Listening to popular music, accessed via Web 2.0 technologies, such as P2P networks and pay-per-track sites, and played-back on MP3 players, is a central, arguably defining activity of contemporary youth consumer culture. For example, how many of our current undergraduates do not possess some kind of MP3 device, via which they can access their preferred choice of music whenever they want? Very few, I suspect. The above article explored the difficulties we currently face in trying to explain this example of apparently mundane youth practice. Because as soon as we begin to ask why this form of music consumption is popular, what it might mean to individual listeners, and the processes that make it possible and even desirable as something to do, we realize that the extant approaches that could provide possible answers, lie across a range of disciplines: youth studies, popular music studies and media communications. And this is because this taken-for-granted contemporary youth consumer practice, is actually the most visible point in a complex set of overlapping industry and organizational practices that make possible the production, mediation and consumption of popular music, in this form. The problem the above-referenced article raised was that the hitherto existing academic subject domains of youth studies, popular music and media communications, all clearly have a part to play in providing a possibly adequate explanation of this phenomena. Or at least they would be able to do so, if they could be more fruitfully integrated. Because of their origins and development they have remained more or less separate areas of enquiry, with different theoretical and methodological values and concerns, which has resulted in a lack of integration of key areas, such as the relationship between the cultural and structural in youth music consumption and the role of media industries in ‘framing’ such a process; areas that would appear to be essential to explaining the production, mediation and ‘uses’ of youth music consumption. However, in the article, I also suggest that there are signs of the emergence, in some recent popular music and culture textbooks, of a more integrated approach, one that examines popular music as a media culture industry that serves a youth demographic. The value of this, is that it appears to offer a way of bringing youth studies, popular music and media studies closer together in the ways in which it is possible to explore the linkages between production, mediation and consumption of music commodities and youth consumer practices. In what follows I identify and comment on these texts and also those texts that offer accessible accounts of popular music and the music industries as well as youth consumption.
Wall, Tim. 2003. Studying Popular Music Culture. London, UK: Arnold.
This book presents itself as an undergraduate ‘text book’ with panels on case studies, suggestions for student projects and the like. But unlike perhaps other examples of this style the author offers an innovative combination of popular music and media culture approaches, taking the form of concise summaries, analytical points (sometimes with models) and applied thinking-through of ideas. For example, the section on Popular music histories and the frameworks that inform them, offers a range of student activities based around empirical analysis (historical schematics), theory (models of emergence, innovation, revolution, incorporation and decline), and applied thinking. Accessible to all undergraduates.
Longhurst, Brian. 2007. Popular Music and Society. Oxford, UK: Polity, 2nd edn.
Another would-be undergraduate core text. Well-organized and very clearly written, again using topic-based panels but in this volume comparatively substantial exerts from classic texts are included with questions. Longhurst’s strength is the way the book is informed by knowledge of social theory happening in different areas. This is evident in the section on audiences (in the revised edition), which provides a balanced but also critically informed overview of the most up-to-date work in (so-called) post-subcultural studies. Accessible to all undergraduates.
Osgerby, Bill. 2004. Youth Media. London, UK: Routledge.
Osgerby is a cultural historian who is not surprisingly strong on narratives of periods and points of change. The scope of this book is impressive and so is the detail and range of references. Despite the fact that the book is narrative driven the author also pays attention to shifts and changes in theoretical arguments. It also offers a useful guide to further reading. Accessible to all undergraduates.
Frith, Simon and Andrew Goodwin. (eds) 1990. On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word. London, UK: Routledge.
This classic text is still probably the best collection of popular music and music industry related articles and chapter extracts. It includes seminal work that is not easily available elsewhere, such as many pieces mentioned in my article. Another plus point is that the pieces are not edited down, an unfortunate aspect of many newer volumes. I am at a loss as to understand why a 2nd updated version of this text has never emerged. For advanced undergraduates.
Bennett, Andy, Jason Toynbee and Barry Shank. 2006. The Popular Music Studies Reader. London, UK: Routledge.
