Qué es sociológico en la Música?

SO36CH09-RoyDowd ARI 10 June 2010 3:53

What Is Sociologicalabout Music?William G. Roy1 and Timothy J. Dowd2

1Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1551;email: [email protected] of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010. 36:183–203

First published online as a Review in Advance onApril 20, 2010

The Annual Review of Sociology is online atsoc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102618

Copyright c© 2010 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0360-0572/10/0811-0183$20.00

Key Words

cultural production, cultural consumption, interaction, institutions,genres, boundaries

Abstract

The sociology of music has become a vibrant field of study in recentdecades. While its proponents are well aware of this field’s contribu-tions and relevance, we focus here on demonstrating its merit to thebroader sociological community. We do so by addressing the followingquestions: What is music, sociologically speaking? How do individualsand groups use music? How is the collective production of music madepossible? How does music relate to broader social distinctions, espe-cially class, race, and gender? Answering these questions reveals thatmusic provides an important and engaging purchase on topics that areof great concern to sociologists of all stripes—topics that range fromthe microfoundations of interaction to the macro-level dynamics ofinequality.

183

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


INTRODUCTION

The first generations of sociologists took itupon themselves to delineate a specific swatchof reality that belonged exclusively to thefledgling discipline, proclaiming that societywas a reality sui generis and surrendering thestate to political science, markets to economics,space to geographers, and the past to historians.But in the past half-century, now that sociologyhas secured its place in the academy, we havestepped out from the terrain of society narrowlyframed to one broadly oriented and have em-braced such fields as economic sociology, po-litical sociology, and the various “sociologiesof.” Each of these fields faces questions of whatgeneral theories or analytical tools our disci-pline offers and what is uniquely sociologicalabout the subject matter. This review reflectson a burgeoning field of inquiry that offers dis-tinctive challenges and insights: the sociologyof music.

Like many specializations in sociology,scholars have often gravitated toward the so-ciology of music because of a personal interest.Not surprisingly, they have also found a readyaudience in other music lovers. As evidenced bythe seminal works of Max Weber, W.E.B. DuBois, Alfred Schutz, Howard Becker, RichardPeterson, Pierre Bourdieu, and Tia DeNora,sociology has long offered an important van-tage from which to understand music, the peo-ple who do it, and its effect on people. Recentwork continues to show the contributions thatsociology brings to the study of music; it is alsomarked by efforts to speak to a broad sociologi-cal audience and to contribute to other areas ofthe discipline.

This broader relevance of music sociologyis our focus here. Whereas other works surveythe roots and development of this specializedfield (Dowd 2007, Martin 1995), we take a dif-ferent approach by demonstrating how the so-ciological salience of music can be framed interms of the following questions: (a) What ismusic, sociologically speaking? (b) How do in-dividuals and groups use music? (c) How is thecollective production of music made possible?

(d ) How does music relate to broader socialdistinctions, especially class, race, and gender?By addressing these questions, we show thatthe sociology of music is relevant for such var-ied subfields as stratification, social movements,organizational sociology, and symbolic inter-actionism. Beyond highlighting its broad rele-vance, we also stress an ongoing theme: Musicis a mode of interaction that expresses and con-stitutes social relations (whether they are sub-cultures, organizations, classes, or nations) andthat embodies cultural assumptions regardingthese relations. This means that socioculturalcontext is essential to understanding what mu-sic can do and enable. Indeed, when the samemusic is situated across these contexts, it canwork in dramatically different fashions (as so-ciologists would expect). What is sociological,then, is less the sonic qualities than the social re-lations that music is both a part of and shaping.

WHAT IS MUSIC,SOCIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING?

Music is not a singular phenomenon and, hence,is not captured by one definition. Still, issuesof what music “is" set the boundaries of thefield by clarifying what is and is not being stud-ied. Scholars in the social sciences and human-ities emphasize that the distinction betweenmusic and “not music" is ultimately a socialconstruct—one that is shaped by, and shapes,social arrangements and cultural assumptions.Given that the construction of what we think ofas music is so widely accepted, its socioculturalunderpinnings can often be invisible. Followingmusicologist Phillip Bohlman (1999), we bringthis construction to the fore by discussing howmusic can be conceptualized as both object andactivity. These conceptualizations, as shown insubsequent sections, have tremendous implica-tions for the production and consumption ofmusic.

Music as Object

Music is often treated as an object—a thingthat has a moment of creation, a stability of

184 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


characteristics across time and place, and po-tential for use and effects. As such, music can beabstracted from its time and place and put intonew contexts, such as when Bach’s B Minor Massis performed in a secular, rather than a religious,setting more than 250 years after its creation.Transforming the fleeting sounds of music intoan object is a social achievement that requiressociological explanation. That said, sociologiststreat music as different kinds of objects, as illus-trated by but two of the following types in theliterature: music as an institutionalized systemof tonality and music as a commodity. Both havelong histories and undergird the view of musicas a written and/or recorded text that can bepossessed, circulated, and inspected.

Music as an institutionalized system oftonality means, fundamentally, that certainnotes are regularly utilized and repeatedfrequently enough that they can be treatedas things: the sonic building blocks for songs,symphonies, and other compositions. Onefundamental aspect of tonality is the division ofpitch into distinct tones (i.e., notes). Althoughthis division could be approached in highlyidiosyncratic fashion, Weber (1958) points to aremarkable uniformity found across time: a sys-tem of tonality, he argues, that began in and setsapart the West. This system emerged as the di-vision of pitch shifted from an ad hoc approachto one of systematic calculation based partlyupon advances in mathematics and acoustics.This eventually resulted in equal temperamentby the early 1700s—those 12 notes per octave(C, C-Sharp, D, D-Sharp, etc.) that are equidis-tant from each other and that permit a song tobe transposed easily from one key to another(e.g., when the melody and harmony for“Happy Birthday” can be shifted up or down interms of pitch while retaining its character). Asthe division of pitch grew more rational via thecalculations involved in equal temperament, sotoo did other elements in this system: Harmonicelements grew somewhat predictable and stable(such as the common usage of major chords);written notation that detailed these notes andharmonies grew more precise; and manufac-ture of standardized instruments capable of

playing the notes of equal temperament grewmore prevalent, as exemplified by the pianocapturing the 12 notes per octave via its whiteand black keys. This ongoing rationalization,Weber suggests, facilitated the flourishingof distinctive and elaborate music in theWest, such as orchestral music, and it alsorevealed social processes about rationalizationin general. Although this system is neither theonly nor the most scientific way for dividingpitch into notes (Duffins 2007; see Becker1982, pp. 32–33), this musical object is widelytaken for granted, especially in the West, andit shapes the very manner in which individualshear music (see Cross 1997).

The achievement of music as an object goesfar beyond its codification in notation and therationalized system of tonality. In many places,music is embodied in objects of exchange(commodities). This buying and selling of mu-sic has occurred for centuries, with the rangeof commodities growing more expansive. Anearly precursor involved the buying and sellingof labor, with the state, Church, and aristocracyserving as patrons that secured the services ofmusicians and composers (Abbott & Hrycak1990, DeNora 1991, Scherer 2001). Outrightcommodification of musical objects took root inthe (late) 1700s with the expansion of commer-cial music publishing and the rise of copyrightlaws that fixed sets of notes as distinct entities.The objectification of notes and words into aproduct helped composers move from patron-age into the freelance marketplace (Lenneberg2003, Scherer 2001); almost concurrently,commercial venues that featured performanceof these musical texts proliferated (see DeNora1991, Weber 2006). In the present, publishersand others are financially compensated whenthose texts are performed in various venuesand/or disseminated by others for profit (Dowd2003, Ryan 1985). Commodification expandedfurther in the late 1800s and early 1900s, whenthe application of technologies freed musicfrom the fleeting nature of performance andthe static nature of the printed page. Thetechnologically captured performance becamea product widely disseminated by the emergent

www.annualreviews.org • What Is Sociological about Music? 185

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


recording, radio, and film industries (Dowd2003, Sanjek & Sanjek 1991). These industriescontinue to offer such products, with addi-tional captured performances coming via suchsources as iPods and online music (Bull 2007,Leyshon et al. 2005). The commodification ofmusic is now commonplace and a fact of life inmost societies, which Adorno (2002) and otherslament. What exactly is owned—the notes onthe page, the performance, the technologicalreproduction—is a matter of conflict, whoseadjudication has far-reaching consequencesfor the social dynamics of music (see Leyshonet al. 2005, Sanjek & Sanjek 1991).

This self-conscious examination of howmusic is treated as an object has lessons forsocial construction more generally. Becausethe achievement of music’s object-ness isrelatively culturally and historically specific,it can be studied as a model for the processof reification, whereby human creations aremistakenly treated as simply resulting fromnature (Berger & Luckmann 1966). Just as theseven-day week is one of many ways of dividingtime, so too equal temperament is but oneway of dividing pitch. That both are treatedas natural speaks to the deep entrenchmentof these inventions in daily life (Duffins 2007,Zerubavel 1985). Its object-ness as commodityis also instructive. Music’s object-ness, its em-beddedness in institutions, its pervasiveness ineveryday life, its popularity as an avocation, andits affirmation in a discourse of transcendentsanctification make it an accessible exemplar ofthe process of social construction. Scholars ofsociologically similar phenomena—such as art,technology, and money—could learn from theprocess by which much of music (but not all)became a commodified object.

