Doing Music Difference, or: What do we do with Other Musics?

¹

Shanti Suki Osman

CHAPTER PDF

Introduction

The symposium Diskriminierungskritische Perspektiven in die Curricula an der Schnittstelle von Bildung und Kunst! [Discrimination Critical Perspectives on the Curricula at the Interface of Education and Art!] was hosted and initiated by Carmen Mörsch at the Schauspielhaus Dortmund in June 2023 and attended by music and art educators and mediators, as well as students, researchers, and professors from arts and music education and mediation and related fields, including diversity and equal opportunity sectors. This symposium was the culmination of years of research and development of teaching materials and tools that provide a discrimination critical perspective both for inside and outside of school contexts. The symposium also celebrated the release of the research, which included physical materials and online resources. I was invited to be a part of a focus group which had two tasks: reading, reviewing and critiquing the material prior to the symposium; and leading a workshop at the symposium which was to activate, test out and critique chosen elements from the materials. In the materials and resources developed and collected by Mörsch there is an important push for challenging the canon in all aspects of art. Related to music there is Monostatos Rache [Monostatos’ Revenge] by Vincent Bababoutilabo, an analysis of school music books based on manifestations of racism, and Postkoloniale Spuren in deutschen Institutionen für Musikförderung [Postcolonial Traces in German Institutions for Music Sponsorship] by Inga Marie Sponheuer, which reports on the reasons why certain non-Western instruments are not taught in music schools, and the negative structural consequences this has for the musicians who play them. In my workshop I did not however simply want to challenge hegemonic music knowledge production – that is, whose music counts as such, but to further ask: what do we actually do with Other Musics? Once we have rethought the canon and found space for different musics to be taught, heard, and engaged with in educational contexts, how do we then approach and hold these musics and the people listening to them? Furthermore, how do transcultural music projects pose their own challenges for discrimination-critical music mediation? I proposed answering and addressing these questions through the listening workshop Doing Music Difference? The workshop intended to shed light on the problems and possibilities of so-called transcultural music and music projects and to highlight the role of music mediators’ positionalities, whilst itself employing critical methodology to achieve these aims.

I will begin by explicating my understanding of the terms “discrimination-critical” and “discrimination-critical music mediation”. This is followed by rooting and simultaneously problematising transcultural music and music mediation based on Dylan Robinson’s four models of inclusionary music (Robinson 2020), alongside Stefanie Kiwi Menrath’s criticisms and demands of transcultural music mediation in the light of the increasing number of projects designed for refugees post 2014 (Menrath 2018). After considering these concepts, I will describe, discuss and evaluate the components of the workshop, whilst exploring the idea of music mediators’ positionalities. I ultimately propose that discrimination-critical music mediation, with a focus on listening as a means of scrutinising power relations and power imbalances, can contribute to advances in diversity-sensitive approaches to transcultural music mediation and in society in general (see also Osman 2022).

Discrimination Critical and Discrimination Critical Music Mediation

The term “discrimination critical” indicates an approach that seeks to examine forms of discrimination and how they arise in the given situation, as well as work to remove them (Osman 2022). Mörsch notably uses this term when leaning on the notion of critical diversity literacy, as propounded by Melissa Steyn (2007). This concept includes understanding that categories of difference are socially constructed; that these categories can have combined effects in creating conditions of inequality (intersectionality); understanding privilege and power relations and recognising historical continuities in inequalities (Mörsch 2022). The approach furthermore considers the importance of knowing and understanding terminology in addressing these issues, as well as having the very will to do so in the first place, including potentially and eventually making changes to current ways of doing things (ibid.). The term points to processes of constant and critical reflection of the self as educator and facilitator (Osman 2022; 2023b; Mörsch 2022); continuous scrutiny of subject matter and the implications of materials and methodologies used; aspired awareness of innate and constructed power relations between people in educational settings; and listening ². Indeed, listening, hearing, and paying attention is an important first step to achieving the above-mentioned and for this reason was the focus of the workshop, as will be described in detail below.

