Popular Music Cultures, Media and Youth

Sociology Compass 2/2 (2008): 388408, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00103.
Popular Music Cultures, Media and Youth Consumption: Towards an Integration of Structure, Culture and Agency
Andy R. Brown*
Bath Spa University
Abstract
Youth, media and popular music studies have developed in separate fields of research, resulting in a lack of integration of key areas of enquiry, such as the relationship between the cultural and structural in youth music consumption and the role of media industries in framing such a process. A more recent focus on popular music as a media culture suggest a way forward in exploring links between production, mediation and consumption of music and youth consumer practices. This article reviews three such frameworks: (i) the production of consumption, (ii) production of culture/cultures of production and (iii) cultures of consumption, evaluating their contribution to a more integrated understanding of how youth consume music as a structurally and culturally mediated process. Controversies over youth download culture and evidence of regulatory changes in the global music industry and its impact on how youth consumers can access music media, underlines the need to pursue a research integration agenda, drawing popular music and youth consumption research closer together. Yet it remains the case that both approaches exhibit a structural vs. cultural divide over youth consumption and its relationship to the global music industry, offering optimism and pessimism in equal measure.
How meaningful is popular music to young people? What role, if any, does it play in the formation of youth identities? To what extent does the consumption of music by youth allow us to better understand what it means to be young at specific times? Are musical tastes an indicator of social or cultural distinctions between different groups of youth and, if so, do they reflect or contradict those of gender, ethnicity or class? What sort of impact have recent changes in the global organisation of the music industry, the proliferation of music media and synergies between media forms, had on the way music can be consumed by the young and the meanings that circulate around it as a consumer activity? These are all really important questions but they are also questions that we do not have any coherent answers to at present. A central reason for this is that such questions, and the complex issues that they address, are
2008 The Author Journal Compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption
389
clearly interrelated but their study has rarely been so. This is not to suggest that important work has not been conducted into these areas but it has been work that has examined one or more of these questions in isolation from the others. Thus, the study of youth has been explored with little or no reference to musical tastes; or youth style cultures have been identified in which music is assumed to play a subordinate or peripheral role. The musicological properties of recorded texts have been studied in isolation from the meanings they have for actual listeners. Or musical consumption has been discussed in isolation from its production or other forms of youth consumption. Finally, the role of media culture industries, in providing the commercial context in which music consumption is made possible and potentially meaningful, has been generally ignored by youth and music-based studies. While there are sound theoretical and disciplinary reasons for this lack of interface over the question of youth, music and media in the past, recent developments in the study of popular music and media culture industries suggest that a more productive approach may be possible, one based on a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of existing research areas and the pressing need to draw from across these to meet new research problems. For example, the controversies over P2P music file sharing, the initially punitive action of the recording industry and the subsequent move towards protective copyright legislation and the development of pay-per user software, is one such area that would benefit from such integration (for an overview, see Garofalo 1999; McCourt and Burkart 2003). Indeed, the noticeable shift from initially highly celebratory accounts of the revolution in music distribution provoked by download youth culture (Alderman 2001; Jones 2002; Kusek and Leonhard 2005; Mewton 2001; Merriden 2001), has grown more pessimistic as evidence of the strategies of the recording industry to regain control have begun to emerge (Burkart and McCourt 2006; Leyshon et al. 2005). Current media debates over the success of social networking sites, such as MySpace, in offering a flatter more democratic relationship between music artists and consumers, also promises to manifest this sort of lurch from initial celebration to despair. What I suggest from this survey is that structural determinism and cultural optimism of youth consumption is mirrored in both youth studies and popular music and media research. What we badly need is a middle way, where the deficiencies of one can be compensated for by the strengths of the other, and vice versa. The study of popular music as media industry: From production to consumption The study of popular music as a distinctive type of media industry and cultural form has, in recent years, become visibly codified with the emergence of textbooks and related attention within media, communications and
2008 The Author Sociology Compass 2/2 (2008): 388408, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00103.x Journal Compilation 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
390 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption
cultural studies degree courses (see, for example, Longhurst 2007; Osgerby 2004; Wall 2003) This development is broadly to be welcomed, allowing as it does a way of reorganising and reframing many disparate areas that have existed under the term popular music studies (see Bennett et al. 2006; Frith and Goodwin 1999; Hesmondhalgh and Negus 2002; Negus 1996; Shuker 2001). Popular music studies itself developed out of a dialogue between the sociology of youth cultures, particular subcultural studies, popular music and musicology proper (see Frith 1978, 1983; Middleton 1990). Recently, however, Hesmondhalgh (2005) has advocated the formal separation of these areas of study, particularly over the issue of subcultural studies of youth and music, believing this would allow the study of popular music and its reception and consumption to develop more fruitfully apart from theoretical frameworks that have been shown to hamper and restrict how music consumption can be studied. For Hesmondhalgh, the exclusive focus on youth in the discussion of music consumption and the framing of such activity within the limiting concept of subculture, ignores the vast majority of other music consumers, who fall outside of these framings. The perspective of this article is that the further development of a media culture industries framework within which to investigate popular music consumption, linking the process of production to reception and use, is best equipped to addresses the problem of a lack of integration of sociological studies of youth, identity and consumption, on the one hand, and studies of media and popular music, on the other, beyond the confines of subcultural theory. The significance of this for the broader debates about the sociology of youth and the study of popular music as media, is that the former lacks a theory of mediation in its accounts of youth consumption, which is evident in the internal schism over structural theories of youth as transition (Furlong and Cartmel 2007; Hollands 1990) and those more theoretical accounts of youth as sites of resistance/anti-hegemony to media institutions and products, which derive from the Birmingham subcultural theory/ cultural studies approach (Cohen and Ainley 2000; Cohen 2003). Put simply, such approaches lack a theorisation of the media industries and the structural and cultural processes involved in youth media consumption yet, in the case of youth studies, they have a very empirically rich account of youth as actors within various social structures of opportunity/ constraint. By contrast, recent media and cultural studies work on mediated consumption and active audiences clearly attempt to develop accounts of youth media industry interactions as symbolic and structural. However, the social theorisation of youth to be found in such studies is often empirically impoverished. What is interesting about the recent emergence of the study of popular music as a form of media (see, for example, Wall 2003) is not that it can resolve these academic boundary problems but rather that such an approach has attempted by drawing on a range of cross-disciplinary