Music as Activity

Scholars critical of the treatment of music asan object have frequently asserted that music ismore fruitfully understood as a process—an ac-tivity. Rather than treating it as an object withfixed qualities, we can treat music as somethingalways becoming that never achieves full object

status, something unbounded and open, some-thing that is a verb (musicking) rather than anoun. Musicologist Christopher Small (1998,p. 2), who coined the term “musicking,” makesthe point forcefully:

Music is not a thing at all but an activity,something that people do. The apparent thing“music” is a figment, an abstraction of the ac-tion, whose reality vanishes as soon as we ex-amine it at all closely.

This activity is evident in the performanceof music—given its physical nature—but also inthe efforts that precede and enable such perfor-mance. In the realm of classical music, which isknown for its performers who resolutely seekto capture the intention of the composer asconveyed in notation, the rendering of thesemusical texts involves a considerable process,containing both musical and nonmusical ele-ments. Among professional string quartets inGreat Britain, the most financially and criticallysuccessful are those whose members adeptlyhandle interpersonal issues that arise duringpractice and concerts (e.g., conflict, leadership)and who focus on musically pleasing them-selves rather than the audience (Murninghan &Conlon 1991). Similarly, the quality of or-chestral performance is wrapped up withevaluations of conductor competency andlegitimacy, which often emerge in rehearsal(Benzecry 2006, Khodyakov 2007, Marottoet al. 2007), and with dynamics of informal andformal relations that unfold within and beyondthe concert (Allmendinger & Hackman 1995,Glynn 2000, Khodyakov 2007, Marotto et al.2007). Even the supposedly isolated figure ofthe concert pianist grapples with conflicting ex-pectations of powerful others (e.g., competitionjudges, conservatory faculty), such as simulta-neous calls to ignore or treat the persistent painthat can result from extensive play of techni-cally demanding music (Alford & Szanto 1996,McCormick 2009). (Pain also figures promi-nently in the careers of ballet dancers; seeTurner & Wainwright 2006.) The objectof musical notation that lies at the heart of

186 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


classical music is made alive by the musickingthat surrounds it.

In the realm of jazz, which is known for im-provisation that can render a song differentlyevery time, the development of improvisationalskills is an ongoing process, as well. In orderto improvise, jazz musicians develop such cog-nitive skills as understanding the relationshipbetween chords and individual notes and iden-tification with the character and role of theirparticular instrument. They acquire such cor-poral skills as knowing how to use their body inthe delivery of this instantaneous music. Theylearn interactional skills and etiquette for col-lective performance that involves the sponta-neous musical passages of soloists, turn-takingamong soloists, and accompaniment that ablyresponds to the expected and unexpected di-rections that improvisation takes. Their mas-tery of improvisation, in turn, is shaped bya larger context containing familial support,mentorship, social connections among musi-cians, and the changing landscape of perfor-mance opportunities (Berliner 1994, Dempsey2008, Gibson 2006, MacLeod 1993, Sudnow1978). What appears to be ephemeral—the im-provisation that is commodified at jazz venuesand on recordings—is actually embedded in ex-tended activity that connects both the musicaland the nonmusical.

Small’s musicological position is inherentlysociological because it highlights the intertwin-ing of music and interaction. Small’s (1998) ap-proach focuses on the variety of actors involvedin the ongoing activity of music. Yet Smalltends to focus on actors associated with musicalperformance (e.g., ticket-takers at concerts).In contrast, the art world approach of Becker(1982) considers all people involved in thecreation and dissemination of music, including,for lack of a better term, support personnelwho may have little involvement in the musicalperformance itself. Consequently, the processof musicking should be of interest to propo-nents of sociological approaches that addressinteraction and cognition more generally, suchas ethnomethodology, symbolic interaction-ism, the sociology of work, and organizational

sense-making. Those approaches reveal thatindividuals collectively work to interpret andenact the world that they confront. Musickingprovides a powerful example of such efforts,particularly in showing that the facticity ofmusical scores and performances rests onintersubjective meanings that are invented inand sustained by interaction. This becomesespecially apparent when considering the usageof music by listeners.

HOW DO INDIVIDUALSAND GROUPS USE MUSIC?

Approaching music as merely an object or anactivity risks treating it as set apart and self-contained rather than as part of, and insepa-rable from, social life (Bohlman 1999). Manyscholars thus focus on how music is embed-ded in social life (e.g., social relations). Hence,DeNora (2000) speaks of “a range of strategiesthrough which music is mobilized as a resourcefor producing the scenes, routines, assumptionsand occasions that constitute ‘social life’” (p. xi).That is, people use music to give meaning tothemselves and their world.

Like Griswold (1987), we treat meaningas shared significance that occurs when musicpoints to something beyond itself, representingsome aspect of social life. We first discusshow academics grapple with musical meaning.This covers important ground and situates ourdiscussion of how people use music to definewho they are individually and collectively. Ofcourse, when focusing on the embeddednessof music in social relations, music performedfor audiences is but one of a manifold set ofsocial relations. That so much musicking takesthe form of, say, performer/audience relationsis a characteristic of Western society to beexplained rather than a restrictive assumptionto impose on analysis (Turino 2008).

Embeddedness of Musical Meaning

The embeddedness of music complicates theconstruction of meaning, as meaning is notsolely located in either a musical object or activ-ity. Drawing inspiration from DeNora (1986),


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


we address two broad approaches to this com-plication: those who emphasize the musical ob-ject (what we label here as textualists) and thosewho emphasize the activity (contextualists).

The textual approach often treats musicas analogous to language. The most straight-forward example comes from numerous stud-ies focusing on song lyrics. Sociologists andothers probe meaning by interpreting one setof words (lyrics) into another set describingit. For instance, in an ambitious analysis ofmore than 400 songs found on best-selling hip-hop albums, Kubrin (2005, p. 366) ultimatelyinterprets their lyrics as “[helping] constructan interpretive environment where violence isappropriate and acceptable.” Acknowledgingthat rappers could have different lyrical inten-tions and listeners could have divergent inter-pretations of these lyrics, Kubrin neverthelessroots the meaning in violence while connectingit to inner-city streets that he notes are famil-iar to hip-hop artists and audiences (but seeRodriquez 2006, p. 664).

The textual approach is less straightforwardwhen scholars turn to the music itself, especiallygiven an important difference between musicand language. Whereas basic elements of lan-guage (words—“dog”) have meaning, basic mu-sical elements (notes—“C-Sharp”) have trivial,if any, meaning. Some scholars handle this byfocusing on the structure of music (e.g., interre-lationships among individual notes) and track-ing the meaning from there (DeNora 1986).

This focus on musical structure has exten-sive roots in the humanities. Viennese criticEduard Hanslick (1957 [1854]) argued that,just as language can be analyzed in terms of theformal structures of its syntax, so can music beparsed into its formal features (thereby launch-ing the formalist approach in musicology). Healso argued that music parallels language onlyin its syntax (structure) and not its semantics(meaning), thus stopping short of linking thetwo. Musicologists from Cooke (1959) onwardhave aggressively made that linkage. McClary(1991) locates meaning in this interplay be-tween musical structure (text) and social life(context), as when arguing that certain music

(e.g., classical sonatas) projects the same ten-sion as conventional literary plots, pitting thedominant masculine against the subordinatefeminine before resolving into the triumph ofmasculinity. Walser (1999) similarly elaborateshow the musical structure of heavy metal(e.g., rhythms, timbres) ties to broader notionsof masculinity. Some suggest that meaningarises when musical structure calls to mind thephenomenal world. The sonic ebb and flow ofGamelan music in Bali and Java evoke for listen-ers the natural cycles of calendars and cosmosand feel not only natural but beautiful and pow-erful (Becker & Becker 1981), whereas the arc inMozart’s music—with its definite sequence thatpoints to the ending, much like a narrative plotdoes—conjures for listeners the linear notionsof time that mark modernity (Berger 2007).

Some sociologists likewise focus on musicalstructure. For example, Cerulo (1995) analyzes161 national anthems by heeding the relation-ship of notes that unfolds within each anthemsimultaneously (e.g., harmony that occurs whennotes are sounded together) and temporally(e.g., successive notes in a melody). On the onehand, Cerulo focuses intently on the texts ofthese anthems, observing how certain musicalrelationships have gained political meaning.Anthems with melodies that proceed smoothlywith small differences in pitch between suc-cessive notes (i.e., intervals) have a differentmeaning than those anthems with melodiesfilled with large differences: The small intervalsof “God Save the Queen” signify a hymn ofhonor, whereas the leaping intervals of “LaMarseillaise” arouse a call to arms. On theother hand, Cerulo links the musical structuresof these anthems to such things as the politicalenvironment. Nations with few political voices(i.e., authoritarian governments) tend to chooseanthems with basic musical structures, as thewidely shared worldview accompanying this(imposed) solidarity requires little explanationpolitically or musically. Nations with manypolitical voices (i.e., multiparty democracies)gravitate toward anthems with complex musicalstructures, as much elaboration, politically andmusically, is needed to overcome differences.

