Style: the Content of Subculture (w/Ilze Lāce)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Style: the Content of Subculture (w/Ilze Lāce)

on

  • 2,750 views

Meanings and changes in Subcultural tastes in Latvia 2002-2010.

Meanings and changes in Subcultural tastes in Latvia 2002-2010.
Presented at conference "Youth (Sub)cultures in Changing Societies " in Tallinn, Estonia, 2011.02.04.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,750
Views on SlideShare
1,012
Embed Views
1,738

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
7
Comments
0

2 Embeds 1,738

http://estudijas.lu.lv 1736
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Probably the first book on subject i bought..
  • ... different life styles, leisure time activities and classless consumption ... act s of individual choice, not a result of play of ‘big’ social factors like class, gender, ethnicity or others . today's youth identities are more personalized, fragmented and free-floating
  • ... different life styles, leisure time activities and classless consumption ... act s of individual choice, not a result of play of ‘big’ social factors like class, gender, ethnicity or others . today's youth identities are more personalized, fragmented and free-floating
  • At the same time, opposite opinions appear, that can be called ‘neo-structuralist’, and they criticize the post-subculturalist approach and methods, arguing that the elimination of the structural approach in sociology is premature, and that the critics of the CCCS can be criticized for the same ‘weaknesses’ they were pointing out to the Birmingham school: insufficient empirical basis, focusing on spectacular and minor subcultures and generalization of the findings to the wider public. (Shildrick&MacDonald 2006)
  • devoted to testing hypothesis about social determinants of musical taste. Because sample is homogenous in respect to social class – respondents are 15-18 years old pupils of Latvia’s capital Rīga (see chapter “ Methodology ” for details), there are just two main factors of social difference to put on test: gender and ethnicity.
  • In both cases, subcultures have mostly been studied ethnographically. Our research is based on quantitative methods. We are exploring musical subcultures from the listeners’ side. Our aim is to test some assumptions about the way musical tastes of youngsters are made, what they are made of, and what we can say about it’s ‘subcultural element’. Analysis is based on data from two surveys of Rīga secondary school pupils (2002 and 2010) on their favorite musical genres and performers. The data analysis is mainly conducted by applying positivist techniques (typical quantitative methods), to analyze data we got from surveys, complemented by the ‘insider’ approach (ethnographic methods), to explain certain tendencies or uncertainties we found in data doing statistical calculations
  • There are two main research questions which resemble to the theoretical discussion mentioned above: HOLOLOGY / POSTMODERN understanding of subcultures among youth is reified and manufactured. Everybody knows and uses term ‘subculture’, we can see it frequently in local media and hear it even in everyday language. It is common to use the concept of ‘subcultures talking about young people, keeping in mind all it’s rebellious character and political meanings. But when we look at ‘traditional’ subcultures ( punk, hip hop, etc. ) through the empirical lens, we see that these subcultures already are socialized for a very long time through the pop culture industry and even by the educational system. In relation to music, all these genres are associated with the ‘classic pop-rock’ performers or international ‘big names’, so it is rather rare to find rebellion or political consciousness in these musical communities among people listening to these musical genres. In most cases, these are virtual communities and styles (sets of music listening, dress, behavior, language, etc.) presented and facilitated by the mass market, and there is barely different cultural or political behavior inherent in them.
  • Genres and styles: overview of tastes . Table 2. Most popular genres in 2002 and 2010 (%) .
  • , indicating the importance of dancing and clubbing in lives of young people. In this respect, a significant result is a slight decrease in popularity of hip hop , which is the only statistically significant difference in the popularity of the most frequently, mentioned genres in 2002 and 2010. A possible explanation of this decline might be, that hip hop is not hype, as it was 10 years ago when it became really popular in Latvia. Hip hop has transformed from the music of ‘our generation’ to ‘classics’ and the music of another (older) generation.
  • Same / rather similar in 2010.
