Bush 1

Leah Bush

Prof. R.G. Kelly

AMST 418R

May 14, 2014

Perspectives on Popular Music in Relation to Subcultural Identity

Although the literature of the influence on popular music and identity is extremely broad,

this literature review focuses on scholarship examining two questions: How is popular music

used by society to determine or develop a subcultural identity? and How can subcultural

members use popular music to determine or develop a subcultural identity? Three major themes

regarding these questions have emerged over time: sociological perspectives on popular music

and the formation of subcultural identities, cultural constructions of local, ethnic, and gender

identities within a subcultural framework, and psychological perspectives on the formation of

adolescent social identities. Emerging research on subcultural identity examines the role of

popular music within subcultures as their members age, and defines the term “musical identity.”

Before reviewing the literature, a few terms will be clarified. A “subculture” (also known

as a youth culture or culture of popular music) refers to a group of people, usually youth, who

differentiate themselves from a greater culture through shared taste in music and style. The

majority of studies on music-based subcultures have historically been performed by sociologists,

who refer to “subcultural identity” primarily as a fixed collective identity which is shaped by
 Bush 2

social forces and inextricable from the societal context and social world.1 In this sense, music is

used by society as of one of a number of influences in the formation of a subcultural identity.

Although subcultural members may still choose the music that defines their subcultural

boundaries, they are still rendered apart from society by the subculture’s very existence.

Subcultural members are also the audience of the music which defines their boundaries.

The concept of the musical audience as a subject worthy of academic mention was proposed by

Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School of critical theory in 1941. In the article “On Pop

Music,” Adorno, a notorious critic of popular music, viewed popular music as a mindless

distraction for the masses from the hardship and demands of everyday life; Adorno is also

explicit that the psycho-sociological function of popular music is to act as a “social cement” (36)

that keeps the audience subservient to existing power structure.

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON POPULAR MUSIC, SUBCULTURE, AND IDENTITY

The term “subculture” has undergone various evolutions since its origination in the first half of

the twentieth century at the University of Chicago. These early theories of the Chicago School

(which are largely considered obsolete), conceptualized groups of youth sharing similar styles as

having innate ties to gangs and social deviance. This research provided the framework for the

theories of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS), and the

anthology Resistance through Rituals (1976), which interpreted post-war British working class

youth cultures as symbolic of resistance to the dominant hegemony of society. 2

1
As described in The Social Construction of Reality (1966) by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (137).
Anchor, 1966. Print.
2
For a more comprehensive overview of subcultural history, see Andy Bennett and Keith Kahn-Harris’s
introduction to After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. New York: Palgrave McMillan,
2004. Print.
 Bush 3

The theories of the CCCS were the first to examine the role of the subcultural audience in

ascribing meaning to popular music, style, and popular culture. The first CCCS study of

subcultures to incorporate ethnographic elements remains the most influential: Dick Hebdige’s

Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979), which traced the development of the British punk rock

subculture and presents it as a case study of “spectacular subcultures,” which signify their

difference and resistance to society through stylistic innovation (99). Hebdige’s work legitimized

the academic study of music based subcultures, and touched upon what have become major

themes in subcultural studies: the formation of group identity through difference, the importance

and creation of subcultural style through “bricolage” (the appropriation of mainstream styles to

serve a subversive purpose), and the trajectory of subcultures as they inevitably become co-opted

by the mainstream. Criticism and analysis of Subculture is an integral part of contemporary

subcultural research.

Hebdige’s focus on style minimizes the importance of popular music in subcultures that

center around taste in music and attendance at musical events. Musical sociologist Simon Frith, a

premier scholar in popular music studies, addresses the issue of music in The Sociology of Rock