188 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


The contextual approach differs markedly.Contextualists particularly focus on listeners,who, in the textual approach, are often ignored,imagined, or simply the academics themselves.Martin (2006) criticizes as sociologically naivethe new musicology that probes music for its so-cial meaning. DeNora (2000, p. 22) charges thattextualists “often conflate ideas about music’saffect with the ways that music actually worksfor and is used by its recipients instead of ex-ploring how such links are forged by situatedactors.” Feld (1984, p. 383) similarly advocatesgoing beyond readings of music to investigate“the primacy of symbolic action in an ongoingintersubjective lifeworld, and the ways engage-ment in symbolic action continually builds andshapes actors’ perceptions and meanings.” Themost explicit argument is by Small (1998, p. 13):

The act of musicking establishes in the placewhere it is happening a set of relationships,and it is in those relationships that the mean-ing of the act lies. They are to be found notonly between those organized sounds . . . butalso between the people who are taking part,in whatever capacity, in the performance.

He illustrates this with an insightful account ofthe meanings created by a classical music con-cert, including the architecture of the concerthall, the physical relations of participants, theconventions for behavior, and microsocial in-teraction, all of which frame the music itselfand the discourse around it.

The contextual approach maintains that themeaning is never purely in the music becausethere is never “a” meaning. Whereas somelisteners deplore the violence in rap lyrics—reducing the range of lyrics to that particu-lar meaning—others hear them as signifying aneeded critique, a political rallying cry, and/oran emergent art form (Binder 1993, Watkins2001). According to contextualists, whether rapmusic foments violence or conciliation dependsless on its lyrics or sounds than on what peo-ple do with it. Thus, meaning is more a set ofactivities (e.g., interpretation, reflection) thana product. As Alfred Schutz (1951) argued,

musical meaning is particularly sociological be-cause it both happens through interaction andmakes interaction possible. By this logic, musicand its meaning do not simply unfurl in a so-cial context but are also part of the context itself(Seeger 2004).

Music and Meaningful Constructionof Identity

Music and its meanings inform people, quiteprofoundly, about who they are. From agingpunk rock fans (Bennett 2006) and passionateopera connoisseurs (Benzecry 2009) to youthfuldance club devotees (Thornton 1996) and blue-grass music enthusiasts (Gardner 2004), musicboth signals and helps constitute the identity ofindividuals and collectivities.

DeNora (2000) is the leading sociologistaddressing musical meaning and individualidentity. Through interviews and observation,she finds that individuals construct an identity(a “me”) by using music to mark and documentimportant aspects of their lives—includingmemorable events and evolving relationships—and to guide how they negotiate such activitiesas shopping, aerobics, and lovemaking. Likesome academics described above, individualsfind meaning by linking text and context, usingmusic to signify their evolving autobiographies.However, this is best seen as an ongoing ac-tivity steeped in interactions with others (e.g.,lovers). Moreover, meanings that individualsidentify are not necessarily the same as thoseof academics. Some like classical music (i.e.,Mozart) because it is good background musicfor studying and not because, as Berger (2007)suggests, it resonates with the modern flowof time. Music thus gets into individuals viaa deliberate meaning-making process. Thatsaid, music also gets into the body with littleforethought, as when certain musical elementsinspire action (e.g., marching) or rest (DeNora2000, McNeill 1995, Small 1998).

Music is a “technology of the self” (DeNora2000). It is something in which to lose one-self apart from others. Classical music aficiona-dos can seek transcendence while listening to


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


albums in the confines of their home (Hennion2001), and iPod users can create sonic solitudewhile surrounded by strangers in a bustling city(Bull 2007). Music is also something by whichto find oneself amid others, which is of par-ticular interest to sociologists. Construction ofan autobiographical soundtrack is an intraindi-vidual process, suggests Hesmondhalgh (2007),because people compare themselves to others—imagining how their experiences and perspec-tives do (or do not) lead to similar musical pref-erences (for possible implications of this, seeSalagnik & Watts 2008). Meanwhile, many usemusic to develop their private faith while con-necting themselves to a religious community(Chaves 2004, Wuthnow 2003).

Groups likewise use music as a tool for build-ing identity—an “us” (Roy 2002). The relation-ship between a group and music flows two ways:Music is identified by people inside (and out-side) the group as belonging to it, and member-ship in the group is marked partly by embracingthis music. Sometimes this occurs in a sustainedand tacit fashion. Among the Suya in centralBrazil, daily enactment of relationships throughceremonial singing helps create a collectiveidentity, which influences tremendously otheraspects of Suya life. Musicking “recreates, re-establishes, or alters the significance of singingand also of the persons, times, places, and au-diences involved. It expresses the status, sex,and feelings of performers, and brings these tothe attention of the entire community” (Seeger2004, p. 65). Music does not simply reflect thisgroup but plays a performative role in definingit. The two-way relationship can also occur in adeliberate and sudden fashion, as when groupscome to see particular music as signifying boththeir us-ness and their plight. African Ameri-can slaves used spirituals with religious lyricsto define themselves and covertly critique de-plorable conditions (Douglass 1993 [1845]; seealso Du Bois 1997 [1903]). In the early 1900s,some 400,000 textile workers walked off thejob after encountering local music that taughtthem of their solidarity and offered prescrip-tions for action (Roscigno & Danaher 2004).Serbian students of the late 1990s drew upon

rock music to mobilize against Milosevic, si-multaneously constructing “a collective identityand a discourse of opposition that demarcatedthem not only from the regime but from otheroppositional forces” (Steinberg 2004, p. 22).

Music can be a “technology of the collective”because people gravitate toward those whoshare similar tastes (Bourdieu 1984, Roy 2002).This is particularly important in contemporarysocieties, as individuals can potentially be mem-bers of many (disparate) groups (see DiMaggio,1987, 1991). “Music scenes” research grappleswith this, acknowledging the ease with whichindividuals can enter (and exit) groups thatcoalesce around particular types of music(Bennett 2004). The gathering of like-mindedindividuals occurs not only within locales—asGrazian (2003) has critically demonstrated forChicago blues—but also across physical locales(Roman-Velazquez 1999) and virtual spaces(Beer 2008). This fluid and evolving construc-tion of us-ness sometimes results in sprawlingcollectives, such as the extreme metal scenethat brings together enthusiasts and musiciansfrom such far-flung places as Brazil, Israel,Malaysia, and Sweden (Kahn-Harris 2007). Ofcourse, tastes can also prove divisive, as groupssometimes use music to define themselvesagainst others (Bourdieu 1984, Roy 2010).

Scholars in the social sciences and humani-ties demonstrate that meaning does not simplyreside in the content of media goods but in theinterplay between audiences and content. Suchstalwarts as Griswold (1987) emphasize the con-tingent nature of meaning, whereby the socialsituation of readers shapes how they interpretnovels. Music scholarship provides importantevidence of this contingent meaning by prob-lematizing how musical content gets into peo-ple’s minds, bodies, and especially their activi-ties. In doing so, it also shows that the linkagebetween meaning and musicking plays a cru-cial role in identity construction. Music’s rolein the defining of “me versus not-me” and “usversus them” should especially appeal to socialpsychologists (Killian & Johnson 2006) and so-cial movement scholars (Eyerman & Jamison1998). They will likely agree that the

190 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


question of how musical meaning arises is per-haps more sociologically compelling than whatit is (DeNora 1986). Put another way, scholarswithin and beyond music sociology can bringtogether texts and contexts by attending to whatmusic affords both individuals and groups, in-cluding its affordance of identity constructionand (collective) action (DeNora 2000, 2003;see Clarke 2005). In doing so, they will seethe powerful resource that this sonic materialoffers daily life.

HOW IS THE COLLECTIVEPRODUCTION OF MUSICMADE POSSIBLE?

Musical creation is deeply social. Even whenone person is apparently responsible for music(e.g., recording original songs in a bedroomstudio), her efforts are most likely intraindi-vidual (Becker 1982). This occurs when thatperson uses the long-established system oftonality (Weber 1958), relies upon technolo-gies devised by others ( Jeppesen & Frederiksen2006), or engages conventions shared by many(Hesmondhalgh 1998). Particularly intrigu-ing are frequent instances in which musicalproduction is explicitly collective—whereindividuals and organizations with their ownrespective interests come together for deliveryof music (Regev 1998).

Several approaches take this aggregation assomething to explain, including the art worldsapproach (Becker 1982), the production-of-culture approach (Peterson & Anand 2004),field theory (Prior 2008), and neo-institutionaltheory ( Johnson et al. 2006). They all point towidely shared cognition that enables this col-lective production to work: (oftentimes) taken-for-granted ways of viewing the world (insti-tutions) that bring together individuals andorganizations into a (somewhat) coherent field.Heeding DiMaggio (1987), we focus on thedifferentiation of music into categories (genres)and the ranking of certain genres (hierarchy).Both play crucial roles in collective productionby similarly orienting innumerable actors inrelationship to each other across time and place.

