Content uploaded by Rachel Elizabeth Scott
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Elizabeth Scott on Oct 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
239
CHAPTER 17*
Performance as
Conversation:
Dialogic Aspects of Music
Performance and Study
Rachel Elizabeth Scott
What does a photo have to do with a piece by Gershwin? A recently discov-
ered photograph identied the pitches of taxi horns used in a 1929 perfor-
mance of An American in Paris supervised by Gershwin. Scholars at Univer-
sity of Michigan’s Gershwin Initiative have used this nding, in conjunction
with a recording of the same performance, to justify the change from the
traditional realization of the taxi horns for the new scholarly edition of this
piece.1 Flexibility is a requirement for the modern musicologist; discoveries
and breakthroughs can come in a variety of formats, and not just printed
music.
Although much of the classical music repertory is centuries old, musi-
cians, musicologists, and fans participate in ongoing and lively conversations
in an increasing variety of arenas. New insights on old works now surface
thanks to technological innovations, from data-rich digital humanities proj-
ects to casual online forums, where media and text can be posted and dis-
cussed. e study and performance of a musical work—typically, the com-
bination of sound, notation, and performance—is informed by a variety of
sources in a wide array of formats.
* This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 License, CC BY-NC-ND (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
240 CHAPTER 17
e recently introduced Framework for Information Literacy for Higher
Education (Framework) includes the frame “Scholarship as Conversation.”2
e frame highlights the ongoing, collaborative, and iterative nature of re-
search processes. is frame, in addition to the Framework’s emphasis on re-
ective practices, provides information professionals, students, and scholars
alike with a structure with which to make sense of the complexity of music
research and performance. As the interplay between audience and performer
becomes increasingly dynamic and the potential sources for study multiply,
librarians can help students negotiate this sustained, multi-format discourse.
Music as conversation
Conceptualizing Scholarship as Conversation will enable musicians to navi-
gate the many considerations of how to perform or understand a piece. Un-
like other disciplines, like law, in which consensus of eld undergoes change
slowly and only via codied processes, understanding of a musical work is
subject to interpretation in uniquely personal ways and can change with each
performance. Because music is primarily an aural and not a textual tradition,
even recordings and notated music only lend so much permanence to a mu-
sical composition. With almost limitless ways to analyze a work or to realize
the work in performance, musicians typically, if unwittingly, participate in
conversations to negotiate meaning of musical works.
Traditionally, this “conversation” may have meant discussing the piece
with a teacher, conductor, or other respected musician. It may also have en-
tailed visiting the library to consult a scholarly edition and thematic catalog,
listen to various recordings, and read relevant sections of the composer’s bi-
ography. Traditional conversations were also social, discussing elements of
performance with one’s colleagues in a performance ensemble or with com-
plete strangers in the audience of a performance venue. Historically, though,
these conversations were among smaller groups in face-to-face interactions
or via written correspondence, and both the variety and amount of musical
information with which one came into contact were limited.
Now that compositional analysis, performance recordings, and a variety
of scores can easily be found, uploaded, interacted with, and discussed online,
the conversation is growing more dynamic, distributed, and complex. Music
information in digital settings is rapidly changing, not xed and controlled
like traditional information sources. Increased interactivity and simplied
web productivity tools mean that anyone has the potential to contribute to
musical conversations online. Digital media of various kinds can be added to
illustrate musical materials, creating an information-rich musical landscape.
It is essential that novice researchers and musicians understand that the qual-
Performance as Conversation 241
ity and authoritativeness of music sources must be evaluated; online avail-
ability or convenience does not necessarily recommend a resource.3
In order to fully appreciate the lifecycle of a given musical work, one must
synthesize a variety of contemporary and historical recordings, scholarly,
manuscript, and performing scores, composer biography, and other contex-
tual information. Donald Krummel, noted musicologist and music librarian,
wrote in 1982 that “the best way for any scholar to enter a eld will always
be bibliographically, through the activity of passing as much of the source
material through his or her hands as possible.”4 While digital objects cannot
necessarily be held in one’s hands, the idea still proves true. In order to un-
derstand something well enough to make a scholarly or musical contribution,
one must rst read, listen to, see, and interact with as many of the extant
materials as possible.