This volume offers itself as an update to research in the field of popular music studies in the absence of a revised edition of Frith and Goodwin’s tome (p. 6). I think it largely does meet its remit, offering a wide range of themed sections, of which the section on the music industry and music media are especially relevant to the points in my article, as well as the section on Popular music and Everyday life (see the chapters by De Nora and Bull, for example). Each of the themed sections has an editor introduction, which is useful. The selection of texts is generally representative of (mostly) recent work, although occasionally eclectic. Also the volume, despite or perhaps because of its impressive breadth, does drastically edit down material to fit. For advanced undergraduates.
Negus, Keith. 1995. ‘Popular Music: Between Celebration and Despair.’ Pp. 379–93 in Questioning the Media, edited by John Downing, Ali Mohammadi and Anabelle Sreberny- Mohammadi. London, UK: Sage.
I can’t think of a better piece to begin a popular music and media course than this one, although the imaginative use of Sinead O’Connor’s song and video ‘Nothing Compares to You’, to illustrate the theory of ‘articulations’, may now be somewhat time-bound. Showing the video (its on You Tube) helps! Accessible to all undergraduates.
Negus, Keith. 1996. Popular Music in Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
This book explicitly sets out to provide a guide to theory and debates in popular music studies and, as one of the few ‘theory’ books in this area, it achieves an impressive level of clarity and accessibility, without compromising on debate. I have found Negus consistently useful in my own attempts to guide students through areas of debates. The sequence of topics, beginning with Audiences, although integral to the way the book develops, does not always map onto the ways that courses are taught in this area. But an essential theory book accessible to undergraduates.
Nixon, Sean. 1997. ‘Circulating Culture.’ Pp. 177–220 in Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, edited by Paul Du Gay. London, UK: Sage.
An elegant theoretical attempt to re-model the structure/culture/biography ‘circuit of culture’ framework inherited from Birmingham CCCS work and part of a volume concerned with the folding back of consumption into the flexible production of post-Fordist or late-capitalist niche product-driven markets. See also the extended debate about cultural intermediaries in Cultural Studies (2002) vol. 16. For advanced undergraduates.
Peterson, Richard A. 1994. ‘Cultural Studies through the Production Perspective: Progress and Prospects.’ Pp. 163–189 in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Diane Crane. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
An impressive, accessible and wide-ranging discussion of the Culture of Production approach from one of its originators. For advanced undergraduates.
Miles, Steven. 2003. ‘Researching Young People as Consumers: Can and Should We Ask Them Why?’ Pp. 170–185 in Researching Youth, edited by Andy Bennett, Andy Cieslik and Steven Miles. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmilan.
Although Miles has written full-length texts on Consumption (1998) and Youth Lifestyles (2000) it is this short think-piece that I would recommend, not least because I quote it and borrow some of its insights in my article, but also because it represents a thoughtful attempt to try and develop an approach to youth studies that foregrounds the cultural meanings surrounding commodity consumption as the link between media-industries/commerce and the meaning frameworks/structural situation of youth. For advanced undergraduates.
Willis, Paul. 1990. Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Although the examples in this survey and summary of research into youth and commodity culture now seem dated (cassette taping culture, for example), nonetheless it represents a seminal attempt to re-think subcultural theory in terms of ordinary everyday cultural practices. Obviously, given its perspective ‘from below’ it has very little to say about the media culture industries themselves. For advanced undergraduates.
Camp Chaos Entertainment (1998) Napster Bad video (uploaded May 2000):http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/napster_bad.html
Camp Chaos Entertainment (1998) Sue All the World video (uploaded July 2000): http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/napster_bad_sue_all_the_world.html
As is well-known, a number of high profiles music artists got involved in the debate about ‘free’ music, the most lampooned of which is Lars Ulrich (of Metallica) who became (literally) a cartoon effigy of apparent music company greed and control when he threatened to sue fans. These two wickedly satirical animations are great to use as stimulus material for students beginning to think about these issues. But beware – some Metallica fans will not be amused!
History of R&B indies: http://www.history-of-rock.com/independent.htm
This site relates to the material on Indie Case Studies (see Sample Lect 6), in this case US R&B, blues and soul indies.
Progressive rock labels: http://www.my-generation.org.uk/harvest.htm
Great site on the progressive rock labels (with cool images of vinyl – if you happen to be a vinyl fetishist, like me), both genuine indies, pseudo indies and notable artists and brief history.
