In recent years, the neologism audiency has found traction as a direct counterpart to the term performance, not least among theatre and performance scholars.Footnote 1 It announces audience research that is inclined to understand phenomena of witnessing as action and as involved in processes that stand in a mutually constitutive relationship with performance. This contrasts with the more familiar focus on groups of people (‘audiences’) and their constituent role identities (‘audience members’). Building on existing work, this round table seeks to further develop the audiency perspective by applying it to contexts outside of concert scenarios and other events characterized by a stable separation of counterposed performer and audience groups. We propose that considering audiency as action and opening it up to a wider range of musical contexts, ranging from rituals to games and from work to healing, can bring a deeper sense of its centrality in musical life.
Our conviction stems from individual research experiences with music connected, respectively, to village celebrations, music lessons, and street life, in geographically diverse locations. Across these contexts we have found audiency as theorized in relation to the concert format to be limiting. In the scenarios explored here, we note a lack of distinct performer and audience groups. Nevertheless, audiencing and performing still occur, but distributed across the participants and in flux. Our examples highlight that audiencing is action which can shift back and forth across apparent audience–performer groups, and can even occur when such stable groups may not exist. In order to explore such scenarios, we turn to work by Erving Goffman, George Herbert Mead, and others who created explicitly interactional accounts of social life; these have, as a result, become key to our audiency concept.Footnote 2
What emerges strongly for us is the active and interactive, embodied and multimodal nature of audiencing, and how this produces the kinds of encounters we study. This potency necessarily takes shape in manners situated in the specifics of the immediate occasion, as well as the wider cultural and social context. Through our individual research, we have been drawn to the various ways people summon attention around musical sound and those who perform it, and how this integrates visual, sonic, haptic, kinetic, and other dimensions of the experience. We have been struck by the performative power of eye contact and gaze, the marking of beats and clapping, and the sharing of physical contact and dancing. We have also noted performative witnessing taking the form of laughter and calling out, the offering of interjections, comments, and vocalizations, and the giving of material and symbolic gifts. And we have experienced how the orientations, dynamic arrangements, and trajectories of bodies in relation to objects such as furniture, props, and building architecture are all consequential parts of audiencing. They are all involved not only in signalling approval or disapproval but equally in the showing of interest or lack of interest — in the latter, for example, through an aversion of gaze, a closing of body language, and a turning away or moving past. Crucially, too, all of these actions are not given unidirectionally, by audiences to performers, but instead can be made by any of those present. These more complex dynamics serve as an encouragement to look beyond these group-based role categories as a basis for understanding audiency in musical experiences.
As a result of these considerations, we feel justified to position our analysis of audiency beyond the concert hall as music theory. Many musicologists have for some time been embracing the idea that music is more than sound, that it also encompasses bodily movement, social interaction, and various other dimensions. Our presentation of a version of audiency that is thoroughly active, interactive, situated, and embodied develops existing audience-oriented theory to account appropriately for precisely this multimodality. We aim to contribute approaches that support the analysis of music as ‘more than sound’, not least through connecting music research to excellent work in various other areas of the social sciences and humanities, notably the sociology of interaction and sociolinguistics, and theatre and performance studies. Expanding in these directions is especially important at a time when the wider discipline is confronting historical biases in its preoccupations and approaches.Footnote 3 Situated and embodied audiency becomes a highly plausible point of reference for inclusive and forward-looking music scholarship.
