Classification as Culture: Types and Trajectories of Music Genres Author(s): Jennifer C. Lena and Richard A. Peterson Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 73, No. 5 (Oct., 2008), pp. 697-718 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25472554 . Accessed: 29/08/2011 18:38 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org Classification as Culture: Types and Trajectories ofMusic Genres JenniferC. Lena Richard A. Peterson VanderbiltUniversity Vanderbilt University Questions of symbolic classification have been central to sociology since its earliest days, given the relevance of distinctionsfor both affiliationand conflict.Music and its a genres are no exception, organizing people and songs within system of symbolic classification.Numerous studies chronicle thehistory of specific genres ofmusic, but none document recurrent processes of development and change across musics. In this article, we analyze 60 musics in theUnited States, delineating between 12 social, organizational, and symbolic attributes. We find four distinct genre types?Avant-garde, Scene-based, Industry-based, and Traditionalist. We also find that these genre types an combine toform three distinct trajectories. Two-thirds originate in Avant-garde genre, and the rest originate as a scene or, to our surprise, in an Industry-based genre. We conclude by discussing a number of questions raised by our findings, including the implications for understanding symbolic classification infields other than music. its advent as a discipline, sociology (Ferguson 2004). Analyses of such classificatory Sincehas generated systems of sociocultural clas schemes, however, often relegate the cultural sification fora diverse set of phenomena, includ meanings of these categories to a secondary ing forms of organization, religious belief, feature of the system. In contrast, theuse of the fashion, gender, sexuality,art, race, and societies concept of genre places culturalmeaning at the at large, toname but a few.The sociological con forefrontof any analysis of category construc cern with systemic change is venerable yet, as tion and has potential and significant general across DiMaggio (1987) notes, there isno theoryof the utility domains. a dynamic change in classificatory schemes, Genre is conceptual toolmost often used to although efforts have been made in domains classify varieties of cultural products, particu in the of visual such as nation building (Anderson 1983), social larly fields art, popular culture, video and music. It movements (Traugott 1995), name-giving prac games, film, literature, a manner of tices (Lieberson 2000), and French cuisine describes expression thatgoverns artists' work, theirpeer groups, and the audi ences for theirwork (Becker 1982; Bourdieu 1993). In this article, we build on the theoreti Direct correspondence to Jennifer C. Lena, cal and conceptual use of genre to betterunder Departmentof Sociology,Vanderbilt VU University, stand the of classification StationB #351811,2301Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, dynamics symbolic and in order to recurrent soci TN 37235-1811 ([email protected]). change identify ocultural forms ofmusic To no one The authors wish to thank N. Anand, Shyon genres. date, has a Baumann, Howard S. Becker, Andy Bennett, Daniel published systematic analysis of the char Cornfield, Paul DiMaggio, Robert Faulkner, Simon acteristic forms thatmusic-making communi * Frith, David Grazian, Michael Hughes, Larry Isaac, ties take or how theychange over time. Instead, Pierre Steve Claire Motti Kremp, Lee, Peterson, historical surveys of popular music focus atten Regev, Gabriel Rossman, Bill Ken Roy, Spring, tion on charismatic performers, analyze works Tammy Smith, Jason Toynbee, Mayer N. Zald, and Ezra Zuckerman for their assistance on drafts of this are work. We sorry thatwe cannot recognize by name 1 the ASR reviewers who extreme anonymous provided Although encyclopedic efforts were made in an comments. ly helpful earlier generation (Lomax 1964). American Sociological Review, 2008, Vol. 73 (October:697-718) 698 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW within the canon, and identifycultural factors The second dominant approach defocalizes thatpromote the growth ofmusic genres (e.g., textand places the study of genre squarely in a Garofalo 2002; Toynbee 2000). In addition, social context. Some analysts apply the term to hundreds of social scientists have studied the general marketing