391
subject domains to more fully theorise the reproduction of popular music within the circuit of media communication: from ownership through production, representation, mediation and consumption. One of the things that such an approach allows is a richer account of the symbolic structures and processes by which meaning is derived from styles of music consumption, while always seeing such an interaction as a moment within a wider cycle of reproduction. Such accounts cannot resolve the issues occurring in related fields of study and nor should they be expected to. But they do offer the potential for developing new directions in the design of research projects that can more clearly appreciate the role of symbolic consumption of media within particular structural contexts and the role that media industries play in providing some of the meanings/practices in play in such a process. In what follows I first provide a description of the shared theoretical terrain that connects the study of youth and media-related consumption with that of the study of production and consumption within popular music media research. Second, I go on to identify three broadly defined but conceptually distinctive areas of research: (i) production of consumption, (ii) production of culture/cultures of production and (iii) cultures of consumption, that all offer, in their distinctive ways, pieces of the conceptual puzzle. I go on to pinpoint the valuable parts of this research and how they can inform the construction of a more integrated account of youth music consumption. My point is that at present such approaches touch upon and offer various insights into the question but they are unable to offer a definitive answer. The way forward I suggest is that the interconnections between these areas need to be explored and this is best done through a theoretical and methodological concentration upon the music commodity and how it is produced, conceptualised and consumed. Youth studies and the study of popular music consumption: Some theoretical comparisons I want to begin by suggesting that the border-spanning concept that has the theoretical potential to link the different academic fields of youth studies, popular music and recent media research, is that of media consumption. Clearly, the development of a youth entertainment economy, since at least the late 1950s, and the rapid proliferation of cheaper technologies, types of media and media-related activities, has become a ubiquitous feature of the leisure worlds of the young. One has only to look at the spread of and access to micro-technologies, such as mobile phones and MP3 players, among youth consumers to realise how much more mediated youth interactions have become but also the extent to which the mundane everyday use of such technologies is one of the ways that youth are defined as a group, for example through the use of txt talk (Furlong and Cartmel 2007, 789; Miles 2003, 178; Osgerby 2004, 208 10).
The study of youth as a period of (re)orientation between that of childhood and adulthood, has always been centrally concerned with the transition to work and the relationship between work and leisure (Furlong and Cartmel 2007; Hollands 1990). The utility of the concept of consumption, conceived as both an economic and cultural process, is that it offers a framework for exploring how youth negotiate the fact of their structural situation in terms of the ways that they consume and the meanings that such consumption has in the space of youth (Miles 2003). As we will see, some theorists have claimed that youth creativity surrounding acts of consumption announce some sort of stylistic challenge to the hegemony of the adult world or that the space of youth inverts the social and cultural hierarchies that govern that world. But these sorts of claims often leave out the seemingly mundane and ordinary consumption of the majority of youth who may not appear to exhibit any stylistic distinctiveness but who nevertheless make buying choices about what to listen to, what to wear and what to do in their leisure time, which are acts of consideration and choice that may often be invested with a great deal of significance. When little else seems to be under your control or subject to your influence, the simple act of choosing one type of trainer rather than another may become a hugely important act of self-confirmation or assertion of individuality. This clearly also ought to apply to the music choices that youth make at different stages in their lives. From a macro-economic perspective, fluctuations in the performance of the economy and the availability of youth employment opportunities impacts very greatly on the importance with which leisure is pursued as a end in itself and this is ultimately always a matter of availability of financial resources. This is also because the youth entertainment economy has become extensively commodified. But such commoditisation of leisure and its objects is to some extent an independent variable in structural analysis because the ubiquity of forms of leisure commodities and their everyday uses means that many mundane youth interactions are predicated on possessing skills in the use of such technologies and common knowledge of fashion and media brands (Miles 2003). One cannot simply opt out of an engagement with the currency and ubiquity of such commodity forms. Understanding this and the construction of youth identities as a function of autonomy and constraint is now a central concern of work specifically focusing on the role of consumption in young lives (Miles et al. 1998). This newer emphasis on consumption is also to be found in recent media and culture studies research, particularly that developed within audience and reception studies (see Corner 1996, 1999). In fact an early emphasis on consumption as a framework for thinking the interaction between media use and socially situated groups, was developed out of feminist media research at CCCS Birmingham (CCCS 1978; Hobson 1982; for an overview, see Hermes 1997). But it was the development of the theorisation of reception, conceived as an interactional process that
393