Genre as Collective Enactment

A distinctive feature of modern Westernmusic is the way that genre simultaneouslycategorizes cultural objects and people. Somedefinitions of genre emphasize the content ofcultural objects more than the people engagingsuch objects, as when Rosenblum (1975,p. 424) defines genre (i.e., style) as “particularmannerisms or conventions that are frequentlyassociated together.” Other definitions bringpeople a bit more into the mix, as when Walser(1999, p. 29) summarizes, “Genres . . . come tofunction as horizons of expectations for readers(or listeners) and as models of composition forauthors (or musicians).” Still other definitionsemphasize more fully that genres are sociallyrelevant in different ways for different actorsand that people, as well as the music itself, canbe categorized by genres. For example, Fabbri(1982, 1989) offers a well-known attempt totreat genre as socially accepted rules and tospecify what those rules entail for specificgenres, such as the Italian canzone d’autore(author-song) and its creators (cantautori—singer-songwriters). These generic rulesaddress technical aspects of music (e.g., the un-polished sound of cantautori), the semiotic (e.g.,how cantautori convey truth via sincere words),the behavioral (e.g., the unassuming onstageposture of cantautori), and the ideological (e.g.,cantautori’s commitment to justice). Thoughcomprehensive, Fabbri’s definition of genreis criticized for being too static, as it glossesover changing aspects of genre (Negus 1999,Santoro 2004). Finally, a stream of scholar-ship in sociology (Lena & Peterson 2008,Lopes 2002, Peterson 1997, Santoro 2004)emphasizes that genres are moving targetswith evolving, rather than fixed, elementsthat morph over time, sometimes gradually,sometimes abruptly (Becker 1982). We takethe latter view here.

Collective enactment by musicians anchorsthese moving targets, both sustaining andchanging genres in the process. While somemusicians invent a new genre (Prior 2008),most only work within existing genres. Current


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


understandings of a given genre serve aspowerful tools for socialization, particularlywhen conveyed via mentors, peers, publica-tions, and recordings (Bayton 1998, Clawson1999, Curran 1996). In adopting a genre astheir own, novices learn conventions regardingwhat to play (the swing of jazz drumming) andhow to play (the pounding approach of rockdrumming), as well as conventions about equip-ment (the massive drum sets of heavy metal)and appearance (the big hair of certain rockgenres). Pursuit of a genre thus links novicesto others who appreciate these conventions: afield spanning the local (Crossley 2008), virtual(Beer 2008), and imagined (Lena 2004). How-ever, conventions are not hard-and-fast rules.Given sanctions for being generic, few musi-cians slavishly adhere to all, contributing to agradual drift in what constitutes a genre. Somechoose to subvert conventions, mavericks thatcan (decisively) redefine a genre (Becker 1982).Of course, musicians are not always bound toa single genre. Those adept at multiple genrescan spur innovation, as when they combinedisparate elements of various genres into anew fusion; they can also benefit economically,as when expanding the range of availablegigs for which they are qualified (Dempsey2008, MacLeod 1993). Small wonder that jazzmusicians conversant in a wide range of genresenjoy more critical and financial success thanothers (Pinheiro & Dowd 2009). In short,the institution of genre allows musicians, aswell as audiences and mediators, to negotiatecollectively the vast possibilities of musicalmaterial by relying upon a shifting mixture ofprecedence and uniqueness (Becker 1982).

Businesses collectively enact genres too,but in a less dynamic fashion than musicians.Rather than focus on all available genres, largemusic firms have historically mined relativelyfew, taking a mainstream approach that empha-sizes well-known conventions and establishedmusicians rather than the cutting-edge devel-opments of unheralded musicians. One notableexample, for instance, occurred in the mid-1900s, when major recording and radio firmschampioned pop music (e.g., Perry Como),

while rock, country, and R&B percolated onthe periphery (Dowd 2003, 2004; Phillips& Owens 2004; Roy 2004). Some suggestthat such a conservative approach then (andnow) stems from managerial preferences forpredictability and from formalization that canmake large organizations sluggish (Ahlkvist &Faulkner 2002, Negus 1999, Rossmann 2004).Regardless of the reasons, this historically con-servative approach also creates opportunitiesfor small music firms to compete by addressingthose genres that large firms overlook. Con-sequently, small firms have often championednew genres that transform the music business,thereby forcing large firms to deal with suchonce-peripheral genres as blues, jazz, R&B,rock and roll, and electronica (Dowd 2003,Hesmondhalgh 1998, Phillips & Owens 2004).In the late 1900s, often smarting from thetransformative success of small firms, largerecording firms in North America, Europe,and Japan moved proactively to address morethan the mainstream. They established smalldivisions within their firms (to emulate smallfirms) and entered into contractual allianceswith a host of small firms, thereby funding, andbenefitting from, an expanding range of genres(Asai 2008, Burnett 1996, Dowd 2004, Negus1999). Across the twentieth century, then,small and large firms enacted a proliferationof genres deemed commercially viable, withonline music in the twenty-first century likelypushing this proliferation further (see Asai2008, Beer 2008, Leyshon et al. 2005). Forthese organizations, genre is “a way of definingmusic in its market or, alternatively, the marketin its music” (Frith 1996, p. 76).

Collective enactment of genre highlightsissues of classification that have informed soci-ology since the days of Durkheim (Lamont &Molnar 2002). For many, classification is a cog-nitive map imposed upon reality, as though re-ality is there before its classification. Zerubavel(1991), for instance, analyzes the logic by whichwe divide the world—distinguishing betweencontinuous dimensions, mental gaps, etc. Incontrast, collective enactment of genre revealsthat reality is sometimes constructed amid the

192 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


process of classification: that ongoing cognitionabout and action for genre categories informtheir collective definitions at a particular time,which, in turn, inform subsequent cognitionand action. This resonates with the “duality ofstructure” described by Sewell (1992, p. 27), asgenres “are constituted by mutually sustainingcultural schemas and sets of resources thatempower and constrain social action and tendto be reproduced by that action.”

Hierarchy and Classical Music

Differentiation of music can also entail hier-archy. The hallmark of subcultures is theirmembers’ insistence on the superiority of theirfavored genre (“punk rock rules!") and theattendant hierarchy of people based on theirassociations with that genre (Bennett 2004).More remarkable is when disparate individualsfrom many groups acknowledge the merit of aparticular genre(s). To illustrate such a widelyheld hierarchy, we turn to a broad ranking thathas centuries-old roots and has been upheldinternationally: the touting of classical musicas superior to popular music.

The ranking of classical music over popularmusic requires that those categories haverelevance. Yet the former category has notalways existed (Weber 1984, 2006). Europeanpatrons and audiences long favored contem-porary music—often devised for one-timeperformance at social events—rather than therepeated performance of complete works fromthe past (i.e., classics). The Paris Opera of theseventeenth century was arguably more con-cerned with extolling both Louis XIV and theFrench language via musical spectacle than withcreating great art ( Johnson 2007). DeNora(1991) locates an important shift in Vienna ofthe late 1700s. Aristocrats once distinguishedthemselves by sponsoring musical ensemblesthat played new music, but as those furtherdown the social ladder did so too, aristocratsturned to another way of distinction—therefined ability to appreciate the complex anddemanding music of Beethoven, Mozart, andHaydn. Although their emphasis on these

classics did not gain widespread acceptance atthe time, it presaged what was to come.

Hierarchy took root on both sides of theAtlantic with the proliferation of performanceorganizations that offered only classics, cor-doning them off from popular music of theday (Allmendinger & Hackman 1996, Benzecry2006, Levine 1988, Santoro 2010). In theUnited States, DiMaggio (1982, 1992) em-phasizes first-mover organizations that offeredonly classics in the domains of orchestral mu-sic [the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO)]and opera [the New York Metropolitan Opera(the Met)]. Under the guidance of cultural en-trepreneurs drawn from and connected to ur-ban elites, both organizations combined the el-evation of classical music with the nonprofitform, as the BSO did upon its founding in1881 and the Met did when discontinuing itsfor-profit status in 1939. The nonprofit pro-vided relief from the vagaries of audience de-mand because donations from various sourcescould compensate for low ticket sales that typi-cally resulted from featuring only serious workswhile eschewing entertaining tunes. These firstmovers respectively made this hierarchy vi-able for U.S. orchestras, and later for U.S.opera companies, providing examples to em-ulate. From the late 1800s onward, orchestrasoffered programming that overwhelmingly em-phasized the works of the past, such as the verycomposers once touted by Viennese aristocrats(Dowd et al. 2002, Kremp 2010). Moreover, atthe turn of this century, nonprofit organizationsremain preeminent among U.S. orchestras andopera companies, whereas for-profit organiza-tions dominate the production of popular music(DiMaggio 2006).

Developments in the broader field of musi-cal production further solidified this hierarchybut, recently, have contributed to its erosion.In Europe and North America, recordingcompanies and broadcasters of the early 1900sgave prominent attention to classical music,using albums and shows to educate listenerson the merits of this music. By the mid-1900s,these for-profit corporations began marketingclassical music as a specialty product, if at all


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


(Dowd 2003, Katz 1998, Maisonneuve 2001).From the mid-1900s, educators and criticsin multiple nations instructed many on theimportance and worth of classical music,showing surprising agreement on its exemplars(e.g., Beethoven). In recent years, educatorsand critics have given increasing attention tothe worth of popular music, raising its staturerelative to classical music (Bevers 2005, Dowdet al. 2002, Janssen et al. 2008, van Venrooij& Schmutz 2010). Meanwhile, in the UnitedStates, nonprofits may have grown less effec-tive at insulating classical music from popularmusic, as declining audiences and dwindlingdonations have made ticket sales a centralconcern (DiMaggio 2006). Despite theserecent developments, this institutionalizedhierarchy remains surprisingly robust. Thissimple ranking enabled, and was enabled by, atransnational field of musical production.