Background in Audience Studies
Historically, audience research was pioneered in the sociology and cultural studies of mass media reception in Europe.Footnote 4 When the scope of research was expanded to live contexts, the focus was on the auditoria of Euro-American staged arts. With the general interest in performance, which since at least the 1980s has characterized ethnomusicology and related fields such as folklore and theatre and performance studies, live audience research also expanded to scenarios beyond the proscenium stage.Footnote 5 In this context, the understanding of music as a performative activity has been complemented more recently with the analogous notion of audience as activity.Footnote 6 This trend is particularly rich in theatre and performance studies, where a set of neologisms based on the verb ‘to audience’ have come into productive usage — not only in the form of the abstract noun ‘audiency’ as a complementary analogue to ‘performance’ but also with the gerund ‘audiencing’, analogue to ‘performing’.Footnote 7 Reason and Lindelof provide a relevant definition:
‘Audiencing’ describes the work of the spectator. It describes acts of attention, of affect, of meaning-making, of memory, of community. A focus on audiencing recognizes that attention is a constructive or performative act, that spectators bring performances into being through the nature of their variously active, distractive or contested attention.Footnote 8
Much valuable research on audiencing in the fields of theatre/performance studies and musicology has focused on concert contexts.Footnote 9 In music ethnography, various studies describe concert audiences in rock, folk, jazz, Euro-American classical music, qawwali, and North Indian art music as performing participatory interaction.Footnote 10 This interpretation implies ‘challenging the idea that presentational arts are the passive counterpart to active participatory engagement’Footnote 11 and denying an ‘ontological distinction between passive and active participation, or between presentational and participatory performance’.Footnote 12
Despite the undeniable value this existing research has generated, we emphasize the need to theorize and study audiencing and audiency also in the multitude of musical encounters where the delineation of an audience as a stable and separate subgroup of participants is either absent or insufficient for fully understanding the scenario. This is the case, for instance, in many genres of celebration, ritual, healing, ambient, work, marching, and dance music, as well as in musical games, teaching, and rehearsal. Important work in this direction has been offered in contributions to the volume Musicians and their Audiences, edited by Ioannis Tsioulakis and Elina Hytönen-Ng, for example Bruce Johnson’s theoretical contribution on the concept of ‘vernacular performance’, Mary Louise O’Donnell and Jonathan Henderson’s piece on music in restaurants and hotels humorously labelled a ‘survivor’s guide’, and Hillegonda Rietveld’s chapter on electronic dance music events.Footnote 13 Other relevant work includes Joseph Browning’s study on engagements with an outdoor sound art installation, research on West African drum/dance performance genres by Daniel Avorgbedor and Rainer Polak, and Edward Schieffelin’s ethnography of Kaluli spirit seances in Papua New Guinea.Footnote 14 Relevant contributions are also found in work taking a broader interest in non-musical sounds and contexts: Stefan Krebs notes how social relations between motorists and mechanics are forged by different ways of performing engagement with cars’ mechanical sounds, while Susan L. Brooks advocates a relational ‘whole body listening’ as crucial for legal professionals to develop ‘mutual recognition and affirmation’ with their clients.Footnote 15 In musicology, however, examples of these kinds, where boundaries between audience and performer groups are unclear or in flux, are overwhelmed by the mass of studies based in concert contexts; as a result, we suggest that the theoretical implications of audiency in non-concert contexts deserve further exploration.
In this round table, we develop a notion of audiency that starts by acknowledging the ontological status of audiencing as an activity or a series of actions, while also highlighting the potential for audiencing to occur outside of role-segregated concert scenarios and to nonetheless fulfil its key social function of co-constructing performance. In what follows, we build such a concept by proposing a set of working positions distilled from both humanities scholarship and social science research, particularly Goffman’s influential contributions to the sociology of interaction.
Four Theoretical Stances
Following established views in the field of performance studies, we see performance as the display of some utterance or gesture intended for audiency, and audiency as the granting of attention, something which might involve, for example, constructing meaning, judging competency, and providing feedback.Footnote 16 As we develop audiency through and for contexts beyond the concert hall, we draw out four theoretical stances that crystallize the value we find in looking to this kind of musical encounter. Most of what we say here is not revolutionary; the concepts we use exist individually elsewhere. Our contribution lies in drawing these ideas together, and doing this in a way that makes the resulting audiency concept suitable also for the exploration of musical interactions beyond those with clearly defined audience and performer groups, where audiencing and performing nevertheless takes place.
