The AMS welcomes suggestions submitted to the office. We'll post them and respond when feasible.

Send an anonymous suggestion via Suggestion Ox! (opens in new window)

Or, write to the AMS, and let us know if you wish to be identified with the question.

Back to the Contact page


The guidelines for submitting to the national meeting are very clear that people who participate in year X as regular session presenters are not eligible to present as regular session presenters again in year x+1. But John Covach, Monica Hershberger, Michael Gallope, Raymond Knapp, James Deaville, and Amy Coddington all presented in regular sessions as presenters in 2016 and are now listed as doing the same in 2017. Is this rule not followed? I would like the program committee to address this, please, as it undermines confidence in the entire process.

Thank you for checking up on this important aspect of Annual Meeting selection. The AMS takes its Call for Proposals very seriously. In the cases above, the nuances of the CFP mean that the people named were permitted to submit Individual Proposals for AMS Rochester 2017. The essential principle is that those who presented individual papers during the daytime hours (9 to noon, 2 to 5) are not permitted to submit a proposal the following year; nor are organizers of Alternative Format sessions (AF) or Evening Panels (EP). Participants in AF and EP sessions are, however, permitted to submit proposals the following year. For those named above: according to the Vancouver Program, John Covach did not present a paper at an AMS session; he presented a paper at an SMT session, which does not count for AMS purposes. Monica Hershberger, Raymond Knapp, James Deaville, and Amy Coddington were participants in AF or EP sessions. Michael Gallope served as session chair but did not present a paper.

If I've made an error in looking through the Vancouver progam and am wrong about any of these people (or any others, for that matter), please let me know, and the AMS will take steps to rectify the error. Thanks in advance for helping.   --Bob Judd


This message concerns the "Colloquy: On the Disability Aesthetics of Music" (JAMS, summer 2016, p. 525ff). I question the suitability of this article for a scholarly journal.... This is "politically-correct" gone awry.

Thank you for your comment, which has been forwarded to the editor of JAMS for consideration.


This year the MLA [Modern Language Association] is holding a session called "Careers Beyond the Professoriate for Humanities PhDs: The Employer Perspective." They have representatives from the American Council of Learned Societies, Chicago Humanities festival, New America, and the Forum on Education Abroad speaking. Could the AMS have a session like this for musicology PhDs. maybe with organizations that employ musicologists, like symphonies or chamber music societies, or music labels or publishers?

Thank you for this suggestion, which has been forwarded to the Committee on Career-Related Issues for consideration. You may contact them with additional suggestions at any time.


Which AMS committee oversees Musicology Now? I find it too elitist: who should I communicate with if I have a comment?

The Communications Committee oversees Musicology Now. You can write to Emma Dillon, committee chair, or Drew Massey, blog curator. You may use this anonymous service if you wish (messages for them will be forwarded), or write directly. You may also wish to communicate with those you may know who serve on AMS Council, a broadly representative body of ninety members (including thirty student members).


I would urge JAMS to seriously consider adding more book reviews...

Thank you. Your comment will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for consideration.


I'd like to see the email list replaced with a forum like the one at the Chronicle of Higher Education, with individual threads for individual topics. Perhaps the current elist moderators could serve as moderators there--it seems to work pretty well with what they call "member-moderators."

Thanks-- the Communications Committee is looking now at Forum options, and will look at the Chronicle's example.


This is a response to the 4/25/16 message "Why don't candidates for the board have platforms or statements of what they hope to accomplish as board members?" I was not the original poster, but I am interested in the response.

I would like to strongly express my interest in adding a very brief manifesto or letter explaining why they are interested in the position. The brief bios posted create a very insular effect of voting for recognized names, which is not in my opinion a recipe for diversity of ideas or experiences.

Thanks for the comment. The Board of Directors will consider it.


I for one would love to see less discussion of politics on AMS-L. While there are certainly places where it is absolutely pertinent, I think many people have chosen to use the forum as a venting point. This is simply distracting; I would love to have the guidelines be more specific about excluding this in spirit.

Thanks for the suggestion. The Communications Committee, who monitor AMS-L posting guidelines, will consider it.


Why don't candidates for the board have platforms or statements of what they hope to accomplish as board members? Are we supposed to vote for people in our areas. or who we like? There's no criteria for voting for them in their bios, like other leadership positions or what they did in other places or what they want to do for the AMS. If we can't tell why they want to serve, why should we vote for them?

Although the bios do include leadership activity (under the category "Administrative experience") in the brief bios, the Board has chosen not to ask candidates for a manifesto or platform. Board decisions are nearly always consensual. The Board hears societal needs and desires, and solicits input, through Council and committees, so individuals' desires (such as might be seen in a "platform") are not the highest priority of Board service.

How should one consider candidates and determine who to vote for? We have prepared a web page (a link also appears at the election ballot) on the subject. The Board does not presuppose that members should vote for people in their area, but they do wish to have a wide range of different perspectives, and strive through the nomination process to meet this need.


     Follow the AMS

      AMS at Facebook   AMS on Twitter   AMS at YouTube