  • we will concentrate on six most frequently chosen so called ‘subcultural genres’, i.e., Hip hop, rap; Alternative, indie; Nu Metal, Korn family; Heavy Metal; Techno; Punk, hardcore (2002) and Hip hop, rap; Alternative, indie; Metal; Reggae; Punk; DnB (2010). Table 3 ‘The most popular ‘subcultural genres, %’ In general, no significant changes can be noticed, comparing data from 2001 and 2010. Hip hop is the dominating genre, others are considerably less popular, and the frequencies do not differ much, except for Alternative, indie un Reggae , which have gained popularity. The growing popularity of the first can be explained by expansion of global (western) mass culture in Latvia during the last 10 years. In western mass culture, Alternative, indie is an already established genre and has a big and stable segment of youth musical tastes. If we look historically, the terms Alternative, indie got a rather wide use in Latvia only in the 90ies, as a consequence of a late joining to the ‘global information space’ (Western cultural market). Thanks to the internet and more and more globalized local mass media, local audiences became more fragmented, and this is just one of the ‘new’ emerging major styles. The main audience of Alternative, indie typically is white middle class listener (atsauce??), and the general population of our surveys (secondary school pupils in Riga) conforms to this description perfectly, so Latvian kids have simply finally joined the taste-group their western peers have had for a longer period. The story with changes in popularity of reggae could be explained in similar way. There are no apparent internal social or cultural factors which could have contributed to such a growing appeal for reggae. We do not have a tradition of musical reggae scene, although the number of raga/ska bands is increasing. Neither do we have any famous or influential reggae stars. The appeal for reggae must have come from the image of freestyle and teenagers’ growing interest in and availability of different kinds of psychoactive substances.[1] During the last ten years, Latvian cultural market has flooded not only with the old western symbolic goods, like musical genres and meanings, but our shops and supermarkets have been filled also with associated tangible goods. In the case of reggae, these are all kinds of Jamaican and rasta related goods, banners and synthetic dreadlocks being among the most popular, and with all kinds of accessories associated with mary jane consumption. Obviously, these shops appeared first in the capital city of Riga, expanding later to other towns. After opening of the first shop in 2008, some 30 or more followed shortly, selling then ‘legal drugs’ (different mixes, salvia , kratom , etc.) and full range of accessories, starting from all kinds of pipes and water bongs, to instructions for use and weighting equipment. [1] Research reveals that one third of Rīga’ pupils have tried marijuana. (Koroļeva et al. 2009)
  • devoted to testing hypothesis about social determinants of musical taste. Because sample is homogenous in respect to social class – respondents are 15-18 years old pupils of Latvia’s capital Rīga (see chapter “Methodology” for details), there are just two main factors of social difference to put on test: gender and ethnicity. P revious data analysis of the same data set from year 2002 has shown significant differences in tastes, when controlled for these two variables. (Daugavietis 2005)
  • Comparing the popularity of subcultural genres in 2002 and 2010, we see that gender based differences have almost disappeared. If the data of the first survey (2002) shows significant differences in four cases out of six most popular subcultural genres (see bolded in Table 4. ‘Similarities and differences in subcultural taste: genre by gender (%)’), then in 2010 there are just one such case – metal music is more often preferred by boys. From typical top40 consumers girls moved towards different alternative styles, except still masculine hard and metal music. Alternatively, we can take another angle, hypothesizing about changes of the ‘alternative’ styles: they have in the 10 year period moved towards top40 format or / and more feminine audience, with alternative singers-stars like Avril Lavigne and others
  • Even though all of the genres have origin outside of Latvia, many local scenes in Latvia are somehow ethnically homogenous, exclusively ‘latvian’ or ‘russian’. There can be a certain scene dominated by Latvians or Russians, or there can be two musically similar scenes, but one is ‘Latvian’, another – ‘Russian’. Latvian speaking community is larger and they have got strong institutional and political support[1]. Usually ‘Latvian scenes’ are bigger and more diverse, while Russian speaking community often does not have enough resources (human and political) to make critical mass for building and sustaining smaller ‘sub-genral’ (alternative, subcultural) scenes. [1] For example, in Latvia Latvian is the only official language, which means a lot of restrictions to other languages in all spheres of public space, like broadcasting, educational system, advertising, mass media, etc.