(1978). Frith’s methodology, a combination of survey research, interviews with British youth,

and a textual analysis of popular music and magazines, allows for an extremely comprehensive

overview of the role of rock music within capitalist culture. Frith is highly critical of subcultural

approaches viewing music as a symbol of subcultures rather than an activity that can be used and

enjoyed by youth (53). This is a significant distinction in relation to the subcultural audience, as

it foreshadows theories that music is more than a way to draw boundaries between groups; music

has meaning simply by existing, and music and meaning can be actively used by subcultural

members.
 Bush 4

The Sociology of Rock performs three functions of importance in musical sociology in

relation to subcultures: to specify that popular music can define group identity by both “a means

of by which a group of youth defines itself, and as a source of in-group status” (46), to briefly

introduce the term “musical identity,” and to introduce the idea that musically-based subcultural

identities are malleable. Frith’s research also breaks ground by tying consumption of rock music

into youth image and identity, with the hypothesis that music functions as a symbol which

expresses the underlying “leisure values” of the subculture which uses it (51). The topic of

subcultural music consumption has been entirely neglected outside of The Sociology of Rock, and

offers opportunities for scholarly examination.

Early subcultural studies present popular music as a way for the dominant culture to

reiterate gender roles and reinforce an existing gender hierarchy within subcultures. Frith is the

first scholar to examine the intersection of music, subcultures, and gender, with a brief

discussion of the “bedroom culture” of teenage girls, whose relationship with music in private

“bedroom” spaces remains primarily a fantasy based on images of male pop stars printed in

magazines: “a girl’s identity is built on her idol” (65). As Frith does not support his assertion

with any empirical data or analysis of magazine content, this seems more opinion than fact.

Overall, his analyses of gender within rock music consumption are inapplicable to modern

subcultural research due to his overarching viewpoint that a girl’s sole purpose in work and

leisure time, and therefore the role of music consumption, is to attract a suitable spouse (66).

CCCS sociologist Angela McRobbie analyzes the role of popular music and media of late

1970’s teenage bedroom culture from a feminist viewpoint in the essay “Jackie Magazine:

Romantic Individualism and the Teenage Girl” (n.d., late 1970’s), published in her essay

collection Feminism and Youth Culture (1991), a volume which serves as a critique of Hebdige
 Bush 5

and other CCCS scholarship which ignored the role of girls within working-class youth cultures.

Through a textual examination of the English teenage girls’ magazine Jackie, McRobbie presents

the code of popular music as presented in girls’ media as an example of “romantic

individualism,” where the teenager is on a personal quest for love, and her relationship to music

centers around romantic attachment to the male pop star (125-126). In the personal sphere of

teenage bedroom cultures, girls are relegated to passive listeners in the unequal relationship

between fan and pop star (127).

Due to the changing role of women in society since the 1970’s, “Jackie Magazine” is best

viewed as a period piece reflective of early feminist-influenced CCCS criticism. McRobbie’s

argument insinuates that the role of popular music in adolescence and “bedroom culture” is

fleeting and will be packed away along with the posters of the male pop star as teenagers grow

into adulthood, and presumably, a grown woman’s identity of “wife” with a romantic attachment

to the husband rather than the pop star. As more recent research has revealed the importance of

music to people throughout the lifespan3, the viewpoint espoused in “Jackie Magazine” has

become obsolete.

After a dearth of subcultural scholarship directly involving music, the nature of

subcultural research began to shift in the mid 1990’s when Frith paved the way for discussions of

music and “self-identity” (how one conceives of oneself) in the essay “Music and Identity” in

Questions of Cultural Identity (1996). Expanding his position in The Sociology of Music and

reversing the existing sociological discussion on identity, Frith argues that music constructs an

experience for its listeners that can only be understood by creating a subjective and collective

identity, and that music simultaneously articulates individuality and group understandings (109,

3
See DeNora, Tia. Music and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
 Bush 6

111). This position is dependent on two grounds, the first of which is influential in future

sociological literature: his conception of identity as a constantly shifting process which is “tried

on” (122) rather than a socially imposed position or a position to be discovered, and that music is

an experience of the identity process. Music gives listeners the experience of an ideal - “who we

would like to be, not who we are” (123).

It is unsurprising that Frith, a sociologist, views “self-identity” as the same as “cultural

identity” (125). How we conceive ourselves, or want to conceive ourselves as individuals, is

inseparable from a societal context. But Frith’s answer to the question “How does popular music

create a web of identities?” provides part of the link between self-identity and group identity:

music places people in the social world in a particular way by drawing listeners who feel

connected to certain songs into emotional alliances with the song’s performers and fans (121).

