Copyright by Jeffrey Michael Grimes 2008 - The University of Texas ...

any specific question I had asked. Beyond these differences which came about due to the
direction each interviewee chose to go with their answers, I also, as noted, tinkered with
my batch of questions as I went along. Most notably, I stopped asking directly about my
interlocutors’ perceptions about audiences in different cities, as I was consistently getting
uninformative answers. Also, though, I began to tailor my questions better to suit each
individual, as I began to understand that certain musicians were not likely to answer
certain questions.
I should also note at this point that I see my informants’ ideas and observations as
the framework for the analyses I will offer in the following chapters. To the extent
possible, I have allowed what they have told me to guide the way I have organized and
presented my material. As such, each chapter is based, in a sense, on one common (or, in
the case of the last chapter, chapter 8, uncommon) approach to understanding Hindustani
music in the last 100 years. The only exception to this is my first chapter, which seeks to
explain why so many of my informants were resistant to discussing Hindustani music in
regional terms. Since so few such interviewees were both willing and able to explain this
resistance, I have had arrive some answers strictly based on my own observations. All
the other chapters, though, use ideas from my interlocutors as at least a jumping off point.
Of course, ultimately, the final product here is mine and mine alone, as I only I determine
what is included or not. At any rate, I believe it is essentially an ethical responsibility
(for myself if not for others) to, to the extent possible, give a voice to those individuals
who have taught me about the tradition and have generously helped me to find some
answers to the questioned I have posed. I understand, as in Bakhle’s case, the value of
32