  • In the research on musical tastes and consumption traditionally a closed list of genres/ styles is presented to the respondent. While designing this survey, we used also open-ended questions, this methodological solution being based on the assumption that it would widen the options of discovering the latent classification principles of musical tastes considerably, and will contribute to understanding of the meanings respondents ascribe to the musical genres and styles presented to them by the researcher. (Daugavietis 2006) The data analysis presented in this chapter is based on crosstabulation of data in two variables, one of them being the question about the preferred genres (respondent had to choose five out of 33 or 30 genres listed with an option to write his of her own version), and open-ended question on favorite performers (respondents had to write any composer or performer). The assumption we had at the beginning of analysis was that understanding of subcultures among youth is reified and manufactured. Hence, if a respondent states, that his or her favorite musical genre is punk, hip hop or any other traditional, long established subcultural genre, it most probably is an image socialised through popular culture and mass media rather than the substance that we refer to as „subcultures” and that includes rebellion, marginality, radical politics and similar. To verify the assumption, we analysed each of the genres mentioned before, confronting them with the favorite performers mentioned by respondents, thus exploring the contents which is associated with the genre by the secondary school students surveyed.
  • Of these, strictly speaking, only some can be considered as representatives of the genre; mostly the performers named are international (or local) popular music ‘mega-stars’, which cannot be associated with this subculture. This can most probably be explained by the popularity of the genre (in 2002, it was the most popular), so a lot of consumers of conventional pop music have probably named it, too. and these include considerably higher share of the ‘true’ representatives of the genre, although other are represented, too. Interestingly, the respondents surveyed in 2010 more often name local Hip hop, rap performers, like Guf, Многоточие, Centr, St1m, Каста from Russia or Sekkta, Gustavo, Kreisais Krasts and others form Latvia. Having in mind that hp hop, rap in 2010 is not that popular as it was in 2002, but local artists in the genre are named more frequently, we can assume that this indicated the growing interest of local audiences in the evolving local scene [1] . [1] During these eight years the local hip hop scene has grown considerably. If the first Latvian performers and records who became popular in wider circles (Ozols, S.T.A. and others) getting wider popularity and forming wider scene appeared in 2000-2002, then today the scene has grown and widened outside the borders of some hip hop artists in the capital city. A similar expansion of the hip hop scene both regarding the number of performers and the impact on the whole pop industry, has taken place in Russia during the past decade.
  • Liekas, abi klāsteri neatšķiras pēc skolas valodas, bet pēc dzimuma.
  • Based on these results, some significant conclusions can be drawn, and some new assumptions developed. Two most important are as follows. The tastes of traditional subcultures ( punk, metal, rock, hip hop , etc.) are part of mass culture that most often is labeled as “alternative”. The content of this “alternative” taste is made by the performers of the genre with the highest rotation in the global and local musical media. Analysis of the “subcultural consumption” does not reveal any substantial differences from the mass cultural consumption, neither in consumption channels, nor in contents; considerable overlaping between them can be noticed. The share of respondents whose musical tastes might suggest their affiliation with ‘real’ subcultures (because their favorite performers are outside the everyday mass media rotation or are not represented there at all) is statistically insignificant. In the case of the most popular subcultural genres, locality might be of importance. There is a tendency for a local consumer to support local scenes, especially if the scenes “grow” and are incorporated in the local pop music industry, in other words, there is a demand for ‘locality’.
  • the local / global analysis SECIN: The Russian speaking pupils have more frequently named performers from Russia than Latvian students – Latvian performers, in 2002 the difference was more than double, but in 2010 it was considerably less explicit.