In a similar vein, this frame states, “developing familiarity with the
sources of evidence, methods, and modes of discourse in the eld assists nov-
ice learners to enter the conversation.”5 Knowledge of the variety of source
material available and an understanding of how to use this material is essen-
tial to contributing to this discourse. Similarly, an appreciation of the vari-
ous modes of discourse specic to music is essential to participating in this
conversation. Music research is comprised of several specialties, including
musicology and ethnomusicology, music therapy, music education, and mu-
sic theory. Each of these subdisciplines has specic research methodologies,
preferred source material, and scholarly processes and activities. However,
recent music scholarship is increasingly interdisciplinary and may incorpo-
rate diverse modes of discourse. As modes of musical discourse diversify and
become increasingly casual and participatory, contributing to scholarly con-
versations may become less intimidating to students and novice researchers.
Both the Framework in general and this frame in particular emphasize
the interactive nature of scholarship. Students who have understood their only
role in scholarship to be that of a passive consumer, using published research
to support their arguments, are challenged to see themselves as participants
in an ongoing conversation. Musicians, however, have a unique perspective
on this interactivity. Musical performance is, aer all, seldom performed in
isolation; music is a conversation among composer, artist(s), and audience,
among others. Musical performances may also be understood as a dialogue
with the artist’s perceived predecessors. Even when alone in a practice room,
the musician is in dialogue with a composer’s musical notation, a teacher’s
instruction, and a musical inuence’s interpretation. Where students in other
disciplines might not actively contribute to or participate in their eld until
they enter graduate school or obtain a professional position, musicians learn
from an early age to engage in the collaborative work of performance. While
experts may have more condence in their contributions to scholarly under-
242 CHAPTER 17
standing of a musical work and a well-developed sense of their audience, stu-
dents and amateur musicians now have online platforms from which to share
and promote their performances and contributions. e possibility of posting
one’s performance or musical analysis and promptly receiving feedback from
a variety of sources is a relatively new phenomenon for the novice researcher
or amateur musician. Digital platforms have ushered in considerable changes,
both in the size and diversity of audiences and in who can contribute.
is frame also highlights the interdisciplinary nature of research. One
characteristic of expert researchers is their inclination to seek out diverse
perspectives in order to conduct exhaustive research and to add depth of un-
derstanding to their research. Novice researchers may lack the deep subject
knowledge to know when to step outside the boundaries of the discipline.
ey might also not know what questions to ask or be unable to appreciate the
relative authoritativeness of various sources. Conducting research in many
subdisciplines of music requires signicant forays into other disciplines. Ex-
pert music researchers are familiar with expectations when incorporating
outside perspectives into their research and know how to engage with ex-
tra-musical material when conducting music research.
According to this frame, “Providing attribution to relevant previous re-
search is also an obligation of participation in the conversation. It enables the
conversation to move forward and strengthens one’s voice in the conversa-
tion.”6 Attribution has always been important to both musical performance
and musicology. Many classical performers proudly trace their musical an-
cestry back to famous performers and pedagogues, claiming to be a musical
descendent of so-and-so or a disciple of X-school of singing. Musicians may
cite or signal their musical inuences in their programmatic choices, elements
of technique, or stylistic choices. is tracing of musical lineage may not be
exactly what is meant by attribution in the Framework, in which learners
credit others “through proper attribution or citation.”7 Although it espouses
metaliteracy, the Framework focuses on text-based scholarship, which still
comprises the bulk of the corpora. However, providing attribution, in music
as in scholarship, helps others contextualize your contribution. Being able to
recognize a musician or argument in a particular camp or school of thought
is characteristic of someone with considerable experience and expertise.
Digital natives may struggle to understand traditional attribution. Clas-
sical and popular musics have long been sampled with and without attribu-
tion, but research has shown that students who have grown up in a “copy and
paste” environment see uidity of authorship.8 Because of this uidity, they
may not appreciate the ways in which acknowledging the original context of
content enriches one’s use of it. In a recent study of undergraduate responses
to the language and concepts in the Framework, one student used a musical
example to highlight the dialogical interplay of scholarship: “Most musicians
Performance as Conversation 243
will say… the best musicians know how to borrow ideas. e same goes for
creating other forms of content in our day and age. We’re all oering our
own input on their past works. It’s an everlasting conversation!”9 Musicians
and musical scholars continue to draw heavily on the work of their predeces-
sors. e increasing availability of music information, from authoritative to
inaccurate, make this network of inuence ever more complex to negotiate.
Accordingly, it is essential that students learn to appropriate information eth-
ically and with an understanding of its original context.