required the role of reader or interpreter to contribute to the process of meaning generation set in play by the media text, that most importantly underpinned the emergence of research informed by an idea of the active audience, now a widely accepted notion within the media research field. Although the original framework conceived of a moment of encoding informed by media production and a moment of decoding, informed by the socially situated resources drawn upon by viewers (Hall 1993/1974, 2003/1980), it was the development of research focussing exclusively on decoding that has received the most discussion and also has become the focus of some strident criticism (McGuigan 1992). This criticism has centred on the exaggeration believed to be implicit in such work in valuing or more often celebrating the creativity of audience groups in their abilities to derive both pleasure and social significance in their interaction with various dominant media forms, irrespective of any other offsetting factors, such as minority or disadvantaged status. Indeed, critics of such research as cultural populism point to liberal and left wing theorists attributing liberatory potential to audience interpretative practices, in the face of dominant media forms, that end up justifying market-based models of media provision rather than questioning the content and production of such media. As some have pointedly put if, if audiences can make anything they want out of media provision, the question of what is provided becomes secondary to a focus on the activity of appropriating content (Budd et al. 1990; for an overview, see Stevenson 2002, 75116). While these debates have clearly been important in attempting to re-position the study of audience within the wider field, they have sometimes obscured the strand of work that has attempted to develop a more socially grounded theory of audiencetext interactions and uses, by focussing on the wider social context and conditions of media reception and consumption informing, in particular, domestic settings and relationships. While this work has sought to foreground gender relations as crucial in understanding the uses and dynamics of interaction over media use in the home (Morley 1986; Gray 1992), more recent work has examined the relations of parents and children, over the use and access to computer technologies, for example (Livingstone 2002). At the same time, other work, initially concerned with minority interpretative communities, has offered some suggestive theoretical insights into the role audience interpretative repertoires play in the transactional exchange of meaning frameworks involved in media communication processes (see, for example, Liebes and Katz 1993). The relevance of this work is in how researchers have tried to identify not only what interpretative repertoires attach to particular groups but also the linking of these to social characteristics and cultural habitus (Schroder 1994). In some research this has lead to the claim that interpretative frameworks do not necessarily open up the creative potential of audiences but rather structure access to symbolic content in allowing connection to certain parts of the media text and
denying others (Lewis 1996; Condit 1989). The relevance of this research to the study of youth and its interpretative and creative relationship to media resources, such as popular music, is one that clearly ought to be more developed than it is at present. In summary, and at the risk of over simplifying, there are some key differences of emphasis that highlight research priorities and frameworks, at present. Structural accounts of youth tend to concentrate on the constraints upon and access to symbolic resources; media-cultural accounts, on the meaningfulness of symbolic resources and the activities that can be enabled via their uses. While we are still a long way from a fully developed theorisation of symbolic commodities, particularly how we theorise media as a symbolic commodity, the majority of researchers are united in the acceptance of the idea that the use of commodities, whether media symbolic ones or mediated material ones, is an active process. Where the approaches differ is that active audience theories lack a theory of constraint, although they do sometimes invoke a structural idea of media environments circumscribed by differential access to media technologies and resources. But we are far from a shared idea of what constitutes activity, what are its minimal and maximal features, and what are its ultimate constraints? More specifically, how does the description and quantification of activity apply to meaningful engagement (reception/cognition) and/ or types of observable behaviour (uses/interaction)? Given this structural/cultural dichotomy what is innovatory about some aspects of recent research into popular music and media is that it offers a range of ways of comprehending how the mediation of music can provide symbolic resources that interact with the existing structurally determined situation that youth find themselves in. Such accounts can be seen to theorise media as a commodity that provides symbolic resources that help to furnish the imaginative environments in which youth make cultural sense of their existence through the activity of consumption. Clearly a valid criticism of active audience theories is that they over emphasise the effectivity of consumption and its cultural impact on production. But thinking about the role of consumption in the reproduction of styles of production of cultural commodities is clearly important in understanding how post-Fordist production regimes (marketing at niche defined groups) fold-back consumption into their marketing strategies. Here the recent debates about the role of cultural workers or intermediaries (Negus 2002; for an overview, see Delaney 2005; Nixon and Du Gay 2002) into the meshing of production and consumption practices, offers many suggestive insights into how cultural organisations reproduce themselves and how the development of cultural products arise from a complex interaction between consumer intelligence gathering and production strategies (cf. Nixon 1997). But such studies do not focus on the activity of consumption itself and the relationship of consumption to types of commoditisation. In other
395
words, how do we describe the ways in which the marketing and design of youth media commodities allows the furnishing of environments that they make possible or even fully determine? Alternatively, to what extent are such forms of music commoditisation merely the starting point for a complex cultural behaviour that cannot be read off or anticipated from their design and marketing? These questions have always been emergent within pioneer cultural studies of youth, such as Birmingham CCCS work on subcultural practice (Hall and Jefferson 1976; Hebdige 1979; Willis 1978) but such work was hampered by a wholly negative idea of commoditisation as a process that required youth resistance to produce anything meaningful and this struggle was only possible for a brief heroic movement before it was incorporated back into the system (cf. Brown 2003b, 2007). Such an approach also, as a consequence of the theorisation of consumption as a form of commercial domination of youth, had little positive to say about ordinary youth consumption that was not subcultural and therefore exhibited no obvious stylistic resistance (Clarke 1990). Accepting that commercial market processes are the necessary and common basis of the worlds that youth inhabit in their leisure practices then allows the opportunity to explore the range of ways that this relationship is negotiated and understood. But it requires much more specific theorisation and investigation of the commodity and its meaning potential and how these elements interact with youth in various ways, than exists at present (see Brown 2003a, 2007). In what follows I present an inevitably schematic account of three theoretically distinctive areas of existing research, all of which offer important insights into the question of how popular music culture is produced and/ or consumed and, in particular, how the symbolic value of music is made meaningful within particular commercial processes and social practices. The production of consumption: Marxism, political economy and the Frankfurt school The important contribution that Marxist-inspired approaches have made to the theorisation of the culture industries and the music industry, in particular, is beyond dispute. Clearly, a political economy framework is indispensable to the analysis of the global patterns of ownership and control that configure the logic and dynamics of the popular music business and its reproduction. The capital-driven logic first evident in the consolidation of national music markets, via strategies of horizontal and vertical integration, as seen in the post-war USA, had by the mid-1970s, become international (Hull 2000; Sanjek and Sanjek 1991). At the close of the millennium a global pattern had emerged, whereby five multinational corporations owned and controlled up to 70% of the production and distribution of all recorded music, via a complex series of mergers and takeovers, that tied artists and labels to music divisions ultimately accountable