Musical hierarchy should appeal to or-ganizational sociologists, who have likewiseemphasized the context in which particularorganizations are embedded (the field) and thecognitive (and tacit) foundations of such fields( Johnson et al. 2006). However, some organi-zational scholars note the relative inattentionpaid to (a) actual people rather than institutions,(b) expressive aspects of fields rather than, say,utilitarian, and (c) deinstitutionalization ratherthan institutionalization (Glynn & Dowd 2008,Glynn & Marquis 2004). The above scholarshipon musical hierarchy therefore offers a correc-tive: It is rife with the actions and discourseof people who mobilized organizations and/orconstituencies to proclaim an aesthetic prefer-ence and, in recent years, to deal with challengesthat face this preference. Moreover, as we dis-cuss below, this particular form of musical hi-erarchy has implications for listeners and socialstratification more broadly (Bourdieu 1984).

HOW DOES MUSIC RELATETO BROADER SOCIALDISTINCTIONS?

If musical differentiation and hierarchy alignedsmoothly with the stratification of society, so-ciology of music would have little to say about

broader social distinctions such as race, class,and gender. However, various aspects of mu-sic sometimes invert stratification, turning it onits head. Although white listeners have some-times devalued music by African Americans be-cause of racial associations (Frith 1996, Lopes2002), they sometimes imbue black with a posi-tive value (e.g., authentic) and white with a neg-ative value (e.g., inauthentic) (Cantwell 1997,Grazian 2003). As one ethnographer observesabout hip-hop, “Whites who pick up on AfricanAmerican styles and music do not necessarilywant to be black; they seek to acquire the char-acteristics of blackness associated with beingcool” (Rodriquez 2006, p. 649). Music conse-quently plays a complex role: It upholds stratifi-cation when people use it to reinforce social dis-tinctions but undermines it when used to reachacross distinctions (Roy 2002, 2004). As such,music enters into social relations and helps toconstitute fundamental distinctions on a micro-and macro-level.

Musical Bounding of Distinctions

Bounding is one mechanism that shapes a so-ciety’s system of alignment between concep-tual distinctions (e.g., how music is classifiedinto genres) and social distinctions (e.g., race,class). It thus links consequential distinctions,as when (de)valued musical genres are alignedwith (de)valued groups of people (Lamont &Molnar 2002, Roy 2001, Zerubavel 1991). Be-cause bounding does not simply happen, it isimportant to identify those actors involved. Weconsider below the bounding done by musiccompanies, by critics and employers, and bylisteners. The latter group is particularly in-teresting given the issue of homology—whereparticular groups of listeners gravitate towardmusic whose properties parallel aspects of theirsocial location (DeNora 2002, Frith 1996,Martin 1995, Shepherd & Wicke 1997). Suchhomology is more circumscribed than the typeof homology emphasized by earlier scholarswho sought to demonstrate the parallels be-tween entire societies and their musics (Adorno2002, Lomax 1962, Weber 1958).

194 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Commercial producers and distributorsprobably have the greatest impact on howthe general public forms associations betweenmusical genres and social distinctions (e.g.,race). The racialization of music has beenat the core of commercial music in Americasince its origins. The first genre of Americancommercial popular music arguably was theminstrel, which was based on white men’sappropriation of black culture. Throughoutmuch of the 1800s, minstrelsy was not onlythe place where most non-Southerners learnedabout African Americans, but it substantiallyinformed immigrants about what it meant tobe a white American (Lott 1993). Minstrelsyeven supplied the name for the oppressiveapparatus of legal segregation that framed racerelations for much of the twentieth century:Jim Crow. In the late 1800s, when publicationof sheet music became the most profitable partof the music business, visual images added newpower to racial stereotypes. Music publicationswere adorned with cover pages display-ing Sambo caricatures—African Americancartoons with exaggerated lips, bulging eyes,flat noses, mocking top hats, and giganticbow ties—which all congealed into an iconof derision (Lhamon 1998, Lott 1993, Roy2010).

The sharp racialization carried over into theera of recorded music. In the 1920s, recordcompanies targeted racial groups in their mar-keting. Although some executives were sur-prised that people other than white middle-class urbanites would buy records, most recordcompanies created special labels and catalogsfor “race records” and “hillbilly music”, be-fore eventually adopting the names rhythm andblues and country and western (Dowd 2003;Peterson 1997; Roy 2002, 2004). Concurrently,large recording firms prominently featured jazzorchestras of white musicians while hopingto avoid the stigma that purportedly flowedfrom the hot jazz of black musicians—as whenthey relied on pseudonyms to hide the identityof well-known black musicians such as LouisArmstrong (Phillips & Kim 2009, Phillips &Owens 2004).

Well-placed individuals also shape the align-ment of genres and social distinctions. Thoseoffering public discourse about music—critics,academics, and journalists—are the most visi-ble group doing so and perhaps the most in-fluential. Schmutz (2009) finds clear evidenceof gender-bounding by newspaper critics infour nations over 50 years. As critics collec-tively devoted increasing coverage to particularpopular music genres, they also reduced rela-tive attention given to women artists in thosegenres. This critical discourse makes the as-sociation that valued genres are more the do-main of men than of women. This talk is notcheap because other well-placed individuals—potential employers—have similarly devaluedwomen over the years. Compared with men,women musicians have historically faced a nar-row range of instruments and responsibilities(Bayton 1998, Clawson 1999, DeNora 2002),unstable employment (Coulangeon et al. 2005),limited commercial success (Dowd et al. 2005),and disgruntlement from fellow instrumental-ists when their presence in symphony orches-tras moves from token numbers to a sizable mi-nority (Allmendinger & Hackman 1995). Thealignment between genre and gender has oftenworked against women in popular and classicalmusic.

Listeners of various types are involved inbounding. A notable strand of British scholar-ship, for instance, details the symbolic fit be-tween the values and lifestyles of a particularsubculture—its subjective experience—and themusic it uses to express or reinforce its focalconcerns (Bennett 2004). Hence, punks’ gen-eral rejection of respectability is reflected intheir strident music that subverts mainstreammusical aesthetics, just as piercing their faceswith safety pins subverts the meaning of mun-dane objects (Hebdige 1979).

Although members of subcultures mayintentionally use music to construct theirposition in the social order, Bourdieu (1984)argues that members of classes can do so withlittle forethought. The economic situationof each class shapes its members’ dispositiontoward music in a particular fashion, with this


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


disposition seeming natural. Given the limitedfinances and free time of the French workingclass, they favor pleasurable music that requireslittle training to appreciate. The French upperclass, possessing considerable resources andleisure time, tends toward the cerebral ratherthan the entertaining, such as the classical mu-sic that requires much training and cultivationto appreciate. The privileged standing of theupper class means that its disposition is widelyseen as legitimate, as when familiarity withclassical music serves as cultural capital thatfacilitates opportunity and success in a varietyof domains. Armed with French survey datashowing class differences in musical appreci-ation and modes of listening, Bourdieu (1984,p. 18) asserts, “Nothing more clearly affirmsone’s ‘class,’ nothing more infallibly classifies,than tastes in music.” For him, the homologybetween musical preferences and social classesis systemic for France. This homology maymatter outside of France, too, but possibly ina less clear-cut fashion. Cultural capital con-tributes to educational success in the UnitedStates, for instance, but those who possess,and benefit from, it are not necessarily affluent(Aschaffenburg & Maas 1997, Dumais 2002).

Musical Bridging of Distinctions

Bridging is another mechanism that shapes thealignment of conceptual and social distinctions(Roy 2002, 2004). It blurs the linkage betweendistinctions, as when a musical genre once lim-ited to a particular social group is embracedby other groups (Lamont & Molnar 2002, Roy2001, Zerubavel 1991). Our discussion belowsomewhat parallels that of bounding, but it alsoraises differences. In the case of listeners, bridg-ing edges alignment away from homology andtoward heterology, where conceptual distinc-tions map less cleanly, if not more complexly,on particular social distinctions (Coulangeon &Lemel 2007, Garcıa-Alvarez et al. 2007).

Although businesses played a substan-tial role in early racialization of Americanmusic, some later moved away from a strict

segregation of black and white music(ians).Since the early 1900s, a single organization,ASCAP (American Society of Composers,Authors, and Publishers) worked on be-half of composers and publishers to securepayment whenever venues or broadcastersused their compositions; however, its leadersresisted dealing in race and hillbilly music,leaving these genres and their composers(e.g., Jelly Roll Morton) without economicrepresentation. Chafing from fees charged byASCAP, broadcasters established their ownorganization in 1939, BMI (Broadcast Music,Inc.). It aggressively represented genres thatASCAP had ignored and provided the eco-nomic foundation for the burgeoning of thosegenres from the 1940s onward (Dowd 2003,Ryan 1985). These genres further benefittedwhen record companies of the mid-1900smoved away from the stringent categorizationof an earlier era. Folkways Records purpose-fully mixed African American and rural whiteperformers on key albums without identifyingtheir race for listeners. Large recording firmsdid not go as far, but they did complementtheir focus on pop music by investing heavily incountry music and R&B. Moreover, these firmssoon realized the value of crossover success,as when African American performers couldfare quite well in the pop market targetingwhite audiences (e.g., Nat King Cole) (Dowd2003, 2004; Peterson 1997; Skinner 2006).The relaxation of boundaries filtered down toinstrumentalists from the mid-1900s onwardwhen their union grew more receptive to rep-resenting country musicians and when it finallyintegrated once racially segregated operationin U.S. cities (Dowd 2003, Dowd & Blyler2002, Peterson 1997). Although not completelyeliminating racialization in American music(Negus 1999), such bridging has made it lessblatant and provided opportunities for oncemarginalized genres to reach new audiences.

