agentive appropriation of existing models rather than slavish imitation or consumption. Groemer has no time for this work, which he sees as merely lending “a cloak of intellectual and artistic respectability to even the most banal musical commodities by fi nding important sociocultural (rarely musical) meanings in standard formulae and trivial deviations, or by invoking the mantra of ‘constructions of identity’ . . . the ultimate justifi cation for everything” (pp. 211–12, my emphasis). This is strong, even dismissive, language and the reader is left wondering why Groemer takes just the last ten pages to develop these lines of argument instead of the whole book. A fuller articulation would have likely broadened the book’s appeal and helped clarify why the language of social constructionism is appropriate to Groemer’s analysis of the “consumptive subject” but not to the analysis of popular music in the work of others. For readers, Goze assumes a general understanding of music theory as well as some familiarity with Japanese music and history. It will, therefore, likely be of most interest to students and scholars of Japanese ethnomusicology. In its pages, they will fi nd many insights into the world of goze and much raw material to explore further.

中文翻译：

---

今桥理子的秋田兰加学校和江户日本的文化背景

对现有模型的主动挪用，而不是盲目的模仿或消费。Groemer 没有时间做这项工作，他认为这只是“通过在标准公式和微不足道的偏差中找到重要的社会文化（很少是音乐）意义，或者通过调用“身份建构”的口头禅。. . 一切的最终理由”（第 211-12 页，我的重点）。这是一种强有力的，甚至是不屑一顾的语言，读者会想知道为什么 Groemer 只用最后十页而不是整本书来发展这些论点。更全面的阐述可能会扩大这本书的吸引力，并有助于澄清为什么社会建构主义的语言适用于格罗默对“消费主题”的分析，而不适用于对他人作品中流行音乐的分析。对于读者来说，Goze 假设对音乐理论有一般的了解，并且对日本音乐和历史有一定的了解。因此，它可能是日本民族音乐学的学生和学者最感兴趣的。在它的页面中，他们会发现许多关于 goze 世界的见解和许多需要进一步探索的原材料。日本民族音乐学的学生和学者可能最感兴趣。在它的页面中，他们会发现许多关于 goze 世界的见解和许多需要进一步探索的原材料。日本民族音乐学的学生和学者可能最感兴趣。在它的页面中，他们会发现许多关于 goze 世界的见解和许多需要进一步探索的原材料。