4
(Re)generations of Popular
Musicology
Serge Lacasse
INTRODUCTION
In the context of this Handbook, the term
‘musicology’ refers to scholarly approaches
that focus primarily on the musical and sonic
aspects of popular music as well as to any
critical discourse founded on them. These
aspects not only include pitch (melody, harmony), rhythm, form, timbre and lyricrelated material, but also any sonic
phenomena stemming from music performance or the use of technology. However,
even though musicology is primarily dealing
with the ‘music itself’, it does so by taking
into account its inescapable cultural nature:
music is a cultural practice whose production
and reception processes are inextricably
rooted in the cultural environment within
which it evolves. In fact, the very act of isolating music from its cultural context for the
purpose of its study is already a posture that
involves manifest epistemological and ideological implications. It is, however, for the
sake of the Handbook’s objectives that this
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 64
chapter will nevertheless consider musicological strategies more or less in isolation: It
is hoped that this artificial and momentary
detachment of sonic phenomena from its
context will be understood as an intentional
theoretical process aiming at a better understanding of how music and its sounds contribute to the relationships and experiences
we entertain with our world.
Accordingly, this chapter will be considering musicology as a double-facetted field
of inquiry, that is, as 1) a set of methods
for describing musical and sonic content in
order to support 2) interpretations of music
related phenomena, behaviours or practices.
As far as the description side is concerned,
one could summarize musical elements of the
vast majority of recorded and performed popular music using three categories: abstract,
performatory and technological parameters1:
abstract parameters refer to musical elements
that are abstracted from a given performance
(live or recorded). For example, the melody
of ‘Yankee Doodle’ can be performed more
13-10-2014 08:47:11
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
or less successfully in different combinations
of instruments and playing styles, and still be
‘recognized’ as the (abstract) melodic line
of ‘Yankee Doodle’. Among other abstract
parameters we find harmony, form, rhythm
(not as performed but as abstracted), etc.
These parameters can be described and analysed through a very large palette of methods.
However, because musicology has originally
been developed primarily for the study of
classical music of the Western tradition, there
have been many alternative methods better
adapted to the specificities of popular music,
and their development is still an important
objective of current popular musicology.2
Abstract parameters are ‘embodied’, so
to speak, through musical performances,
whether these performances are realised
by human beings or machines. These performatory parameters are related to more
concrete aspects of the music, including the
actual sounds of voice or instruments, or
performance-related nuances. Despite their
obvious crucial contribution to the popular
musical discourse, relatively little attention
(at least until recently) has been given to
these concrete aspects of the music.3 Finally,
technological parameters are responsible
for the mediation of musical performances
by recording techniques or any other amplified form of technology. In the case of sound
recording, this mediation process gives rise
to what I have called ‘phonographic staging’,4 that is, the way recorded sounds and
events are ‘shown’ sonically to listeners
through their headphones or speakers.5 In
my opinion (shared by many others) this
‘staging’ of recorded (or amplified) sounds
through the manipulation of technological
parameters is as crucial as abstract and performatory parameters for describing most
popular music.
As expressed earlier, descriptions of these
parameters serve musicological discourses
based on different approaches and that can
take multiple forms (Solomon, 2012). In
addition to the use of strictly musicological
methods, these approaches might either be
borrowed from other disciplines (for example,
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 65
65
intertextuality, narratology, gender studies),
or contribute to other disciplines’ discourses
(sociology, cultural studies, anthropology,
philosophy). Thus, many different interpretations might emerge from similar musical
analyses of a given piece of music for example. Now, the orientations these interpretations might or should take, as well as the
analytical methods themselves, have raised
important debates within the community of
musicologists. One aim of this chapter is to
make some issues surrounding these debates
more apparent. Consequently, the chapter is
divided into a number of chronological sections (‘generations’), each of which account
for what has been considered important
moments in the musicological study of popular music. Also, because musicological strategies have been mostly developed in relation
to aims, approaches and epistemological
stances adopted by different scholarly associations, schools of thought or other modes
of academic grouping, the chapter takes these
sociological factors into account in its narrative organization. This approach should not
only provide a better understanding of how
musicology contributes to the academic discourse about popular music, but also offer an
explanation of the circumstances in which
this musicological discourse has itself been
elaborated.
PROTO-MUSICOLOGY: PIOUS HOPES?
In his introductory chapter to Reading Pop,
Richard Middleton has already offered an
accurate, yet critical portrait of early
‘Approaches to Textual Analysis in Popular
Music’, as evoked by the book’s subtitle.
Middleton identifies three main streams in
which we could categorise ‘protomusicological’ discourses of the 1960s and
1970s about popular music:
[1] Much of the early musicology of pop […] drew
on modes of descriptive and structural analysis,
and of rather speculative hermeneutics, that were
familiar from the existing traditions of the
13-10-2014 08:47:11
66
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
musicological discipline, as they had been applied
to the classical repertories. […] [2] During the same
period, elsewhere in the networks of pop reception, a genre of criticism was evolving, much
though not all by non-academics, in which the
opposite problem can be identified. While a good
deal of this writing […] does seem to capture
aspects of contemporary vernacular response, it is
often less successful at connecting these to precisely observed features of the music. […]
[3] Meanwhile, in the USA, popular music was also
being discussed within the context of the scholarship of ‘American Music’ […]. The American work
was more historical than analytical […]. (Middleton,
2000a, pp. 2–3)
Not that surprisingly, most authors of the first
(traditional musicological) stream concentrated their attention on the Beatles (Mann,
1963; Cooke, 1968; Mellers, 1973), a significant case in point in that, already by the late
1960s, the group was considered as worthy
of serious scholarly attention. Mann proposes, in The Times, short musicological
analyses of some of the Beatles songs. For
example, ‘the slow, sad song about “This
Boy,” which features prominently in Beatles
[concert] programmes, is expressively unusual for its lugubrious music, but harmonically it is one of their most intriguing, with
its chains of pandiatonic clusters, and the
sentiment is acceptable because voiced
cleanly and crisply’ (Mann, 1963, p. 4). As
for Deryck Cooke, he foresaw the importance of audio recording and its derived
parameters, acknowledging at the same time
that his readers ‘will find no elucidation of
arcane instrumental or electronic effects’ (p.
115) in his analyses. In the end, then, we are
focussing on traditional musical parameters
within a clear formalist framework.6
In that respect, perhaps the most representative work of this stream is Wilfrid Mellers’
Twilight of the Gods (1973). In Studying
Popular Music, Middleton reminds us that
by applying traditional methods to the study
of popular music, his descriptions are never
‘wrong, but we are straightway pressed into
a world constructed by functional harmonic
movement,’ which is ‘automatically seen as
the most interesting, the most interpretatively
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 66
important, [aspect] of the music’ (Middleton,
1990, p. 113), a stance that is still present
today, in particular in the domain of music
theory (to which we shall return). Mellers was
also among a small number of 1960s scholars (Mellers, 1964; Keil, 1966; Lomax, 1968)
that we could associate with Middleton’s
third stream: in addition to scholars proposing
early histories of popular music (Chase, 1955;
Oliver, 1969; Hamm, 1979), some were interested in describing and understanding US folk/
blues music, considering it as part of ‘the full
range of musical experience within historical
and contemporary societies’ (Hesmondhalgh
and Negus, 2002, p. 3), thus adopting an ethnomusicological posture (Blacking, 1973) that
was to feed, as we will see, later approaches to
the study of popular music.
Interestingly, we find in the 1970s nonAnglophone popular music critics looking
for ways to account for the specific nature
of popular music, especially in regard to
performance and technological manipulation. In 1971, in a special issue of the French
scholarly journal Musique en jeu dedicated
in part to popular music, composer and
electro-acoustician Luciano Berio published
an article about rock music. For example,
he writes about vocal performance: ‘One of
the most attractive aspects of rock singing is
to be found in its naturalness, its spontaneity, as well as the multitude of vocal emissions. It is true that most of the time, singers
are shouting; however, each of them shouts
in his/her own way, without affectation’
(Berio, 1971, p. 59).7 He also speaks of the
‘electronically manipulated sound of rock,’
(p. 59) which adopts similar techniques used
in avant-garde electronic music of the time.
Indeed, Berio argues that because recorded
sound is so important in both musical genres,
any technical flaw will become unacceptably
apparent to the listener (p. 59). Moreover,
‘microphones, amplifiers, speakers are not
just extensions of voices and instruments but
become instruments, sometimes surpassing
the original acoustic qualities of the different sound sources’ (p. 60). Berio concludes
by comparing the recorded rock voice to
13-10-2014 08:47:11
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
the close-up found in cinema: ‘The naturalness and peculiarity of performers’ voices
becomes disproportionately enlarged’ (p. 60).
Unfortunately, however, he does not seem to
have a deep knowledge of the popular music
repertoire and of most of its aesthetic characteristics, often drawing comparisons with
jazz or even dodecaphonic music, two genres
with which Berio is obviously more familiar.