The discourse of well-placed individualslikewise can bridge across distinctions. Even inthat despicable era, the relationship of slaves tomusic was complex (Roy 2010). Owners used

196 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


the music of slaves to regulate the pace of laborand to entertain at white social events, but theyoften heard as noise the spirituals that slavesenacted on their own in richly symbolic and,at times, defiant ways. To great effect, aboli-tionists, folklorists, and academics convincedsome whites that this noise is actually impor-tant music. Frederick Douglass and others ar-gued compellingly that spirituals dramatizedthe humanity of African Americans, revealedtheir relationship to the almighty, and por-trayed them as full, if not equal, human be-ings (Cruz 1999). In subsequent eras, critics andacademics have (successfully) made the case towhites that other genres associated with AfricanAmerican musicians—particularly jazz and hip-hop—are neither noise nor immoral but emer-gent art forms that merit careful considera-tion (Binder 1993, Lopes 2002; see Lena &Peterson 2008). Recent analysis reveals that thegenre labels that critics employ in their reviewsare oftentimes overlapping, particularly blur-ring the boundaries of the pop and rock genreswith those of R&B and hip-hop (van Venrooij2009). The alignment between genre and raceis growing more fluid in much discourse.

Recent scholarship suggests that listeners,particularly high-status individuals, are en-gaged in considerable bridging, aligning a var-ied range of music to their own daily expe-riences (see Peterson 2005). This bridging isnot new, however. Despite early commercialclassification and segregation of race and hill-billy music, many black and white musicians ofthe time, even in the South, knew each other,learned from each other, and sang each other’ssongs (Roscigno & Danaher 2004; Roy 2002,2010). Musicians, academics, and others cre-ated the genre of folk music in opposition tothose commercial classifications and as part ofa project to trace various national musics tothe primordial past; race was especially salientgiven debates over whether the true Americanfolk music was in, say, the English balladsof the mountaineers or the hybrid spiritualssung by slaves (Roy 2002, 2010). Followingthe convoluted history of folk music, by the1960s, educated urbanites in the United States

valorized folk music precisely because it is themusic of common folk, both black and white.The more marginal, humble, and unsophisti-cated the makers of the music, the better forthese enthusiasts (Roy 2002, 2010). We see herean alignment that stands the class system on itshead, with the advantaged identifying with thedisadvantaged.

This past bridging of folk enthusiasts pre-saged a recent trend of bridging that is notablyunfolding in multiple nations. Among thoseDutch with high educational attainment andoccupational prestige, one segment displays anotable fondness for classical music; however,another segment is marked by its passing fa-miliarity with a wide range of musical genresliked by less privileged groups (van Eijck 2001).The latter segment’s omnivorous tastes compli-cate stratification because, for a socially advan-taged group of listeners, the alignment betweensocial and symbolic boundaries is more het-erologous than Bourdieu’s argument suggests(Garcıa-Alvarez et al. 2007). Even in France,recent survey results “radically eliminate any at-tempt to map the distribution of musical tastein terms of . . . homology: highbrow is no moremusic of the upper-class than pop music themusic of the lower class” (Coulangeon & Lemel2007, pp. 98–99). However, these omnivoroustastes in musical genres do not mark the endof stratification by any means. Instead, they ap-pear to represent a new form of currency thatthe advantaged can deploy in highly individ-ualized ways (see Ollivier 2008, Savage 2006,Warde et al. 2008).

Because the groups that are bounded andbridged by music are rarely socially equal, mu-sic plays an important role in sustaining and re-configuring stratification. Not surprisingly, therelationship of music to inequality has been thefocus of some of the theoretically richest andmost widely discussed work in the sociology ofmusic. This work should be of interest, then,to students of stratification because it revealsthe role of what may seem innocuous—musicaltastes and preferences—in helping to create andmark such socially consequential distinctions asrace, gender, and class.


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


CONCLUSIONThe sociology of music illuminates how sociol-ogists examine various dimensions of social lifemore generally. From the microsociologicalconcerns of how precognitive interactionshapes the way we relate to each other tothe macrosociological concerns of how socialdistinctions are constituted and reinforced, thesociology of music offers important lessons.Although we can do little more than baldlymake a claim, we would argue that the mostprofound lessons for nonmusic sociology arefound in the distinctive qualities of music.

While music’s nonunique qualities are stud-ied by other specializations in sociology (e.g.,its organizational and interactional aspects),probing its unique qualities highlight the taken-for-granted qualities of nonmusical interaction.For example, Bourdieu (1984) explains howit is music’s abstract, content-less quality thatmakes it appropriate for cultural capital. Thisinsight has transformed the study of stratifi-cation to include the ineffable as well as thecountable. Similarly, it was the attribution ofmusic to slaves that abolitionists used to assert

their humanity. Although the Christian contentof spirituals might have boosted the sympathythat white audiences felt for the enslaved, it wasthe act of making music that mitigated the im-age of savagery. Cruz (1999) has described howthe use of music to humanize American slavespresaged a new kind of relationship betweendominant and subordinate groups that he calls“ethnosympathy”: a simultaneous embracing ofand distancing from a group seen as culturallydifferent. Thus, the study of stratificationand ethnic relations has benefitted from thesociology of music, not when music is treatedlike another form of signification or a vehiclefor lyrical expression, but when it is treated as aspecial kind of activity that people do. Indeed,by answering the four questions listed at theoutset of the paper, we hope to have shown theimport of music for all kinds of sociologists.

We as a discipline are just beginning to de-velop the conceptual and methodological toolsto capture fully the social dynamics of music,but as we make further progress, it will benefitthe discipline and the store of human knowl-edge as a whole.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper benefitted greatly from the insightful and helpful comments of others. We thus thankthe following individuals for helping us revise and refine this paper: Ron Aminzade, ClaudioBenzecry, Rogers Brubaker, Tia DeNora, David Grazian, Jenn Lena, Gabriel Rossman, MarcoSantoro, Vaughn Schmutz, Tracy Scott, Tony Seeger, Marc Verboord, and the UCLA Seminaron Theory and Research in Comparative Social Analysis.

LITERATURE CITED

Abbott A, Hyrcak A. 1990. Measuring resemblance in sequence data: an optimal matching analysis of musiciancareers. Am. J. Sociol. 96:144–85

Adorno TW. 2002. On the social situation of music. In Essays on Music, ed. R Leppert, pp. 391–436. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press

Ahlkvist JA, Faulkner R. 2002. “Will this record work for us?”: managing music formats in commercial radio.Qual. Sociol. 25:189–215

198 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Alford RR, Szanto A. 1996. Orpheus wounded: the experience of pain in the professional world of piano.Theory Soc. 25:1–44

Allmendinger J, Hackman RJ. 1995. The more the better?: a four-nation study of the inclusion of women insymphony orchestras. Soc. Forces 74:423–60

Allmendinger J, Hackman RJ. 1996. Organizations in changing environments: the case of East Germansymphony orchestras. Admin. Sci. Q. 41:337–69

Asai S. 2008. Firm organisation and marketing strategy in the Japanese music industry. Pop. Music 27:473–85Aschaffenburg K, Maas I. 1997. Cultural and educational careers: the dynamics of social reproduction.

Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:573–87Bayton M. 1998. Frock Rock: Women Performing Popular Music. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressBecker H. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressBecker J, Becker A. 1981. A musical icon: power and meaning in Javanese Gamelan music. In The Sign in Music

and Literature, ed. W Steiner, pp. 203–15. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressBeer D. 2008. Making friends with Jarvis Cocker: music culture in the context of Web 2.0. Cult. Sociol. 2:222–41Bennett A. 2004. Consolidating the music scenes perspective. Poetics 32:223–34Bennett A. 2006. “Punk’s not dead”: the continuing significance of punk rock for an older generation of fans.

Sociology 40:219–35Benzecry CE. 2006. Curtain rising, baton falling: the politics of musical conducting in contemporary Argentina.

Theory Soc. 33:445–79Benzecry CE. 2009. Becoming a fan: on the seductions of opera. Qual. Sociol. 32:131–51Berger K. 2007. Bach’s Cycle, Mozart’s Arrow: An Essay on the Origins of Musical Modernity. Berkeley: Univ.

Calif. PressBerger P, Luckmann T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge.