The German word Musikvermittlung is translated both as music education and music mediation in the English language. The term “music mediation” is widely used to refer to the education programmes of opera houses, concert halls, theatres, museums, and other arts venues. The person running the programme would be a musician, often a freelancer, who develops activities as a way to communicate the arts, here the music, to an audience, although not solely through performing. Typically, music mediation happens outside of the school – either it has no connection to any kind of school context, or it is extracurricular in the sense that a school group may participate in a workshop or project at or in cooperation with a venue or institution outside of the school, such as the ones listed above (Müller-Brozovic 2017). As a researcher and practitioner of music, and both music education and music mediation, and furthermore being rooted in critical transcultural music education and music mediation at a stage when it is developing to incorporate intersectional and anti-discriminatory approaches, I am well placed to see how the different facets, sectors, and approaches overlap and mutually benefit each other. This can be understood by briefly looking at current developments in the fields.

In current critical transcultural music education in schools there is a focus on questioning and disrupting the canon and making space for less typically taught musics to gain visibility. The recent publication It’s How You Flip It: Multiple Perspectives on Hip-Hop and Music Education (Eusterbrock, Kattenbeck, and Kautny 2024), with its focus on hip-hop, is just one example of this. Further examples of discrimination critical approaches include the progressive A Manifesto for Music Education in Scotland (Brennan et al. 2017) which seeks to examine everything from structural inequity to teacher training. Similarly, there is a surge in discrimination critical approaches in music mediation, such as the music-oriented social work discussed by Josties and Gerards, in which hierarchies, power relations, positionalities and racisms are critically examined in what they call “transnational and diversity-conscious perspectives of music-orientated youth cultural work” (2019, n.p.). The concept of listening combines all of these aspects. Listening in the context of arts and music education and mediation can offer a way to disrupt the canon by listening to new narratives and new musics, as I explicate in Ein Dekolonisierendes Zuhören? (Osman 2023a). Listening is also a tool for self-reflection, as well as a metaphor for meeting other people’s needs, which is addressed in the feminist interviews conducted by sound artists and scholars Farinati and Firth (2017). The activist, sound arts and education collective Ultra-red famously employ listening as a way to extend knowledge of our environments and our understanding of power relations and hierarchies in society (Ultra-red 2000). I therefore maintain that it is appropriate to speak of a discrimination critical music mediation which seeks to question the canon, create space for new voices, highlight and work against power imbalances and promote self-reflection.

Rooting and Problematising Transcultural Music and Transcultural Music Mediation

I will now expound upon critical perspectives on transcultural music and music mediation, referring to texts by Menrath (2018) and Robinson (2020). I want to shed light on the problems and possibilities of so-called transcultural music and music projects, something that Robinson deftly does as part of his study on decolonial listening and its implications for marginalised perspectives in music in general.

In order to do this, I will briefly look at the terms and concepts used by Robinson and Menrath in their discussions and critiques. Menrath discusses and critiques transculturality and transcultural music and projects in the context of initiatives designed for refugees. The term “transculturality” is frequently used in connection with music mediation (see Binas-Preisendorfer and Unseld 2012 for one significant example). Robinson however refers to inclusionary projects in his discussion and critique. His use of the term differs from the typical use of the terms “inclusion” or “inclusionary” in music education and music mediation discourses, which are commonly rooted in disability studies (Bremmer 2023). Robinson, however, argues that using the terms “inclusion” or “inclusionary” for his discussion and critique of what he acknowledges may seem more like intercultural projects to some scholars (Robinson 2020, 6), highlights the reality that indigenous musics are required to simply fit into the dominant music culture of Canada, even in the wake of “Canada’s official enshrinement of multiculturalism” (ibid., 6).

In Menrath’s critique she insists on acknowledging and addressing the power imbalances in transcultural music projects which also involves considering the creative control of the participants, and accordingly, Robinson discusses the abilities and inabilities of representors of marginalised or Othered musics to have their voices heard, create on their own terms, and contribute to the converged artform in a way that is not being wholly controlled or determined by the dominant culture (Robinson 2020). In both of the discussions and critiques, they explicate an apparent dynamic of convergence characterised by the following: musical cultures meeting; an implication of exchange; an expectation of working together well (and with that the assumption that there is currently no or little working together, well or otherwise); inherent and multiple power imbalances; a desire to give space to marginalised voices and musics; a desire to result in something musically coherent. Both Robinson’s use of the term “inclusionary” and Menrath’s use of “transcultural” refer to conscious decisions to work with Other musics – and the people who produce them. I will therefore be conflating these terms and my understanding thereof for the purpose of this paper.