Teaching and assessing Scholarship as
Conversation
In order to authentically teach and assess this frame, the academic librarian
must collaborate with music classroom and studio faculty. Several studies of
music information literacy have highlighted the need for instruction that is
highly relevant and tailored to the specic needs of the class.10 Accordingly,
in order to specically target and assess student understanding of the dialogic
nature of music performance or study, the librarian must work closely with
the classroom faculty to ensure that this content ts within the overall learn-
ing objectives of the course. e librarian should meet with the instructor and
collect class syllabi, assignment descriptions, or performance assignments.
Embracing the principles of backward design, the librarian should discuss
and understand the instructor’s desired results for the instruction session.
By understanding the scope of course content, requirements for assignments,
and instructor expectations, the librarian can better integrate the library in-
struction and assessment into the class.
In order for information literacy instruction to have immediacy for the
students, it needs to be active and authentic. In an article in Journal of Music
History Pedagogy, music librarian and musicologist Jennifer Oates empha-
sizes the importance of experiential learning in music library instruction:
“Students are taught how to explore their intellectual curiosity by engaging
in research and asking questions that require academic resources to answer
them eectively.”11 Learning interventions should force students to critically
evaluate and use resources in order to answer questions relevant to their per-
sonal or intellectual goals.
Regardless of the format of the instruction, the librarian can begin to
introduce students to practices that will help them appreciate the dialogic
nature of musical research and performance. Knowledge practices for Schol-
arship as Conversation include: properly citing others’ work, contributing
appropriately to the conversation, recognizing barriers to participation, ana-
244 CHAPTER 17
lyzing others’ contributions, recognizing the relative contribution of certain
works to the discipline, identifying change in perspective, and appreciating
the diversity of perspectives. 12 Not all of these knowledge practices can or
should be introduced in a one-shot instruction session; the assignment and
assessment section details some ways in which select knowledge practices
might be incorporated in a single session. However, once the librarian has
mapped out knowledge practices in relation to the instructional content, the
overlapping nature of these practices should make the task of addressing mul-
tiple knowledge practices more approachable. Regardless of the knowledge
practices targeted, instruction must allow students opportunity for engage-
ment and reection.
Unlike the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Edu-
cation (Standards), the Framework does not have built-in outcomes.13 Where
the Standards outline discrete and exhaustive competencies, the Framework
identies some potential dispositions and knowledge practices for each frame.
I appreciate the knowledge practices as great fodder for thinking about long-
term learning and nd that they have helped me shi to a more student-cen-
tered pedagogy. e Standards were limiting; I felt compelled to stick to my
script in order to ensure that the appropriate standards were taught and could
be measured objectively. e Framework’s interconnected frames and overlap-
ping dispositions have heightened my awareness of the complexity entailed in
knowledge construction and in measuring student learning. I have been forced
to acknowledge that students will grapple with these information literacy
practices at varying speeds and level of engagement long aer a given library
instruction session. ere has also been debate about the frames as threshold
concepts as dened by Meyers and Land.14 Although I am not convinced that
Scholarship as Conversation is particularly bounded, I do think “conversation”
is a worthwhile metaphor for conceptualizing scholarship in many disciplines.
Choosing conversation makes this frame accessible to and appropriate for nov-
ice and experts engaging in almost any type of scholarly work.
Accordingly, assessing Scholarship as Conversation may feel like an in-
surmountable challenge for librarians accustomed to the more prescriptive
Standards. Oakleaf, however, oers some encouragement and several ideas
for assessing the Frames at the program level:
threshold concepts are very well suited to learning outcomes
assessment, as long as the assessments permit the use of au-
thentic assessment approaches, provide useful feedback to
students to help them over the “stuck place,” emphasize
individual variation in the journey that students travel to
achieve them, recognize that learners may redene their
sense of self, link learning and grading in meaningful ways,
Performance as Conversation 245
organize programmatic assessment around transformation-
al ideas, and support metacognition.15
What might this look like in the context of a single-shot library instruc-
tion session? e “troublesome” nature of threshold concepts make them
challenging to teach and assess in a single session. Accordingly, instruction
and assessment should be as personal, integrated, and open-ended as is prac-
tical. e instruction and assessment should support reection and exibil-
ity, convey to students that there are many ways to nd, evaluate, and use
information, and that awareness of one’s ndings and developing knowledge
should inform one’s strategy. roughout the instruction and in assessment
instruments, one should pose open-ended instead of multiple choice or ll-
in-the-blank questions. Whenever possible, assessment should allow for in-
dividual variations rather than homogenize student understanding. is can
be achieved by engaging music faculty to determine which information liter-
acy concepts would best support their course objectives and collaborating to
create a mutually benecial assessment tool. When possible, one should pro-
vide feedback to students, oer to meet them individually, get to know them
personally, and remind them of library services that support their ongoing
learning.