The ubiquity of technology connecting musical fans makes this statement seem obvious today,

but Frith’s connection between individual listeners and groups of listeners, as well as postmodern

theories, marked the beginning of a paradigm shift in subcultural scholarship towards the

discussion of malleable subcultural identities and musical tastes.

Continuing in that vein, subcultural sociologist Andy Bennett’s article “Subcultures or

Neo-Tribes?” (1999), reprinted in The Popular Music Studies Reader, proposes an entirely new

framework – the fluid concept of the “neotribe” - as a replacement for the term “subculture” in

understanding the relationship between youth cultures, music, and style. 4 By applying Michel

4
There remains significant sociological debate over the term “subculture.” Two opposing viewpoints can
be found in Paul Hodkinson’s Goth: Identity, Style, and Subculture (2003), an argument for the retention of the term
“subculture” on the grounds of goth subcultural solidarity, and David Hesmonhaldagh’s article “Subcultures,
Scenes, or Tribes? None of the Above” in The Journal of Youth Studies (2005), a heavy sociological critique of
Bennett and Hodkinson which concludes that that the entire concept of youth culture should be considered obsolete
and irrelevant. Both works are out of scope of this literature review as they do not examine the relationship between
music and the audience.
 Bush 7

Maffesoli’s definition of the “neotribe” as a temporal grouping based on pluralistic social

identities and lifestyles to urban dance cultures in Britain, Bennett forms a new cultural model

which he argues is more applicable to postmodern society than class-influenced CCCS theories

which draw clear boundaries of musical taste and style. New styles of music played at live dance

events represents part of the shift to neotribal sensibilities, as the music is created by “sampling”

small pieces of musical works from different genres, creating a fluid form of music which

transcends musical boundaries and appeals to a new type of dance music audience with loosely

defined musical tastes (110).

“Subcultures or Neo-Tribes?” is unique in subcultural literature, as it directly examines

the style of music as well as the role of music in the redefinition of “subculture.” Music is not

used by society or subcultural members to define subcultural identity; it is a definition in itself.

However, Bennett does not ask his participants who favor this new genre-less music to describe

how they define themselves. Do they view themselves as part of a single subculture, many

subcultures, or none at all? His argument would be greatly strengthened by confirmation that

participants no longer view themselves as part of a single subcultural grouping.

POPULAR MUSIC AND CULTURAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF IDENTITY WITHIN SUBCULTURES

The process of globalization in the 1990’s spurred interdisciplinary scholarship to explore how

cultural constructions of “ethnicity, “place,” “local identity,” and “girl cultures” form through

popular music. In other words, popular music is used by society to construct concepts and

hierarchies. The concepts of culturally constructed “ethnicity” and “place” are first explored in

ethnomusicologist Martin Stokes’ introduction to the anthology Ethnicity, Identity, and Music:

The Musical Construction of Place (1994), an anthology collected with the intention of
 Bush 8

integrating the disciplines of ethnomusicology and anthropology. Stokes’ unanswered question

concludes the essay: “Does music provide any means by which the boundaries [of socially

constructed identities of place] might be challenged in any way?” (24). Stokes suggests yes, and

grounds his reasons in the social world. Music is socially meaningful because it provides ways

for people to recognize identities, places, and boundaries which separate them (5). Importantly, it

also allows for “cultural relocation,” as musical events and listening to music evoke collective

memories and construct places which involve difference and social boundaries, and create

inescapable moral and political hierarchies (3). Therefore, music can be used as a tool by

dominant groups to construct a national identity and style, or as a way for dancers and musicians

in an immigrant group lower in the hierarchy to recreate identities left in the homeland.

Although the introduction does not focus on subcultures, Stokes makes a parallel to

subcultures through the application of Hebdige’s term “bricolage” to music styles when

discussing music and ethnicity. Just as subcultural members appropriate elements of mainstream

fashion items to form a subversive style, musical cultures subvert elements of the dominant

culture’s music through repetition, texture, and timbre (19). Neither ethnicities nor subcultures

can operate outside of the classification or control of the dominant group (20).

