View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt SOUND, TECHNOLOGY, AND INTERPRETATION IN SUBCULTURES OF HEAVY MUSIC PRODUCTION By Ian Reyes B.A., Hampshire College, 1998 M.A., University of Massachusetts, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Communication University of Pittsburgh 2008 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Ian Reyes It was defended on November 9, 2007 and approved by Henry Krips, PhD, Professor, Cultural Studies, Claremont Graduate University Jonathan Sterne, PhD, Associate Professor, Art History and Communication Studies, McGill University John Poulakos, PhD, Associate Professor, Communication, University of Pittsburgh Andrew Weintraub, PhD, Associate Professor, Music, University of Pittsburgh Dissertation Director: Henry Krips, PhD, Professor, Cultural Studies, Claremont Graduate University ii Copyright © by Ian Reyes 2008 iii SOUND, TECHNOLOGY, AND INTERPRETATION IN SUBCULTURES OF HEAVY MUSIC PRODUCTION Ian Reyes, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2008 This dissertation documents and theorizes cases of ‘heavy’ music production in terms of their unique technological dispositions. The project puts media and cultural studies into conversation with constructivist approaches to technology by looking at the material practices behind such styles as Punk, Hardcore, Metal, and Industrial. These genres have traditionally been studied as reception subcultures but have yet to be systematically treated as subcultures of production. I believe that this is a key area of study in the digital era as the lines between producers and consumers, artists and audiences, become hazier. In effect, above and beyond exploring these genres and subcultures, the aim is to conceive a mode of thinking appropriate to understanding aesthetic judgment vis-à-vis the evolving life of sound in a technologized, mass-mediated culture. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………..………..ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION………..………………………………………………………....1 2.0 THE BIZARRE SITE OF TRAVELING SPEAKER-MUSIC…………......……9 2.1 POST-MARXIST CULTURAL STUDIES OF POPULAR MUSIC..……........11 2.1.1 Regarding Recording Studios as Musical Instruments………….............15 2.1.2 DJ Lessons: (Re)Mixing, Technology, and Cultural Power…….............17 2.1.3 Engineer as Entrepreneurial Collaborator……………………………….19 2.1.4 Home Computers: The People’s Instrument?…………………..……….24 2.2 LISTENING TO SPEAKER-MUSIC…………………………………….........29 2.2.1 Getting to Know Speaker-Music………………………………………..32 2.2.2 Monitoring Techniques…………………………………………………37 2.2.3 Forces of Circulation and Reception in the Moment of Production…….43 2.2.4 Show and Tell: Why Talk When You Can Listen?……………………..46 2.3 QUESTIONS OF AURA: RECORDING AS REPRESENTATION………….51 2.3.1 Records are not Recordings……………………………………..............54 v 2.3.2 Aura Transferal……………………………………………………...…..56 2.3.3 Toward a Phonogrammatic Understanding……………………………..59 2.3.4 In Your Face: Heaviness as Phonogrammar…………………………….67 2.4 CONCLUSION: THE EAR, NOT THE GEAR………………………………..70 3.0 DEMONSTRATING D-BEAT: A STUDY IN HOME RECORDING…….......76 3.1 PRODUCTION VALUES AND THE STUDY OF POPULAR MUSIC……...77 3.1.1 Cobra in the Kitchen…………………………………………………….79 3.1.2 A Microphonics of the Drum Kit………………………………………..82 3.1.3 Four-Tracking: Drum Tone as Genre-Object…………………………...86 3.2 LIVENESS ON RECORD…………………………………………….………..91 3.2.1 Managing Multi-Track Isolation………………………………………...92 3.2.2 Something is not Clicking……………………………………………….95 3.3 CONCLUSION: SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN THE DEMONSTRATION MODE OF RECORDING……………………………………….......................97 4.0 REBIRTH OF HARDCORE PRIDE: (RE)PRODUCING SUBCULTURAL AUTHENTICITY………………………………………………………………...104 4.1 POST-PUNK STUDIES: IF ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, WHY THIS?.........106 4.1.1 Punk is Dead……………………………………………………………108 4.1.2 Long Live (Hardcore) Punk!……………………………………………110 4.1.3 Think Like a House of Dudes………………………...………...............115 4.2 RECORDING AUTHENTICALLY…………………………………...……...125 4.2.1 Analog Integrity………………………………………………...............126 4.2.2 Staging a Vibe…………………………………………………………..134 vi 4.3 CONCLUSION: THE RAW AND THE PRODUCED…………….………...142 5.0 THE POP CULTURE MASSACRE: A CASE OF INDUSTRIAL MUSIC PRODUCTION………………..……………………..