  • the audiences of subcultural genres: the frequency of mentioning local bands in 2002 did not differ from the average in the sample, except for fans of metal who had named local bands less frequently (in lesser extent it was true also to the a lternative, indie ). The fans of subcultural genres in 2010 have, in some cases, more frequently named local performers than the ‘average’ respondent. In case of Latvian speaking pupils, these are audiences of hip hop and punk , but for the Russian speaking pupils these are the fans of hip hop and dnb . In the case of hip hop , local performers in general have been named twice as frequently as general. **************** we continue the analysis of variance (changes or stability) in popularity of genres, applying in addition the local / global division of the scenes of the favorite performers. Performers were coded as belonging to the local (Latvian / Russian) or global music. The average frequency of naming local performers among five favorites was 1,3 (2002) and 0,8 (2010), meaning that in 2002, each respondent named more than one local performer, while in 2010 the frequency was less than one local performer per respondent. The Russian speaking pupils have more frequently named performers from Russia than Latvian students – Latvian performers, in 2002 the difference was more than double, but in 2010 it was considerably less explicit. If the audiences of subcultural genres are analyzed separately, the frequency of mentioning local bands in 2002 did not differ from the average in the sample, except for fans of metal who had named local bands less frequently (in lesser extent it was true also to the a lternative, indie ). This can most probably be explained by the presence of the ‘international metal monsters’. Even though there are comparatively wide metal scenes in Latvian and Russia, none of the bands can compete with AC/DC, Metallica or Children of Bodom, for example. The fans of subcultural genres in 2010 have, in some cases, more frequently named local performers than the ‘average’ respondent. In case of Latvian speaking pupils, these are audiences of hip hop and punk , but for the Russian speaking pupils these are the fans of hip hop and dnb . In the case of hip hop , local performers in general have been named twice as frequently as general. Comparing the data on 2002 and 2010, changing appeal of local music can be identified. Both among Latvian and Russian speaking audiences, growing interest in particular subcultural performers can be observed, opposing the general loss of interest in local music among all respondents. Latvian and Russian speaking pupils share growing interest in local hip hop performers (Latvian speaking audiences expressing appeal to Latvian hip hop performers, Russian speaking pupils showing interest in hip hop performers from Russia.). A conclusion can be drawn that the subcultural genres are more and more converging with the local scenes, which, apparently, have grown in number and impact during these years.

Style: the Content of Subculture (w/Ilze Lāce) Style: the Content of Subculture (w/Ilze Lāce) Presentation Transcript

  • Meanings and changes in Subcultural tastes in Latvia 2002-2010 Jānis Daugavietis & Ilze Lāce (Rīga, Latvija) At Youth (Sub)cultures in Changing Societies This work has been supported by the Tallinn 2-4 February 2011 European Social Fund within the project«Support for Doctoral Studies at University of Latvia».
  • Image of subcultures • rebellious character and political meanings? • socialized for a very long time the pop culture industry, the educational system • ‘classic pop-rock’ performers and ‘big names’ • virtual communities and styles without distinctive cultural or political behavior Understanding and use of traditional subcultures - reified and manufactured
  • Structure1. Theory Subcultures, Post-subcultures and back2. Methodology & data3. Analysis - Social factors - Contents - Comparison of 2002&20104. Conclusions View slide
  • Subcultures, Post-subcultures and back (1)Two theoretical approaches :  ‘traditional’ (structural) delinquency, resistance, subordination, [working] class, opposition, deviance, non-conformism, marginalization (associated most with CCCS)  ‘postmodern’ taste cultures, scenes, tribes, club culture, postmodern subcultures, etc.homology - Marxist tradition, CCCS* and Pierre Bourdieu** vspostmodern interpretation of forming social identities (including tastes) *** * Clarke, J. et. al. (2003) ‘Subcultures, cultures and class’, in Hall, S., and Jefferson, T. (eds. ) Resistance through Rituals, London: Routledge. ** “Distinction..” (‘La distinction. Critique sociale du jugement’ 1979) **** Bennett, Andy (1999) ‘Subcultures or neo-tribes? Rethinking the relationship between youth, style and musical taste’, Sociology vol:33 iss:3. Muggleton, David (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style, London; New York: Berg. View slide
  • Subcultures, Post-subcultures and back (2) Explanations of tastes: a) social represents social tensions, contradictions... stable, straight b) ‘individualistic’ individual, unique, changing, unstable, diverseCritique of the post-subculturalism:  the elimination of the social structures  insufficient empirical basis  focus on spectacular and minor subcultures  generalization of the findings * * Shildrick, T. A. and MacDonald, R. (2006) In defence of subculture: young people, leisure and social divisions, Journal of Youth Studies, 9 (2), pp.125-140.