New York: AnchorBerliner PF. 1994. Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressBevers T. 2005. Cultural education and the canon: a comparative analysis of the content of secondary school

exams for music and art in England, France, Germany and the Netherlands, 1990–2004. Poetics 33:388–416

Binder A. 1993. Constructing racial rhetoric: media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music.Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:753–67

Bohlman PV. 1999. Ontologies of music. In Rethinking Music, ed. N Cook, M Everist, pp. 17–34. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Sociological Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

Bull M. 2007. Sound Moves: iPod Culture and Urban Experience. London: RoutledgeBurnett R. 1996. The Global Jukebox: The International Music Industry. London: RoutledgeCantwell R. 1997. When We Were Good: The Folk Revival. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressCerulo KA. 1995. Identity Designs: The Sight and Sounds of a Nation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. PressChaves M. 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressClarke EF. 2005. Ways of Listening: An Ecological Approach to the Perception of Musical Meaning. New York:

Oxford Univ. PressClawson MA. 1999. When women play the bass: instrument specialization and gender interpretation in

alternative rock music. Gender Soc. 13:193–210Cooke D. 1959. The Language of Music. London: Oxford Univ. PressCoulangeon P, Lemel Y. 2007. Is “distinction” really outdated?: questioning the meaning of the omnivorization

of musical taste in contemporary France. Poetics 35:93–111Coulangeon P, Ravet H, Roharik I. 2005. Gender differentiated effect of time in performing arts professions:

musicians, actors, and dancers in contemporary France. Poetics 33:369–87Cross I. 1997. Pitch schemata. In Perception and Cognition of Music, ed. I Delige, J Sloboda, pp. 353–86. East

Sussex: Psychology PressCrossley N. 2008. The man whose web expanded: network dynamics in Manchester’s post/punk music scene,

1976–1980. Poetics 73:24–49


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Cruz J. 1999. Culture on the Margins: The Black Spiritual and the Rise of American Cultural Interpretation.Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Curran GM. 1996. From “swinging hard” to “rocking out”: classification of style and the creation of identityin the world of drumming. Symb. Interact. 19:37–60

Dempsey NP. 2008. Hook-ups and train wrecks: contextual parameters and the coordination of jazz interac-tion. Symb. Interact. 31:57–75

DeNora T. 1986. How is musical meaning possible? Music as a place and space for “work.” Sociol. Theory4:84–94

DeNora T. 1991. Musical patronage and social change in Beethoven’s Vienna. Am. J. Sociol. 97:310–46DeNora T. 2000. Music in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge Univ. PressDeNora T. 2002. Music into action: performing gender on the Viennese concert stage, 1790–1810. Poetics

30:19–33DeNora T. 2003. After Adorno: Rethinking Music Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressDiMaggio P. 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: the organization of high culture

in the United States and the classification and framing of American art. Media Cult. Soc. 4:33–55, 303–22DiMaggio PJ. 1987. Classification in art. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:440–55DiMaggio PJ. 1991. Social structure, institutions and cultural goods: the case of the United States. In Social

Theory for a Changing Society, ed. P Bourdieu, JS Coleman, pp. 133–55. Boulder, CO: WestviewDiMaggio P. 1992. Cultural boundaries and structural change: the extension of the high culture model to

theater, opera, and the dance, 1900–1940. In Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Makingof Inequality, ed. M Lamont, M Fournier, pp. 21–57. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

DiMaggio P. 2006. Nonprofit organizations and the intersectoral division of labor in the arts. In The NonprofitSector: A Research Handbook, ed. WW Powell, R Steinberg, pp. 432–61. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.Press

Douglass F. 1993 (1845). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Boston, MA: BedfordDowd TJ. 2003. Structural power and the construction of markets: the case of rhythm and blues. Comp. Soc.

Res. 21:147–201Dowd TJ. 2004. Concentration and diversity revisited: production logics and the U.S. mainstream recording

market, 1940 to 1990. Soc. Forces 82:1411–55Dowd TJ. 2007. Sociology of music. In 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook, ed. CD Bryant, DL Peck,

2:249–60, 440, 505–12. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageDowd TJ, Blyler M. 2002. Charting race: the success of black performers in the mainstream recording market,

1940 to 1990. Poetics 30:87–110Dowd TJ, Liddle K, Blyler M. 2005. Charting gender: the success of female acts in the U.S. mainstream

recording market, 1940 to 1990. Res. Sociol. Organ. 23:81–123Dowd TJ, Liddle K, Lupo K, Borden A. 2002. Organizing the musical canon: the repertoires of major U.S.

symphony orchestras, 1842 to 1969. Poetics 30:35–61Du Bois WEB. 1997 (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. Boston: BeaconDuffins RW. 2007. How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony (And Why You Should Care). New York: NortonDumais SA. 2002. Cultural capital, gender, and school success: the role of habitus. Sociol. Educ. 75:44–68Eyerman R, Jamison A. 1998. Music and Social Movements. New York: Cambridge Univ. PressFabbri F. 1982. A theory of musical genres: two applications. In Popular Music Perspectives, ed. P Tagg,

D Horn, pp. 52–81. Exeter: Int. Assoc. Study Popular MusicFabbri F. 1989. The system of canzone in Italy today. In World Music, Politics and Social Change, ed. S Frith,

pp. 122–42. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. PressFeld S. 1984. Sound structure and social structure. Ethnomusicology 28:383–409Frith S. 1996. Performing Rights: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressGarcıa-Alvarez E, Katz-Gerro T, Lopez-Sintas J. 2007. Deconstructing cultural omnivorousness 1982–2002:

heterology in Americans’ musical preferences. Soc. Forces 86:755–64Gardner RO. 2004. The portable community: mobility and modernization in bluegrass festival life. Symb.

Interact. 27:155–78Gibson W. 2006. Material culture and embodied action: sociological notes on the examination of musical

instruments in jazz improvisation. Sociol. Rev. 54:171–87

200 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Glynn MA. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: conflict over organizational identity within a symphonyorchestra. Organ. Sci. 11:285–98

Glynn MA, Dowd TJ. 2008. Charisma (un)bound: emotive leadership in Martha Stewart Living Magazine,1990–2004. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44:71–93

Glynn MA, Marquis C. 2004. When good names go bad: symbolic illegitimacy in organizations. Res. Sociol.Organ. 22:147–70

Grazian D. 2003. Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressGriswold W. 1987. The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain and

the West Indies. Am. J. Sociol. 92:1077–117Hanslick E. 1957 (1854). The Beautiful in Music. New York: Liberal Arts PressHebdige D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: RoutledgeHennion A. 2001. Music lovers: tastes as performance. Theory Cult. Soc. 18:1–22Hesmondhalgh D. 1998. The British dance music industry: a case study of independent cultural production.

Br. J. Sociol. 49:234–52Hesmondhalgh D. 2007. Aesthetics and audiences: talking about good and bad music. Eur. J. Cult. Stud.

10:507–27Janssen S, Kuipers G, Verboord M. 2008. Cultural globalization and arts journalism: the international ori-

entation of arts and cultural coverage in Dutch, French, German, and US newspapers, 1955 to 2005.Am. Sociol. Rev. 73:719–40

Jeppesen LB, Frederiksen L. 2006. Why do users contribute to firm-hosted communities? The case ofcomputer-controlled musical instruments. Organ. Sci. 17:45–63

Johnson C, Dowd TJ, Ridgeway CL. 2006. Legitimacy as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:53–78Johnson V. 2007. What is organizational imprinting?: cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris

Opera. Am. J. Sociol. 113:97–127Kahn-Harris K. 2007. Extreme Metal: Music and Culture on the Edge. Oxford: BergKatz M. 1998. Making America more musical through the phonograph, 1900–1930. Am. Music 15:448–76Khodyakov DM. 2007. The complexity of trust-control relationships in creative organizations: insights from

a qualitative analysis of a conductorless orchestra. Soc. Forces 86:1–22Killian C, Johnson C. 2006. “I’m not an immigrant”: resistance, redefinition, and the role of resources in

identity work. Soc. Psychol. Q. 69:60–80Kremp P-A. 2010. Innovation and selection: symphony orchestras and the construction of the musical canon

in the United States (1879–1959). Soc. Forces 88:1051–82Kubrin CE. 2005. Gangstas, thugs, and hustlas: identity and the code of the street in rap music. Soc. Probl.

52:360–78Lamont M, Molnar V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:167–95Lena J. 2004. Sonic networks: economic, stylistic, and expressive dimensions of rap music, 1979–1995. Poetics

32:297–310Lena J, Peterson RA. 2008. Classification as culture: types and trajectories of music genres. Am. Sociol. Rev.

73: 697–718Lenneberg H. 2003. On the Publishing and Dissemination of Music, 1500–1850. Hillsdale, NY: PendragonLevine L. 1988. Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. PressLeyshon A, Webb P, French S, Thrift N, Crewe L. 2005. On the reproduction of the musical economy after

the internet. Med. Cult. Soc. 27:177–209Lhamon WT Jr. 1998. Raising Cain: Blackface Performance from Jim Crow to Hip Hop. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. PressLomax A. 1962. Song structure and social structure. Ethnology 1:1–27Lopes P. 2002. The Rise of a Jazz Art World. New York: Cambridge Univ. PressLott E. 1993. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class. New York: Oxford Univ.

PressMacLeod BA. 1993. Club Date Musicians: Playing the New York Party Circuit. Urbana: Univ. Ill. PressMaisonneuve S. 2001. Between history and commodity: the production of a musical patrimony through the

record in the 1920–1930s. Poetics 29:89–108


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Marotto M, Roos J, Victor B. 2007. Collective virtuosity in organizations: a study of peak performance in anorchestra. J. Manag. Stud. 44:388–413

Martin PJ. 1995. Sounds and Society: Themes in the Sociology of Music. Manchester, UK:Manchester Univ. Press

Martin PJ. 2006. Music and the Sociological Gaze: Art Worlds and Cultural Production. Manchester, UK: Manch-ester Univ. Press

McClary S. 1991. Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressMcCormick L. 2009. Higher, faster, louder: representations of the international music competition. Cult.

