In New York City there are telephones - in virtually every apartment (and via extensions and portable models often in every room), every office (many times on every desk), on street corners and subway platforms. Cell phones live in people's pockets, purses, or hands and telephone conversations occur just about anywhere. This article examines the seemingly antithetical relationship between using the telephone and conducting fieldwork, using as an example some of the experiences and conundrums I encountered while conducting fieldwork among women of New York's mainstream jazz community. I argue that to understand the antithetical relationship that exists between fieldwork and the phone we need to examine both the cultural notions that surround telephone use as well as our notions and ideals of anthropological practice. I further argue that as we recognize the telephone as an important medium of contemporary social life and incorporate it into our ethnographic toolkit, we open the door to a kind of fieldwork that can help move us beyond our localizing tendencies and lingering adherence to face-to-face interactions as the stuff of social life. [telephone, fieldwork, community, ethnography, jazz] Los Angeles may be a car culture, but the real driving force here is the phone. Landline, cell phone, car phone (never pay phone), it's the town's most important power -- and social - tool (Lenkert 1998: 106). In the United States and in many other parts of the world, day to day interaction with the telephone has changed significantly over the last fifteen to twenty years. It is not simply the cellular phones that students now carry to class. It's beepers, answering machines, calling cards, caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding, call answering, and multiple phone lines in homes. It's 1-800 and 1-900 numbers and cheaper long-distance service, including overseas. It's automated banking by phone and telephone line mediated fax machines and internet connections. It's campaign finance carried out via the phone. It's telephone sex and published transcripts of recorded telephone conversations between President Clinton's girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky, and her girlfriend, Linda Tripp. On the whole, anthropologists have paid little scholarly attention to the telephone. At the 1995 American Anthropological Association annual meetings Orvar Lofgren pointed to this rather curious omission and suggested that we had been unduly neglectful of our telephone mediated social lives (Lofgren 1995).1 Gupta and Ferguson (1997c: 44)) noted Lofgren's observation about our lack of research of telephone use within the context of a discussion of the anthropological tendency to focus on the exotic and overlook the familiar. Communication scholars and sociologists, some of our colleagues more traditionally concerned with the familiar, have carried out interesting research on the social world of telephone use, even though these scholars also sometimes point out that the telephone has been understudied (see Umble 1996: 13). Two important ethnographic examples are Rakow's (1992) study of women's telephone use in a rural Midwestern town and Umble's (1996) work focused on the telephone use of Amish and Old Order Mennonites in Pennsylvania. These works respectively provide us with an analysis foregrounding matters of the production and reproduction of gender via telephone practices and an over-time examination of how community dynamics and interests impact the construction and use of the telephone. Other important works on the social placement of the telephone include Marvin's (1988) classic social history, When old technologies were new, Fischer's (1992) America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940 and Ithiel de Sola Pool's (1977) The social impact of the telephone, an edited collection of essays by authors from a range of fields working in a range of pursuits.2 Sociolinguistic work on telephone conversations such as the work carried out by conversation analysts (for example, Schegloff and Sacks 1984), the one aspect of telephone research with which cultural anthropologists - at least linguistically inclined ones - tend to be familiar, should also be noted. …