As for Middleton’s second stream, it seems
to consist mainly of music criticism emanating from journalists and a number of academics primarily interested in the sociological and
cultural impact of popular music. In addition
to rock critics associated to the ‘new’ music
journalism cited by Middelton (Greil Marcus,
Lester Bangs, Nik Cohn and Simon Frith), one
could include in this category most of the contributions found in the early years of Popular
Music and Society, founded in 1971 by R. Serge
Denisoff (1971, p. 5). Because of the journal’s
primarily sociological focus, and excluding
a few discussions about song lyrics, there are
virtually no musicologically oriented analyses,
at least between 1971 and 1989, with perhaps
the exception of Ken Hey (1974) who proposes
a lyrical and musical parametric grid for the
analysis of early rock ‘n’ roll. There is thus no
clear effort being made here to establish a dialogue between musicological and sociological
approaches, at least not before the 1990s.8
Even though many other authors have discussed popular music in more or less musicological terms from the 1950s to the 1970s,
these few examples should have illustrated a
couple of points: 1) it is not surprising that
as a first methodological step, musicologists were to use and extend tools that they
were already mastering when approaching a
recently ‘approved’ musical genre. 2) At the
same time, performatory and technological
parameters were recognized as being crucial to popular music; in spite of this awareness, however, it was during the 1980s and
1990s when the first musicologists began
dealing with these ‘concrete’ aspects of the
music. 3) With the exception of a few ethnomusicologists interested in some genres of
popular music (for example, blues and folk),
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 67
67
there was little dialogue between musicological and sociological approaches. It is in this
context that a need was first felt in the early
1980s to bring together academics interested
in studying popular music.
THE 1980S: THE EMERGENCE
AND INFLUENCE OF IASPM
It is following the impetus of a group of
mostly European and US scholars that the
International Association for the Study of
Popular Music (IASPM) was officially
founded in September 1981 ‘as a direct result
of a decision taken by the over 100 participants of the First International Conference on
[sic] Popular Music Research, held at
Amsterdam in June the same year’ (Horn,
1982). The foundation of IASPM was a clear
sign that, first, popular music was certainly
worthy of academic study and, secondly, that
a significant number of scholars from around
the world were ready to join forces in order
to better understand this cultural practice
from as many disciplinary angles as possible.
This led to at least two emerging challenges,
the definition of popular music9 and the disciplinary Babel Tower that had to be circumvented, especially with regards to methods of
analysis and the ‘sociological/ musicological’ epistemological divide.10
One of the means adopted to explore
these issues (as well as others) was a series
of five volumes published annually between
1981 and 1985 entitled Popular Music: A
Yearbook. The initial goal of the editors,
Richard Middleton and David Horn (1981,
p. 1), is rather clear: ‘A multi-disciplinary
publication, aiming to encourage and respond
to serious interest in the area of popular
music among both the academic and the
informed lay audience, it will be of interest
to musicologists, sociologists, anthropologists, folklorists, historians, economists and
literary critics’. After the fifth volume, the
series turned into the academic journal
Popular Music, with a ‘first’ issue published
13-10-2014 08:47:11
68
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
in January 1987 (volume 6).11 Because
Richard Middleton has already edited and
commented on many articles from early
issues of Popular Music involving a ‘textual’ analysis approach in Reading Pop
(2000b) there is no need to repeat the process
here.12 However, it might be useful to situate this body of writings against the context
of the gap between musicology and sociology that the foundation of IASPM was aiming to reconcile: despite the laudable efforts
of a few prominent popular music scholars
(for example, Maróthy [1981],13 Shepherd
[1982], Tagg [1982], Wicke and Deveson
[1982], Middleton [1985]) and folklorists/
ethnomusicologists (Blacking [1981], Wolfe
[1981], etc.) who have contributed to these
early issues of Popular Music or elsewhere,14
this divide was actually to remain quite a
challenge for many years (at least within the
‘popular music community’).15 In retrospect,
and keeping these exceptions aside, the study
of popular music was, at best, multi-disciplinary but not (yet) interdisciplinary.
As a matter of fact, this epistemological
divide was certainly not limited to popular
music and IASPM: it was also vividly present
within the musicological community itself, at
least in the US. Indeed, within the American
Musicological Society (AMS), founded as
early as 1934, a growing number of members
gradually felt the need to distance themselves
from the AMS historical approach in favour
of a more theoretical and analytical one,
which ultimately led to the foundation of the
Society for Music Theory (SMT) in 1977.16
In that context, a number of music theorists
started to apply to the popular music repertoire specific analytical methods, such as
Schenkerian theory.17 Walter Everett’s analyses (1986, 1987) of (again) Beatles songs are
perhaps the most representative of this wave.
Even though Everett’s analysis is focussing
primarily on melodic and harmonic material using, among other things, Schekerian
vocabulary and highly technical descriptions, he does so by analysing the relationships between song lyrics and the music. For
example, he describes how a song can express
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 68
a certain state of mind – between ‘memory
and fantasy’ in the case of ‘Strawberry Fields
Forever’ and ‘Julia’ (Everett, 1986), or the
vagaries of adolescence in ‘She’s Leaving
Home’ (Everett, 1987). He also takes into
account relationships between musical and
extra-musical elements, including aspects
taken from the artists’ biographies or people’s stories reported in newspapers: In the
case of ‘She’s Leaving Home’, inspired by
a newspaper story, ‘the song provides vivid
characterizations of a lonely girl who runs
away from her selfish yet well-meaning parents in order to meet (and possibly elope
with) a man’ (Everett, 1987, p. 5). Similarly,
Lennon’s dreams (Everett, 1986, pp. 365–
366) or personal experimentations with hallucinatory drugs (1986, p. 365) have highly
influenced many of his later songs, including ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ of course.
Everett also takes into consideration aspects
of vocal performance and the technological
treatment of sound, notably in his analysis
of ‘She’s Leaving Home’: ‘The narration is
heard in McCartney’s double-tracked unison falsetto lead vocals and the parents are
portrayed in Lennon’s double-tracked unison
full-voice backing vocals’ (1987, p. 6). In the
famous case of ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’,
the role of technology is even more crucial:
The recording procedure for this song had a strong
effect upon its resulting tramontane sound quality.
Two versions were done. It was originally recorded
on November 24, 1966, and was performed in A
at a tempo of about ♩ = 92. After listening to the
lacquers, Lennon decided it sounded “too heavy”
and wanted it rescored and performed faster. A
second version, with trumpets and cellos, was
recorded in B flat at about ♩ = 102. Lennon liked
the beginning of the first version and the ending
of the second, and asked Producer George Martin
to splice them together. When the speeds of both
tapes were adjusted to match the pitch, the
tempos of both were fortuitously the same, ♩ = 96.
The two portions were edited together […]. This
procedure gives Lennon’s vocals an unreal, dreamlike timbre, especially in the second, slowed-down,
portion of the song.18
This epistemological schism was to be further complicated (or, depending on one’s
13-10-2014 08:47:11
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
perspective, enriched) by the emergence, in
the mid 1980s, of a transversal critical current seriously putting in question both the
positivist approach of historical musicology
and the formalist one of music theory: new
(or critical) musicology. According to Karen
Fournier (2001, p. iii), ‘[t]he field of music
theory [and historical musicology for that
matter] has witnessed a burgeoning of such
studies, which have offered musical analyses
based on issues of gender and sexual orientation, literary and cultural theory, semiotics,
and so forth’. However, scholars and musicologists studying popular music have perhaps integrated more rapidly these
‘alternative’ approaches, mostly adapted
from literary theory, but also quickly adopted
by cultural theory as well as media and cultural studies, that is, by disciplines already
open to popular culture. Not that surprisingly,
a progressive ideological framework generally motivated these critical approaches to the
study of popular music, especially during the
earlier years of IASPM. This mix of ideological and epistemological factors led musicologists (and other scholars) of popular music to
re-organise the field, most notably through a
growth of associations, academic journals
and scholarly publications.
THE 1990S: (DE-)STRUCTURING
POPULAR MUSIC ACADEMIA
The 1990s were clearly a decisive turning
point in the academic study of popular
music, as illustrated by Richard Middleton’s
Studying Popular Music (1990) and other
excellent publications.19Tellingly, the decade
has also witnessed the emergence of new
scholarly study groups, as well as many academic journals dealing exclusively, or in
great part, with popular music. On the one
hand, the academic study of popular music
started to get structured; on the other, it also
started to get fragmented.
In line with what was promoted in the
1980s, during the 1990s a large amount of
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 69
69
IASPM-related conferences and publications mostly revolved around the ideas of the
few ones advocating for a close relationship
between popular music and society, such
as John Shephered (1991)20, Peter Wicke
(1990), and of course Richard Middleton.