  • Socio-political context of Latvia 2,4 million inhabitants One big city – capital Rīga (0,7 mill.) Two main and almost equal language communities – Latvian and Russian Divided educational system – Latvian language schools and minority language schools (mostly - Russian) 2/3 of Rīga – Russians Since 2004 ‘school reform’ – 2/3 of classes in minority secondary schools are in Latvian or bilingually Culturally – segrageted communities*  * Tabuns, Aivars ed. (2006) Kultūras. Jaunieši. Mediji, Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte.
  • Approach, methods, dataEthnographic studies and / vs quantitative researchWe apply:  positivist techniques (quantitative survey, statistical data analysis) analyze  complemented by the ‘insider’ approach explanations, hypothesis, speculationsData from two representative sample surveys of Rīgasecondary school pupils (2002 & 2010)  more than 400 students surveyed (each year)  both Latvian and Russian schools represented  average age ~17 Data on their favorite:  genres  performers
  • Research questions1. The impact of structural (social) factors on (musical) taste: gender and ethnicity2. The changes in students’ musical tastes during eight years period?3. The logic of construction of tastes OR What’s inside the ‘black box’ of ‘subcultures’?
  • Most popular genres (%) 2002 2010Hip hop, rap 56 Club, dance 49Pop-, Partymusic, Top 40 54 Rock 45Disco 44 Pop music 43Rock 40 Hip hop, rap 40Classical 20 RnB 39World Music 19 Alternative, indie 27Electronic 19 Electronic, techno 24Latin 19 Top 40 24Alternative, indie 18 Metal 21Nu Metal, Korn family 17 Reggae 17Heavy Metal 16 Disco 16Techno 14 Classical 16Punk, hardcore 11 Punk 15Schlager 11 DnB 15Britpop 9 Blues 13Death Metal 8 Latino (salsa, rumba...) 11Jazz 7 Hardcore 9Music hall 6Blues 5Industrial 5 n=417 n=347
  • Genres and styles: overview of tastes Slight decrease in popularity of hip hopThree wider styles or dominant groups of listeners:  pop  rock  hip hop
  • Cluster analysis of genres and artists (2002) rock, subcult. hip hop pop
  • The most popular ‘subcultural genres’ (%) 2002 2010Hip hop, rap 56 Hip hop, rap 40Alternative, indie 18 Alternative, indie 27Nu Metal, Korn family 17 Metal 21Heavy Metal 16 Reggae 17Techno 14 Punk 15Punk, hardcore 11 DnB 15 n=417 n=347 Alternative, indie - one of the ‘new’ emerging major styles Reggae - the image of freestyle and teenagers’ growing interest in (and availability) of different kinds of psychoactive substances. Latvian cultural market flooded with related symbols and goods.10 years of broadband home internet - expansion and diversification ofglobal (western) mass culture. Further fragmentation of tastes?
  • Social divisions at playSignificant differences in taste: gender based choices (2002) * Girls Boys “Electronic”, “Nu Metal / Korn “Pop-, Partymusic, Top 40”, “Latino”, family”, “Heavy Metal”, Korn, Ruki Verh, Pink, Madonna, Rammstein, Metallica, “Hip Shakira, Tumsa, “Pop genres”, Hop”, “Subcultural genres”, “female artists” “hardest rock” (factor) Conceptualisation : Conceptualisation : Popularity Subcultures “Lightness” “Heaviness” Gender Aggression * Daugavietis, Jānis (2005) ‘Rīgas vidusskolēnu muzikālās gaumes: atšķirīgais un kopīgais’ (unpublished master thesis), Rīga: University of Latvia.