Clearly, Stokes is less concerned with the audience’s perception of or identification with

music than the manifestation of power relations and creation of boundaries. Similar to early

subcultural theories, this approach has the effect of constricting his discussion by relegating the

subcultural audience to the role of passive consumer. The boundaries created by ethnicity and

subculture are more important than what lies within.

Boundaries are far less relevant in Andy Bennett’s Popular Music and Youth Culture:

Music, Identity, and Place (2000), which builds upon existing cultural theory within popular

music studies while challenging the perception that the “local” is a fixed place. The “local” is a

contested space through which youth cultures can create cultural spaces and construct “local

identities” through attendance at local music events. Bennett examines four disparate popular

music cultures in Northern England and Germany through participant observation and

interviews: white urban dance cultures, Asian “bhangra” music culture, hip-hop culture

appropriated from African-American music, and pub culture.

Although Bennett relies on Stokes’ concept of “cultural relocation” to describe the

movement of local identities, his concept of “local identity” is not imposed or constructed by

dominant social forces. Subcultures and their individual members are active participants in

creating “local identities” based on musical preference. In an inversion of existing sociological

literature, the question that Bennett is really answering is “how do subcultural members use

popular music to redefine their identity?”

A possible critique of Bennett’s research is the issue of the existence and relevance of

“the local” and a “local identity” in a global culture which is constantly in flux and increasingly

connected by technology. Can a “local identity” formed through technology exist in a virtual

space?

Popular music is also used by society as a way to construct new forms of femininity

within subcultures based on musical styles and the images of musical performers. Gayle Wald’s

article “Just a Girl? Rock Music, Culture and the Cultural Construction of Female Youth”

(1998), published in the journal Signs, suggests that the new, subversive identities created by
 Bush 10

white female musicians based on the reappropriation of “girlhood” and hyperfeminine images of

transgression are problematic, as they are not available to young women of different ethnic

origins and cultures.

Wald, a scholar of literature, proposes three questions regarding the roles of feminism

and representations of girlhood in rock music cultures in the emerging field of “girl studies”5 :

What is the relation between feminism and current strategies of representing “girlhood” in within

U.S. rock music cultures? Can a “reversion to girlhood” work as a strategy for producing

feminist girls? How does the appropriation of “girlhood” by white musical artists racialize

“girlhood”? How might female rock performers who occupy a different relation to hegemonic

“girlhood” construct different narratives? (591-592). Wald examines these questions through a

textual analysis contrasting music and images of white female rock singers and the

predominantly white, middle class “Riot Grrrl” radical feminist subculture/social movement6

created by “punk” musicians who challenged the traditional roles of girls in the “punk” scene

with the Japanese female rock duo “Shonen Knife.” The article concludes with a warning for the

need for young women to “stay alert to the necessity of interrogating… the conditions that

govern their access to social and cultural agency” (608).

Wald’s argument is compelling for the social context in which it was written. As the

popularity of mainstream female based rock bands have waned since the late 1990’s, female

musical performers have adopted styles that are more sexually provocative and less “girlish,” and

her perspective on musical performers is fixed in time. An interesting conundrum also occurs

when examining the influence of the images and music of “Riot Grrrl.” As both a subculture and
5
“Girl studies” is considered a genre of scholarship rooted in psychology and CCCS-based cultural studies which
constructs girlhood as a pivotal phase in female identity formation (Wald 587).
6
See Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution (2010) by Sara Marcus for an in-depth insider
history of how musicians, subcultures, and social movements can intertwine.
 Bush 11

social movement which creates and consumes its own content, does this reverse the traditional

dominance of the greater mass media culture over the subculture? Wald directs her warning to a

larger audience of young women than a single subculture, which makes the assumption that the

images of style of “Riot Grrrl” were well known to the greater public. Is the influence of “Riot

Grrl” on greater culture part of Hebdige’s trajectory of subcultures which will eventually lead to

co-optation by the mainstream? What happens to subcultural boundaries at that point?