In what could be considered the first important synthesis of popular music studies,
Middleton’s Studying Popular Music (1990)
expresses a wish: that is, to approach popular music ‘within the context of the whole
musical field, within which it is an active
tendency’ (Middleton, 1990, p. 7). In addition, Middleton sees popular music as an
ideal object of study for a truly interdisciplinary endeavour aiming at elucidate
‘[the] relationships between social formation, cultural patterns and musical practice’
(p. 32). It is according to this framework that
emerged an idealistic vision of what should
become ‘popular music studies’. In spite of
this arguably promising and valuable objective, Middleton’s synthesis tends to consist in
an enumeration of multiple approaches from
many authors and disciplines presented in
chapters devoted either to music analysis, its
cultural study or its critical analysis. Despite
all its other merits, the book’s structure is in
itself reflecting the field’s state of eclecticism
and dispersion.
While IASPM members were trying to
build interdisciplinary approaches, other
organisations have felt the need to found
their own study groups adopting a more disciplinary focus. As mentioned earlier, a few
members of the Society for Music Theory
(SMT) had made initial efforts to analyze
popular music as early as the late 1970s. A
need was thus felt by the end of the 1990s
to found their own study group with specific
objectives in mind:
Founded in 1998, the Popular Music
Interest Group is dedicated to promoting the
scholarly study of popular music through
methods including musical analysis and theory. Our goals include:
• Ensuring academic recognition for popular music
research
13-10-2014 08:47:11
70
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
• Encouraging more scholars of music theory to
engage popular repertoires
• Encouraging scholars of popular music to make
effective use of musical analysis and theory.
(Popular Music Interest Group, SMT, 2012)
• Music theorists interested in popular music were
(and are still are) attempting to apply and adapt
analytical tools to a better understanding of the
music. However a number of scholars have criticized such a focus on ‘the music itself’.
John Covach, one of the most representative
members of the SMT, has explored this tension from the point of view of music theorists
in his essay ‘We Won’t Get Fooled Again:
Rock Music and Musical Analysis’ (Covach,
1997)21. From the outset, Covach sets the
argument by identifying music theorists as
the specialists of musical analysis: ‘Certainly
musicologists and popular music scholars
incorporate musical analysis into their work
to some degree, but it is music theorists who
have developed and routinely employ a
number of sophisticated techniques and systems for analysis’ (p. 75). Covach’s challenge is to convince at the same time 1)
‘traditional’ music theorists (read ‘members
of SMT’) that popular music is worthy of
analytical study, 2) musicologists (read
‘members of AMS’) that music theorists are
the ones mastering analysis, and 3) popular
music scholars (read ‘members of IASPM’)
that music theorists can contribute to a better
understanding of popular music.
First, Covach warns music theorists to be
careful not to restrict the repertoires presumably worthy of study to the ones for which
analytical methods have been designed in
the first place, in particular Schenkerian
analysis (p. 78).22 Rather, he asks: ‘Is it, for
example, possible to adapt current analytical approaches to the task of analyzing rock?
Recent [1990s] analytical work has suggested
that it is’ (p. 83). He then cites the work of
Matthew Brown (1997), Walter Everett (1997)
and Peter Kaminsky (1992).23 According to
Covach, ‘these analyses suggest that while
rock music can at times hold certain structural
characteristics in common with Schenker’s
“masterwork literature”, it also has musical
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 70
characteristics that are all its own. […] To the
extent that theorists are interested in developing their theories of tonal music in ways that
cross repertory boundaries, the analysis of
rock music can make a significant contribution’ (p. 83). Second, Covach warns musicologists not to fall in a similar trap by favouring
works of popular music solely because of
their cultural significance (a point to which
we shall return): ‘Like the Schenkerian paradigm […], a strong sociological paradigm can
also attract the scholar to a certain repertoire’
(p. 80). And third, Covach warns popular music scholars (for example, Richard
Middleton, John Shepherd, Peter Wicke or
Simon Frith) to get more familiar with the
methods they are criticising, for ‘none of
these authors demonstrates a close familiarity
with music theory and analysis as it is been
practiced in the discipline recently’ (p. 82). As
we will see, and even though Covach makes
some relevant points, the problem seems to
be with what is considered as ‘music’ in the
first place.
Even though a point can be made about the
usefulness of music theory as a way of at least
accounting for how pitch material (melody and
harmony) might function in a piece of popular music, very little is said at that time about
other aspects of the music that is considered
by many (including myself24) as much more
‘characteristic’ of popular music, namely performatory and technological parameters.25
In this regard, even though Covach seems
to acknowledge at least the importance of
timbre and performance (p. 84), he is only
calling for proper methods to do so, notably
because music theorists are not specifically
trained to discuss analytically matters of performance and technology. In other words, by
the end of the 1990s, and still today in many
respects,26 music theorists seem to approach
music primarily as a pitch-oriented practice
whose other aspects (such as performance or
studio techniques), as relevant as they may be,
play a supporting or embellishing role (rather
than being considered as actual musical elements). At the same time, it is certainly valid
to consider that melody and harmony do play
13-10-2014 08:47:11
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
an important role in our relationship with
music, and to ignore the work of music theorists in that regard would represent an equally
important mistake. Indeed, and as Simon Frith
reminds us: ‘Musicologists can rightly claim
[…] to be able to relate the structural qualities of a certain sort of music to the emotional
effect it has on its listeners […]. Such feelings
are caused by the musical elements themselves, but through a process of conventional
association.” (Frith, 1996, p. 109)
As a matter of fact, and as mentioned earlier, popular music is constituted of a number
of musical elements, such as performance,
studio effects, and so on, but also of notes,
rhythms or harmony. However, to discuss
these relationships one needs to possess a
certain level of training and to master a rather
specialized set of tools and techniques. In my
opinion, the problem, then, is not so much the
relevance of highly technical music analyses,
than the lack of a kind of intellectual interface between music theory and the rest of
the popular music studies community, so that
music theory discourse can better integrate
the popular music studies discourse.27
In 1996, members of the Society for
Ethnomusicology (SEM) felt a similar need
than SMT and founded their own ‘Popular
Music Section’ (PMSSEM). As opposed
to, perhaps, the narrower focus of the SMT
Popular Music Interest Group, the PMSSEM
envisages popular music as a practice that
has to be necessarily approached as a cultural
phenomenon, in line, of course, with ethnomusicology’s vision of music, but also with
most musicologists associated with IASPM.28
In the end, then, the 1990s could be seen as
a moment of fragmentation, based on mostly
disciplinary or even ideological imperatives
rather than a common epistemological goal.
THE 2000S AND 2010S: (RE-)
DISCIPLINING POPULAR MUSIC
STUDIES
Contrary to the centrifugal fragmentation
characteristic of the 1990s, one can approach
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 71
71
the 2000s as a moment of gradual centripetal movement: now that the dispersed forces
in the field have attained a certain degree of
administrative and disciplinary stability and
recognition by the turn of the new millennium, there seems to be an emerging need to
break free from isolation and open up new
transversal spaces for collaboration. Of
course, this is an exaggerated interpretation
of what has been really going on (there have
always been spaces of collaboration and
there have always been more isolated
efforts), but a few signs seem to confirm this
general tendency. Two of them, occurring at
the beginning of the 2000s, are worth mentioning at this stage: the ‘Toronto 2000’
conference held in North America and the
publication of Popular Music Studies
in Britain.
Even though ‘Toronto 2000: Musical
Intersections’ was aimed at the whole music
academic field, I believe it indicated a wish
that was also shared by the popular music
community in particular. The event did
regroup members of 14 associations dealing
with one aspect or another of music academic
study, including AMS, IASPM, SEM and
SMT, but also many others in the domains of
music pedagogy, music analysis and music
technology. According to the conference
organisers: ‘The mega-meeting partially represents the expansiveness and variety of the
scholarly study of music at the end of this
century. […] As “intersections” implies multiple avenues and many crossroads, the joint
sessions and independent programs together
should offer colleagues and students disciplinary contexts for the different perspectives
and the common, underlying issues that will
shape the field in the next century’.29 Indeed,
the 100-page programme includes over 800
papers (a large proportion of which were dedicated to popular music related topics) that
were presented in multiple parallel sessions
during the five days of the conference (1–5
November 2000). In this case, the centripetal
movement expresses itself through an attempt
to initiate a broad-based dialogue involving
all approaches of the music academia.
13-10-2014 08:47:11
72
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
The publication in 2002 of Popular Music
Studies, edited by David Hesmondhalgh and
Keith Negus, represents a similar manifestation of this tendency within the popular music
community. This time, not only do we find a
wish to gather scholars from many disciplines
around a common object of study, but also a
wish to identify, create and promote a (meta)
discipline altogether: popular music studies.
