Many scholars have argued that live concerts constitute a community. My question in this article is how is this achieved, what kind of community is generated in the process, and how do we analytically approach answering these questions? In this regard, Thomas Turino suggests that community can be generated through an active and synchronous physical and music-related participation at live events. As a corrective to his deductive model of participatory and presentational music, I propose an inductive model of socio-musical participation, based on practices of DIY (“do-it-yourself”) music communities in the US. In the article, I engage with various theories of audience participation, as well as analyze different types of DIY music participation through the ethnographic study of American DIY shows. The interaction between DIY performers, audiences, and organizers, and the various forms of their social and musical participation at DIY shows suggest not only physical, music-related, and synchronous, but also spectatorial, non-synchronous, and co-creational participation; and not only harmonious but also antagonistic participation. This approach utilizes affect theory, recognizes difference and conflict in the constitution of a music community, and refutes some prevalent assumptions about the notion of audience participation.

INTRODUCTION

This paper draws its inspiration in part from my experience at a house concert that took place 5 October 2011 in the spacious living room of Villanova House, a rental student house on Villanova Street in Davis, CA, home of UC Davis.1 Most of the Villanova residents and organizers were also members of the KDVS college radio station and had ties with the experimental art- and music-oriented Technocultural Studies Department at the university. Villanova shows were usually eclectic with a bent toward experimental sounds. Five performers were on the list that night, each coming from a distinct music field, which elicited a variety of audience responses.

It was a Wednesday night show at Villanova House. The audience of mostly students gave the show the character of a small college town event. First on the program was the local, all-female, indie pop group ALAK, with influences ranging from African music and reggae to avant-garde sounds. One listener later described their music as “fresh” and “dancey.” The audience, however, did not dance but sat on the carpeted floor and on couches, listening to the band but also encouraging it with clapping and comments. Between numbers, the band members addressed the audience in a friendly and casual way (“thank you for coming”; “this is rad”; “love this place”; “how are you doing?”), sometimes commenting on their technical difficulties and limited ability to play a new song (“might be fucked up, hope you guys enjoy it”), thus consciously breaking down the illusion of performers being elevated above the audience.2 There was no stage, which further helped the band and the audience overcome the barriers between them.

After a short break, No Babies from Oakland dramatically changed the atmosphere with a raucous performance of punk and noise rock mixed with free jazz. Everybody in the audience stood up, and many started moving spastically to the angular and intensely rhythmical and noisy outbursts of the band, following with their heads, arms, legs, and bodies every rhythmical accent, on or off beat. Kim, the lead singer, used special tactics to interact with the listeners: while singing she ventured into the middle of the audience during each song, sometimes bumped into them, occasionally kneeled down in front of particular individuals, touched them, or looked closely into their eyes. She also caressed one girl’s face and briefly hugged my leg. Audience members reacted with excitement and occasional surprise. The darkness, crowdedness, intense music, and the singer, who quietly persisted in breaking the boundaries of private spaces in the crowd, generated a mix of discomfort, surprise, excitement, and fun. When she hugged my leg, I felt slightly uncomfortable for a moment, but at the same time also excitingly surprised—this sudden physical interaction transported me in time and place; it brought me into the present moment and into the center of the event. I felt like an active part of the performance.

During the show, I noticed three Villanova House residents, who were also organizers of the show, dancing in front of the band, and occasionally lightly and playfully bumping into each other. At many other Villanova shows that I witnessed, performances like the one by No Babies usually incited a rowdy but friendly moshing,3,and sometimes crowdsurfing,4 but at this time, the performance was slightly confrontational, and the music was rhythmically unpredictable, perhaps intentionally to prevent the moshing routine. At the end, the singer thanked everybody with words, “Thank you for coming out,” while one audience member playfully responded with an echo, “Thank you for coming out!” In a post-show interview, Kim told me that if No Babies play in bars, their performances are “different” because the audience “can be more shocked.”

The touring indie rock band French Quarter played next to an audience, most of whom were standing but flexibly nodding their heads and moving their bodies back and forth, up and down, and left and right. Members of the band occasionally told jokes between songs. The audience responded enthusiastically and playfully to the singer’s remarks (“Is the sound ok?,” “Yeah, you look great!,” followed by laughter). Whitman, a solo experimental folk act from Portland, created a contemplative atmosphere for a mostly seated audience.