  • Subcultural taste: genre by gender (%) 2002 girls boys 2010 girls boys Hip hop, rap 55 59 Hip hop, rap 38 42 Alternative, indie 16 20 Alternative, indie 29 24 Nu Metal, Korn family 11 24 Punk 16 15 Heavy Metal 10 24 Reggae 15 18 Techno 10 21 Metal 14 29 Punk, hardcore 8 16 DnB 13 17 • Gender based differences have almost disappeared four cases in 2002 / one in 2010 • From typical top40 consumers girls moved towards different alternative styles, except still masculine hard and metal music • .. or changes of the ‘alternative’ styles: they have moved towards top40 format or / and more feminine audience
  • Subcultural taste: genre by school language (%) 2002 Latvian Russian 2010 Latvian RussianHip hop, rap 57 56 Hip hop, rap 39 42Alternative, indie 26 11 Alternative, indie 32 21Nu Metal, Kornfamily 23 11 Metal 22 20Heavy Metal 18 15 Reggae 19 13Techno 11 17 Punk 15 15Punk, hardcore 10 12 DnB 10 22 • Many local scenes are ethnically homogenous - exclusively ‘latvian’ or ‘russian’ • Usually ‘Latvian scenes’ are bigger and more diverse • Russian speaking community often does not have enough resources for building and sustaining smaller ‘sub-genral’ (alternative, subcultural) scenes
  • The Content of Subcultural tastes‘Traditional’ survey - a closed list of genres/ stylesWe used also open-ended question: “write your 5favorite artists”the latent classifications and understanding of the meanings respondentsascribe to the musical genres and styles presented to them* • Crosstabulation of data in two variables - genres & performers exploring the contents of genre: confronting it with the performers mentioned • Cluster analysis explores ‘empirical structure’ of the data, groups & classifies cases or variables with similar values * Daugavietis, Jānis (2006) ‘Muzikālās gaumes latento klasifikāciju izpēte’, LU Raksti: Socioloģija 701, pp. 71-82, Rīga: University of Latvia.
  • Genres & Artists 2002 & 2010• Hip hop, rap listeners:Eminem; Nelly&Kelly; Linkin Park; Limp Bizkit; Pink; Руки Вверх; Korn; Rammstein; JenniferLopez; Shakira; Madonna; Britney Spears; Taty (2002) and David Guetta; Bob Marley; LinkinPark; Beyonce; Eminem; Guf; Prāta Vētra; Akon; Rihanna; Armin van Buuren; DJ Tiesto;Inna; Timbaland (2010)• Hip hop, rap fans (having the genre as the first choice):Eminem; Nelly&Kelly; Limp Bizkit; Linkin Park; Pink; Cypress Hill; Ja Rule; Руки Вверх; D-12;Korn; Jennifer Lopez; Prodigy (2002) and Eminem; Guf; Многоточие; Centr; David Guetta;Linkin Park; МакSим; Sekkta; St1m; Timbaland; 2Pac (2010)• Alternative, indie:Korn; Linkin Park; Eminem; POD; Limp Bizkit; Nirvana; System Of A Down; Metallica;Radiohead; Marilyn Manson; Prodigy; Puddle Of Mud; Rammstein; Земфира (2002) andLinkin Park; Prāta Vētra; AC/DC; Bob Marley; Kings of Leon; Nickleback; Papa Roach; BonJovi; Guns’n’Roses; Billy Talent; Blink 182; Coldplay; DJ Tiesto; Muse (2010)• Heavy Metal (2002) Rammstein; Linkin Park; Eminem; Korn; Nirvana; Limp Bizkit;Metallica; Marilyn Manson and Metal (2010) Rammstein; Metallica; Nirvana; Korn; LimpBizkit; Marilyn Manson; Sepultura; Godsmack• Techno (2002) Eminem; Руки Вверх; Brooklyn Bounce; Nelly&Kelly; Linkin Park; Prodigy;DJ Aligator (Project); Rammstein; Limp Bizkit and DnB (2010) David Guetta; DJ Tiesto;Armin van Buuren; Guf; Justin Timberlake; Linkin Park; Noize MC; Rihanna; Eminem
  • Alternative, rock n=151 Popular music, n=196  Rock (89%)  Club, dance (75%)  Alternative, indie  Hip hop, rap (55%) (50%)  RnB (54%)  Metal (38%)  Pop music (49%) 3 of the most  Pop music (35%) popular performers  Top 40 (35%) are shared in both  Punk (29%) taste groups  Electro, techno (33%)AC/DC Metallica, Guns’n’ David Guetta, Armin van Linkin ParkRoses, Papa Roach, Buuren, DJ Tiesto, Prāta VētraMuse, Bon Jovi, Kings of Rihanna, Eminem, Lady Bob MarleyLeon, Led Zeppelin.. Gaga..