As the volume’s editors remind us, ‘now university courses and units in popular music are
proliferating, and the study of popular music
is an established, though still relatively marginal academic area’ (Hesmondhalgh and
Negus, 2002, p. 1). For them, ‘[t]he study of
popular music is […] a uniquely interdisciplinary area of research, drawing significant
contributions from writers within a number
of academic fields, including musicology,
media and cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, ethnomusicology, folkloristics,
psychology, social history and cultural geography’ (2002, p. 1). After summarising the
different contributions of these fields through
the years, the editors look at what connects
these fields together, that is ‘the relationships
between musical meaning, social power and
cultural value’ (2002, p. 2).30 Although this
unifying vision is not that visible in the collection of essays itself, it certainly represents
an explicit wish to define popular music studies as a discipline around a set of common
questions. This raises the important issue of
what constitutes an interdisciplinary discipline and how to build it. I would like to focus
for a short moment on these questions by
returning to the musicological/sociological
divide.
For Hesmondhalgh and Negus, ‘musicologists have been responding to calls from
sociologists who have often felt uneasy and
incapable of knowing quite how to write
about musical sound. The desire for a shared
vocabulary has fed into an increasing confidence amongst those critical musicologists
who have been willing to move beyond the
constraints of “the work” and formal musical notation’ (2002, p. 7). Interestingly, the
authors are not acknowledging the opposite
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 72
movement, that is, an eventual corresponding
will from sociologists to become more familiar with musicological methods. In any event,
this is all of course utopic: there is no way
that single academics (excluding perhaps a
very few exceptions) become as equally fluent and competent in many disciplines as
specialists dedicated to a single field of study
can be. The only possible way to tend toward
the ideal of a truly inter-discipline, in my
opinion, rests in strategies of collaboration,
strategies in turn founded on epistemological
principles of shared vocabulary, approaches
and goals. Unfortunately, such a state may
not be attained easily. I believe there are many
epistemological and methodological steps to
be taken. Perhaps one could get inspiration
from the idea of transdisciplinarity:
Transdisciplinarity is not concerned with the simple
transfer of a model from one branch of knowledge
to another, but rather with the study of isomorphisms between the different domains of knowledge. To put it another way, transdisciplinarity
takes into account the consequences of a flow of
information circulating between the various
branches of knowledge, permitting the emergence
of unity amidst the diversity and diversity through
the unity. Its objective is to lay bare the nature and
characteristics of this flow of information and its
principal task is the elaboration of a new language,
a new logic, and new concepts to permit the emergence of a real dialogue between the specialists in
the different domains of knowledge.31
No real ‘common methodology’ then: rather,
a ‘real dialogue,’ not multiple monologues.
As far as popular music studies are concerned, I would suggest exploring the three
following steps: First, to undertake numerous
multidisciplinary studies of single events or
objects (for example, by gathering many
scholars from different disciplines around
specific songs, videos, albums, local scenes,
live music performances as well as any other
music manifestation that could be studied
collectively in depth); second, following this
first step, to set up interdisciplinary workshops and forums in order to identify
common spaces of contact (vocabulary,
methodological generalizations, etc.); third,
to establish transdisciplinary spaces of
13-10-2014 08:47:12
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
synthesis in order to propose true lines of
dialogue. In the end, members of the team
will have ‘wrestled with different disciplinary and conceptual frameworks and constructed multifocal lenses […]’ (Chang,
Ngunjiri and Hernandez, 2013, pp. 27–28).
Even though the cup is nowhere near our
lips, I see in what I have identified as a centripetal movement a tendency toward this
goal. In fact, there are, along with the
‘Toronto 2000’ and Popular Music Studies
examples discussed above, many other manifestations of such a tendency, manifestations
that one could organise as follows:
First, a centripetal movement from isolated
efforts to more common efforts, as illustrated
by these two preceding examples, but also, for
instance, by the emergence of online journals
such as Echo or Radical Musicology. Second,
a centripetal movement of disciplinary coalescence: in addition to fields of study already
identified by Hesmondhalgh and Negus, we
find scholars from other important theoretical
disciplines, such as pedagogy theory (Green
2001, 2008), cognitive psychology (Clarke,
Dibben and Pitts, 2010) or recent media studies (Cook, 2000; Collins, 2008; Vernallis,
Herzog and Richardson, 2013; Richardson,
Gorbman and Vernallis, 2013). This is all
but new of course. However, in this particular case, the movement is characterised by
an interaction between people (and ideas),
already well-established within their respective disciplines, that the recent recognition of
popular music as a valid object of study has
allowed to coalesce for the purpose of Popular
Music Studies, while at the same time contribute to their own disciplinary challenges.
Third, a centripetal movement from practice to research: In the wake of the emerging field of art-based research (for example,
Smith and Dean, 2009; Stévance and Lacasse,
2013), there has been an increasing amount
of research leading to, or derived from, the
production of artistic work. In popular music
studies, many of these hybrid projects take
the recording studio as both their object of
study and artistic tool (for example, ZagorskiThomas and Frith, 2012). In other words,
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 73
73
artistic practice has been attracted toward
the research pole in a unique dynamics of
exchange.
But perhaps more significant is a fourth
centripetal movement from ethnocentrism to
cosmopolitanism, both within the artistic and
academic communities of popular music. Of
course, there has always been the presence of
popular music worldwide, a presence that has
been already acknowledged by many scholars
for many years as much as in Popular Music
Studies as in ethnomusicology.32 Most of
these studies have brilliantly discussed questions of globalisation, of interaction between
the local and the global, of musical diaspora,
and so on, as well as their effects on the musical discourse. However, most of these studies
have also approached these questions from
one particular angle: that of the (usually negative) effect of globalisation on ‘peripheral’
communities. Yet, and as aptly demonstrated
by the recent work of Motti Regev (2013), we
appear to be witnessing a change in direction
of sorts taking the form of aesthetic cosmopolitanism:33 ‘[A]esthetic cosmopolitanization refers to the ongoing formation, in late
modernity, of world culture as one complexly
interconnected entity, in which social groupings of all types around the globe growingly
share wide common grounds in their aesthetic
perceptions, expressive forms, and cultural
practices. Aesthetic cosmopolitanism refers,
then, to the already existing singular world
culture, the state of affairs reached following
the above’ (Regev, 2013, p. 3).
According to this model, emerging artists
from around the world are no longer considered (and do no longer consider themselves)
as battling for the sake of their own communities, but are rather members of the international artistic community turned toward the
global musical scene. Balinese artist I Wayan
Balawan (Harnish, 2013) or Inuit singer
Tanya Tagaq (Stévance, 2014) are clear
examples of cosmopolitan artists.
An analogue centripetal cosmopolitan
movement can be observed within the academic field as well. Once again, we have seen
cases of scholars from so-called ‘peripheral’
13-10-2014 08:47:12
74
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
countries (whose total population, by the
way, count for the vast majority of living
human beings…) contribute to the popular
music academic discourse. For example, in
a recent issue of Popular Music devoted to
East Asian popular music, the guest editors
propose an alternative point of view: ‘The
editors hope that this special issue will make
a contribution to the existing problematics
in the study of popular music in the English
language sphere, in that it provides not only
information and knowledge of relatively
unknown East Asian popular music to its
outsiders, but also offers possible venues for
discussing alternative theorisations in popular music studies’ (Hyunjoon, Mōri and Ho,
2013, pp. 2, 4). Even though the content of
this special issue is primarily looking at the
phenomenon through cultural studies lens, it
still illustrates, as the last sentence suggests,
an important shift that one could characterize
as academic cosmopolitanism.34
CONCLUSION: TOWARD A
POSTHUMANIST MUSICOLOGY?
As I have suggested earlier, the overview
presented above tends to demonstrate that the
apparent differences, even divergences,
between musicological approaches to popular music rest more on sociological, ideological or political factors rather than on truly
epistemological ones. I would thus like to
conclude this chapter by looking at two interrelated examples of how popular music studies, and musicology in particular, seem to
have recently entered into yet another ‘regeneration’ phase. Along the lines of Hyunjoon,
Mōri and Ho’s critique, the first one has to do
with the musical genres that have been privileged over the years by popular music scholars, while the second explores the possibility
of approaching musicology from a posthumanist epistemological standpoint, notably
with the objective of better integrating musicology into the overall popular music studies
discourse.
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 74
In her recent study of Death Metal and
Music Criticism, Michelle Phillipov (2012)
explores two interrelated issues that seem to
characterise the academic study of popular
music and partly restrain its development:
pleasure and ideology: ‘The political implications of music are of course important, but
what else music might be about is equally
important. A productive way forward, then,
may be one that acknowledges and explores
the specificities of musical genres and their
listening pleasures, rather than one that evaluates musical genres according to “how political” they are’ (p. 133).35 In other words, not
only popular music studies might have given
more attention to certain musical genres
because of their political appeal (for example,
1970s punk), but it also might have presented
them as more important and popular than
they actually were.36 Phillipov’s point here
is about ‘listening pleasures’, in other words,
and at least in part, about the pleasure of listening to the sounds. In this regard, musicology can certainly help better understand how
sounds may contribute to the pleasure of listening to popular music sounds.