The background and context of Menrath’s text is the surge in music projects for refugees in Germany after the increased numbers of people who fled from Syria and neighbouring countries, mainly in 2014 and 2015. The vast number of projects and the collective need to offer young people and children from these countries musical opportunities to enjoy and express themselves required practitioners to question the motivations behind such transcultural projects (Menrath 2018, 13f.). Menrath emphasises that transculturality not only concerns itself with the connecting and converging of different and differing cultures, but, by the very nature of this apparent coming together, must also highlight and critique the accompanying power relations and power imbalances (ibid., 12). Cultural representation is often a key motivation and desired outcome for any transcultural project – and it in fact occurs with or without orchestration. But in referring to Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean’s discussion of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Landry and MacLean 1996), Menrath reminds us that representation is both Vertretung [speaking for someone or something in a political sense] and Darstellung [speaking of or about someone or something, or a re-representation] (ibid., 6) Cultural representation, then, is not just reproducing or producing something artistic or aesthetic, but contains the political element of speaking for something or someone (Vertretung) (Menrath 2018, 12). Referring to twenty-first century trends of inclusionary projects to include and integrate First Nations and Inuit cultural practices in Western art music pieces, ensembles, and performances, Robinson analyses a handful of projects and determines thereby four models of inclusionary projects, or a “taxonomy of musical encounters” (Robinson 2020, 123), as he describes it. These are 1) integration, where the Other music is found a place determined by the dominant culture, to fit into the music of the dominant culture; 2) nation-to-nation, where the musics are traded and shared and not converged or mixed, per se; 3) a combination of the two, where a reciprocal sharing takes place, followed by an attempt to integrate the musics; and finally; 4) an active refusal to integrate, and with that the further problematising of coexistence. In these various examples of convergences of musical difference, he details the attempts to include and integrate music, and with that the problems of so-called transcultural music and practice, which I wish to highlight now by discussing both Robinson’s models and Menrath’s text, somewhat in conversation with each other.

Integration

Within this model, Robinson observes what he describes as music and musicology’s tendency to generalise, i.e. the notion that a certain music speaks for an audience or a community (Robinson 2020, 124). Within the model of integration, he critiques musicians and practitioners for mixing and converging without considering context, as this often leads to a devaluation of meaning. One example he highlights is Spy Dénommé-Welch and Catherine Magowan’s Giiwedin, an opera that is about the history of the First Nation people of the Temiskaming region and is told from the perspective of Noodin-Kwe, a 150-year-old woman. In this example, the creators use jovial, consonant music, and easy listening melodies with the intention of engaging a wider public (ibid., 125-27). However, this music is used to underpin a part of the story which involved horrific scenes of violence against the protagonist, and Robinson concludes that this technique minimises the brutality and the potential effect that the disruptive nature of the story could have on the audience (ibid., 126). In the second example, Viderunt Omnes by Christos Hatzis, he critiques the composer for utilising Inuit throat games as pure “aesthetic material” (ibid., 131) rather than incorporating or acknowledging it for the “culture practice” (ibid.) that it is and the story that it can tell.

Menrath points out that difference is also always being portrayed when things are being represented in a transcultural context (Menrath 2018, 13). For Robinson too, a key question in projects that follow the integration model is what is being expressed and what is being ignored or not being expressed (Robinson 2020, 132). Integration implies that all parts and perspectives are equal in the process of converging to create something new (ibid., 130f.). However, as both Menrath and Robinson make clear, there is an ever-present power imbalance between the dominant culture and music from a marginalised perspective (Menrath 2018, 16). Moreover, it is the role of the Other or Othered music to find a way to fit, or ideally, be found a place to fit into the dominant culture (Robinson 2020, 132f.). In this model there is little agency possible for the marginalised perspective.