  • ‘Light alternative’ and ‘clubbers’ seem to be more ‘subcultural’ by genres than by performers POP MUSIC „LIGHT” ALTERNATIVE CLUBBERS Top 40 DavidPrāta Vētra 46% Bob Marley 38% Linkin Park 29% Guetta 38%One Republic 14% Metallica 20% DJ Tiesto 22% Eminem 16%Placebo 14% Moby 17% ATB 18% Rihanna 14% Armin vanColdplay 12% Guf 12% Buuren 14% Akon 13%Black EyedPeas 12% Guns n Roses 11% AC/DC 14% Lady Gaga 13% JustinKings of Leon 10% Gustavo 11% Slipknot 9% Timberlake 11%n 74 n 66 n 77 n 71 Rock (52%), Rock (61%), Club, dance (44%),Pop music (64%) Hip hop, rap (47%), Club, dance (72%), Alternative (34%)RnB (49%), Alternative (39%), RnB (59%), Hip hop, rap (31%),Club, dance (45%), Pop music (36%, Hip hop, rap (56%), Pop music (31%)Rock (45%) Club, dance (36%), Pop music (49%). Metal (27%) Reggae (35%) Punk (24%)
  • Some conclusions and further assumptions The tastes of traditional subcultures (punk, metal, rock, hip hop, etc.) are part of mass culture with no substantial differences mostly - international (or local) popular music ‘mega-stars’, which cannot be associated with this subculture Proportion of respondents with ‘real subcultural taste’ - insignificant Locality might be of importance. Tendency for a local consumer to support local scenes - demand for locality Taking just ‘real fans’ of genre – more local artists e.g. in 2010 more often name local Hip hop, rap performers Guf, Многоточие, Centr, St1m, Каста from Russia or Sekkta, Gustavo, Kreisais Krasts and others form Latvia
  • Changes in subcultural tastes: focus on locality Performers were coded as belonging to the local (Latvian / Russian) or global music. Three codes given: local (Latvian + Russian); Latvian; Russian. Local artists selected (%)30 Local (Lv+Ru) 20022520 Local (Lv+Ru) Russian 2002 20101510 Latvian 2002 Russian 2010 5 Latvian 2010 0
  • Local artists by genres 0,4 Thesis: stronger local scenes 0,3 Hip hop (Ru’10) Hip hop (Lv’10)... above average 0,2 DnB (Ru’10) 0,1 Alt., indie (Lv’10) Punk, hc (Lv’02) Average listener Techno (Ru’02) 0 Punk (Lv’10) Hip hop (Lv’02) Alt., indie (Lv’02) Techno (Lv’02) -0,1 Metal (Lv’10) Punk, hc (Ru’02) Heavy metal (Lv’02) -0,2 DnB (Lv’10) Hip hop (Ru’02) -0,3 Metal (Ru’10) Punk (Ru’10) Number of selected local -0,4 Alt., indie (Ru’10) artists by certain subculture Alt., indie (Ru’02) listeners below average -0,5 Heavy metal (Ru’02) -0,6 Thesis: weak local scenes
  • Conclusions  Contents and meanings:  ‘mass styles’ and ‘maistreamisation’ => ‘megagroups’ dominate in all genres  blurred, media mediated meanings meanings transformed into some kind of ‘fashion catalogues’ (genres, styles, artists...)  Structural factors  changing, but still important (gender & ethnicity) differences converge, the remaining are mainly in «heavy» genres  Global / local  ‘locality’ is important for musical subcultures more than for other genres  Remarks on subculture as homogenous phenomena  global ideas + local interaction (exsistence of real ‘scenes’)  Small countries – are local ‘subcultures’ imagined? ... just “groups”, “friends”, “local scenes” or “mini cultures”?
  • PaldiesСпасибо TänuDankeThanks Ačiū