, 1 indicating that such framing is present but secondary, and 2 indicating that a social, political, or identity thesis is the central organizing frame of the argument. (Each paper was coded separately by three language models, whose codes were combined into a per-paper consensus; details in appendix D.7.) Nearly half of the papers (47.9%) were coded as 2 (with political framing as central); under a third (31.9%) were coded as 0 (no political framing); just over two-thirds (68.1%) carry at least some political framing. Indeed, many of the titles of the sessions made it seem as if they were more concerned with political issues than with music itself. Examples include: “Race, Nation, and Identity”; “Theorizing and Mythologizing Whiteness”; “Seeing and Depicting Queerness”; “Colonial Narratives and Negotiations”; “Colonial Perspectives, Stereotypes, and Caricatures.”
The papers were also coded along various political axes (such as race, gender, or colonialism); the axes question was asked separately from the framing question, and a paper can carry more than one axis. The most frequently assigned axes are race/ethnicity (25.0% of all papers), nationalism/migration (20.2%), gender (19.6%), and colonialism/indigeneity (16.0%), with a catch-all category for other dimensions, such as religion, disability, or climate, at 17.0%. The papers were also assigned a single primary scholarly approach. The most common was critical or cultural theory, at 53.1% of all papers; historical and archival scholarship accounts for a further 27.3%. Formal or music-theoretic analysis of musical structure was the primary approach of only 8.5%.
[….]
A related set of data (detailed in Appendix 😎 concerns the frequencies of certain clusters of words over time in the abstracts of the annual meetings of the AMS, covering 52 meetings between 1969 and 2025. The frequency with which the names of canonical composers are mentioned went down from around 60 (per 10,000 words) in 2001-2005 to around 12 in 2021-2025. This represents a roughly fivefold decrease. Moreover, during the previous period, 1969-2000, the frequency showed no comparable decline. Core music-analytic vocabulary fell similarly (from 45.6 per 10,000 words in 1986-1990 to 18.0 in 2021-2025), as did early-music terminology (21.4 to 6.3) and Schenkerian vocabulary (6.0 to 0.28). As explained above, the AMS is currently managing a crisis of scholarly integrity stemming from the imposition of DEI mandates on conference programs and publications.
There was a corresponding increase in the frequency of identity- and justice-related keywords: gender and feminist vocabulary rose from 3.8 (per 10,000 words) in 1986-1990 to 12.5 in 2021-2025; justice-oriented language from 0.46 to 7.5; scholarly race vocabulary from near zero to 5.1; and “queer” from zero to 5.3. Similarly, the frequency of popular-music words increased, from 6.2 to 15.5, as did the frequency of screen and media words, which were nearly absent before 1990 and stand at 13.8 in 2021-2025. In the period 2021-2025, one would be at least as likely to be reading a gender keyword, or a popular-music word, or a screen media word in an abstract of the AMS as the name of a canonical composer.’
@ivanhewett @SalemLola @amwilson_opera @carolinefrmus @carlgomb @epkaufm @jgro_the @HJoyceGender @Baroness_Nichol @IGMansfield @EdelaQuintaine @elladorn_ @verdur_in @Fox_Claire
cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wpfsx/…