Figure 1. World music market share, according to International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI 2005). According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the value of the world music market is estimated at $40 billion, but according to IFPI (2004) it is estimated at $32 billion.
to corporate owners, such as Universal-Vivendi, Sony BMG, AOL-Time Warner and EMI (see Figure 1). Such patterns of concentration would seem to suggest that the major corporations have got the production and consumption of popular music sewn up. But this is far from the case. The reasons that they dont entirely has to do with what Negus has called the enduring distance between production and consumption (2002, 501). It is the volatility and unpredictability of the consumption of cultural commodities, such as the music CD or album download, that has necessitated the adoption of various strategies of production that attempt to shape and control the environment of consumption, if not consumption itself. The value of political economy approaches is that they attempt to show how production regimes try to produce consumption, to shape it and mould it to fit their priorities. This ultimately means that they also contain an account of the consumer as the support of this system of control. But the culturally mediated agency of the music consumer, the choices and changes in taste revealed by what people actually buy, has shifted very greatly in accounts of cultural production. And recent evidence about the reorganisation of the political economy of the recording industry, suggest it will shift once again (see Burkart and McCourt 2006). In the earliest and most influential accounts of what they called the culture industry, the Frankfurt school theorists argued that production controlled entirely the types of music that was produced, the tastes of consumers and the even the way that the product was listened to. Thus,
397
Adorno (1990) argued that popular music had become entirely commodified; that is, transformed from an act of artistic expression to one governed entirely by the logic of the production line. This process was one part of the strategy of mature capitalism to commodify culture and thereby further integrate leisure with work by shaping cultural production to the demands of the system. The result was that popular music became increasingly standardised, composed to a formula with only minor variations between one product and the next, much like varieties of motor cars (Gendron 1986). Here Adorno extended Marxs notion of the fetishism of commodities, stressing that minor variations in very predictable types of music could ensure a core standardisation while satisfying the desire for novelty to be found in music consumers (Strinati 1995, 568). Adorno (1990) went as far as arguing that forms of popular music were pre-digested and that they did the listening for the consumer! That is the predictability of the product produced a consumer who wanted to work as little possible to understand what they were hearing (Adorno 1991). At the same time this inattentive listening meant that novelty was needed to retain interest. The result was a series of faddish variations on a predictable core. To Adorno listeners were thereby infantalised reduced to the level of children. In such a market environment serious music had little chance. Such a view therefore argued that the music consumer was vertically integrated into the system by the logic of the production process: music was not only fully commodified, it had also become an agent of social control, soothing and placating the ordinary listener. All of this suggests that production was entirely able to control consumption and that patterns of tastes would be determined by the music business. Clearly, a variant of this idea is one that is fondly held by those who look in horror at teen pop records and artists and believe that their largely young audiences are easily manipulated by a well-oiled machine that churns out the next superficial hit. But the evidence of charts and industry statistics suggests that the market for teen pop is very unstable, that misses far outnumber hits, and that losses can be considerable until that elusive hit artist is discovered (Burkart and McCourt 2006, 21) This produces an interesting coda on Adorno and the Frankfurt theory: despite the fact that teeny pop records all seem to sound the same, only some of them actually find favour with teeny pop listeners! Political economy approaches, after the Frankfurt school have placed this element the volatility of cultural consumption at the heart of their accounts of the culture industries, stressing that the music industry, like film and other areas, is a risky business (Hesmondhalgh 2007). In fact, it is this element that can account for the strategies developed to control as much of the production process as possible, that we noted earlier. A key response here is that of overproduction: which has been likened to throwing mud at a wall until something sticks (Garnham, cited in
Hesmondhalgh 2007, 22). This hit then offsets the various misses. Related strategies are the formatting of artists as stars, once they have a hit and the development of genre categories in which artists can be placed to allow the maximum amount of audience recognition. What this suggests is that, despite appearances to the contrary, there is a considerable distance between the production of popular music and its consumption and that the commoditisation of music, while it has allowed the development of broadly defined types of music consumption, is not able to fully integrate consumption into the preferred designs of production. Production of culture/cultures of production: From filter-flow to cultural intermediaries While the need for a focus on production as a structure in dominance is clearly justified in accounts of the music business, it is the analysis of organisations, like record companies, that has allowed an account of cultural production that is variable, complex and even contested at the point of consumption. Such accounts of the record company as a cultural organisation with its own internal logic have emerged from research variously described as the production of culture (Peterson 1994) and/or cultures of production perspectives (Du Gay 1997; Du Gay et al. 1997). The essence of such approaches, when applied to the production of music culture and the cultural commodity that carries musical sounds (the record or music download), is that much of what is produced arises from the organisational logic of institutions and the cultural workers employed by them, where success is determined by the ability to mediate the distance between production decisions and