At the end, performance artist MUM from Sacramento, wearing a Mickey Mouse mask, reenacted her locally notorious performance, which consisted of singing to pre-recorded 1950s and 1960s obscure vintage rock and pop tracks. MUM used electronic effects that turned her voice into high-pitched cartoonish sounds. She enlivened her performance with interpretive and awkwardly stumbling dancing. Dressed in a short, red skirt, she occasionally flashed her naked body underneath. She made the audience dance, and moved among the listeners a couple of times. At one moment, she made one of the house residents dance with her and took a sip from his beer. On this occasion, she toned down her usually confrontational routine, which often entailed throwing hamburgers or raw meat into the audience.5 

This vignette demonstrates several elements related to audience and concert participation at American DIY (do-it-yourself) shows. It demonstrates the great value of audience participation within the community, as well as a variety of music genres and types of performer-audience interactions that often occur at shows. Furthermore, it reveals some of the tactics that performers use to encourage audience participation, and a variety of ways, many of them unpredictable, in which audiences respond. It also indicates how these interactions are dependent on place and context, and points to inclusive DIY programming policies that tend to encourage gender-balanced stage participation of performers.

As many scholars argue, a live concert is the main constitutive event of every local rock or rock-related community.6 My question in this paper is how is this achieved, what kind of community is generated in the process, and how do we analytically approach answering these questions? I begin by critically examining some theories about concert and audience participation, and then relating them to ethnographic data based on fieldwork I conducted among American DIY communities, especially to social interactions at shows. First, I argue that some particularly salient ethnomusicological notions of audience participation call for critical reexamination, and second, that audience participation operates both on discursive and affective levels of social and musical interaction. I also test the assumption that audience participation leads to “community” and that non-participation or antagonistic participation works against “community.”

American DIY culture is an outgrowth of the late 1970s punk lifestyles, which later expanded into a more heterogeneous assemblage that includes punk, indie rock, singer-songwriters, and experimental musicians and scenes. DIY also has ties to similar cultures, particularly to 1960s countercultural movements as well as to historical and contemporary anarchist, and sustainability movements.7 DIY ethics entail making things by one’s self, obviating commercial and professional channels of production. This can include any activity, from the production, distribution, and promotion of music and arts to the self-organization of spaces and concerts. Other DIY projects comprise social and daily activities, such as making food and clothing, tending gardens, building houses, repairing or remodeling vehicles, and social and political self-organizing.8 

DIY participants in the US endeavor to redefine the implied individualism of a DIY (do-it-yourself) approach by sometimes using the concept DIT (doing-it-together) and thus stress the importance of community for them.9 Emphasis on self-sufficiency in the DIY approach therefore dialectically presupposes a DIT communal solidarity and community building on the one hand, and an active engagement and DIY individual participation on the other.10 

In addition, these values and ideologies of community and participation not only emerge from the positive, affective, and corporeal experience of DIY collectivity, but are also promoted and maintained as a rationalized response to the lack of public space, social alienation, corporate power, and perceived consumerist passivity in American society.11 In other words, whereas American DIY communities internally define themselves by DIY practice (e.g., acts of collective participation), they simultaneously establish themselves through DIY ideology (e.g., value of collective participation), by opposing the dominant society.12 This article therefore differentiates and shows the connection between, on the one hand, the value of participation, and conscious efforts toward shaping and managing practices and spaces that enable it, and on the other, the practices of participation that reflect and establish American DIY communities as participatory and communal. This paper is therefore both about discursive and material levels of participation among American DIY communities.