e following section includes ideas for assignments and assessments
based on the author’s experience. Sample lesson plans for music education,
musicology, and music business courses are not meant as exhaustive ap-
proaches to teaching this frame. Rather, they represent jumping-o points
that should be revised based on one’s own context and, ideally, informed with
input from teaching faculty.
Assignment and assessment ideas
Music education: Conversation as pedagogy. Music librarians oen teach
music education majors in the context of a music history or research methods
course. If the librarian has an opportunity to work with music education or
music pedagogy students in a major-specic course, the librarian could in-
troduce a discussion of the dialogical nature of pedagogy and show students
some resources that model this approach in the context of applied music in-
struction. Two learning outcomes for this class might be:
• Students will nd and access master classes in order to identify use-
ful pedagogical techniques.
• Students will identify ways in which questions and conversation
facilitate musicians’ understanding in order to enhance their own
instruction.
246 CHAPTER 17
During the instruction, the librarian demonstrates how to nd master
classes and other instructional videos in MUSAIC, a free streaming video
platform for classical music concerts, master classes, and interviews. In mu-
sic, master classes are typically group classes in which an expert publicly
works with a single student at a time on a prepared piece or excerpt. Aer
watching part of a master class together, the instructor leads a discussion of
how the teacher’s question-posing and conversation improve the student’s
musical performance. e librarian ties this into the theme of “Scholarship as
Conversation” and encourages students to seek out other resources that make
this dialogue explicit. e master class viewed should provide the librarian
with ample opportunities to highlight that musical works and music perfor-
mance are both ongoing conversations, master classes are a venue for such
conversations, and, nally, as future educators, students will facilitate these
conversations and must understand the responsibilities and privilege thereof.
e librarian and instructor collaborate to plan and write an assessment
of student learning. A possible assignment would require students to select
and watch another master class and ask students to respond to the following
questions in one-page essays.
1. Describe how the “master” uses dialogue to facilitate learning. Identify
as many specic strategies as possible.
2. Which of these practices will you incorporate into your own instruc-
tion? How will you do so?
3. Reect on the usefulness of the master/student dichotomy and identify
one example of expertise that may be dismissed in this construct.
e assignment facilitates the following student practices: “seek out con-
versations taking place in their research area; see themselves as contributors
to scholarship rather than only consumers of it; recognize that scholarly con-
versations take place in various venues… recognize that systems privilege au-
thorities,” all of which are dispositions for this frame.
Music students are familiar with the master class format and accustomed
to streaming online media, but the casual venue for professional content is
likely new. is assignment demonstrates that relevant, scholarly conver-
sations can be found and hosted online. Although students might struggle
to recognize that “systems privilege authorities,” seeing the all-star line-up
on MUSAIC makes the master/student dichotomy quite clear. Nonetheless,
the media format makes it easy for students to hear, see, and observe mas-
ter teaching techniques in action and begin to form ideas about how they
might appropriate techniques and enter into the conversation. Furthermore,
providing timely feedback on student essays reinforces the import of these
practices and extends the librarian’s dialogue with the student.
Musicology: Eavesdropping on scholarly conversations. One option
for teaching this frame to musicology students over the course of a semester
Performance as Conversation 247
would be to require students to subscribe to AMS-L, the email discussion list
of the American Musicological Society. Subscribing to this list for a semester
would teach students a great deal about the research methods, resources, and
discourse employed by professional musicologists. Students would have the
opportunity to eavesdrop on the conversation or to participate. e learning
outcome for this instruction is:
• Students will evaluate email discussion list threads in order to identi-
fy characteristics of musicological scholarship.
Begin the instruction session by asking students to identify some of the
traditional scholarly processes involved in music research. Present as a case
study a recent example from AMS-L in which a New York Times article16
about slavery and race in Mozart operas sparked multiple conversations, not
only about the article, but about why a relevant letter to the editor would not
be published and where else a rejoinder should appear. is case illustrates
how scholarly conversations increasingly occur across various formats and
venues, involve non-academicians, and are highly interactive. Use this or a
similar case example to facilitate a discussion of how scholarly processes are
evolving in light of digital media.