categories such as pop, clas commu structure of particular popular-music sical, country, urban, and jazz (Negus 1999). nities and the social contexts that shape them. Most studies of taste thatanalyze survey data to We carefully examine these studies to find uni examine how groups of consumers use available in formities the forms ofmusic genres and reg genres to express their social identityor status ularities in their We also the trajectories. identify (e.g.,Mark 1998) look at very inclusive genres of these rather developmental sequences genres, (e.g., rock,MOR, or classical), closer toEnnis's than focus on themechanisms that cause gen (1992) "streams" or Bourdieu's (1993) "fields." res to transition from one form to the next. Others use the terms subculture (Thornton we examine the case ofmusic Although genres 1996), scene (Bennett 1997), or neo-tribe in the United States in twentieth-century par (Maffesoli 1996) in ways cognate with the ourmethod of social and cultural ticular, analy meaning of genre here. sis offers a more general sociological Alternatively, others highlight the set of cul framework?a framework potentially applica turalpractices (Becker 1982) thata music com ble to all manner of where individ phenomena munity defines as a genre and view its texts as uals and groups construct cultural boundaries. the product of social interactions in a specific We conclude with a discussion of these more sociocultural context (Frith 1996). This general implications. approach is found inPeterson's (1997) study of the creation of country music, as well as THE GENRE IDEA DeVeaux (1997) on bebop jazz, Garland (1970) on soul, Bennett (2004) on the Canterbury Genre organizes the production and consump sound, Cantwell (1984) on bluegrass, and Kahn tion of cultural material, including organiza Harris (2007) on theEuropean varieties of heavy tional procedures (Ahlkvist and Faulkner 2002; metal rock. these studies, and para Ballard, Dodson, and Bazzini 1999; Becker Following Neale's (1980:19) definition of genre 1982; Bielby and Bielby 1994; Griswold 1987; phrasing in film,we define music genres as of Hirsch 1972; Negus 1999), and influences tastes systems orientations, expectations, and conventions that and the larger structures of stratification in bind an which they are embedded (Bourdieu 1993, together industry,performers, critics, and fans in what as a dis 1995; Lizardo 2006). Recently, organizational making they identify tinctive sort ofmusic. ecologists have deployed genre tounderstand the Given this are numerous competitive success and restructuringof organ definition, genres and work is as izations (Hsu 2006; Hsu and Hannan 2005). boundary ongoing genres and and There are two dominant approaches to the emerge, evolve, disappear (Lamont Molnar Musicians often do not want to study of genre. In the first,humanities scholars 2002). be confined as Becker typically focus attention on the "text" of a cul by genre boundaries, but, their freedom of is tural object, which is abstracted from the con (1982) notes, expression other text inwhich it ismade or consumed (Apperley necessarily bounded by the expectations of 2006; Devitt 2004; Fowler 1982; Frow 2006; performers, audience members, critics, and the to Hyon 1996; Swales 1990; C. Williams 2006). diverse others whose work is necessary mak Most musicologists employ this textual ing, distributing, and consuming symbolic an approach to identifygenre as a set of pieces of goods.3Walser (1993:4) provides example of music that share a distinctivemusical language (van der Merwe 1989). Some sociologists the use of but are employ genre-as-text, they (1995) shows how national anthems mirror the soci to influenced the careful show how genre is by etal contexts within which they are created. Other context inwhich it ismade and consumed.2 lines of work use genre without problematizing its content or development (Bourdieu 1984; Peterson and Kern 1996). 2 3 Dowd (1992) shows thesocietal influenceson the "Free music" is an interesting limiting case as its musicological structure of popular music, and Cerulo because, Toynbee (2000) notes, although prac TYPES AND TRAJECTORIES OF MUSIC GENRES 699 such boundary work: "'Heavy metal' is a term Most genres evolve out of one or more ear that is constantly debated and contested, pri liermusics thatdevelop in analogous sectors of marily among fans, but also in dialogue with society and share characteristics (Gendron musicians, commercial marketing strategists,