Nation-to-nation

The nation-to-nation model is based on performances and projects that comprise more than one represented culture and alternate between performances of each group or each culture (Robinson 2020, 133). Here, the aim is to share traditions in an almost show-and-tell fashion, with no interaction between cultural practices, art forms or cultures, whilst still maintaining that each part is equal (ibid., 133f.). The groups, or the cultures, take it in turns throughout the performance to be the host (the ones being shown and told) and to be the guest (the ones showing and telling) (ibid., 135). In this example, Robinson refers to performances of a collaboration between the Pacific Baroque Orchestra from Vancouver and the dance group Spakwus Slolem, comprised of members of the Squamish nation (ibid., 133). The critical question that Robinson asks in relation to this model is however linked to the definition and decolonial understanding of guest and host, namely, what if both groups partaking in the exchange of cultures are doing so in environments and places where, technically or historically, they are indeed both guests (ibid., 135).

Considering this perspective on inclusionary music projects, I want to refer to Menrath’s assertion that attempts at transcultural projects should not simply be concerned with teaching or conveying something that pre-exists, but rather should be guided by and oriented around and to the participants and what they produce (Menrath 2018, 15). For her, there is a need for such projects to be transformative: transforming the space, and thereby the power relations, which make it possible or impossible for some participants to engage in identity construction and expression (ibid., 15f.). In a nation-to-nation project, then, there is a lack of reflection about the space being used, and whilst Robinson is referring specifically to physical and geographical land and its ownership, I contend that the notion of a transformative or transformed space can be explored by increased awareness through self-reflection (Menrath 2018; Osman 2023b) and therefore initially, by means of increased listening (Osman 2023a; Robinson 2020), as discussed above.

Nation-to-nation, Followed by Integration

Could a transformative space as advocated by Menrath, a place to create and explore new forms of expression guided by all actors involved, come into being in an extension of what Robinson calls the nation-to-nation model? In the third model of inclusionary projects, Robinson describes those which initially take on a nation-to-nation form, comprised of consecutive sharing and showing then culminate in a merged artistic performance, or, integration (Robinson 2020, 136). Robinson describes the initial alternate sharing as a progression which results in an apparent familiarisation, and therefore an opportunity to once again ostensibly create on equal terms (ibid.,137). He refers to the documentary Four Seasons Mosaic, which followed the artistic processes and concerts of the Toronto Orchestra Tafelmusik, with the sarangi³ musician Aruna Narayan, the pipa⁴ player, Wen Zhao, and the Inuit throat singers Sylvia Cloutier and June Shappa (ibid., 137-39). After phases of presentation and exchange, their collaboration culminated in all musicians playing Canadian composer Mychael Danna’s Winter. Referring to Eva Mackey (2002), he points out that the phase of sharing and familiarisation is deceptive because, as soon as the integration phase ensues, the dominant culture remains intact (Robinson 2020, 136f.) and once again, the Other and Othered music is found a place to fit within this. As with the initial integration model, the music alone is used as aesthetic material and the cultural practice is removed and ignored, something that Robinson describes as being indicative of the violence endured by marginalised people (ibid., 137). This combination model is further damaging since it implies a reconciliation – here with direct reference to Canada’s treatment of its First Nation Peoples but also in general – between the dominant and marginalised cultures and peoples involved (ibid., 136). In this example, the apparent developed familiarity further creates a power hierarchy. The throat singers, usually soloists, are placed in the orchestra and expected to fit in (ibid., 139). The playful and improvised nature of the singers’ music and performance is confronted by the dominant orchestra sound and ultimately loses out: it sounds ‘wrong’ and as if the musicians do not know what they are doing (ibid.). It is however only the dominant way of listening that hears these deviations as mistakes and therefore understands them as the musicians ‘not getting it’, despite apparently sufficient time spent on an exchange between the cultures. Therein lies the fallacy of the exchange; the dominant cultural practice, here the orchestra, is not required to adjust to anything, apart from making some space for the Other music to take on its scripted role (ibid., 137). In Menrath’s view, such projects have to deconstruct difference, rather than maintain the power balances within the current states of difference (Menrath 2018, 14). Deconstructing difference creates uncertainties and ambiguities, something which she describes as being the realities of transcultural life, and something that Robinson’s fourth model ultimately permits and encourages.