To assess this assignment, the librarian would only need to provide a
prompt that promoted reection and then provide written feedback on stu-
dent responses. A sample prompt should include open-ended questions that
allow students to articulate in their own words the nature and perceived value
of the conversations fostered by this email discussion list. A sample prompt
might read as follows: Please reect on the various posts and conversations
you’ve followed on AMS-L and respond to each of the following questions in
one or two paragraphs:
1. What kinds of information have you seen posted to this email discus-
sion list? Explain which are most useful to you and why.
2. Evaluate three or four Calls for Papers (CFP). Describe the characteris-
tics of musicology scholarship as outlined in these CFP.
3. Look up the credentials of some of the more frequent posters. Who
are these people? Who seems to be included in this forum and who is
excluded? Why does this matter/what are the implications of exclusion?
4. What types of research methods were discussed or featured? Describe a
digital musicology initiative that piqued your interest.
In addition to identifying the variety of ways in which this email discus-
sion list facilitates conversation within the musicology community, this as-
signment should also open students’ eyes to the diversity of musicology proj-
ects, papers, and initiatives. Exposing students to this diversity helps students
see a role for themselves as contributors to the discipline. e list provides
an appropriate opportunity to interact with prospective colleagues at various
levels and, perhaps, to contribute to the conversation. By pausing to reect on
248 CHAPTER 17
who might be excluded from participating, it forces students to recognize a
variety of barriers to publishing in the eld. As they reect on participating
authors and their messages, students will gain familiarity with the tone of the
conversation and develop an awareness of the relative contributions of some
authors.
Music business: Disruptive events in a sustained conversation. Music
Business students have very dierent information needs than their peers in
classical music programs. ey frequently seek sales and other music indus-
try data and may be less interested in engaging conceptually in information
literacy topics. However, the following assignment might present an opportu-
nity to encourage music business students to consider the ongoing and itera-
tive nature of research. e learning outcome for this assignment is:
• Students will evaluate articles in order to identify how understand-
ing of a disruptive event (in music business) has evolved over time.
To set up the activity, the librarian opens with a discussion of source
evaluation and explains that the scholarly study of popular music is relatively
new and necessarily interdisciplinary. By asking students, “Who is qualied
to write authoritatively about music business?” and “Where can authorita-
tive music business information be found?” the librarian encourages them to
identify stakeholders in this conversation. If students can identify potential
experts in the eld (e.g., music producers, artists, fans, recording engineers)
and explain when each might be authoritative and when their contributions
might be less meaningful, they demonstrate a burgeoning understanding of
the dynamic and contextual nature of authority in music business research.
e librarian asks students to form small groups and assign each a “dis-
ruptive event” in the eld of music business. Examples of disruptive events
and ideas might include: MP3, streaming platforms, Auto-Tune, Web 2.0,
“Rockonomics” (relationship of declining record sales and rising ticket pric-
es), and TV talent shows. e librarian provides each of the groups with two
articles from dierent time periods or perspectives. Working in groups, stu-
dents evaluate the two sources using a prompt that encourages reection re-
lated to frame:
1. Who wrote each of these? List their qualications to write on this topic.
2. What can you nd about this journal/source? What barriers can you
identify to publishing in it?
3. What external citations can you nd in these articles? Explain how the
respective author uses these citations (to provide evidence, to acknowl-
edge its importance, to contest claim, etc.).
4. How has understanding of the topic changed over time?
ese questions underscore several of the underlying features of Schol-
arship as Conversation: the ongoing and dynamic nature of inquiry, the hi-
erarchy of scholarly contributions, the limitations to participation in certain
Performance as Conversation 249
venues, the diversity of perspectives and approaches, and, nally, the need
for critical evaluation of all contributions. By walking around the room
and providing feedback to the groups as they work, the librarian legitimiz-
es their practice of critically evaluating sources and identifying competing
understandings in published works. By modeling source evaluation, assign-
ing group work, and exposing students to this ongoing conversation in two
dierent forums, the librarian encourages students to enter the conversations
surrounding their “disruptive event.”