Accordingly, perhaps a return of roots,
a process of regeneration of sorts, would
be in order, as earlier called for by Richard
Middleton: ‘Somehow, we need to find
ways of bringing the patterns created in the
sounds themselves back into the foreground,
without as a consequence retreating into an
inappropriate formalism’, notably by looking at correspondences ‘between musical
and somatic structures’ (Middleton, 1993,
p. 177). Unfortunately, apart from a few isolated exceptions, not much work has been
conducted toward that direction, at least as
far as musicology is concerned.37 To this end,
I would suggest to reframe musicology
around new emerging theories and epistemologies, such as posthumanism (Wolfe, 2010).38
Indeed, when approached as a critique
of traditional humanism, posthumanism
offers a new lens for interpreting our academic world, and, in particular, musicology.
Posthumanism (as defined by Wolfe) is here
considered as a form of axiological revision
13-10-2014 08:47:12
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
of traditional humanism (based on critics
such as Foucault)39 in order to envisage the
human being in its entirety, without attempting, according to an anthropocentric model,
to favour (and thus valorise) which would be
considered as the exclusive prerogative of
‘Man’: ‘his’ necessarily superior intelligence,
conscience and moral, to the detriment of
anything having to do with the physical, the
biological, and consequently of course with
their associated pleasures. Without throwing
the baby with the bath water, posthumanism aims at restoring an axiological balance
between, for example, mind and body, so that
it becomes possible to dig into transversal
themes without having to take this artificial
frontier into consideration.40
As far as musicology is concerned, this
means to approach any musical phenomenon
in its entirety without privileging any set of
musical parameters (abstract, performatory
or technological) and, more importantly,
without assigning extra value to concepts
such as ‘complexity’ as compared to other
more body-oriented ones such as ‘groove’:
of course, popular musicology is giving more
and more attention, as we have seen, to phenomenon such as ‘groove’, but it seems to
me that we are still approaching them as the
new locus of the music’s complexity, rather
than appreciate it for what it is: expression
of physical pleasure. In short, I feel there is a
strong need to resituate musicology within a
posthumanist framework, and popular music
seems the ideal starting point for such an
enterprise.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NOTES
1 See Lacasse (2005, 2006) for a more detailed
description of this model. There are of course
many available alternative models to the one proposed here; however, it seems fair to say that the
vast majority of them consider music in a rather
similar way. See, in particular, Moore (2012).
2 For example, alternative ways of looking at
melody and/or harmony have been developed
by Stefani (1987), Everett (2004), Tagg (2012,
pp. 315–343, pp. 425–435) and others. See also
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 75
10
11
75
Moore (1992, 2012, pp. 51–101) for a general
discussion about form, harmony and melody.
For performatory parameters related to rhythm,
see Butler (2006), Danielsen (2010, 2012) or
Papavassiliou (2014). For pitch and rhythmic
nuances of vocal performances (especially in jazz),
see Bauer (1993), Huang and Huang (1994–95),
Bowman (2003), Burns (2005). For timbral analysis of vocal and/or instrumental sounds, see
Brackett (1995), Fales (2005), Berger and Fales
(2005), Bauer (2007), Lacasse (2010a, 2010b).
See also Moore (2012, pp. 101–118) on voice in
general, as well as Keil (1987) on his concept of
‘participatory discrepancies’.
See Lacasse (1995, 1998, 2000, 2011).
See also Zak (2001), Doyle (2004, 2005),
Dockwray and Moore (2010), Moore (2012,
pp. 29–44), or Zagorski-Thomas (2007, 2014) for
similar, yet alternative, models.
There are earlier instances of musicological comments about popular music. For example, William
Rhodes (1956) argues for the recognition of popular music as a valid object of study, and touches
upon many of the issues popular music scholars will be debating in the years to come. Others have of course discussed the question of the
‘validity’ of popular music, most notably Theodor
W. Adorno (see, for example, his ‘On Popular
Music’ [1941]). Adorno’s critical position against
popular music has already been largely published
(Adorno, 2002, 2009) and criticised (for example,
Paddison, 1982; Middleton, 1990, pp. 34–63).
All translations of Berio’s quotes are mine.
See, for example, Klein (1991), who was published in the same issue of Popular Music and
Society than Miroslav Foret’s call (1991) for an
expanded sociological methodology that would
take music, sound and image into account. See
also Boggs (1991), Yang (1993), Stilwell (1995),
Holm-Hudson (1996, 2003), Fitzgerald (1996,
2009), Leeuwen (1998), Hawkins and Richardson (2007), Kutnowski (2008), Danielsen (2012),
Brackett (2012), Johansson (2012).
See in particular Tagg (1979, pp. 29–44) and Middleton (1981). Both cases illustrate early attempts
to deine popular music in comparison to other
musical traditions. See Middleton (1990, pp. 2–7)
for a more critical approach. Finally, see Cantrick
(1965), and especially Vega, Chase and Chappell
(1966) – and their concept of ‘mesomusic’ – for
earlier attempts in the ield of ethnomusicology.
Middleton (1982), as well as all the other contributions in this second volume of Popular Music,
represents rather early attempts to combine sociological and musicological methods in order to
account for popular music practice.
Because of the continuity between the ive volumes of Popular Music: A Yearbook and the
13-10-2014 08:47:12
76
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
journal Popular Music – as illustrated by the consecutive volume numbering –, contributions from
the original ive volumes will be cited as standard
academic articles (as if from Popular Music) rather
than chapters from a collection of essays.
Reading Pop is a collection assembled by Richard
Middleton who has selected 16 musicological articles published in Popular Music since the
1980s. In addition to analyses dealing (in alternative ways) with abstract parameters (for example,
Winkler; Tagg; Hamm) and more speciically with
harmony (Hawkins) or lyrics (Grifiths), we ind
articles taking into account vocal performance
(Brackett; Moore), gesture (Middleton), electronic
manipulation (Fiori) and music/image relationships (Björnberg).
See also Maróthy (1974).
See, among others, Etzkorn (1963), Emblidge
(1976), Lomax (1976), Ottenheimer (1979), and
more recently Meintjes (1990).
For example, see Middleton (1993), Lacasse
(1997).
While Aaron R. Girard (2007) offers a detailed
historical account of the factors that led to the
foundation of the SMT as well as the emergence
of the music theorist ‘profession’, Karen Fournier
(2001) approaches the topic from a more epistemological point of view, mostly by opposing the
visions adopted by ‘traditional’ musicologists and
the ones associated to what was termed ‘New
musicology’ following Joseph Kerman’s famous
pleas (1980, 1985).
Schenkerian analysis – originally developed by
Austrian musician Heinrich Schenker (1868–
1935) – aims at reducing melodic and harmonic
musical discourse into a number of hierarchical
layers: ‘Schenker is probably most notorious for
his suggestion that musical works can ultimately
be understood as elaborations of a basic model
that he called the Ursatz. […] The point is not
that we can reduce a piece of music to the Ursatz,
but that we can explore the complexities of the
piece by seeing them in relation to this simple
model’ (Pankhurst, 2001).
Many other music theorists have started to integrate abstract, performatory and technological
parameters in their analyses. For example, see
Christopher Endrinal’s analysis (2008) of U2’s
music.
As far as musicology is concerned, two other
important books are worth mentioning: David
Brackett’s Interpreting Popular Music (1995) and
Allan F. Moore’s Rock: the Primary Text (1993). In
the irst case, Brackett not only manages to relate
most of his analyses to its social and intertextual
contexts, but does so by looking at performance
in a systematic way, notably using spectrograms.
In the second case, Moore is closer to approaches
found among SMT members; however, he clearly
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 76
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
identiies the recording as the main object of
popular musicology (see also Gracyk, 1996).
In her review of Shepherd’s book, Janet Sturman
reminds us of the following: ‘Viewing music as
a social text has been a perspective espoused by
many ethnomusicologists and musicologists for
some time. Few scholars reject the notion that
music is an inherently social process. Shepherd’s
book, however, reminds us of how little effect
this realization has had on modern scholarship in
general’. (Sturman, 1993, p. 124)
See also Covach (1999).
In his chapter, Covach takes great care in describing the context in which Schenkerian method has
been originally developed and later integrated
into the palette of music theorists’ tools (Covach,
1997, pp. 77–79).
Even though Covach is citing conference papers
in the cases of Brown and Kaminsky, I am instead
referring to written essays by these authors so the
reader can access their work more easily.
See Lacasse (2006) for an epistemological discussion about the multiple ‘nature’ of popular music.