More Recent scholarship on subcultures and cultural construction of place and gender

draws from Bennett’s perspective of the agency of subcultural members to change the

boundaries of subcultural identity through music. The concept of an active audience in relation to

both gender and place is furthered in sociologist Sian Lincoln’s article “Feeling the Noise:

Teenagers, Bedrooms, and Music” (2004), published in the journal Leisure Studies, which

revisits the relationship between music and teenage “bedroom culture” in order to challenge

McRobbie’s conclusion in “Jackie Magazine” that teenage girls are passive listeners, and to

expand cultural studies literature to include the use of music in private spaces. Lincoln’s article is

based on her concept of a “zone,” which is a highly flexible spatial setting that can be physical,

social, mediated, atmospheric, or time specific (403). Through the act of listening to music,

teenagers can create different types of atmosphere, reclaim space, and transform the private

sphere of the bedroom into a place with cultural meaning. Her position is supported by

ethnographic research and interviews with 40 British teenagers.

Lincoln’s critique of McRobbie is extremely successful, largely because it relies on

contrasting “Jackie Magazine” with Tia DeNora’s perspective in Music and Society (2000), who

argues that music is highly relevant in the “self” of the everyday lives of youth (qtd. in Lincoln

401). Also, extending Lincoln’s concept of flexible spatial “zones” beyond “bedroom culture” to
 Bush 12

the public sphere of “subculture” could have a few implications on subcultural research. the use

of a portable MP3 player or digital music device could allow for the possibility of instantaneous

switching between subcultures by changing songs or styles of music. This holds the potential to

be a modern application of Bennett’s theories of “neo-tribes” and “local identity.”

PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON POPULAR MUSIC, ADOLESCENCE, AND YOUTH CULTURE

The late twentieth century saw the emergence of psychological scholarship investigating the role

of popular music in adolescent social development and the formation of youth cultures. Although

sound and music had previously been explored in regards to individual psychological

development throughout the lifespan in David Hargreaves’ The Developmental Psychology of

Music (1986), the role of popular music within the formation of a social identity was left

untouched until two empirical studies undertaken at the University of Leicester.

“Music and Adolescent Identity” (1999), published in the journal Music Education

Research, by social psychologists Adrian C. North and Hargreaves, sought to quantify Frith’s

assertion that “all adolescents use music as a ‘badge’ which communicates values, attitudes, and

opinions to others” (qtd. in Hargreaves and North, 76) and can lead to the formation of

subcultures. Data analysis of four survey based studies of urban British youth in early and late

adolescence confirmed Hargreaves and North’s first research question: that adolescents hold

normative expectations of fans of certain music styles (which can be associated with other

characteristics and values), and that fans who like certain styles associated with prestige also

possess socially desirable traits. The second research question was partially confirmed;

identifying with a subculture has positive consequences for those who also identified with the

subculture, but there was no evidence of negative consequences for the way adolescents viewed

non-subcultural members.
 Bush 13

In the second study, “Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and the Estimated Musical

Preferences of Male Adolescents” (2001), published in The Journal of Social Psychology, Mark

Tarrant, North, and Hargreaves investigated the degree to which Social Identity Theory (SIT)

predicted the behavior of young English males based on their estimated musical tastes. Social

Identity Theory states that individuals gain a social identity from the groups to which they

belong (565), and there is an “in-group” of belonging, and an “out-group” of exclusion.

Respondents estimated that students at the opposing school (the “out-group”) preferred the styles

of music considered least desirable and had the lowest self-esteem.

Both studies have implications for subcultural research and group identity as well as

similar limitations within survey design. From a sociological standpoint, as discussed earlier in

this review, a defining characteristic of subcultures is the distinction between groups. Even if the

latter study does not mention the word “subculture” or “identity,” SIT empirically confirms the

existence of these distinctions in relation to musical tastes. However, both studies also have

limitations when applied to postmodern subcultural theories such as Bennett’s “neotribes.” If

subcultural identities and subcultural boundaries based on musical taste are constantly in flux,

how can such boundaries be defined for the purposes of a quantitative study? Additionally, the

range of musical genres included in the study limits the applicability of the two studies, as the

genres most commonly associated with subcultural research (“punk,” “goth,” “club,” “bhangra”

etc.) were not listed as options for survey participants to select. The inclusion of the “ballet”

genre of music at the expense of a more popular style of music is rather puzzling.

