Reply to Ashu's second post: Ashu, appreciate your rejoinder. First, I sense that the subtext of the first portion of your response has to with preexisting animus vis a vis Nepe and HKB rather than with the piece I wrote. NEPE and HKB do a better job of sepaking for themselves that I ever could, so let me address only those issues that pertain directly to your comments on the write up of Nepali music and musicians I did for HKP. First, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, let me say that Ashu?s comments faults the piece for not being something it never tries to be. This was a piece on MUSIC -- not the sociology, politics, economics etc., of music. In fact I was making an effort not sound like a typical social scientist. Whatever ?social scientific? stuff I had to say I tried saying it in context of talking about the MUSIC. Again, this was not intended to be a piece on how music looks from the market, media, demographic, social, political etc. etc. point of view. Rather it was an attempt primarily to look at Nepali music from a musical/performance point of view. Please judge it as such. Now about Himal?s putative ?claim?. Ashu, I looked everywhere in the physical copy of the Himal that I have to see where the magazine billed my piece as ?social-science-for-masses?. I did not find any such or similar claim. So either this charge by you is based on insider info. , or else it is an assumption foisted by you rather than a charge earned by Himal. The article, at the very top, has the following Nepali phrase: ?Nepali Sangeet/Vishleshan?. What portion of that editorial logo do you wish to refute? That it?s not about Nepali music; or that it?s not analysis? By now I am able to gather, of course, that it is not the type of analysis you would have expected/liked. But that does not cease to make it an analysis !! Please!