UC Press Blog

We’re thrilled to announce our new California Studies in Global Musicology series, led by series editors Joy H. Calico and Daniel K. L. Chua! In this interview, Calico and Chua introduce the series, describe the types of projects they’re looking for, and provide advice for scholars hoping to submit to the series.

Global musicology is a fact: musicologists are everywhere. However, musicology has yet to shift its epistemologies to acknowledge the multiple perspectives of scholars across the globe. California Studies in Global Musicology (CSGM) aims to reorient the foundations of the discipline by moving beyond the centralized agenda of academic powerhouses in the Global North, exclusive focus of postcolonial critique, and disciplinary boundaries that divide the world into “the West” and “the rest.” CSGM catalyzes the current momentum toward global thought by providing a forum in which to chart the future of musicology towards the cosmological, cosmopolitan, and relational dimensions of music. 

Global musicology also involves real people living on an inequitable planet. To put global musicology into practice CSGM promotes free worldwide engagement through Open Access publishing and provides support for scholars who are first in their family to graduate from university through UC Press’s FirstGen Program.

Joy H. Calico is Professor of Musicology and chair of the Department of Musicology in UCLA’s Herb Alpert School of Music. She is a member of the international working team of the Black Opera Research Network (BORN) and former Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Musicological Society. Calico has published two monographs with University of California Press: Brecht at the Opera (2008; paperback 2019) and Arnold Schoenberg’s A Survivor from Warsaw in Postwar Europe (2014; expanded Italian edition published in 2023; Russian translation forthcoming in 2024). She is a former Director-at-Large for the AMS board, co-founder and coordinator of the Music and Sound Studies Network of the German Studies Association, and former member of the GSA’s board. 

Daniel K. L. Chua  earned his PhD in musicology from Cambridge University and is currently the Chair Professor of music at the University of Hong Kong. He is the recipient of the 2004 Royal Musical Association’s Dent Medal, a Fellow of the American Musicological Society, and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. He served as the President of the International Musicological Society 2017-2022, where he played an instrumental role in shaping the discussion on global musicology. He was editor of Music & Letters, and is the founding editor of IMS Musicological Brainfood. He has written widely on music – from cosmological concepts in ancient Chinese music theory to NASA’s Golden Record on the Voyager mission – but is particularly known for his work on Beethoven, the history of absolute music, and the intersection between music, philosophy, technology and theology. 

What inspired you to develop the California Studies in Global Musicology series and what most excites you about it?

We are inspired by global musicology. The concept is gathering momentum, bringing scholars from different parts of the globe together at a time when division seems to be the driving force in so much of the world. We see a lot of potential in that coming together. Global musicology isn’t fully formed yet, but its identity takes shape as scholars from around the world interact with each other, making connections and distinctions that define the global flow of music. It’s hard to capture something that is always in progress and on the go, but that’s the exciting part! 

Our hope is that the CSGM series will be a station along the way where travelers gather to converse, listen, and share their stories. We envision a dynamic platform that both amplifies and weaves together different voices in the on-going discussion of what global musicology is and ensures that these voices are heard on the world stage. We can never see the whole picture, of course, but as different perspectives come together through this series, we hope to further catalyze new ways of thinking about our research, pedagogies, collaboration, and musicking.

How will books in the series contribute to or build on current shifts in the field of musicology? How will they help reorient the foundations of the discipline?

It’s always difficult to reorient things at a foundational level. Many shifts are just trends, or old habits with new spin. Global musicology is in danger of that, too. Some think of global musicology as Western music history “plus,” as if it is merely about adding another ingredient to the mix; or that it is simply a matter of comparing the music of different regions, as if cultures are separate entities; or that it is only about minorities and margins, as if these constitute its entire form and method; or that it is just an extension of post-colonial critique, as if the globe is only that which is colonized. 

These elements have played a pivotal role in making global musicology possible, of course, but they can also represent an “old” order in which history is the privileged discipline that legitimizes music, identities are defined by borders and areas, and relations are reduced to binary oppositions of oppressors and victims, centers and peripheries. The global is more complex and nuanced than these positions suggest. We are looking for a dynamic and transformative ethos that can dissolve both geographical and disciplinary boundaries and begin to shift the very foundations of the field. 

It will probably take time. But if we begin by understanding music as something that is connected through time and space to everything else for its identity, we believe structural change is possible. In global musicology, everything is “in relation-to” rather than “in-itself.” There is no boundary that is not also an interface, no current that is not also an undertow. Nothing is exclusive or excluded. That is a very capacious way to think, and probably too ambitious for a solo scholarly effort. In fact, that might be the biggest structural change we hope to initiate: we want more scholars to produce work that is truly collaborative and jointly published, and we want academic gatekeepers to acknowledge its value. But, of course, we don’t have to start so big. One step at a time.

What types of projects are you looking for?

Since we hope to shift things at a foundational level, projects should look quite different from the standard scholarly production. We seek disruptive and dynamic thought as a catalyst for change. That said, there are people all over the world whose work could already be part of a more interconnected musicology: global musicology may be something new as well as something found. It is already happening. It may just be a matter of connecting the dots and encouraging scholars to collaborate. Part of this thinking is about redistributing knowledge. 

What counts as cutting-edge is currently defined by certain powerhouses that exert considerable influence and pressure—even on the notion of the global. But any view “from the center” is not global by definition since the surface of the globe has no center. We don’t want to erase these “centers” (that would not be very global), but their power needs to be reduced in order to create a more evenly distributed form of musicology. 

Of course, we are aware that our series is based in California and therefore positioned within the US-powerhouse. As editors, we aim to be self-aware enough to serve the world in redistributing knowledge on an international platform rather than projecting a view of global musicology that is overly conditioned by our own position. We are assembling an advisory board that will help us do just that. And we will actively seek contributions from all around the world.

What different perspectives and expertise do you hope authors will bring to the series?

Global musicology is emerging through a mix of perspectives and expertise. But maybe we could add that this mix should also change the “tone” of musicology. Anything global will be a contested field. Critique is vital, and global musicology could not function without it, but what comes next? That’s the big question. What is this new “tone”? Perhaps it not so much a tone as an interval – a dissonantly harmonious one at that! We recognize the importance of subjectivity which grounds knowledge in one’s own positionality and identity even as we weigh its potential to redact to disconnected identities in danger of cancelling one other out. Thinking globally does imply some kind of shared entity outside of the subject, or else there is nothing to connect us. 

Do you have any advice for scholars hoping to submit to the series?

Get in touch! Those interested in submitting to the series should send a proposal, a CV, and sample chapters, to Joy H. Calico, Daniel K. L. Chua, and LeKeisha Hughes.