Sociol. 3:5–30McNeill WH. 1995. Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Univ. PressMurninghan JK, Conlon DE. 1991. The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets.

Adm. Sci. Q. 36:165–86Negus K. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. London: RoutledgeOllivier M. 2008. Modes of openness to cultural diversity: humanist, populist, practical, and indifferent. Poetics

36:120–47Peterson RA. 1997. Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressPeterson RA. 2005. Problems in comparative research: the example of omnivorousness. Poetics 33:257–82Peterson RA, Anand N. 2004. The production of culture perspective. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:311–34Phillips DJ, Kim Y-K. 2009. Why pseudonyms?: deception as identity preservation among jazz record com-

panies. Organ. Sci. 20:481–99Phillips DJ, Owens DA. 2004. Incumbents, innovation, and competence: the emergence of recorded jazz, 1920

to 1929. Poetics 32:281–95Pinheiro DL, Dowd TJ. 2009. All that jazz: the success of jazz musicians in three metropolitan areas. Poetics

37:490–506Prior N. 2008. Putting a glitch in the field: Bourdieu, actor network theory and contemporary music.

Cult. Sociol. 2:301–19Regev M. 1998. Who does what with music videos in Israel? Poetics 25:225–40Rodriquez J. 2006. Color-blind ideology and the cultural appropriation of hip-hop. J. Contemp. Ethnogr.

35:645–68Roman-Velazquez P. 1999. The Making of Latin London: Salsa Music, Place and Identity. Aldershot: AshgateRoscigno VJ, Danaher WF. 2004. The Voice of Southern Labor: Radio, Music, and Textile Strikes, 1929–1934.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressRosenblum B. 1975. Style as social process. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:422–38Rossmann G. 2004. Elites, masses, and media blacklists: the Dixie Chicks controversy. Soc. Forces 83:61–79Roy WG. 2001. Making Societies: The Historical Construction of Our World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine ForgeRoy WG. 2002. Aesthetic identity, race, and American folk music. Qual. Sociol. 25:459–69Roy WG. 2004. “Race records” and “hillbilly music”: the institutional origins of racial categories in the

American commercial recording industry. Poetics 32:265–79Roy WG. 2010. Reds, Whites and Blues: Social Movements, Folk Music, and Race in America. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. Press. In pressRyan J. 1985. The Production of Culture in the Music Industry: The ASCAP-BMI Controversy. Lanham, MD:

Univ. Press Am.Salagnik M, Watts DJ. 2008. Leading the herd astray: an experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecy in an

artificial cultural market. Soc. Psychol. Q. 71:338–55Sanjek R, Sanjek D. 1991. American Popular Music Business in the Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford Univ.

PressSantoro M. 2004. What is a “cantautore?” Distinction and authorship in (Italian) popular music. Poetics 30:11–

32Santoro M. 2010. Constructing an artistic field as a political project: lessons from La Scala. Poetics. In pressSavage M. 2006. The musical field. Cult. Trends 15:159–74Scherer FM. 2001. The evolution of free-lance music composition, 1650–1900. J. Cult. Econ. 25:307–19

202 Roy · Dowd

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Schmutz V. 2009. Social and symbolic boundaries in newspaper coverage of music, 1995–2005: gender andgenre in the US, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Poetics 37:298–314

Schutz A. 1951. Making music together: a study in social relationships. Soc. Res. 18:76–97Seeger A. 2004. Why Suya Sing: A Musical Anthropology of an Amazonian People. Urbana: Univ. Ill. PressSewell WH Jr. 1992. A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 98:1–29Shepherd J, Wicke P. 1997. Music and Cultural Theory. Malden, MA: PolitySkinner K. 2006. “Must be born again”: resurrecting the Anthology of American Folk Music. Pop. Music 25:57–75Small C. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover, CT: Univ. Press N. Engl.Steinberg M. 2004. When politics goes pop: on the intersection of popular and political culture and the case

of Serbian student protests. Soc. Mov. Stud. 3:3–29Sudnow D. 1978. Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.

PressThornton S. 1996. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Hanover, CT: Wesleyan Univ. PressTurino T. 2008. Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressTurner BS, Wainwright SP. 2006. “Just crumbling to bits?”: an exploration of the body, aging, injury and

career in classical ballet dancers. Sociology 40:237–55van Eijck K. 2001. Social differentiation in musical taste patterns. Soc. Forces 79:1163–85van Venrooij A. 2009. The aesthetic discourse space of popular music, 1985–86 and 2004–05. Poetics 37:295–

398van Venrooij A, Schmutz V. 2010. The evaluation of popular music in the United States, Germany and the

Netherlands: a comparison of the use of high art and popular aesthetic criteria. Cult. Sociol. In pressWalser R. 1999. Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music. Hanover, CT:

Wesleyan Univ. PressWarde A, Wright D, Gayo-Cal M. 2008. The omnivorous orientation in the United Kingdom. Poetics 36:148–

65Watkins SC. 2001. “A nation of millions”: hip hop culture and the legacy of black nationalism. Commun. Rev.

4:373–98Weber M. 1958. The Rational and Social Foundations of Music. Carbondale: South. Ill. PressWeber W. 1984. The contemporaneity of eighteenth-century musical taste. Music. Q. 70:175–94Weber W. 2006. Redefining the status of opera: London and Leipzig, 1800–1848. J. Interdiscipl. Hist. 36:507–

32Wuthnow R. 2003. All in Sync: How Music and Art Are Revitalizing American Religion. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.

PressZerubavel E. 1985. The Seven Day Circle: The History and Meaning of the Week. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressZerubavel E. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press


Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

SO36-FM ARI 2 June 2010 4:38

Annual Reviewof Sociology

Volume 36, 2010Contents

FrontispieceJohn W. Meyer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xiv

Prefatory Chapter

World Society, Institutional Theories, and the ActorJohn W. Meyer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Theory and Methods

Causal Inference in Sociological ResearchMarkus Gangl � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21

Causal Mechanisms in the Social SciencesPeter Hedstrom and Petri Ylikoski � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Social Processes

A World of Standards but not a Standard World: Toward a Sociologyof Standards and StandardizationStefan Timmermans and Steven Epstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �69

Dynamics of Dyads in Social Networks: Assortative, Relational,and Proximity MechanismsMark T. Rivera, Sara B. Soderstrom, and Brian Uzzi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �91

From the Sociology of Intellectuals to the Sociology of InterventionsGil Eyal and Larissa Buchholz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 117

Social Relationships and Health Behavior Across the Life CourseDebra Umberson, Robert Crosnoe, and Corinne Reczek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Partiality of Memberships in Categories and AudiencesMichael T. Hannan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

v

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

SO36-FM ARI 2 June 2010 4:38

Institutions and Culture

What Is Sociological about Music?William G. Roy and Timothy J. Dowd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 183

Cultural Holes: Beyond Relationality in Social Networks and CultureMark A. Pachucki and Ronald L. Breiger � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 205

Formal Organizations

Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power,and EnvironmentsKevin Stainback, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Sheryl Skaggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 225

Political and Economic Sociology

The Contentiousness of Markets: Politics, Social Movements,and Institutional Change in MarketsBrayden G King and Nicholas A. Pearce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 249

Conservative and Right-Wing MovementsKathleen M. Blee and Kimberly A. Creasap � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

The Political Consequences of Social MovementsEdwin Amenta, Neal Caren, Elizabeth Chiarello, and Yang Su � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 287

Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes Toward Immigrantsand Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Reviewof Theories and ResearchAlin M. Ceobanu and Xavier Escandell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 309

Differentiation and Stratification

Income Inequality: New Trends and Research DirectionsLeslie McCall and Christine Percheski � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 329

Socioeconomic Disparities in Health BehaviorsFred C. Pampel, Patrick M. Krueger, and Justin T. Denney � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 349

Gender and Health InequalityJen’nan Ghazal Read and Bridget K. Gorman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 371

Incarceration and StratificationSara Wakefield and Christopher Uggen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 387

Achievement Inequality and the Institutional Structure of EducationalSystems: A Comparative PerspectiveHerman G. Van de Werfhorst and Jonathan J.B. Mijs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 407

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

SO36-FM ARI 2 June 2010 4:38

Historical Studies of Social Mobility and StratificationMarco H.D. van Leeuwen and Ineke Maas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Individual and Society

Race and TrustSandra Susan Smith � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Three Faces of IdentityTimothy J. Owens, Dawn T. Robinson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 477

Policy

The New Homelessness RevisitedBarrett A. Lee, Kimberly A. Tyler, and James D. Wright � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 501

The Decline of Cash Welfare and Implications for Social Policyand PovertySandra K. Danziger � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 547

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 551

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found athttp://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. S

ocio

l. 20

10.3

6:18

3-20

3. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

uton

oma

Met

ropo

litan

a on

07/

19/1

0. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Date post:	10-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jorge-lavin
View:	143 times
Download:	8 times

Qué es sociológico en la Música?

Documents