Non-integration

The final model that Robinson observes is concerned with refusing integration (Robinson 2020, 148). Using the example of In Two Worlds by Dawn Avery and Johann Sebastian Bach in which the composer and cellist Dawn Avery plays Bach’s Sarabande, Robinson concludes that the lack of merging of the Indigenous musical aspects, such as the Iroquois bone rattle and Plains Indian falsetto singing, with the Western art music of the cello, foregrounds the “irreducible difference” (ibid., 144) and moreover the “nonengagement of musical difference” (ibid.). By refusing to integrate the musics, and by allowing the two to exist in the same space without being melded, the listener is forced to hear the Otherness of the music, here the indigenous elements. Hearing these aspects as different means that they have not been used as aesthetic materials to fit into a Western art music schema (integration), nor have they been showcased alone as part of the alternating pattern of ‘show and be shown’ of two different cultural practices (nation-to-nation). Whilst the listener may try to listen for similarities (ibid., 145), this non-integration signifies that the Other music refuses to adapt.

Transformative transcultural music mediation asks who is controlling the narrative and whether those of the dominant society are reflecting on their position (Menrath 2018, 16) in the power imbalance and its musical implications. It is the irritation caused by the lack of confluence which highlights the difference, and therefore the Other music, that potentially propagates reflection.

The Workshop: Doing Music Difference?

The above discussion offers some examples of what we already do with Other musics – for better or worse. I will now turn to the listening workshop mentioned at the beginning of the paper and describe and evaluate some aspects and outcomes of the workshop with a view to addressing the question: How can a listening workshop help to highlight what we actually do with Other musics?

There were approximately 10 participants in the workshop, comprised of music and arts students, music and arts educators and mediators, music education researchers, and professors of musicology and community music.

Listening – Alone

The first and main exercise involved listening to four pieces of music. I asked the participants to find a comfortable position in the room and instructed them that I would play a few pieces of music. I asked the participants to listen to the music without doing anything else such as writing or reading. After each piece of music, I asked the question “What did you hear?” to which they would then respond individually using paper and pens, in silence for 2 or 3 minutes. I instructed the participants that they could use words, images or diagrams to answer the question. After 2-3 minutes, my alarm would sound as a sign to put paper and pens down and return to the comfortable listening position. I repeated this sequence four times, each time asking the same question after the music had finished. The pieces of music I played were Rubáiyát Blues by Subhasis Bhattacharya, Lámed II by Samir Odeh-Tamimi, Ashiki Baya by Siti & the Band, and Colonizer (Tundra Mix) by Tanya Tagaq. Each of these pieces of music can be described or categorised as transcultural and/or inclusionary in various ways, referring to Menrath’s and/or Robinson’s understanding of these terms, but also to given understandings of the term that might arise in music mediation contexts. Rubáiyát Blues by Subhasis Bhattacharya includes a combination of tabla percussion and electric blues guitar, at times in concert with each other and at times seemingly not. The version of Lámed II by Palestinian-Israeli composer Samir Odeh-Tamimi was recorded by Martin Posegga, a core member of the Berlin based Zafraan Ensemble, whose repertoire typically challenges the canon. The composition for solo saxophone is based on the poem Garden of Knowledge by the ninth-century Sufi mystic Mansour al-Hallaj. Ashiki Baya is by Siti & the Band, a group from Zanzibar, Tanzania, who consciously fuse traditional Taarab⁵ and “Turkish, Indian and African musical traditions [with] contemporary music from Jazz to Funk to Reggae and beyond” (Delicious Tunes 2023). Tanya Tagaq is a singer who combines Inuk throat singing with elements of rock, grunge and electronic music. The Tundra Mix of the song Colonizer includes loud, dissonant and dronelike elements, as well as electronics. As the title suggests, Tagaq very often centres on the voices and stories of marginalised aboriginal and indigenous peoples of Canada and their plights. By the third and fourth time, it became clear that I would always ask the same question after listening to the piece and it would therefore have been impossible to prevent the participants from already preparing the written answers whilst listening. However, it was not necessary to control this aspect, as the main aim was to find out what the participants heard, including how they heard.

Listening – Exchange

The participants then spent some time in small groups exchanging and discussing their answers to the songs. Invariably, people described emotions felt; perceived origin based on instrumentation, tonality and style; whether they liked the music or not; whether they knew the music or not. Some people were reluctant and uncomfortable discussing answers based on potential stereotypes and cultural categorisations, others were confident that employing and then critiquing stereotypes was part of the point of the exercise. Indeed, in line with a discrimination-critical approach, as described at the beginning of this paper, the discussion and scrutiny of how the participants hear, what influences their listening, what they listen out for, and the consequences thereof forms a critical reflection of self as educator and facilitator.