Position 1: Audiency is fundamentally embodied, multimodal, and situated
Our first position concerns the embodied, multimodal, and situated nature of audiency. With embodied, we mean to emphasize the physicality of audiency, the ways in which it relies on experiencing, thinking, and acting through the body. The term multimodal has been used variously in different fields. Interaction and communication studies tend to use it with reference to the integration of expressive modes such as gesture, speech, dance, writing, and drawing. On the other hand, psychology and cognitive sciences employ the word to refer to relations among different sensory modes — for instance, the haptic, kinaesthetic, auditory, visual, and olfactory. With our usage, we aim to highlight both senses, referring to the expressively and sensorially joined-up character of human interaction, communication, and experience.Footnote 17 Finally, we discuss the situated nature of audiency to highlight the embeddedness of action within the immediate occasion as well as within the wider cultural and social context. These manifestations of embodied and multimodal interacting intertwine with complex pictures of conventions, influences, discourses, and contestations specific to the contexts being studied. The interaction we approach through the lens of audiency is shaped by, and serves in the construction of, an almost limitless range of context-specific factors, from how perceived commonalities and differences (ethnic, gender, political, and cultural affinities) are valued, to the histories of people and genres, to the functions of particular interactions in ritual occasions or in broader group life, among many others. Thus forms of action such as, for instance, dancing can mean different things depending on their wider context. One important element of this is the performance genre to which the dancing responds; compare a rock music gig (where dancing is invited), an art music concert (where dancing may appear a transgressive provocation), and a dance club night (where dancing is the norm and it is not dancing that might require justification). The same act of dancing, however, can also mean different things within one particular performance genre, depending on the narrower context. This level of factors may involve, among other things, the preoccupations and whims of participants, the prevailing atmospheric conditions, the influence of current affairs, and the intangible variations that may make an occasion erupt one day and fall flat the next. Think of a wedding celebration where different meanings can emerge when the newlyweds dance, leading perhaps to a feeling of pride for the parent of a dancer, or nostalgia and regret for an ex-partner.
Position 2: Performance and audiency mutually constitute each other
Our second position concerns the complementarity of performance and audiency as a tandem of two mutually constitutive action roles. The activity constituting audiency is not only the perceiving and receiving of performed utterances and gestures, as models of simplistic one-way communication (from sender to receiver) may suggest; through its dynamic interactions, audiency also generates the public focus and embodies the social witnessing, recognizing, and validating that define which acts in which situations are considered a performance. This was expressed in Karin Barber’s dictum that ‘performance constitutes audiences, and vice versa’.Footnote 18 The tweak we think Barber’s statement needs is that performance constitutes audiency (not ‘audiences’), and vice versa; more on this difference below, in our third proposition.
While a performance clearly presupposes audiency, it may be disputed whether audiency also presupposes a performance as a necessary condition. Specifically, it has been widely held that the media presentation of recorded performances does not constitute a performance per se. Peggy Phelan, for example, argues that the power of performance lies in the liveness associated with physical co-presence.Footnote 19 By this logic, co-present performance is not a necessary condition of audiency, since pre-produced media presentations such as the screening of a film in a movie theatre are not live performances but nonetheless may well stimulate and encourage strong audiencing responses. Audiency, then, may apparently exist without co-present performance. But the very link between the notion of performance and co-presence has also been challenged: Philip Auslander is one of several scholars to have argued that the reception of studio recordings or media that document live performances can reactivate and realize (make experientially present and real) the intentions of recorded performers and the liveness of performances.Footnote 20 This suggests that media can act as performances and that the distinction and exclusion of media from the concept of performance is arbitrary. In this view, the fully symmetrical complementarity of performance and audiency — performance constituting audiency and audiency constituting performance — could exist without physical co-presence. To be sure, there are crucial differences in the relationships between performance and audiency in face-to-face versus mediatized encounters. For example, while performance is characterized by performers assuming a responsibility for their auditors, the inverse relationship, that auditors are responsible for their performers, will tend to be experienced to a stronger degree when the latter are co-present.Footnote 21 This is the aspect that led Goffman, in his sociology of interaction, to strongly emphasize the special nature of face-to-face situations.Footnote 22 While acknowledging such differences and Goffman’s emphasis in particular, we nevertheless sympathize with Auslander’s deconstruction of a strict distinction between live and mediatized performance. This is not least because we want to adopt here an inclusive theoretical perspective that allows us to first consider as broad a range of musical encounters as possible, including mediatized ones, and to discuss the implications of this distinction for the relationship between audiency and performance, rather than excluding it a priori from our consideration.