Conclusion
As musicians, music students have an inherent understanding of the conver-
sational nature of any piece, scholarly or not. e above exercises are meant
to help bring to the surface this innate understanding of the ongoing dia-
logue which surrounds all forms of music information production. is has
implications for the performer’s understanding of the musical works; only
when this knowledge becomes explicit can musicians and music scholars ful-
ly leverage the complexity and richness of music information past and pres-
ent. By demonstrating an understanding of a musical work’s history, import,
and contemporary understanding, the performer enters into the ongoing di-
alogue surrounding the works.
Conversation is a useful and accessible metaphor for explaining scholarly
processes to music students. It has also been a valuable conceptual framework
for me to apply not only in library instruction, but also to my own scholarly
endeavors. Reecting on Scholarship as Conversation has shaped my under-
standing of the various dialogues in which in which I must participate in
order to contribute to library science practice and research. It has given me
a new understanding of scholarly agency and encouraged me to participate
more broadly in professional discourse.
Librarians’ knowledge of subject resources and information literacy
concepts that ground research practices make us well-situated to model the
variety of sources and diversity of approaches that can inform musical per-
formance and scholarship. By helping musicians recognize and understand
the many voices engaged in these scholarly conversations, librarians’ con-
tributions can make a meaningful impact on the musician’s stock-in-trade:
performance.
Notes
1. Mark Clague, “1929 Gershwin Taxi Horn Photo Claries Mystery,” Gershwin Ini-
tiative blog, March 5, 2016, http://www.music.umich.edu/ami/gershwin/?p=715.
250 CHAPTER 17
2. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), Framework for Information
Literacy for Higher Education, February 2, 2015, http://ww w.ala.org/acrl/standards/
ilframework.
3. Kirstin Dougan, “Music, YouTube, and Academic Libraries,” Notes 72, no. 3 (2016):
491-508; Rachel E. Scott, “e Edition-Literate Singer: Edition Selection as an
Information Literacy Competency,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 16, no.3
(2013): 131–140.
4. D. W. Krummel, “e Bibliographical Prognosis,”e Journal of Musicology 1, no.
1 (1982): 31.
5. ACRL, Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.
6. Ibid.
7. I bid .
8. Mary R. Lea and Sylvia Jones, “Digital Literacies in Higher Education: Exploring
Textual and Technological Practice,” Studies in Higher Education 36, no. 4 (2011):
377–393; Dan Perkel, “Copy and Paste Literacy? Literacy Practices in the Produc-
tion of a MySpace Prole,” in Informal Learning and Digital Media: Constructions,
Contexts, Consequences, eds. Kirsten Drotner, Hans Siggard Jensen, and Kim
Schroeder (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2008); John G. Palfrey and
Urs Gasser, Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives
(New York: Basic Books, 2008), 111–129.
9. Rachel E. Scott, “Part 2. If We Frame It, ey Will Respond: Undergraduate Stu-
dent Responses to the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,”
e Reference Librarian 58, no. 1 (2017): 19–32, doi:10.1080/02763877.2 016.1196 471.
10. Beth Christensen, “Warp, We, and Wae: Weaving Information Literacy into
an Undergraduate Music Curriculum,”Notes60, no. 3 (2004): 616-631; Victoria
Vaughan and Kathleen A. Abromeit, “Info Lit and the Diva: Integrating Informa-
tion Literacy into the Oberlin Conservatory of Music Opera eater Department,”
Notes 60, no. 3 (2004): 632–652; Rachel E. Scott, “e Edition-Literate Singer: Edi-
tion Selection as an Information Literacy Competency,”Music Reference Services
Quarterly16, no. 3 (2013): 131–140; Alessia Zanin-Yost and Christina L. Reitz, “In-
formation Literacy in Music History: Fostering Success in Teaching and Learning,”
Journal of Library Administration 54, no. 7 (2014): 562–572.
11. Jennifer Oates, “Engaging with Research and Resources in Music Courses,” Journal
of Music History Pedagog y4, no. 2 (2013): 284.
12. ACRL, Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.
13. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), Information Literacy Com-
petency Standards for Higher Education, 2000, http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/
informationliteracycompetency.
14. Jan Meyer and Ray Land,reshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages
to Ways of inking and Practising within the Disciplines, Occasional Report 2, ETL
Project (2002), http://ww w.ed.ac.uk/etl/publications.
15. Megan Oakleaf, “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New
Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” e Journal of Aca-
demic Librarianship 5, no. 40 (2014): 511.
16. Zachary Woolf, “Can Opera Become an Agent of Change?” New York Times, July
15, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/arts/music/can-opera-become-an-
agent-of-change-aix-en-provence-festival.html.