Discussing

For the third activity I split the participants into two groups to work on two mind-maps answering the following questions: 1) What are the possibilities of transcultural music and music mediation and 2) What are the problems with transcultural music and music mediation. After approximately 20 minutes I asked the groups to swap and therefore consider the other question and perspective. I purposefully chose this debate style activity, where participants are required to only represent or consider one perspective which may or may not be their own. By employing this technique on this particular subject, I wanted to highlight the points of contention, the contradictions and the ambiguities that we as facilitators and researchers are confronted with, and in doing so, the question of how to sit comfortably with uncertainties and discomfort (see Osman 2023a). Insisting on incorporating contradictions harkens back to Menrath’s reference to the realities of transcultural life (Menrath 2018, 14). With this activity and indeed, as we discussed as a group afterwards, I wanted to bring attention to the different positionalities that partake in transcultural music mediation, and with that, the difficulty of finding set answers to dilemmas. In this way the act of remaining aware and asking questions is bolstered. This promotes the continuous scrutiny of both the subject matter and the implications of materials and methodologies used, alongside an aspired understanding of innate and constructed power relations between people in educational settings.

The possibilities discussed and listed included creating spaces and room for new musics, listening and increased visibility for unseen or unheard musics and perspectives. It further included recognition, appreciation, and openness towards the unknown and new, as well as expanding one’s own listening experiences. Having no fear of mistakes, appreciating and embracing grey areas, and using different terminology as bridges for understanding were also discussed and listed. The problems discussed and listed included questions of not knowing which musics were allowed to be shown and worked with by certain people, and which ones were not. The question of how to deal with stereotypes, including their consequences and defining what a bad stereotype is and the effort, time, and training needed to successfully facilitate were brought up, as was the necessity of a critical perspective. Here the word transcultural was criticised for being a synonym for Othering and with that, the process of marginalisation. The word transcultural was also critiqued for implying that everything that is not described as such is therefore the norm and furthermore, for failing to highlight that all music and culture is always somehow transcultural. Further problems that were mentioned included cultural appropriation, tokenism, and as with the first mind map, the ambiguities and contradictions of the grey areas.

Conclusion: Listening and Positionality

How can a listening workshop help to highlight what we actually do with Other musics? How can it help to position us and situate our perspectives and attitudes, and why is that important?

Robinson’s four models, as sketched out above and in conversation with Menrath’s critical perspectives on transcultural music mediation projects, include questions of narrative authority and power imbalances within concepts such as exchange and integration. Understanding transcultural music projects with the help of these models can be part of a critical approach. The way we listen to transcultural music is indicative of our positionalities: what and how we hear depends on which perspective we are hearing from, or even, where in the power relation we are hearing from. Understanding the perspective from which we are hearing and from where in the power relation we are hearing, is precisely the self-reflection that Menrath and Mörsch are referring to, one that results in acknowledging and deconstructing difference, rather than finding a place for it to fit, or even subsuming it. In mapping our listening patterns onto Robinson’s models, they become less ways in which transcultural music projects are formed, and more ways in which they can be heard. They become an indicator of where we hear from: Does something sound integrated because it fits? Do we hear an equal exchange or a tiny space made for the aesthetic material of Other music? Do we hear a lack of timing and off-key notes, or do we hear Other musics played alongside different cultural contexts? And how much are we willing to reflect upon the answers to these questions as they become indicators of power relations and power imbalances that need to be addressed? What we do with Other musics, how we talk about them, teach them, listen to them, and hear them is therefore perhaps the less relevant question. In order to maintain a discrimination-critical approach to transcultural music mediation and projects, the trickier question we have to be prepared to ask is “Why do we do what we do with Other musics?”. This can lead to the reflection and action as proposed by Menrath and Mörsch and as key to a discrimination-critical music mediation.