RECENT ADVANCES IN RESEARCH: SUBCULTURES, AGING, AND “MUSICAL IDENTITY”

The current trend in subcultural research is the examination the role of aging in youth subcultural

participation. Bennett once again leads the field in the article “As Young as You Feel” in the
 Bush 14

anthology Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes (2007), which postulates that “youth”

itself is a discursive construct. This construct is applied to subcultures in the anthology Ageing

and Youth Cultures: Music, Style and Identity (2012), edited by Bennett and subcultural

sociologist Paul Hodkinson, which engages in questions regarding the participation of adults in

subcultures traditionally associated with youth.

The role and importance of music within aging subcultures varies by subculture, but

music is most prominent in the “Riot Grrrl” subculture, where older subcultural members use

music to pass subcultural values onto a new generation of girls and ensure the subculture’s

existence . Katherine Schilt and Danielle Giffort’s essay “Strong Riot Women and the Continuity

of Feminist Subcultural Participation,” published in Ageing and Youth Cultures, fills a gap in

literature on women’s subcultural participation and aging by studying American “rock camps”

where older members of the “Riot Grrrl” movement teach girls how to write songs and play

instruments over a week-long period. It also suggests a gendered difference between strategies –

in contrast to male “punks,” who distance themselves from age-inappropriate activities and

educate young “punks” about the past – “Riot Grrrls” create an intergenerational dialogue to

provide girls with critical thinking tools about feminism and social change (158).

The research of Schilt and Giffort can be viewed as a partial answer to Wald’s questions

in “Just A Girl?”. The “reversion to girlhood” of the “Riot Grrrl” subculture can produce

feminist girls by passing on their representations of alternative models of adulthood, subcultural

knowledge, and musical skills so a new generation of budding “Riot Grrrls” can produce their

own subcultural music and products. By literally teaching girls how to create music, “Riot

Grrrls” exemplify the ability for subcultural members to actively define and develop their

subculture through music.

Is there a way to integrate the above perspectives on music and identity discussed in this

review? Hargreaves, Dorothy Miell, and Raymond A.R. McDonald introduce the term “musical

identity” (first mentioned in passing by Frith in The Sociology of Rock) as a way to describe the

functions of the interaction between and individual and music within identity and set the ground

for a new field of research in the chapter “What Are Musical Identities and Why Are They

Important?,” which serves as the introduction to the anthology Musical Identities (2003). All

people have musical “self” identities, which are composed of an individual’s overall view of

one’s self in which images of the self are integrated (8). The authors provide a conceptual

framework for understanding musical identities by splitting the term into two parts: Identities in

Music (IIM), which focuses on how musicians and composers define their identities, and Music

In Identities (MII), which focuses on how individuals use music as a resource for developing

different aspects of their individual identities, including gender identity, national identity, and

youth identity (2). The authors are clear that the latter set of identities are networks of inter-

related constructs, some subordinate to others (2). The concept of musical identity is important to

the authors because it enables researchers to understand how musical development can occur

“from the inside” of an individual while simultaneously locating identity as an a feature of social

worlds (18).

Although Hargreaves, Miell, and McDonald focus on social psychology and the ability

for a person to develop different aspects of their individual identity as opposed to a subcultural or

group identity, the idea of a “musical identity,” could prove very useful when attempting to

integrate the literature on identity, as subcultures are dependent on being defined by musical

boundaries. How can an individual’s musical identity affect their subcultural identity? Are they

socially constructed in the same manner?

FUTURE AVENUES FOR SCHOLARSHIP

Of the two questions asked in the beginning of this review, only the first question – How is music

used by society to determine or develop a subcultural identity? - is addressed in depth in existing

literature. Music is used by society to define the boundaries of subcultures and culturally

construct various facets of identity within subcultures. A number of opportunities in

interdisciplinary scholarship exist for the remaining question - How can subcultural members use

music to determine or develop a subcultural identity? Many sociological books and anthologies

with “subculture,” “music,” and even “identity’ in the title do not really address the role of music

at all. Their focus is on discussing and redefining theories of subculture. The concept of a

“musical identity” is a potential way to address this gap and ask new questions. How can an

individual’s musical identity affect their subcultural identity? Are they socially constructed in the

same manner?