See also Lacasse (1995) for an early attempt to
integrate all parameters in analysis of popular
music; Lacasse (2000) for a particular emphasis
on technological parameters; and Lacasse (2010a,
2010b) for a focus on vocal performance.
Regarding the importance of performance, see,
among others, Keil and Feld (1994), Brackett
(1995), Frith (1996), Bowman (2003).
In a recent online article, Owen Pallett (2014)
aims, as made explicit by the essay’s subtitle, at
‘Explaining the Genius of Katy Perry’s “Teenage
Dream” – Using Music Theory’. Not only is Pallett focussing exclusively on the notes with no
reference whatsoever to performance or audio
production, but also the hundreds of comments
posted online go in the same direction, mostly
attempting to determine the song’s key.
Philip Tagg has already made a signiicant effort
toward this goal, both in his teaching and his
research. See, for example, Tagg (2009, 2012).
His website (www.tagg.org) constitutes also a
great sum of information and resources.
www.ethnomusicology.org/ Groups_SectionsPM.
Interestingly, it was only recently (2010) that a
similar sub-group was founded within the AMS:
The Popular Music Study Group www.ams-net.
org/studygroups/pmsg
www.utoronto.ca/conf2000/
As far as musicology is concerned, ‘[t]he ield has
built up a cumulative analysis of popular music
culture in its many different textual and technological forms, by analysing recordings, videos, television, ilm, radio, the internet and other media to
show how music is mediated to its public, and
how these different forms can produce considerable complexity and ambivalence in meaning’
13-10-2014 08:47:12
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(2002, p. 7). In this regard, the work of Italian
scholar Gianni Sibilla (2003b) is a good example
of an integrated approach aiming at considering
interaction between many media (in his case, by
considering popular music related phenomena
as serving a coherent narrative). Unfortunately, it
also illustrates how non-English publications can
go almost unnoticed despite their scientiic quality and relevance. See Sibilla (2003a, 2004) for
short illustrations of his work in English.
www.ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/moral_project.
php
See, for example, Born and Hesmondhalgh
(2000), Mitchell (2001).
Regev takes his theoretical model from the work
of Ulrich Beck (2006).
In this regard, the Routledge Global Popular
Music Series (www.globalpopularmusic.net)
seems a very promising project.
Richard Middleton seems to retrospectively agree
with Phillipov’s argument: ‘Here the signiicance
of a particular musical style was seen as being
articulated to the extramusical values and behavioural styles of a speciic, class-related youth subculture, acquiring thereby the political potency
required to make plausible the framework of
cultural Marxism powering the overall approach’
(Middleton, 2000a, p. 7).
See, for example, Keir Keightley’s argument of
‘Rock’s constitutive paradox – that it is a massively popular anti-mass music’ (Keightley, 2001,
p. 125).
In addition to Middleton (1993), see (among others) Lebrun (2012) or Hawkins (2013). See also,
of course, Part Six of this volume on ‘Body and
Identity’.
See Lacasse (2013a, 2013b) for an introductory
discussion on the topic based on the work of
Wolfe (2010).
See Foucault (1971, p. 387) and Wolfe (2010, p. xii).
In this regard, see the fundamental work of
anthropologist Philippe Descola (2013) on the traditional distinction between nature and culture.
REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W. (1941). On Popular Music.
Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, 9,
17–48.
Adorno, T. W. (2002). In R. Leppert (ed.), Essays
on Music (S. H. Gillespie, Trans.). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Adorno, T. W. (2009). In R. Hullot-Kentor (ed.),
Current of Music. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 77
77
Bauer, W. (1993). Billie Holiday and Betty Carter:
Emotion and Style in the Jazz Vocal Line.
Annual Review of Jazz Studies, 6, 99–152.
Bauer, W. (2007). Louis Armstrong’s Skid Dat
De Dat: Timbral Organization in an Early Scat
Solo. Jazz Perspectives, 2, 133–165.
Beatles, The. (1993). In T. Fujita, Y. Hagino,
H. Kubo and G. Sato (eds.), The Beatles: Complete
Scores. London: H. Leonard Pub. Corp.
Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Berger, H. and Fales, C. (2006). Heaviness in
the Perception of Heavy Metal Guitar
Timbres: The Match of Perceptual and
Acoustic Features Over Time. In P. D. Greene
and T. Porcello (eds.), Wired for Sound:
Engineering and Technologies in Sonic
Cultures (pp. 181–197). Middleton, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Berio, L. (1971). Commentaires au rock.
Musique en jeu, 2, 56–65.
Blacking, J. (1973). How Musical is Man?
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Blacking, J. (1982). Making Artistic Popular
Music: The Goal of True Folk. Popular Music,
1, 9–14.
Boggs, V. W. (1991). Musical Transculturation:
From Afro-Cuban to Afro-Cubanization.
Popular Music and Society, 15(4), 71–83.
Born, G. and Hesmondhalgh, D. (eds). (2000).
Western Music and Its Others: Difference,
Representation, and Appropriation in Music.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bowman, R. (2003). The Determining Role of
Performance in the Articulation of Meaning:
The Case of ‘Try a Little Tenderness’. In A. F.
Moore (Ed.), Analyzing Popular Music (pp.
103–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Brackett, D. (1995). Interpreting Popular Music.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brackett, D. (1999). Music. In B. Horner and
T. Swiss (eds.), Key Terms in Popular Music
and Culture (pp. 124–140). Oxford: Blackwell.
Brackett, D. (2002). (In Search of) Musical
Meaning: Genres, Categories and Crossover. In
D. Hesmondhalgh and K. Negus (eds.), Popular
Music Studies (pp. 65–83). London: Arnold.
Brackett, D. (2012). Black or White? Michael
Jackson and the Idea of Crossover. Popular
Music and Society, 35(2), 169–185.
Brown, M. (1997). ‘Little Wing’: A Study in
Musical Cognition. In J. Covach and
13-10-2014 08:47:12
78
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
G. Boone (Eds.), Understanding Rock: Essays
in Musical Analysis (pp. 155–169). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burns, G. (1994). What’s Going On. Popular
Music and Society, 18 (3), iii.
Burns, L. (2005). Feeling the Style: Vocal
Gesture and Musical Expression in Billie
Holiday, Bessie Smith, and Louis Armstrong.
Music Theory Online, 11 (3), online.
Cantrick, R. B. (1965). The Blind Men and the
Elephant: Scholars on Popular Music.
Ethnomusicology, 9 (2), 100–114.
Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W. and Hernandez,
K.-A.
C.
(2013).
Collaborative
Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Chase, G. (1955). America’s Music: From
the Pilgrims to the Present. New-York:
McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, E., Dibben, N. and Pitts, S. (2010).
Music and Mind in Everyday Life. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Collins, K. (2008). Game Sound: An Introduction
to the History, Theory and Practice of Video
Game Music and Sound Design. Cambridge,
Mass: The MIT Press.
Cook, N. (2000). Analysing Musical Multimedia.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooke, D. (1968, February 1). The LennonMcCartney Songs. The Listener, 157–158.
Reprinted in E. Thomson and D. Gutman
(eds.), The Lennon Companion: Twenty-Five
Years of Comment (pp. 109–113).
Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004.
Covach, J. (1997). We Won’t Get Fooled Again:
Rock Music and Music Analysis. In D.
Schwarz, A. Kassabian and L. Siegel (eds.),
Keeping Score: Music, Disciplinarity, Culture
(pp. 75–89). Charlottesville: University Press
of Virginia.
Covach, J. (1999). Popular Music, Unpopular
Musicology. In N. Cook and M. Everist (eds.),
Rethinking Music (pp. 452–479). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Danielsen, A. (Ed.). (2010). Musical Rhythm in
the Age of Digital Reproduction. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Danielsen, A. (2012). The Sound of Crossover:
Micro-Rhythm and Sonic Pleasure in Michael
Jackson’s ‘Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough’.
Popular Music and Society, 35 (2), 151–168.
Denisoff, R. S. (1971). An Introduction. Popular
Music and Society, 1 (1), 3–5.
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 78
Descola, P. (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture
(J. Lloyd, Trans). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Originally published as
Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard,
2005.
Dockwray, R. and Moore, A. F. (2010).
Configuring the Sound-Box: 1965–1972.
Popular Music, 29 (2), 181–197.
Doyle, P. (2004). From ‘My Blue Heaven’ to
‘Race with the Devil’: Echo, Reverb and (Dis)
ordered Space in Early Popular Music
Recording. Popular Music, 23 (1), 31–49.
Doyle, P. (2005). Echo and Reverb: Fabricating
Space in Popular Music Recording, 1900–
1960. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press.
Emblidge, D. (1976). Down Home with the
Band: Country- Western Music and Rock.
Ethnomusicology, 20 (3), 541–552.
Endrinal, C. (2008). Form and Style in the
Music of U2 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Etzkorn, K. P. (1963). Social Context of
Songwriting in the United States.
Ethnomusicology, 7 (2), 96–106.