Endnotes

1. I capitalise the word Other to demonstrate that it has been deemed to be different in a constructed manner. It thereby highlights that the difference is only produced or objectified as an opposition to the Self (here the dominant ways of knowing a music or dominant music). What do we do with Other Musics? was the title of a session organised by the author, Lea Jakob, and Julia Auer for the conference Critiques of Power in the Arts held in Vienna from April 25 to April 27 2024 at the mdw – University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna and partner institutions.↩︎

2. All of this and more is addressed thoroughly and accessibly in the materials devised, developed, and collated by Carmen Mörsch.↩︎

3. A North Indian bowed instrument.↩︎

4. A Chinese lute-like instrument.↩︎

5. Traditional music from Tanzania and Kenya, influenced by North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian musics.↩︎

Bibliography

Binas-Preisendorfer, Susanne, and Melanie Unseld. 2012. Transkulturalität und Musikvermittlung. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang.

Bababoutilabo, Vincent. 2022. “Monostatos Rache.” In Lehr- und Lernmaterial für eine diskriminierungskritische Praxis an der Schnittstelle Bildung / Kunst, edited by Carmen Mörsch. Accessed April 19, 2025. http://diskrit-kubi.net/.

Bremmer, Melissa. 2023. “Encountering disability in music: Exploring perceptions on inclusive music education in higher music education.” Research Studies in Music Education 45, no.3: 512-524.

Brennan, Matthew, Diljeet Bhachu, Jo Collinson Scott, and Graeme Smillie 2017. A Manifesto for Music Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Delicious Tunes. 2023. Accessed April 19, 2025. http://www.delicioustunes.com/siti-the-band.

Eusterbrock, Linus, Chris Kattenbeck, and Oliver Kautny. 2024. It’s How You Flip It: Multiple Perspectives on Hip-Hop and Music Education. Bielefeld: transcript.

Farinati, Lucia, and Claudia Firth. 2017. The Force of Listening. Berlin: Errant Bodies Press.

Josties, Elke, and Marion Gerards. 2020/2019. “Diversitätsbewusste Soziale Arbeit mit Musik in der (Welt‑)Migrationsgesellschaft.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.kubi-online.de/artikel/diversitaetsbewusste-soziale-arbeit-musik-welt-migrationsgesellschaft.

Landry, Donna, and Gerald MacLean. 1996. “Reading Spivak.” In The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, edited by Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, 1-14. New York: Routledge.

Mackey, Eva. 2002. The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Menrath, Stefanie Kiwi. 2018. “Transkulturelle Musikvermittlung im Kontext von Flucht und Asyl.” Diskussion Musikpädagogik 4: 12-18.

Mörsch, Carmen, ed. 2022. Lehr- und Lernmaterial für eine diskriminierungskritische Praxis an der Schnittstelle Bildung / Kunst. Accessed April 19, 2025. http://diskrit-kubi.net/.

Müller-Brozovic, Irena. 2017. “Musikvermittlung.” Kulturelle Bildung Online. Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.kubi-online.de/artikel/musikvermittlung.

Osman, Shanti Suki. 2022. “Wege zu intersektionaler diskriminierungskritischer Musikvermittlung.” Diskussion Musikpädagogik 94: 31-35.

Osman, Shanti Suki. 2023a. “Ein Dekolonisierendes Zuhören?” In Revisionen No.1 KontextSchule 2014 – 2021, edited by Danji Erni, 260-279. Berlin: Universität der Künste Berlin.

Osman, Shanti Suki. 2023b. “Repräsentation und Diversität in der populären Musik in schulischen Musikkontexten.” In Musik, Sound und Politik als Handlungsfeld politischer und musikalischer Bildung, edited by Mario Dunkel and Tonio Oeftering, 131-144. Münster: Waxmann.

Robinson, Dylan. 2020. Hungry Listening: Resonant Theory for Indigenous Sound Studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sponheuer, Inga Marie. 2022. “Postkoloniale Spuren in deutschen Institutionen für Musikförderung.” In Lehr- und Lernmaterial für eine diskriminierungskritische Praxis an der Schnittstelle Bildung / Kunst, edited by Carmen Mörsch. Accessed April 19, 2025. http://diskrit-kubi.net/.

Steyn, Melissa. 2007. “Critical Diversity Literacy: Essentials for the twenty-first century.” In Routledge International Handbook of Diversity Studies, edited by Steven Vertovec. London: New York: Routledge.

Ultra-red. 2000. Accessed April 19, 2025. http://www.ultrared.org/mission.html.