purchasing decisions. Where the approaches differ is over the emphasis they place on the relative autonomy of decision makers within the chain of decisions that shape the cultural product that is produced by the record company. The first approach, the production of culture, concentrates upon understanding how the symbolic goods of music are produced in particular commercial and institutional environments that affect what emerges as popular and saleable and how trends and styles of consumption are to be explained by the organisational behaviour of producers, working in particular sorts of conditions (Peterson 1994, 164 6). The value of this approach is that it demonstrates how the symbolic value of music and its commercial exchange is quite often an unintended outcome of process that take place within organisations whose success is determined by the extent to which they are able to control the business of producing music as a commodity (selecting artists, recording and producing them, promoting and finally distributing work), rather than the tastes and meanings of consumers. In effect, patterns and trends in music styles are less an outcome of demand from consumers and more the outcome of producer decision-making,
399
which is sometimes able to successfully connect with audiences and at other time, not. This perspective ultimately suggests there is considerable distance between production and consumption and that producers are insulated by the very practices they have developed to control the music market (horizontal and vertical integration, overproduction, differential selection and promotion) in the face of the unpredictability of music consumers. Models of the record company as a cultural organisation, such as the classic account given by Hirsch (1990), suggest that it is useful to conceive of the organisation as linear in design, made up of various departments and personnel who process the cultural product, shaping it as it moves through the system. This shaping process is facilitated at critical points as decisions to select or reject involving personnel who effectively operate as gatekeepers. Such decisions are crucially influenced by what goes on at each end of the system: the so-called in-put and out-put boundaries. While the model clearly suggests that there will be an over selection of artists at the input boundary and differential promotion at the output boundary, such decisions will be made based on information gathering at these borders by personnel assigned a boundary-spanning role: talents scouts, promoters, press coordinators and public relations officers. Such agents work in the field and within the artistic community as recruiters and intelligence gathers. At the output boundary are media gatekeepers who offer selective coverage of new styles and titles because these products provide the potential content for newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television programmes. Thus, the problem for cultural organisations is not the total number of products/acts given coverage but which ones! Since record companies are dependent upon radio and television to introduce new artists and new records, the target audience for promotional campaigns are media gatekeepers or surrogate consumers such as DJs, record reviewers and feature editors who serve as fashion experts and opinion leaders for their constituencies. This leads Hirsch to argue the media constitute the institutional subsystem of the cultural industry because the diffusion of particular fads and fashions is either blocked or facilitated at this strategic checkpoint (Hirsch 1990, p. 132). This is because consumer awareness of the existence and availability of new records is contingent on feature stories in newspapers and magazines, review columns and radio station airplay. Record companies are highly responsive to feedback from these media gatekeepers and the styles afforded coverage are then subject to imitation until a particular style or trend has been exhausted. The consumers role in all of this is the ranking of items that have emerged from this process of selection and rejection. The model assumes an oversupply of raw materials filtered out at various checkpoints by cultural workers whose behaviour is governed by organisational, technical and economic factors (Negus 1996, pp. 55 6).
The cultures of production approach challenges this nominalist rule: that the symbolic value of items is arrived at through the social behaviour of groups operating in particular environments and types of constraint. It argues that workers do not simply filter cultural objects that have no meaning for them. Rather, the symbolic value of cultural material, such as recorded songs, is culturally constructed via interpretative knowledge frameworks that arise from the way that such workers mediate the space between production and consumption (Negus 1996, p. 59). They are in effect both producers and consumers and it is their ability to shape and re-direct the form of the cultural commodity so that it meets the expectations of other cultural intermediaries in the production process that crucially affects what is actually produced. These others could be production executives responsible for radio play lists or magazine feature editors looking for or attempting to anticipate the latest trend. The term cultural intermediary is a term coined by the cultural sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu (2002, 354 71) who used it to apply to a new petite bourgeois class of workers who assigned cultural value (or capital) to new forms of consumption. It has been taken up to describe the creative work of those whose role is to anticipate and promote new forms of leisure and entertainment. In the work of Du Gay and Hall et al. (1997), it has been theorised as essential in understanding the shift from a Fordist to a post-Fordist regime of production and consumption in late capitalist societies, where the objective of cultural producers is to market not a mass but a series of segmented or niche consumer groups, through strategies of targeting and product differentiation. The role of the cultural intermediary is to shape production to consumption via a system of reflexive monitoring of tastes and aspirations and by shaping commodities to meet anticipated demand. Such a model assumes that the boundaries of the record company are much more porous and that each of the agents involved in the mediation of the record object constitute a symbolic field or circuit of culture, whereby consumption is folded back into production at every stage. Thus cultural intermediaries, such as record producers, can play a decisive role in intervening on the production of a groups sound, in attempting to reshape it through group (re)arrangement and organisation of recording, so that the results meet the expectations of other cultural workers and will therefore be considered new, innovatory or simply more commercial. A good example of this is the role of the producer, Ross Robinson, in shaping the sound and dynamics of many of the definitive nu metal bands. While some features of the cultures of production perspective can be said to be anticipated by aspects of the production of culture model, such as the boundary spanning activities of record company agents, the model decisively breaks with the view that the process of production of a record can be conceived as a linear process. On the contrary the production of
401