Reynold’s on Post-Punk: http://www.simonreynolds.net/
Music journalist, Simon Reynolds on the neglect of the post-punk ‘indie’ project and the idea of an alternative mainstream. Some good links to debates, notes and interviews.
RIAA link: http://www.riaa.com/
The Recording Industry Association of America records data (in terms of unit sales) of artists and albums, in the largest single popular music market in the world – the US. Very useful in trying to determine the relative popularity of artists/genres/and particular albums….
EveyHit WebPage: http://www.everyhit.co.uk/
EveryHit.com is a UK search engine/data base that allows analysis of artists, chart positions and duration of Top 20, Top 10 and No. 1s. This can be very useful in trying to decide things like how diverse markets are, how volatile, how consistent artists, genres and trends are; the composition of top 20s over time, etc.
BPI site: http://www.bpi.co.uk/index.asp
The home page of the British Phonographic Institute – UK equivalent to the RIAA. Although data breakdown is only available to subscribers the site does offer year-end reports on sales and artists which can be e-mailed to your account or printed.
Global Artists Sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_music_artists#World.27s_best_seller
This link tries to categorise artists in terms of units of global sales but does not have the precision of the RIAA. Useful for all kinds of arguments, like who is the globally highest selling rap artist?
Rock bottom: The music industry in trouble by Charles Shar Murray: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/rock-bottom-the-music-industry-in-trouble-656952.html
A contemporary ‘think piece’ by a former doyen of the United Kingdom ‘national’ rock press, bemoaning the corporate–logic driving a ‘worried’ music business and the ‘narrow-cast’ nature of music consumption, essentially separate markets connected by niche media.
Over the next two sessions we are going to be looking at research into the music business. As Keith Negus has argued ‘whether in the words of academic theorists, journalists, fans or musicians, the music industry frequently appears as villain: a ruthless corporate ‘machine’ that continually attempts to control creativity, compromises aesthetic practices and offers audiences little real choice’ (1996: 36). This week’s lecture will survey the research that has underpinned and fed into such arguments, from the seminal Peterson and Berger model of how oligopoly = lack of diversity in music markets, to those studies that have sough to continue, revise and update this model to take account of the contemporary global music business. While it is clearly the case that popular music production is currently in the hands of even fewer global media corporations this is not necessarily repeating the same patterns of production and consumption as in the past. While clearly the overall aims of such firms is to exercise as much control as possible over the production of popular music, as in the past, this strategy has not always produced the standardized and stylistically conservative sounds, aimed at a homogenized mass audience, that critics have claimed. One of the ways to begin to explore this is to look at the changing relationship between majors and independents over time and how the strategies of both have lead to an increasingly more complex commercial relationship between the two. This does not mean that the idea of the big, bad music business has gone away or that arguments do not continue to rage over: commerce versus creativity, independents vs. majors and production determining consumption, as we will see.
Seminar: The case of the Sony/BMG merger.
Longhurst, Brian. 1995. Popular Music and Society Oxford: Polity. Pp. 29–53 in ‘The Pop Music Industry.’
Negus, Keith. 1996. Popular Music in Theory. Pp. 36–65 in ‘Industry.’ Cambridge: Polity, ch. 2.
Rowe, David. 1995. Popular Cultures: Rock Music, Sport and the Politics of Pleasure. pp. 18–49 in ‘Rock industry: Song and Business Cycle.’ London: Sage.
Frith, Simon. 1988/2005 ‘The Industrialization of Popular Music.’ Pp. 231–8 in The Popular Music Studies Reader, edited by A. Bennett, B. Shank and J. Toynbee. London: Routledge, ch. 26.
Chapple, S. and Garofalo, R. 1977. Rock ‘n’ Roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of The Music Industry. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Harker, Dave. 1980. One for the Money: Politics and the Popular Song. London: Hutchinson.
Hull, Geoffrey, P. 2000. ‘The Structure of the Recorded Music Industry.’ Pp. 76–98 in The Media and Entertainment Industries: Readings in Mass Communications Needham Heights, edited by A.N. Greco. MA: Allyn & Bryce.