Position 3: Audiency is performative
Our third position is that audiencing itself, too, is an action that is performative, in the sense of being a role that needs to be played by some and that realizes parts of its functionality only by being recognized by others. Performativity, as introduced to linguistics by J. L. Austin, was initially about a category of oral expressive acts where the very ‘issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action’.Footnote 23 The classic example of a wedding official saying ‘I declare you married’ brings the situation it describes (the legal union of two people) into being by very dint of it being spoken. Performativity is also the notion behind Judith Butler’s famous work in gender theory, which suggests that people’s gender identities are constructed in everyday performance ‘through a stylized repetition of acts’.Footnote 24 Awareness of those nascent identities itself feeds back into how people perform in gendered ways. We evoke a similar circularity when we say audiency is performative: audiency emerges not, as may be intuitive, as a complement to something pre-existing (often a performance); rather, it helps to bring into being the very condition (the performance) upon which its own meaning depends. The concepts of performance and audiency that emerge from this process, then, are relational and dynamic: each act of audiency is also a performance that shifts the context within which subsequent actions and interactions arise. This resonates with Mead’s theorizing of social interaction as chains of actions or ‘gestures’, each of which shifts the context by calling forth a response in the other person, thus making adjustment to the other possible in any given scenario.Footnote 25 Thus the concepts of performance and audiency explored here do not refer to stable structures between predefined social groups but to dynamic relationships between roles in interaction.
Position 4: Audiency does not depend on a separate audience group
The fourth working position we advocate involves a notion of audiency that does not depend on ‘the’ audience understood as a distinct group, as may be found in the staged arts or concert contexts (although this distinction is challenged in certain kinds of ‘participatory’ staged arts). A key field of reference is found in the social sciences, specifically in the micro-sociology of interaction. Here we refer to Goffman’s radical view that all social interaction is presentational in the sense that it involves information being made available to other participants in the situation, or, to rephrase it for our purposes, that it is intended for audiency. Footnote 26 Goffman suggested that face-to-face social interaction is special in that it is evident to the participants that everyone can observe and be observed by each other. Based on participants’ wish to keep face, this activates a strong motivation for impression management: to present myself in public is to control the impression that those around me take from my behaviour, based on how I think they perceive it.Footnote 27 Furthermore, such impression management can be used to support the social role assumed by the performer.Footnote 28 Since other players are involved in this game in the same way, and both they and I are usually aware of this fact, mutual and recursive entanglement is a fundamental constituent of social interaction in public situations.Footnote 29
Goffman used the realm of theatrical performance as a source of metaphors (e.g. performance, role, front and backstage, audience), helping him illustrate the reciprocal relationship between performance and audiency in many, if not most, forms of public-focused interaction. This goes far beyond the staged arts, to include situations as mundane as a visit to the doctor or the purchase of a ticket at a box office. He showed that the absence of a separate audience in such activities does not mean that audiency is irrelevant; on the contrary, in such situations it is the performers who audience their co-performers. The foreword to Goffman’s first monograph, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), contains an early statement of this insight:
On the stage one player presents himself in the guise of a character to characters projected by other players. The audience constitutes a third party to the interaction — one that is essential and yet, if the stage performance were real, one that would not be there. In real life, the three parties are compressed into two; the part one individual plays is tailored to the parts played by the others present, and yet these others also constitute the audience.Footnote 30
Goffman was not the first social theorist to use metaphors from the world of the staged arts. The most fundamental of such metaphors, as used in social theory from the late nineteenth century (for instance by Ferdinand Tönnies and Georg Simmel), are probably ‘person’ and ‘role’. A direct influence on Goffman was Mead’s pragmatist theory of selfhood as constituted in the context of social interaction.Footnote 31 Mead emphasized the critical importance of role-taking, by which he meant that agents in social interaction inevitably internalize their interaction partners’ perspectives on their own role performance: as explained by Charles W. Morris in his introduction to Mead’s Mind, Self and Society, ‘the human individual regulates his part in the social act through having within himself the roles of the others implicated in the common activity’.Footnote 32 Many decades after Mead and Goffman, Michael Tomasello’s currently influential developmental-psychological theory of social cognition still strongly relates to the concept of role performance and Mead’s position on perspective-taking in particular.Footnote 33
Indeed, contemporary common language has subsequently adopted numerous examples of naturalized dramaturgical metaphors; ‘to set the stage’ for a comeback or for an election is just one example. These various metaphorical uses all exemplify concepts from the field of staged performance arts being deployed to describe general social role performance, where typically there is no segregated audience. Our argument hinges on the theoretical benefits to be derived from reappropriating concepts originally borrowed in this way, together with their more dynamic interpretation as found in the work of Goffman and other social theorists. Redeploying metaphors now commonly applied to general interaction and communication — for instance those describing audiency-oriented intentionality and the addressivity of utterances — carries great potential when reflected back upon the context of musical encounters. More than half a century after Goffman’s key publications, there is still work to do in channelling fundamental insights from interaction sociology into humanities studies of artistic performance; the reciprocal relationship between performance and audiency in focused social interaction is independent of whether (or not) performers and auditors form separate participant groups. Manifestations of audiency outside contexts with segregated audiences are abundant, and we foresee theoretically rich work ahead in the systematic examination of the functions, forms, and meanings of audiences/audiency in musical contexts where audiences are not clearly segregated from performers.