successful products in the music market is the outcome of a series of interlocking activities that are sometimes conflictual and contradictory, since each of the agents involved in the process is operating within a cultural web of assumptions and anticipations of changing consumer tastes and demands. The successful cultural intermediary must find a way to articulate these two domains. This uneven interface is clearly illustrated by contemporary Web 2.0 phenomena, like YouTube, MySpace and BeBo, all of which rapidly attracted the attention and activity of music industry intermediaries as well as the big players, such as Rupert Murdoch and Google (Harris 2006, 6 11; Lanchester 2006; Shooman 2007). Cultures of consumption: From stylistic rebellion to the selling of rebel style As we have seen, cultural Marxist and political economy approaches viewed production as dominating and determining the shape and impact of consumption upon consumers and listeners. These structural accounts have been aided by cultural organisation approaches that have looked much more closely at the process of production of the music commodity as moulded and shaped by a decision-making process internal to record companies. Cultures of production approaches have tried to narrow the gap between consumption and production regimes by theorising the boundary connecting role of cultural intermediaries and arguing that production and consumption, in late capitalist economies, are reflexively interconnected by a circuit of culture that continually folds back consumption ideas into production. However, it remains the case that there is still an enduring distance between the shaping of the music commodity for consumption and the manner and meanings involved in its actual usage, despite attempts to anticipate and build-in such uses in the design and promotion of it. The Birmingham CCCSs work on British youth style cultures was a pioneer work in offering a view of consumption that did not see the consumer as duped or dully conformist but heroically resistant in their ability to reshape the commodity and its uses to offer a challenge to the fashion and entertainment industry by staging a performance outside of its logic. But it was no so very long before the system had caught up and re-commodified the said DIY style, thereby reincorporating street creativity back into commerce (cf. Brown 2007; McRobbie 1994). If this sounds a bit like the rebel alliance vs. the Empire that was very much how it came over in this neo-Gramscian take on a theory of consumption as a sort of cultural deviance or de-commoditisation, where youth resisted the logic of the commodity system in the name of class. The assumption of the approach was that the structural subordination of working class youths was concealed in the appeal to them as classless youth consumers and that assuming such a role in the purchase of youth items, such as clothes and records, would further integrate them into becoming supports of the
commodity system. Their acts of stylistic rebellion were therefore viewed as ways of articulating a new language of class identity by disarticulating the consumer identities carried in consumer items and rearticulating them into spectacular alternative do-it-yourself styles, such as teds, mods, skins and punks. The influence of this pioneer effort on media audience theories, fans studies and consumer theories is profound. But what has often been missed about this account is that it is, at bottom, an anti-consumer theory that celebrates not acts of creative consumption but acts of antagonism to a perceived conformity inherent in consumption itself (Thornton 1995, 93). It also suggests that the vast majority of youth, who are not subcultural stylists, are themselves dupes or rather dull conformists in their ordinary consumption habits (Clarke 1990, 84 5). The response of some theorists has been to assert that the ordinary consumption of youth is actually a creative and identity affirming activity, even though it may be quiet unspectacular (Willis and Team 1990; Willis 1990). Post-subcultural studies have gone further in arguing that subcultural distinctions, such as those articulated between musical tastes and youth styles, are no longer a good indicator of how youth identities are actually constructed and lived (Bennett and Kahn-Harris 2004; Hodkinson and Deicke 2007; Weinzierl and Muggleton 2003). The starting point for many of these approaches is that there is no longer, if there ever was, a clear relationship between class identities and consumption choices, particularly in musical tastes, and that the huge proliferation of entertainment and music forms has allowed the link between class and identify to be weakened, if not broken (see, for example, Bennett 1999). Drawing variously on the ideas of theorists Michele De Certeau (1984) and Michele Maffesoli (1996), respectively, they have argued that what we need to look at is the complex patterns of youth associations that accompany the multiple consumer choices that young people make. The resultant, shifting and temporary affiliations that emerge are best described as neotribal in character. Thus, neo-tribal youth roam nomadically over the consumer landscape selecting and constructing their identities through the choices they make to participate in different musical and youth practices, never settling on any one exclusively. For some, such behaviour is more appropriately described as lifestyle consumption, rather than subcultural (Bennett 1999, 607). The question that emerges at this point is whether such creativity, in constructing a mix-and-match individuated identity, is a form of resistance? Certainly the inference of both De Certeau and Maffesoli is that consumers practice are tactics of the weak, since they have no investment in the ownership of the property that they employ to entertain and amuse themselves. For De Certeau (1984) this is equivalent to poaching in the masters grounds, carrying away only that which is most useful and constructing something out of the fragments. Such a view, as echoed in the work
403
of Jenkins (1992), has been very influential in fan studies and in celebrating the creativity of media audiences in deriving uses and meanings from mainstream TV and film products (Fiske 1989a,b). Here the connection to classic accounts of youth subcultures is not severed, since the marginal and disenfranchised are somehow able to challenge the hegemony of the media system. The problem with such accounts is that they are theorised exclusively from the position of consumption and they thereby reproduce the distance between production and consumption, as a power divide. They also assume that since consumers have no property stake or control over the content of media, the media commodities produced cannot possibly make meaningful connections to them, rather meaning emerges from the choice and combination of often unrelated products, rather than commodity design itself. What is interesting about the veritable explosion of studies into ordinary consumer behaviour undertaken by a range of scholars recently (see Campbell 1995; Lury 1996; Miller 1995; Mackay 1997), is the evident lack of conflict between product design and the everyday role and uses that objects play in the lives of consumers. This is not to suggest that products and their uses are entirely circumscribed by their marketing and sale but rather that consumers are able to develop a number of everyday uses and practices that are entirely compatible with such products. It may be the case, as theorists like Hermes (1995, 15) argue, that the search for specific types of meaning in the consumption of media commodities is something of chimera since ordinary media consumption, including music, is inherently meaningless in itself. Rather, it provides just one of a number of ways to pass the time or offers a background soundtrack to other more important activities. Support for this idea is to be found in two recent studies conducted with school pupils, in the age range 14 16 (Williams 2001) and young people, 1619 years, in