…………………………...146 5.1 LESS ROCK, MORE SHOCK…………………………………………..........149 5.1.1 A Brief Survey of Industrial Shock Tactics…………………………….151 5.1.2 Heavy Cheese…………………………………………………...............156 5.1.3 The Baby Jesus Abortion and Other Questionable Concepts…………..159 5.2 AESTHETIC ISSUES IN ELECTRO-INDUSTRIAL MUSIC PRODUCTION..................................................................................................166 5.2.1 Get with the Program: On Digital Music Production…………………..168 5.2.2 Mixing Fictions…………………………………………………………177 5.2.3 Mapping (Post)Industrial Territories…………………………………...186 5.3 CONCLUSION: DIGITAL RESISTANCES…………………………………190 6.0 BLACKER THAN DEATH: MAKING METAL SATANIC………………….192 6.1 SATANIC MUSIC FOR SATANIC PEOPLE ……………………………….193 6.1.1 Civitas Diaboli: Fantasies of Satanic People…………………………...195 6.1.2 Diabolis in Musica: Fantasies of Satanic Music………………………..203 6.2 INTRODUCTION TO EXTREME METAL GENEALOGY…………….…..207 6.2.1 Heavy Metal and the Genre that Never Was…………………...............209 6.2.2 After Death: Norwegian Meddle…………………………….................214 6.2.3 ‘C’ is for ‘Cookie’, ‘Chaos’, and ‘Crisis’………………………………217 6.3 SO BAD, IT HAS TO BE GOOD: TOWARD A BLACK CODE …..………220 6.3.1 There is No Meta(l)-Language………………………………………….232 vii 6.3.2 Scenius at Work………………………………………………………...236 6.4 CONCLUSION: SUBCULTURAL PLEASURES, SATANIC AND OTHERWISE ……………………………………..………………………….241 BIBLIOGRAPHY..……………………………………………………………………247 viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My advisor, Henry Krips, and committee members, Jonathan Sterne, John Poulakos, and Andrew Weintraub, made significant contributions to the writing and editing of this project. The support and guidance of these individuals had an immeasurable impact on my work, including but not limited to the development and execution of this project. The interdisciplinary nature of my research undoubtedly bears the markings of my studies with these scholars for whom I am most sincerely thankful. In addition to faculty mentors, I have benefited from working with close colleagues. Particularly, I am indebted to Hugh Curnutt for his trusted and valued advice, and I am grateful for Cate Morrison’s constant, unflagging support throughout this process. Many others have contributed in their own way to the work appearing here, including Jesse Reyes, Scott Francis, Mark Porrovecchio, Damien Pfister, Alex Reed, and Carmen McClish. I cannot imagine undertaking a project such as this without the friendship and feedback provided by these people. Equally important are those outside of academe who graciously granted me access to their worlds. The cooperation of Mark Alan Miller at Slaughterhouse Studio was instrumental in providing a base for my study, as was that of the bands, Wrath Cobra, Rampage, and Circus of Dead Squirrels. Thanks are also due to other professionals consulted during my research, including Jeff Lipton and Jessica Thompson at Peerless Mastering, Jim Fogarty at Zing Studios, and Larry Luther at Mr. Smalls Studios ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION Media and cultural studies are entranced with music subcultures and the access that they promise to texts that are more authentic than mainstream, commercial culture. But what, exactly, are the material conditions for such work outside the mainstream? Furthermore, how do subcultural producers conceive of their authenticity within the moment of producing the kinds of texts that compel fans and those who study them? There has been an inordinate amount of attention given to people sometimes referred to within subcultures as ‘scenesters’, people who dress in the height of subcultural style, buy all the best, new albums, attend all the shows, and are otherwise nexuses of a local subculture’s social network. In classic sociological terms, scenesters are ‘early adopters’. The bulk of my first-hand experience with subcultures is with their more behind- the-scenes aspects: playing with bands, booking venues, promoting concerts, making t- shirts, courting record labels, and, more than anything, recording. These activities are far from the most visible aspects of subcultural life, much of it is done in private, away from what would be recognized as ‘the scene’, but it is indisputable that there can be no scene without the constant labor that goes into producing it. Moreover, the most essential work behind a music subculture is the production of that music, and this I found to be 1 conspicuously absent from most subcultural studies. In the simplest sense, this dissertation seeks to represent the labor of people who take the step beyond being a consumer of subcultural music and become producers. Beyond these issues, however, this dissertation speaks to a larger, arguably more difficult matter, namely, how to conceptualize the art of recording. It is now broadly accepted that recording studios are musical instruments, yet this claim remains largely unarticulated with concrete examples, and much less so with outstanding concerns stemming from the study of fan cultures, such as authenticity. In the following, the studio-instrument is explained through the example of recordists trying to communicate a ‘heavy’ aesthetic particular to their chosen genres.