Response to Sam's Answer

I found your answer to be a well-organized and logical argument for the virtual field as a perfectly suitable place for fieldwork. I am curious about this statement from your second paragraph: "As ethnomusicology is a field that deals with the learning of music from other cultures, there is something sacred about it." You follow with this with statements about standard fieldwork (going away to a foreign place, etc) which leaves me a little confused as to what you meant, especially since you don't go on to suggest that virtual fieldworkers were seen as attacking the "sacred practices" of ethnomusicology. I hope I am not misinterpreting/ignoring what you were trying to say! As I see it, the reasons you give for the initial disapproval of the virtual field are:
1. it was seen as a lazy way out
2. the early Internet did not provide culture(s) for study
3. it went against standard practice
Can you think of any more reasons?

You argue that disapproval of the virtual field is no longer relevant/possible, because the Internet creates cultural contact as well as new cultures. I agree! When I posed this question, I was hoping that the person who answered would play the devil's advocate and try to find reasons why the Internet is still an "unacceptable" place for fieldwork. Your response has made me doubt that this is possible, although I think there are probably still people who would look at the kind of fieldwork people like Kiri do with a certain amount of suspicion.