Everett, W. (1986). Fantastic remembrance in
John Lennon’s ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ and
‘Julia’. Musical Quarterly, 72 (3), 360–393.
Everett, W. (1987). Text-Painting in the
Foreground and Middleground of Paul
McCartney’s ‘She’s Leaving Home’: A Musical
Study of Psychological Conflict. In Theory
Only, 9 (7), 5–21.
Everett, W. (1997). Swallowed by a Song: Paul
Simon’s Crisis of Chromaticism. In J. Covach
and G. Boone (Eds.), Understanding Rock:
Essays in Musical Analysis (pp. 113–153).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Everett, W. (1999). The Beatles as Musicians:
Revolver Through the Anthology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Everett, W. (2001). The Beatles as Musicians:
The Quarry Men Through Rubber Soul.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Everett, W. (2004). Making Sense of Rock’s
Tonal Systems. Music Theory Online, 10 (4),
online.
Fales, C. (2005). Short- Circuiting Perceptual
Systems: Timbre in Ambient and Techno
Music. In P. D. Greene and T. Porcello (Eds.),
Wired for Sound: Engineering and
Technologies in Sonic Cultures (pp. 156–180).
Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
13-10-2014 08:47:12
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Lennon-McCartney and
the ‘Middle Eight’. Popular Music and
Society, 20 (4), 41–52.
Fitzgerald, J. (2009). Creating Those Good
Vibrations: An Analysis of Brian Wilson’s US
Top 40 Hits 1963–66. Popular Music and
Society, 32 (1), 3–24.
Foret, M. (1991). Some TheoreticalMethodological Problems of the Research on
Popular Music. Popular Music and Society,
15 (3), 1–9.
Foucault, M. (1971). The Order of Things: An
Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New
York: Pantheon.
Fournier, K. (2001). The Social Construction of
Music Theory: The Quest for Meaning in
Referential and Self-Referential Research
(Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation).
University of Western Ontario, London, ON.
Frith, S. (1981). ‘The Magic That Can Set You
Free’: The Ideology of Folk and the Myth of
the Rock Community. Popular Music, 1,
159–168.
Frith, S. (1996). Performing Rites: On the Value
of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Girard, A. R. (2007). Music Theory in the
American Music Academy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA.
Gracyk, T. (1996). Rhythm and Noise: An
Aesthetics of Rock. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Green, L. (2001). How Popular Musicians Learn:
A Way Ahead for Music Education. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Green, L. (2008). Music, Informal Learning and
the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hamm, C. (1979). Yesterdays: Popular Song in
America. New York: Norton.
Harnish, D. (2013). The Hybrid Music and
Cosmopolitan Scene of Balinese Guitarist I
Wayan Balawan. Ethnomusicology Forum,
22 (2), 188–209.
Hawkins, S. and Richardson, J. (2007).
Remodeling Britney Spears: Matters of
Intoxication and Mediation. Popular Music
and Society, 30 (5), 605–629.
Hawkins, S. (2013). Aesthetics and
Hyperembodiment in Pop Videos: Rihanna’s
‘Umbrella’. In J. Richardson, C. Gorbman
and C. Vernallis (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 79
79
of New Audiovisual Aesthetics (pp. 466–
482). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Negus, K. (2002).
General Introduction. In D. Hesmondhalgh
and K. Negus (Eds.), Popular Music Studies
(pp. 1–15). London: Arnold.
Hey, K. (1974). “‘I’ll give it a 95’”: An Approach
to the Study of Early Rock ‘n’ Roll. Popular
Music and Society, 3 (4), 315–328.
Holm-Hudson, K. (1996). John Oswald’s
Rubaiyat (Elektrax) and the Politics of
Recombinant Do-Re-Mi. Popular Music and
Society, 20 (3), 19–36.
Holm-Hudson, K. (2003). Apocalyptic
Otherness: Black Music and Extraterrestrial
Identity in the Music of Magma. Popular
Music and Society, 26(4), 481–495.
Horn, D. (1982). The Foundation of IASPM/
Securing a Future. Review of Popular Music,
1. Reprinted in the Minutes of IASPM, www.
iaspm.net/archive/Foundation.PDF
Huang, H., and Huang, R. V. (1994–95). Billie
Holiday and Tempo Rubato: Understanding
Rhythmic Expressivity. Annual Review of Jazz
Studies, 7, 181–99.
IASPM. (1985). Membership Secretary’s Report.
www.iaspm.net/archive/EC_Montreal_85-3.PDF
IASPM.
(1999).
Treasurer/Membership
Secretary’s Report 1998–9. www.iaspm.net/
archive/EC-Rep_01.html#Treasurer
Johansson, M. (2012). Michael Jackson and the
Expressive Power of Voice-produced Sound.
Popular Music and Society, 35 (2), 261–279.
Kaminsky, P. (1992). The Pop Album as Song
Cycle: Paul Simon’s Still Crazy After All These
Years. College Music Society Symposium, 32,
38–54.
Keil, C. (1966). Urban Blues. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Keil, C. (1987). Participatory Discrepancies and
the Power of Music. Cultural Anthropology,
2 (3), 275–283.
Keil, C. and Feld, S. (1994). Music Grooves:
Essays and Dialogues. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Keightley, K. (2001). Reconsidering Rock. In
S. Frith, W. Straw and J. Street (Eds.), The
Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock
(pp. 109–142). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kerman, J. (1980). How We Got into Analysis,
and How to Get Out. Critical Inquiry, 7 (2),
311–331.
13-10-2014 08:47:12
80
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
Kerman, J. (1985). Contemplating Music:
Challenges to Musicology. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press. Also published as Musicology. London: Fontana Press
Collins, 1985.
Klein, C. (1991). A Multi-level Analysis of Billy
Joel’s ‘Goodnight Saigon’. Popular Music
and Society, 15 (3), 75–93.
Kutnowski, M. (2008). Trope and Irony in The
Simpsons’ Overture. Popular Music and
Society, 31 (5), 599–616.
Lacasse, S. (1995). Une analyse des rapports
texte-musique dans “Digging in the Dirt” de
Peter Gabriel (Unpublished Master’s thesis).
Université Laval, Québec, QC.
Lacasse, S. (1997). IASPM UK Conference
1996: Popular Music: Aesthetics Versus
Sociology? Popular Music, 16 (1), 110–111.
Lacasse, S. (1998). L’analyse des rapports
texte-musique dans la musique populaire :
Le cas des paramètres technologiques.
Musurgia : Analyse et pratique musicales, 5
(2), 77–85.
Lacasse, S. (2000). ‘Listen To My Voice’: The
Evocative Power of Vocal Staging in Recorded
Rock Music and Other Forms of Vocal
Expression (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Lacasse, S. (2005). La musique populaire
comme discours phonographique :
Fondements d’une approche analytique.
Musicologies, (2), 23–39.
Lacasse, S. (2006). Composition, performance,
phonographie : Un malentendu ontologique
en analyse musicale?. In S. Lacasse and
P. Roy (Eds.), Groove : Enquête sur les phénomènes musicaux contemporains (pp. 65–
78). Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
Lacasse, S. (2010a). Slave to the Supradiegetic
Rhythm: A Micro–rhythmic Analysis of
Creaky Voice in Sia’s ‘Breathe Me’. In A.
Danielsen (Ed.), Musical Rhythm in the Age
of Digital Reproduction (pp. 141–155).
Farnham: Ashgate.
Lacasse, S. (2010b). The Phonographic Voice:
Paralinguistic Features and Phonographic
Staging in Popular Music Singing. In A.
Bayley (Ed.), Recorded Music: Society,
Technology, and Performance (pp. 225–251).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lacasse, S. (2011). The Introspectionist: The
Phonographic Staging of Voice in Peter
Gabriel’s ‘Blood of Eden’ and ‘Digging in the
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 80
Dirt’. In M. Drewett, S. Hill and K. Kärki
(Eds.), Peter Gabriel, from Genesis to
Growing Up (pp. 211–224). Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Lacasse, S. (2013a, May). La [vwa] posthumaniste : Le cas du chant populaire. Paper presented at the ACFAS conference ‘Du cri au
chant : Étude multidisciplinaire de
l’“expressivité” dans la voix chantée’,
Université Laval, Québec, QC.
Lacasse, S. (2013b, June). Toward a
Posthumanist Musicology. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the Canadian
University Music Society, University of
Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Lebrun, B. (Ed.). (2012). Chanson et performance : Mise en scène du corps dans la
chanson française et francophone. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Leeuwen, T. van. (1998). Music and Ideology:
Notes toward a Sociosemiotics of Mass
Media Music. Popular Music and Society, 22
(4), 25–54.
Lewisohn, M. (1988). The Complete Beatles
Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the
Abbey Road Years, 1962–1970. London:
Bounty Books.
Lomax, A. (1968). Folk Song Style and Culture.