Through the four positions outlined above, we aim to bring these sets of ideas and influences, which exist elsewhere in isolation, into conversation. In musicology, music theory, and music cognition, for instance, the concept of listening has largely been liberated from its traditional characterization as a passive form of reception. Instead, in resonance with our notion of audiency, it has been characterized as an active engagement, playing a strong role in co-constructing the meaning in music performances and recordings.Footnote 34 Similarly, theatre and performance scholars have argued against the notion of a passive audience; instead, audiencing and spectatorship have been conceived as a performative social act that co-constructs the meanings of performance and embodies its affective and social relevance.Footnote 35 In media studies, the concept of witnessing has been developed to theorize the acknowledgement of distant events and experiences ‘in, by, and through the [mass] media’.Footnote 36 This concept recognizes the blurring of functions that earlier communication theories had allotted to distinct sender, media, and receiver roles, which resonates with our focus on the shifting of audiencing and performing actions between performer and audience groups. In ethnomusicology and sound studies, listening has been theorized as socially embedded and constructed, often with a public aspect.Footnote 37 We note that such ‘public listening’, as acknowledged in this body of work, involves more than attention to the sonic and instead also includes a strong visual component as well as bodily actions and stances. Our concept of audiency aims to make these aspects of such public listening more explicit; audiencing involves both listening and spectating, in addition to socially situated behaviour demonstrating that such attention is being given. Finally, the distinctiveness of our audiency concept lies in drawing together these approaches and combining them with Goffmanian, pragmatist, and related work on the micro-sociology of interaction in a way that can facilitate exploration of scenarios beyond those with stable audience and performer groups, allowing for frequent shifts in audiencing and performing roles.
Organization and Methodology
The round table contains three articles, each one examining the context-specific dynamics and theoretical significance of audiency in its own ethnographic case study. All emerging from research contexts beyond the concert hall, these three contributions explore avenues that take us away from the idea of the audience as a stable participant subgroup and towards the implications of audiencing understood as an action role. Together, they highlight the range of musical activity that depends on the performativity of audiency — from contexts of music- and dance-based celebration to those of musical learning and teaching, to musical encounters in urban daily life.
As part of the theoretical development of the audiency lens, the papers draw explicit connections between this topic and wider debates and notions. They draw out, for instance, how audiency is part of work challenging the ontology of music-as-sound, especially scholarship that understands music as embodied practice, a development we add to through our particular interest in movement, gesture, gaze, utterance, and bodily orientation. An audiency lens of this kind enables gesture to take what we consider to be its rightful position as a core (not an ancillary) part of the picture of music ontology, alongside features of setting such as material-embodied architecture and social space. Likewise, it affords understanding of the interaction of music and dance as fundamentally constituting coherent choreomusical performance genres.
Rainer Polak’s paper examines performance in the round at music/dance circles in Mali, arguing that audiency for dance performance is embedded in music-making and vice versa; playing percussion, singing and clapping, and other contributions constitute both musicking and, less intuitively, audiencing, since they are key factors motivating and shaping the dancing. As a result, audiency emerges as vital to the interaction structure and appeal of the performances. Polak identifies the distinct theoretical gains at stake in understanding the embedded audiency at play here. He outlines how the notion sheds new light on the dynamic interplay of music and dance in genres where the two are integrated; he also positions embedded audiency as an alternative to the established idea of ‘participatory performance’ (often contrasted with ‘presentational performance’), one resting on a broader understanding of participation and carrying benefits in the study of West African dancing rings and beyond.