Another neglected topic, introduced by Frith in The Sociology of Rock, is the relationship

between consumer culture, music, and subcultures. Although consumer culture studies and

marketing have covered consumer behavior in relation to subcultures and “consumer tribes,” 7 the

issue of subcultural music consumption and use is not addressed by any existing literature.

A final major omission in the literature is the role of music within American subcultures.

Instead, subcultural research in America tends to focus on youth cultures as emblematic of

deviance and social problems.8 Most studies have been conducted in socially stratified Britain,

7
See Consumer Tribes, ed. Bernard Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar. London: Butterworth-Heinemann,
2007. Print.
8
See Rutledge, Carolyn M., Don Rimer, and Micah Scott. “Vulnerable Goth Teens: The Role of Schools in This
Psychosocial High-Risk Culture.” Journal of School Health 78, no. 9 (2008): 459–464; Epstein, Jonathan F. and
Pratto, David J. “Heavy Metal Rock Music, Juvenile Delinquency, and Satanic Identification. Popular Music and
Society 4, no. 4 (2008).
 Bush 17

the home of subcultural research, and the differing social structures and educational systems

could reveal very different results regarding musical taste and subcultural boundaries.
 Bush 18

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor. “On Pop Music.” N.p., 1941. Web. Accessed 10 May 2014.

Bennett, Andy. “As Young As You Feel: Youth as Discursive Construct.” Youth Cultures: Scenes,

Subcultures and Tribes. Eds. Paul Hodkinson and Wolfgang Deicke. New York: Routledge,

2007. Print.

---. Popular Music and Youth Culture: Music, Identity and Place. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

2000. Print.

---. “Subcultures or Neo-Tribes?” The Popular Music Studies Reader. Ed. Andy Bennett et al. New

York: Routledge, 2005. Print.

Bennett, Andy, and Paul Hodkinson, eds. Ageing and Youth Culture: Music, Style and Identity.

London: Berg, 2012. Print.

DeNora, Tia. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.

Frith, Simon. “Music and Identity.” Questions of Cultural Identity. Ed. Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay.

Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 1996. Print.

---. The Sociology of Rock. London: Constable, 1978. Print.

Hall, Stuart, and Tony Jefferson, eds. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Postwar

Britain. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Routledge, 1979. Print.

Lincoln, Sian. “Feeling the Noise: Teenagers, Bedrooms and Music.” Leisure Studies 24.4 (2005):

399–414. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web. 9 May 2014.

MacDonald, Raymond R. et al. “What Are Musical Identities, and Why Are They Important?”

Musical Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.

McRobbie, Angela. “Jackie Magazine: Romantic Individualism and the Teenage Girl.’” Feminism

and Youth Culture. Ed. Angela McRobbie. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1991. Print.

North, Adrian C., and David J. Hargreaves. “Music and Adolescent Identity.” Music Education

Research 1.1 (1999): 75–92. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web. 9 May 2014.

Schilt, Karen, and Danielle Giffort. “Strong Riot Women" and the Continuity of Subcultural

Participation.” Ageing and Youth Culture: Music, Style and Identity. Ed. Andy Bennett and Paul

Hodkinson. London: Berg, 2012. Print.

Stokes, Martin. “Introduction.” Ethnicity, Identity and Music: The Musical Construction of Place. Ed.

Martin Stokes. First Edition. Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic, 1993. Print.

Tarrant, Mark, Adrian C. North, and David J. Hargreaves. “Social Categorization, Self-Esteem, and

the Estimated Musical Preferences of Male Adolescents.” The Journal of Social Psychology

141.5 (2001): 565–581. CrossRef. Web. 14 May 2014.

Wald, Gayle. “Just a Girl? Rock Music, Feminism, and the Cultural Construction of Female Youth.”

Signs 23.3 (1998): 585–610. Web. 6 March 2014.