Washington: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Lomax, A. (1976). Cantometrics: An Approach to
the Anthropology of Music. Berkeley: University
of California Extension Media Center.
Mann, W. (1963, December 27). What Songs
the Beatles Sang…. The Times, (4).
Maróthy, J. (1981). A Music of Your Own.
Popular music, 1, 15–25.
Maróthy, J. (1974). Music and the Bourgeois,
Music and the Proletarian, trans. by E. Rona.
Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Mellers, W. (1964). Music in a New Found
Land: Themes and Developments in the
History of American Music. London: Barrie
and Rockliff.
Mellers, W. (1973). Twilight of the Gods: The
Music of the Beatles. New-York: Viking Press.
Meintjes, L. (1990). Paul Simon’s Graceland,
South Africa, and the Mediation of Musical
Meaning. Ethnomusicology, 34(1), 37–73.
Middleton, R. (1981). Editor’s Introduction to
Volume 1. Popular Music, 1, 3–7.
Middleton, R. (1982). Editor’s Introduction to
Volume 2. Popular Music, 2, 1–8.
13-10-2014 08:47:12
(RE)GENERATIONS OF POPULAR MUSICOLOGY
Middleton, R. (1985). Articulating Musical
Meaning/Re-constructing Musical History/
Locating the ‘Popular’. Popular Music, 5, 5–43.
Middleton, R. (1990). Studying Popular Music.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Middleton, R. (1993). Popular Music Analysis
and Musicology: Bridging the Gap. Popular
Music, 12 (2), 177–190.
Middleton, R. (2000a). Introduction: Locating
the Popular Music Text. In R. Middleton (ed.),
Reading Pop: Approaches to Textual Analysis
in Popular Music (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Middleton, R. (Ed.). (2000b). Reading Pop:
Approaches to Textual analysis in Popular
Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Middleton, R. and Horn, D. (1981). Preface.
Popular Music, 1, 1–2.
Middleton, R. and Horn, D. (Eds.) (1982).
Popular Music: Theory and Method, Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, T. (Ed.). (2001). Global Noise: Rap and
Hip Hop outside the USA. London: Wesleyan
University Press.
Moore, A. F. (1992). Patterns of Harmony.
Popular Music, 11 (1), 73–106.
Moore, A. F. (1993). Rock, the Primary Text:
Developing a Musicology of Rock.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Moore, A. F. (2003). Introduction. In A. F.
Moore (Ed.), Analyzing Popular Music (pp.
1–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Moore, A. F. (2012). Song Means: Analysing
and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song.
Farnham: Ashgate.
Mosher, H. F. (1972). The Lyrics of American
Pop Music: A New Poetry. Popular Music and
Society, 1 (3), 167–176.
Oliver, P. (1969). The Story of the Blues.
London: The Cresset Press.
Ottenheimer, H. J. (1979). Catharsis,
Communication, and Evocation: Alternative
Views of the Socio-psychological Functions
of Blues Singing. Ethnomusicology, 23 (1),
75–86.
Paddison, M. (1982). The Critique Criticised:
Adorno and Popular Music. Popular Music,
2, 201–218.
Pallett, O. (2014, March 25). Skin Tight Jeans
and Syncopation: Explaining the Genius of
Katy Perry’s ‘Teenage Dream’ – Using Music
Theory. Slate, online.
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 81
81
Pankhurst, T. (2001). What Is Schenkerian
Analysis? In SchenkerGUIDE, online.
Phillipov, M. (2012). Death Metal and Music
Criticism: Analysis at the Limits. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Popular Music Interest Group, SMT. (2012)
http://popmusic.societymusictheory.org/
Regev, M. (2013). Pop-rock Music: Aesthetic
Cosmopolitanism in late Modernity.
Cambridge: Polity.
Richardson, J., Gorbman, C. and Vernallis, C
(Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of New
Audiovisual Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rhodes, W. (1956). On the Subject of Ethnomusicology. Ethnomusicology, 1 (7), 1–9.
Shepherd, J. (1982). A Theoretical Model for
the Sociomusicological Analysis of Popular
Musics. Popular Music, 2, 145–177.
Shepherd, J. (1991). Music as Social Text.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Shepherd, J. (1999): Text. In B. Horner and
T. Swiss (Eds.), Key Terms in Popular Music
and Culture (pp. 156–177). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shin, H. (ed.). (2009). Inter-Asia Popular Music
Studies: Cultural Studies of Popular Music in
Asia. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 10(4),
470–473.
Shin, H., M ōri, Y. and Ho, T. (2013).
Introduction: Special issue – East Asian
Popular Music and its (Dis)contents. Popular
Music, 32 (1), 1–5.
Sibilla, G. (2003a). Fragments of a Musical /
Narratological Practice: Reading Pop Music
as a Narrative, Musicians as Characters. In A.
Gyde and G. Stahl (eds.), Practising Popular
Music: 12th Biennal IASPM-International
Conference Montreal 2003 Proceedings
(pp. 843–853). Montreal: IASPM.
Sibilla, G. (2003b). I linguaggi della musica
pop. Milan: Strumenti Bompiani.
Sibilla, G. (2004). ‘So Empty without Me’:
Intermediality, Intertextuality and NonMusical Factors in the Evaluation of Pop
Music – The ( Not So) Strange Case of MTV
and Eminem. Copyright volume! La revue
des musiques populaires, 3(2), 123–141.
Smith, H., Dean, R. T. (eds.). (2009). Practice-led
Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative
Arts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Solomon, T. (2012). Theory and Method in
Popular Music Analysis: Text and Meaning.
Studia Musicologica Norvegica, 38, 86–108.
13-10-2014 08:47:12
82
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POPULAR MUSIC
Stefani, G. (1987). Melody: A Popular
Perspective. Popular Music, 6 (1), 21–35.
Stévance, S. (2014). Tanya Tagaq : L’ethno- pop
comme mise en spectacle. In M. Desroches,
S. Stévance and S. Lacasse (Eds.), Quand la
musique prend corps (pp. 309–330). Presses
de l’Université de Montréal.
Stévance, S. and Lacasse, S. (2013). Les enjeux
de la recherche- création en musique :
Institution, définition, formation. Québec:
Presses de l’Université Laval.
Stilwell, R. J. (1995). In the Air Tonight: Text,
Intertextuality, and the Construction of
Meaning. Popular Music and Society, 19 (4),
67–103.
Stokes, M. (2003). Talk and Text: Popular Music
and Ethnomusicology. In A. F. Moore (Ed.),
Analysing Popular Music (pp. 218–239).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sturman, J. L. (1993). Review of John Shepherd’s
Music as Social Text. Ethnomusicology, 37
(1), 124–127.
Tagg, P. (1979). Kojak: Fifty Seconds of
Television Music: Towards the Analysis of
Affect in Popular Music, 2nd edition. New
York: MMMSP, 2000.
Tagg, P. (1982). Analysing Popular Music:
Theory, Method and Practice. Popular Music,
2, 37–67.
Tagg, P. (2009). Everyday Tonality. New York:
MMMSP.
Tagg, P. (2012). Music’s Meanings: A Modern
Musicology for Non-Musos. New York:
MMMSP.
Vega, C., Chase, G. and Chappell, J. (1966).
Mesomusic: An Essay on the Music of the
Masses. Ethnomusicology, 10 (1), 1–17.
BK-SAGE-BENNETT_WAKSMAN-140471-Chp04.indd 82
Vernallis, C., Herzog, A. and Richardson, J.
(Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of
Sound and Image in Digital Media. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Weijen, D. van. (2013). Publication Languages
in the Arts and Humanities. Research Trends,
(32), 20–22.
Wicke, P. (1990). Rock Music: Culture,
Aesthetics and Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Rockmusik. Zur Ästhetik und
Soziologie eines Massenmediums. Leipzig:
Reclam, 1986.
Wicke, P. and Deveson, R. (1982). Rock Music:
A Musical-Aesthetic Study. Popular Music, 2,
219–243.
Wolfe, C. (1981). ‘Gospel boogie’: White
Southern Gospel Music in Transition, 1945–
55. Popular Music, 1, 73–82.
Wolfe, C. (2010). What is Posthumanism?
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Yang, F.-C. I. (1993). A Genre Analysis of
Popular Music in Taiwan. Popular Music and
Society, 17 (2), 83–112.
Zagorski-Thomas, S. (2007). The Musicology or
Record Production. TwentiethCentury Music,
4 (2), 189–207.
Zagorski-Thomas, S. (2014). The Musicology of
Record Production. Farnham: Ashgate.
Zagorski-Thomas, S. and Frith, S. (eds.). (2012).
The Art of Record Production: An Introductory
Reader for a New Academic Field. Farnham:
Ashgate.
Zak, A. J. (2001). The Poetics of Rock: Cutting
Tracks, Making Records. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
13-10-2014 08:47:12
Serge Lacasse