Lara Pearson’s article interprets Karnatak vocal lessons in South India as contexts for music performance and audiency, in addition to their pedagogic role. Through close analyses of teacher–student bodily and vocal interactions, the paper explores how participants use gesture and utterance to audience, support, and validate each other in their respective social roles. Audiencing behaviours in this context are interpreted through the lens of phenomenological and pragmatist theoretical traditions, highlighting how participants constantly adjust to each other based on their overarching intent to learn or teach, which in turn enables them to gain a better grip of the interactional musical processes involved. Audiency is thus explored at the micro-level of gesture, gaze, and utterance in interaction, through an approach that connects these actions to their broader interpersonal and social implications.
Samuel Horlor’s piece considers if and how audiency might help explain musical encounters in the public-space life of capital cities of Chinese provinces; these encounters offer a chance to explore the margins of the audiency concept because they often involve playback of recorded media and thus necessitate further consideration of the relationship between the notion and various understandings of performance. The article introduces the idea of ‘ubiquitous audiency’ to explore how, in the integration of what is often called ‘background music’ in city life, there is more going on than existing models of ‘ubiquitous listening’ may imply. Ubiquitous audiency highlights the particularities of the multimodal and multidirectional processes of witnessing in these contexts.
These articles emerge from the authors’ histories of engagement in these contexts and with these particular forms of musical practice and encounter.Footnote 38 As such, the papers presented here build on an underpinning in multidimensional ethnographic engagement and ‘thick participation’, often utilizing systematically gathered, high-quality audiovisual data.Footnote 39
Contributions across Disciplines
The round table pursues goals across disciplinary contexts. In the context of (ethno)musicology, it develops further the ethnography, theorization, and analysis of audiency, based on a set of conceptually linked case studies. In the past decades, musicologists have been considering music as performance;Footnote 40 we propose that it is time now to consider it also as audiency. Audiencing is of the same thrust as musicking in that its emphasis is placed on social interaction rather than, for example, symbolic representation (e.g. the score). Additionally, it highlights the multimodal and dynamic nature of musical encounters, where reception is not a passive appendix to production and where the mutual reciprocal constitution of performance and audiency is built on more than sound alone. In musicology specifically focusing on audience studies, our notion of audiency promotes an interactional, social-relational, performative understanding that also functions beyond the concert context.
Meanwhile, in the broader context of the humanities, there is a tendency to deplore an alleged loss of participatory audiency in the modern proscenium/auditorium framework.Footnote 41 Related to this are ambitions, often associated with progressive sociopolitical ideals of egalitarianism, democracy, or community building, to ‘develop’ audiences from being passive receivers of works to participants in a social-relational aesthetic process.Footnote 42 Inherent in such critical theory of the staged arts is a view of the audience as passive, alienated, and underdeveloped, but this sentiment has itself been broadly questioned, including by art theorists, political philosophers, theatre/performance studies scholars, musicologists, and psychologists of music, among others.Footnote 43 All these positions share a focus on the staged arts in the Global North. In this context, we contend that the diversity of performance practices examined in our analyses can empirically inform and theoretically complicate the concept of participation, as well as the related concept of audiency as a purely receptive and largely passive role.
We also see our work as relevant to the field of music theory, and propose that the theorization of audiency can serve as a perspective for analysis. Previous and existing approaches employed in music analysis include those that are compositional, mathematical, metaphysical, sociological, and listener-based. The perspective of the experienced listener, as employed for example by Lerdahl and Jackendoff, was a significant development, being productive in relating analytical and theoretical concerns to a framework of idiom-specific subjective experience.Footnote 44 At the same time, however, it perpetuated the bias in music research to focus narrowly on auditory perception and cognition. Musical experience involves more than listening — depending on the scenario it may also involve moving, interacting, attention, and inattention — so we suggest there is a need for an analytical perspective that takes all this into account. Audiency as we consider it here — physical, interactional, dynamic, social — captures musical experience more holistically. Our contribution puts into focus the fact that any approach to analysis builds from theoretical assumptions about what music is; a music ontology incorporating a perspective of situated and embodied audiency can direct music-theoretical and analytical efforts towards phenomena of significance in any given musical context. If it helps us understand that a certain music’s function is, for example, inextricable from the audiencing of dance or ritual acts, then it seems appropriate that the dance or ritual acts should be built centrally into what analysis means in relation to this particular music. We suggest that there are clear benefits to this understanding of audiency becoming a core consideration as we define our objects and pursue our ends across music studies.
Open access