various public venues were music featured (Laughey 2006). Such evidence has lead Laughey to argue that the use of music does not fit into spectacular systems of signification that are opposed to dominant social and cultural forces rather it is situated in the localised interactions that typify the ordinary, routine and mundane circumstances of young peoples everyday existence (2006, 3). However, it remains a problem that studies of music consumption, whether seen as meaningful or meaningless activity, lack an account of the media culture industries themselves and the music commodity, in particular. As the work into cultural intermediaries suggests there is also a need to consider the informational and image flow that surrounds that commodity and how is promoted and marketed. While it is clearly the case that production does not determine patterns of consumption what it does do is to provide genre formats in which products are recognisable to audiences (Negus 1995, 388 93). One of the issues that remains obscured by the lack of a joined-up theory of the interconnection between production, mediation and consumption, is how genre formatting enables or constrains actually existing practices and the extent to which changes in such formats,
via the emergence of hybrid or subgenre categories, arises from within or without the music industry organisation? Conclusion: What sort of research needs to be done? As Steven Miles has argued the structural approach tends to draw a picture of young people as vulnerable victims subject to the ups and downs of a market economy, the cultural approach all too often venerates young people as powerful consumers of music, fashion and sub-cultural life (2003, 171). Miles goes on to suggest that youth consumption is a mediation phenomena (Holland, cited in Miles 2003, 176) in providing the arena within which the individual negotiates the structural. But Miles fails to offer an account of how such an arena is circumscribed by a process of media commoditisation, whereby the cultural production and consumption of symbolic objects, like music CDs or downloads, attempt to anticipate the meanings and uses of recorded sounds for the young. Our review of the established theoretical approaches to such a process, through production, mediation and consumption, reveals that no one moment can explain the process fully, although the production of cultures perspective and its account of a circuit of culture comes the closest to offering a model that shows how design, representation and marketing can anticipate the range of possible uses and meanings a commodity, like the Sony Walkman (Du Gay et al. 1997), can have for its users. The successful launch and lifestyling potential of the Apple iPod (The Economist 2004) and its varied uses by youth consumers (as fashion accessory, download storage, mobile music library, activity file resource, etc.) is a more contemporary example of this process. But ultimately, the iPod could have been an expensive market failure (and, in fact, was anticipated to be so by commentators). The fact that it wasnt is less to do with the work of cultural intermediaries in anticipating the range of ways in which it could be incorporated into youth lifestyles and more to do with how its use allowed the interconnecting of various types of media (internet file sharing and download sites) and music sounds in a rapidly changing media environment. It is the ability to negotiate this newly emergent mediated landscape that distinguishes the age-group who most utilise MP3 technologies in their music consumption behaviour. Short Biography Andy R. Brown teaches modules on Audiences Studies, Youth Music Cultures, the Music Industry and the economics and politics of Popular Culture. His most recent research has investigated Heavy Metal t-shirt cultures, Global metal fandom on the Internet and the contemporary Metal music magazine in the UK and the USA. This on-going work has been disseminated as a series of conference papers and recent publications.
405
Note
* Correspondence address: Senior Lecturer, Department of Media, Film and Cultural Studies, Bath Spa University, Bath BA2 9BN, UK. Email: a.brown@bathspa.ac.uk.
References
Adorno, Theodor 1990/1941. On Popular Music. Pp. 30114 in On Record, edited by Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin. London, UK: Routledge. Adorno, Theodor 1991. On the Fetish Character of Music and the Regression of Listening. Pp. 26 53 in The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, edited by J. M. Bernstein. London, UK: Routledge. Alderman, John 2001. Sonic Boom: Napster, MP3, and the New Pioneers of Music. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press. Bennett, Andy 1999. Subcultures or Neo-Tribes? Rethinking the Relationship Between Youth, Style and Musical Taste. Sociology 33: 599 617. Bennett, Andy and Kahn-Harris, Keith (eds) 2004. After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Bennett, Andy, Jason Toynbee and Barry Shank 2006. The Popular Music Studies Reader. London, UK: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre 2002/1979. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, UK: Routledge. Brown, Andy R. 2003a. The problem of Subcultural markets: Towards a Critical Political Economy of the Manufacture, Marketing and Consumption of Subcultural Products Paper presented at Scenes, Subcultures or Tribes? BSA Youth Studies Conference, University of Northampton, UK, 2123 September. Brown, Andy R. 2003b. Heavy Metal and Subcultural Theory: A Paradigmatic Case of Neglect. Pp. 305 26 in The Post-Subcultures Reader Oxford, edited by David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl. New York, NY: Berg Press. Brown, Andy R. 2007. Rethinking the Subcultural Commodity: Exploring Heavy Metal T-Shirt Culture(s). Pp. 6378 in Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes, edited by Paul Hodkinson and Wolgang Deicke. London, UK: Routledge. Budd, Mike, Robert E. Entman and Clay Steinman 1990. The Affirmative Character of U.S. Cultural Studies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7: 169 84. Burkart, Patrick and Tom McCourt 2006. Digital Music Wars: Ownership and Control of the Celestial Jukebox. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Campbell, Colin 1995. The Sociology of Consumption. Pp. 96126 in Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies, edited by David Miller. London, UK: Routledge. CCCS 1978. Women Take Issue. London, UK: Hutchinson. Clarke, Gary 1990/1981. Defending Ski-Jumpers: A Critique of Theories of Youth Subcultures. Pp. 81 96 in On Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word, edited by Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin. London, UK: Routledge. Cohen, Phil 2003. Mods and Shockers: Youth Cultural Studies in Britain. Pp. 29 54 in Researching Youth, edited by Andy Bennett, Andy Cieslik and Steven Miles. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Cohen, Phil and Pat Ainley 2000. In the Country of the Blind?: Youth Studies and Cultural Studies in Britain. Journal of Youth Studies 3: 79 95. Condit, Celeste M. 1989. The rhetorical limits of polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communications 6: 103 22. Corner, John 1996. Reappraising Reception: Aims, Concepts and Methods. Pp. 280 304 in Mass Media and Society, edited by James Curran and Michael Gurevitch. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Corner, John 1999. Critical Ideas in Television Studies. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. De Certeau, Michelle 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Delaney, Shelia 2005. Making a Fortune from the Future: Cool-hunters Predict whats Next in Entertainment. Pp. 4 6 in The Guardian Guide, Saturday September 3rd.