Sanjek, R and Sanjek, D. 1991. The American Popular Music Business in the 20th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burnett, Robert. 1996. The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London: Routledge.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 2002. The Cultural Industries. London: Sage, pp. 1–24.
Lecture: Indies vs. Majors
This second lecture on the music business shifts the emphasis away from political economy models to those that focus on the micro picture of the organizational logic that informs the typical record company within the wider logic of the record industry. Hirsch’s (1972/1990) seminal model of the record company as a cultural system that selects and filters product along a linear production line, is relevant here. This is because the inherent instability of popular taste and the difficulty faced by big corporations in anticipating changes in taste, result in the formation of two contradictory tendencies. First, an attempt to control the stages of production, through horizontal and vertical integration and the like. Second the attempt to strategically manage artist and repertoire, genre categories and output itself. It is the second dimension that has become subject to more recent research scrutiny in terms of the ‘management of creativity’ within the music business and more specifically, the role of record company personnel as ‘cultural intermediaries’. This revised theoretical model and a number of case studies of significant independent companies, such as those associated with punk and post-punk, indie and dance labels, has led to a revised account of the relationship between the smaller or independent labels and the big corporations in terms of concepts such as niche markets, symbiosis and flexible specialization.
Seminar: The progressive underground and the post-punk indie experiment: what have we learned?
Longhurst, Brian. 1995. Popular Music and Society. Pp. 55–90 in ‘The Social Production of Music.’ Oxford: Polity.
Negus, Keith. 1992. Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Popular Music Industry. Pp. 135–150. London: Arnold, ‘Between Success and Failure: Collaboration in the Music Industry.’ Pp. 38–61. ‘Priorities and prejudice; Artist and Repertoire and the Acquisition of Artist., Pp. 62–79 ‘Images, Identities and Audiences.’
Negus, Keith. 1995. ‘Where the Mystical Meets the Market: Creativity and Commerce in the Production of Popular Music’Sociological Review43(2): 316–341.
Rowe, David. 1995. Popular Cultures: Rock Music, Sport and the Politics of Pleasure. Pp. 18–49 in ‘Rock Industry: Song and Business Cycle.’ London: Sage.
Indie case studies – from R&B pioneers, through the Progressive rock underground to Post-Punk DIY, Hardcore/Alt, DanceIndustrial to Rap:
George, Nelson. 1988. The Death of Rhythm and Blues. Pp 147–169 in ‘Crossover.’ New York: Plume.
Ward, Brian. 1998. Just My Soul Responding: Rhythm and Blues, Black Consciousness and Race Relations. Pp. 21–29 in ‘Majors and Independents.’ London and New York: Routledge.
Stump, Paul. 1998. The Music’s All that Matters: A History of Progressive Rock. ‘Samplers, Subsidiaries and Showmen.’ London: Quartet, ch. 3.
Reynolds, Simon. 2005. Rip it Up and Start Again: Post-Punk 1978–84. London: Faber and Faber.
Young, Robert. 2006. Rough Trade. London: Black Dog Publishing.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 1998. ‘The British Dance Music Industry: A Case Study in Independent Cultural Production,’British Journal of Sociology49(2): 234–51.
Goshert, John, C. 2000. ‘Punk’ after the Pistols: American Music, Economics and Politics in the 1980s and 1990s. Popular Music & Society Spring, 24(1): 85–106.
Wilson, Tony. 2002. 24 Hour Party People: What the Sleeve Notes Never Tell You. Oxford: 4 Books Pan Macmillan.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 1996. ‘Flexibility, post-Fordism and the Music Industries’Media, Culture and Society18(3): 469–88.
Negus, Keith. 1999. ‘The Music Business and Rap: Between the Street and the Executive Suite.’Cultural Studies13(3): 488–508.
The dominant characterization of the popular music consumer in administrative and ‘effects’ research has been overwhelmingly the vulnerable, gullible, easily influenced and therefore potentially ‘dangerous’ individual especially as this characterization coincided and reinforced images of damaged children, dangerous adolescents and troubling youth found in moral panics accompanying the spread and popularity of popular music cultures. Left and radical theories did not fare much better since they too, following Adorno, tended to characterize the consumer of popular music culture as a potential recruit of authoritarian politics or at the very least a passive conformist to the status quo. More recently such views have been challenged by the rise of ‘active audience’ theories. But it remains the case that we know very little of the detail of how people actually consume music and therefore of the sorts of connections that exist between this activity and other issues such as changing conceptions of social identity, gender and ethnicity, locality and age.
