Thanks to both of you for getting this important conversation started. It would certainly be worthwhile to explicitly discuss what our purpose is at the next meeting, and update both our mission statement and purpose statement, and I’ll add that to the agenda along with these suggestions.

Hi All,

I agree with Trevor, and John has been making this point at the meetings for the last few years, that our “mission” has actually changed (and I won’t qualify this with somewhat) since the PMIG. Here are points that I believe are from the mission statement:

• Ensuring academic recognition for popular music research
• Encouragi…[Read more]

Oh, OK. I didn’t know we had a “mission statement.” I think our “mission” has actually changed somewhat since the PMIG was founded, since popular music is now more of an established research area than it was years ago. Anyway, I think your addition of a fourth point would be sufficient, Megan. Thanks!

Good points here. The “purpose” was basically copy-pasted from our “mission statement” on the SMT website. We could make something pedagogy-oriented a fourth element in the article. Perhaps: “(4) to model and advocate for popular repertoire in music theory pedagogy”?

Thank you for your thoughts, Mitch!

1a—I’m fine with putting that in this draft. I don’t see any reason why people would oppose it being more inclusive. I think we should discuss that (along with the 3-year terms) at the meeting explicitly, though.
1b—I left them out just in case we want to add another award someday, so we don’t have to ame…[Read more]

Well done, Megan. I think this is great.

I agree with Mitch that the window for awards should be 3 years. Based on when an article is published and when the PMIG meets, the 2-year window might effectively be only a single chance to submit.

My only other suggested change is to add (or change) something in “Article II: Purpose” to more…[Read more]

Great work on this, Megan! Some points for consideration:
1. Awards.
a. The term on SMT awards is 3 years, as opposed to the 2 here. As a subfield, I can easily imagine a banner year producing multiple works we’d want to recognize and the 3 year window would allow for that. Of course, it would also increase the workload of the committee but I…[Read more]