Du Gay, Paul (ed.) 1997. Production of culture/Cultures of Production. London, UK: Sage Open University. Du Gay, Paul, Stuart Hall, Linda Janes, Hugh Mackay and Keith Negus 1997. Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London, UK: Sage Open University. The Economist 2004. The meaning of the iPod. June 10th. Fiske, John 1989a. Understanding Popular Culture. London, UK: Routledge. Fiske, John 1989b. Popular Culture. London, UK: Routledge. Frith, Simon 1978. The Sociology of Rock. London, UK: Constable. Frith, Simon 1983. Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock n Roll. London, UK: Constable. Frith, Simon and Andrew Goodwin (eds) 1990. On Record. London, UK: Routledge. Furlong, Andy and Fred Cartmel 2007. YoungPeople and Social Change: New Perspectives. New York and Maidenhead, UK: McGraw Hill and Open University Press. Garofalo, Reebee 1999. From publishing to MP3: Music and Industry in the Twentieth Century. American Music 17: 318 54. Gendron, Bernard 1986. Theodore Adorno Meets the Cadillacs. Pp. 18 36 in Studies in Entertainment, edited by Tania Modleski. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Gray, Ann 1992. Video Playtime. London, UK: Routledge. Hall, Stuart 1993/1974. The Television Discourse: Encoding and Decoding. Pp. 28 34 in Studying Culture, edited by Ann Gray and Jim McGuigan. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Hall, Stuart 2003/1980. Encoding/Decoding. Pp. 5164 in Critical Readings: Media and Audiences, edited by Victoria Nightingale and Karen Ross. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Hall, Stuart and Tony Jefferson (eds) 1976. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war Britain. London, UK: Hutchinson. Harris, John 2006. The Vision Thing. The Guardian, 11 October, pp. 6 11. Hebdige, Dick 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen. Hermes, Joke 1995. Reading Womens Magazines: An Analysis of Everyday Media Use. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hermes, Joke 1997. Gender and Media Studies: No Woman, No Cry. Pp. 6595 in International Media Research: A Critical Survey, edited by John Corner, Philip Schlesinger and Roger Silverstone. London, UK: Routledge. Hesmondhalgh, David 2005. Subcultures, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above. Journal of Youth Studies 8: 21 40. Hesmondhalgh, David 2007. The Cultural Industries. London, UK: Sage. Hesmondhalgh, David and Keith Negus (eds) 2002. Popular Music Studies. London, UK: Arnold. Hirsch, Paul M. 1990/1972. Processing Fads and Fashions: an Organisational Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems. Pp. 12739 in On Record, edited by Simopn Frith and Andrew Goodwin. London, UK: Routledge. Hobson, Dorothy 1982. Crossroads: Drama of a Soap Opera. London, UK: Hutchinson. Hodkinson, Paul and Deicke, Wolfgang (eds) 2007. Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes. London, UK: Routledge. Hollands, Robert 1990. The Long Transition. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Hull, Geoffrey P. 2000. The Structure of the Recorded Music Industry. Pp. 76 98 in The Media and Entertainment Industries: Readings in Mass Communications, edited by Albert N. Greco. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bryce. Jenkins, Henry 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, Steve 2002. Music that moves: Popular Music, Distribution and Network Technologies. Cultural Studies 16: 213 32. Kusek, David and Gerd Leonhard 2005. The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution. Boston, MA: Berklee Press. Lanchester, John 2006. A Bigger Bang. Guardian Weekend, 4 November, pp. 16 36. Laughey, Dan 2006. Music and Youth Culture. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
407
Lewis, Justin 1996/1985. Decoding Television News. Pp. 40 52 in Television Times, edited by John Corner and Sylvia Harvey. London, UK: Arnold. Leyshon, Andrew, Peter Webb, Shaun French, Nigel Thrift and Louise Crewe 2005. On the Reproduction of the Musical Economy after the Internet. Media, Culture and Society 27: 177209. Liebes, Tamar and Elihu Katz 1993. The Export of Meaning: Cross Cultural Readings of Dallas. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. Livingstone, Sonia 2002. Young People and New Media; Childhood and the Changing Media Environment. London, UK: Sage. Longhurst, Brian 2007. Popular Music and Society. Oxford, UK: Polity, 2nd edn. Lury, Celia 1996. ConsumerCulture. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Mackay, Hugh (ed.) 1997. Consumption and Everday Life. London, UK: Sage Open University. Maffesoli, Michelle 1996. The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society. London, UK: Sage. McCourt, Tom and Patrick Burkart 2003. When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-Line Music Distribtuion. Media, Culture & Society 25: 330 50. McGuigan, Jim 1992. Cultural Populism. London, UK: Routledge. McRobbie, Angela 1994. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. London, UK: Routledge. Merriden, Trevor 2001. Irresistible Forces: The business legacy of Napster and the growth of the Underground Internet. London, UK: Capstone. Mewton, Conrad 2001. All You Need to Know about Music and the Internet Revolution. London, UK: Sanctuary. Middleton, Richard 1990. Studying Popular Music. Buckingham, UK: Open University. Miles, Steven 2003. Researching Young People as Consumers: Can and Should We Ask Them Why? Pp. 170 85 in Researching Youth, edited by Andy Bennett, Andy Cieslik and Steven Miles. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmilan. Miles, Steven, Chris Dallas and Vivienne Burr 1998. Fitting in and Sticking Out: Consumption, Consumer Meanings and the Construction of Young Peoples Identities. Journal of Youth Studies 1: 81 96. Miller, Daniel (ed.) 1995. Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies. London, UK: Routledge. Morley, David 1986. Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London, UK, and New York, NY: Comedia, Routledge. Negus, Keith 1995. Popular Music: Between Celebration and Despair. Pp. 37993 in Questioning the Media, edited by John Downing, Ali Mohammadi and Anabelle SrebernyMohammadi. London, UK: Sage. Negus, Keith 1996. Popular Music in Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Negus, Keith 2002. The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies 16: 50115. Nixon, Sean 1997. Circulating Culture. Pp. 177220 in Production of Culture/Cultures of Production, edited by Paul Du Gay. London, UK: Sage. Nixon, Sean and Paul Du Gay 2002. Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries? Cultural Studies 16: 495 500. Osgerby, Bill 2004. Youth Media. London, UK: Routledge. Peterson, Richard A. 1994. Cultural Studies through the Production Perspective: Progress and Prospects. Pp. 16389 in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives, edited by Diane Crane. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Sanjek, Russell and David Sanjek 1991. The American Popular Music Business in the 20th Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schroder, Kim C. 1994. Audience Semiotics, Interpretive Communities and the Ethnographic Turn in Media Research. Media, Culture and Society 16: 337 47. Shooman, Joe 2007. Whose Space Is It Anyway? An Unofficial Guide to the Sites That Changed the World. Church Stretton, Shropshire: Independent Music Press. Shuker, Roy 2001. Understanding Popular Music, 2nd edn. London, UK: Routledge. Stevenson, Nick 2002. Understanding Media Cultures. London, UK: Sage.

Strinati, Dominic 1995. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London, UK: Routledge. Thornton, Sarah 1995. Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Wall, Tim 2003. Studying Popular Music Culture. London, UK: Arnold. Weinzierl, Rupert and Muggleton, David (eds) 2003. The Post-Subcultures Reader. London, UK: Berg. Williams, Christine 2001. Does it Really Matter? Young People and Popular Music. Popular Music 20: 223 42. Willis, Paul 1978. Profane Culture. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Willis, Paul 1990. Common Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Willis, Paul and Team 1990. Moving Culture: Symbolic Work at Play in the Everyday Cultures of the Young. London, UK: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Popular Music Cultures, Media and Youth

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Popular Music Cultures, Media and Youth

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Sociology Compass 2/2 (2008): 388408, 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00103.

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

390 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

392 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

394 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

396 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

398 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

400 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

402 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

404 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

406 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

408 Popular Music Media and Youth Consumption

Você também pode gostar