Seminar: Exploring music consumption: technologies and ‘uses’.
Longhurst, Brian. 1995. Popular Music and Society. Pp. 195–225 in ‘Effects, Audiences and Subcultures.’ Oxford: Polity.
Shuker, Roy. 1994. Understanding Popular Music. Pp. 225–36 in ‘My Generation’: Audiences, Fans and Subcultures.’ London: Routledge, ch. 9.
Shuker, Roy. 2001 Understanding Popular Music. Pp. 193–206 in ‘My Generation’: Audiences and Fans, Scenes and Subcultures.’ London: Routledge, 2nd edn., ch.11.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 2002. ‘Popular Music Audiences and Everyday Life.’ Pp. 117–130 in Popular Music Studies, edited by D. Hesmondhalgh and K. Negus. London: Arnold.
DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeNora, Tia. 2005. ‘Music and Self-identity.’ Pp. 141–147 in The Popular Music Studies Reader, edited by A. Bennett, B. Shank and J. Toynbee. London: Routledge, ch. 16.
Bull, Michael. 2005. ‘No Dead Air! The iPod and the Culture of Mobile Listening’Leisure Studies, 24(4): 343–55, October.
Willis, Paul. and Team. 1996. Moving Culture. Pp. 19–26. Buckingham: Open University Press, ‘Music.’ London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, ch. 4.
Peterson, Richard A. 1994. ‘Measured Markets and Unknown Audiences: Case Studies from the Production and Consumption of Music.’ in. Pp. 171–85. Audience Making: How the Media Create the Audience, edited by, J.S. Ettima and D.C. Whitney. London: Sage.
Du Gay, Paul and Negus, Keith. 1994. ‘The Changing Sites of Sound: Music Retailing and Composition of Consumers.’Media, Culture and Society16(3): 395–413.
Music Consumers (ideologies of consumption):
Adorno, Theodor. 1990/1941. ‘On Popular Music.’ Pp. 301–314 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Adorno, Theodor. 1991. ‘On the Fetish Character of Music and the Regression of Listening’ in The Culture Industry: Selected Essays On Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Gendron, Bernard. 1986. ‘Theodore Adorno Meets the Cadillacs.’ Pp. 18–36 in Studies in Entertainment, edited by T. Modleski. Bloomington: Bloomington Indiana Press.
Riesman, David. 1990/1950 ‘Listening To Popular Music.’ Pp. 5–13 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Horton, Donald. 1990/1957. ‘The Dialogue of Courtship in Popular Song.’ Pp. 14–26 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin London: Routledge.
Hall, Stuart and Whannel, Paddy. 1990/1964. ‘The Young Audience.’ Pp. 27–37 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Buxton, David. 1990/1983. ‘Rock Music, the Star System, and the Rise of Consumerism.’ Pp. 427–40 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Frith, S. and Goodwin, A. 1990. ‘From Subcultural to Cultural Studies.’ Pp. 39–42 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Studies of listening/consuming music and ‘meaning’:
Cavicchi, David. 1998. Tramps Like Us: Music and Meaning Among Springsteen Fans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adams, Rebecca G. 2000. Deadhead Social Science: You ain’t Gonna Learn What You Don’t Want to Know. AltaMira Press.
Williams, Christina. 2001. ‘Does it Really Matter? Young People and Popular Music.’Popular Music20(2): 223–42.
Lecture: subcultures, scenes & tribes
For many years the concept of subculture was thought to provide the most consistent explanation of how class based youth groups were able to make a youth culture out of materials they ‘borrowed’ from the dominant commercial culture. The resultant style that such groups exhibited was understood to comprise a combination of dress, argot and ritual. It was assumed that this framework could also explain the connections to types of music preference and its use within particular subcultures, such as Ska in the skinhead culture or R&B in the Mod type. This musical connection seemed to become more explicit with Punk – the first post-war youth subculture to be defined explicitly by the music it preferred. However, after Punk, it became apparent to a growing number of theorists that music based mass movements, like acid house and rave, did not sit very well within the subculture framework and that subsequent changes in youth styles and activities pointed to features – like the cross-class, mixed ethnic and gender camaraderie of outdoor rave culture and the fluid and changing composition of groups – that were not easily accommodated within the old subcultural model. This impasse has led a number of contemporary theorists to offer a range of alternative ways of understanding youth practices, particularly in relation to urban dance cultures, such as: bunde, neo-tribe, pseudo-tribe, scene and post-subculture. However, it remains the case that the CCCS model of subculture still casts a long shadow over the study of youth and this has lead some commentators to argue that the study of popular music would be better of without it. Others have responded to this position by arguing that what is needed is a greater integration of youth theories with more detailed empirical work on the ordinary consumption of youth that might tease out the connections between music, meaning and identities.
Seminar: Subcultural styles: I can’t hear the music over the theory!
Longhurst, Brian. 1995. Popular Music and Society. Pp. 210–25 in ‘Culture, Subculture and Music.’ Oxford: Polity.
Shuker, Roy. 1994. Understanding Popular Music. Pp. 237–50 ‘Youth Subcultures, Style and Rock.’ London: Routledge.
Shuker, Roy. 2001. Understanding Popular Music. Pp. 206–16 in ‘Subcultures and Style.’ London: Routledge, 2nd edn.
Brown, Andy R. 2003. ‘Heavy Metal and Subcultural Theory: A Paradigmatic Case of Neglect?,’ Pp. 209–22 in The Post-Subcultures Reader, edited by D. Muggleton and R. Weinzierl. Oxford: Berg.
Brown, Andy R. 2007. ‘Rethinking the Subcutural Commodity: Exploring Heavy Metal T-Shirt Culture(s).’ Pp. 63–78 in Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes, edited by P. Hodkinson and W. Deicke. London: Routledge.
Frith, Simon. 1978. The Sociology of Rock. Pp. 37–58 in ch.3, ‘Youth and Music.’ London: Constable.
Frith, Simon. 1983. Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock. Pp. 202–234 in ch.9 ‘Youth and Music,’ London: Constable.
Willis, P. 1990/1978. ‘The Golden Age.’ Pp. 43–55 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Willis, Paul. 1978. ‘Profane Culture.’ London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hebdige, Dick. 1990/1979. ‘Style as Homology and Signifying Practice.’ Pp. 56–65 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
McRobbie, Angela. 1990/1980. ‘Settling Accounts with Subcultures: A Feminist Critique.’ Pp. 66–80 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Clarke, Gary. 1990/1981. ‘Defending Ski-Jumpers: A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures.’ Pp. 81–95 in On Record, edited by S. Frith and A. Goodwin. London: Routledge.
Wicke, Peter. 1990. Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology. Pp. 73–90 in ‘My Generation: Rock Music and Sub-cultures.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 4.
Negus, Keith. 1996. Popular Music in Theory. Pp. 99–135 in ‘Identities,’ Cambridge: Polity, ch. 4.
Thornton, Sarah. 1995. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity,
Thornton, Sarah. 1997. ‘The Social Logic of Subcultural Capital.’ Pp. 200–209 in The Subcultures Reader, edited by K. Gelder and S.Thornton. London: Routledge.
Bennett, Andy. 1999. ‘Subcultures or Neo-Tribes? Rethinking the Relationship Between Youth, Style and Musical Taste’Sociology33(3): 599–561.
Hodkinson, Paul. 2002. Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Oxford: Berg, Pp. 9–33.
Weinzierl, Rupert and Muggleton, David. 2003. ‘What is “Post-subcultural Studies” Anyway?’ Pp. 3–23 in The Post-Subcultures Reader, edited by D. Muggleton and R. Weinzierl. London: Berg.
Purcell, Nancy, J. 2003. Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture. North Carolina and London: McFarland and Co.
Laughey, Dan. 2006. Music & Youth Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hesmondhalgh, David. 2005. ‘Subcultures, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above.’Journal of Youth Studies8(1): 21–40.