THEORIES OF AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

My theoretical discussion of participation builds on Thomas Turino’s work, as he not only provides the most extensive and comprehensive theory of music participation to date, but is also most often cited as the general reference for the topic.13 Turino regards audience participation in a “restricted” sense of active music-making, which includes only dancing, singing, clapping, and playing musical instruments.14 

In this way, he consciously omits listening or non-musical participation as a part of audience response and interaction.15 For Turino, participatory music-making is significant because it establishes social synchrony iconically through musical and physical synchrony and thus generates community through intensive social bonding.16 Furthermore, he considers participatory music-making as the “most democratic” of all musical fields.17 In this regard, Turino contrasts participatory music to the “presentational” music field, which establishes a clear distinction between audiences and performers, and where the audience does not participate with music-making or dancing.18 For him, participation is harmonious, both in a sense of the synchronized physical and social movement of participants, and in a sense of “lead[ing] to comfort.”19 In this way, lack of synchrony leads to discomfort. Turino also favors synchronous participation, when everybody takes part at once. As a subtype, he identifies sequential participation as an alternation among participants during performance but allows for this kind of participation only within the frame of the same event.20 

Turino draws his theory of participation inductively from his fieldwork among the indigenous populations in Zimbabwe and Peru, making it a universal model, which he then deductively applies to other music cultures. Instead of using Turino’s model of participatory and presentational music deductively and applying it to cases unrelated to Zimbabwean or Peruvian music practices, I use below an inductive approach to socio-musical participation, based on the practices of DIY music communities in the US.21 This approach illuminates some of the shortcomings of Turino’s model, not only on the epistemological level of cultural difference, but also on the ontological level of theory, as it is also underscored by other theories on audience participation.

Wendy Fonarow revises some of Turino’s shortcomings by introducing the concept of “spectatorial” (listening) and “co-creational” (organization) modes of participation as present at indie rock shows. But she differentiates these two participatory modes from “physical” participation (dancing, moshing) as hierarchically separated from it by differences in audience age, ideology, intensity of involvement, and level of enthusiasm. She therefore sees these models as less physically active and musically engaged.22 

It is possible, however, to consider the spectatorial or listening mode of participation from a different and more “active” perspective. On the one hand, for instance, Anthony Seeger writes about listening among Suyá indigenous populations in Brazil as a way of “actively reciprocating with attention.”23 In this regard, listening is on a different epistemological or cultural level considered an active musical participation.24 Moreover, in some music cultures, “passive” and “active” musical engagement can mean the opposite to Turino’s perspective. For example, eighteenth-century German music theorists judged dancing and sensual reactions to music as “passive,” while they considered attentive listening, in the form of “cognitive” and “contemplative” responses to music not only as “active, rational, and free,” but also as “higher and nobler.”25 The measure of “active musical participation was therefore not the musical, physical, or bodily engagement, but the “inner activity of the spirit.”26 Some scholars even see the “momentary stasis” (no movement and complete silence) at the ends of musical pieces in Western art music concerts as a type of participation where “communitas is generated most intensely.”27 

Yet theoretically and scientifically, and therefore not on an epistemological but ontological level, listening can also be understood as a physical activity. As Susan Leigh Foster argues, referring to Alain Berthoz’s neurobiological research on “mirror neurons,” when humans observe dance performances, they also physically mimic the movements of the performers with their own muscles.28 Since music incorporates movement, both acoustically and as embodied performance, listening should similarly be regarded on the ontological plane as an integrated mode of participation—a mental, emotional, and physical reception of and reaction to sound as an “affective vibrational force.”29 

Furthermore, Jacques Rancière advocates for the understanding of spectatorship (observing and listening) as an active mode of participation. In this way, spectators become critical and emancipated “interpreters,” “inventing their own translations.” Furthermore, Rancière contends that the differentiation between passive and active modes of participation in itself creates social inequality and hierarchy.30 In addition, Ana Hofman argues that perceived “passivity” of the audiences could not always be regarded as (politically) unengaged relationality, but also as an “affective” sonic experience, engaged enjoyment, (political) agency, and as a collective sharing of feelings and ideas.31 

I propose that all participatory practices discussed in this article should not be seen in binary and oppositional terms—“active” or “passive”—but as “affective,” involving different kinds and degrees of a social exchange of sounds, ideas, feelings, attitudes, gestures, and performances. In this regard, there is no ontological distinction between passive and active participation, or between presentational and participatory performance.32 All of these are only ideological and epistemological dichotomies based on culturally situated discourses of authenticity. For instance, Bruce Springsteen fans consider long-standing engagement with his music and active participation at his concerts as a mark of distinction that separates them from “ordinary” audience members, whom they consider as supposedly less dedicated and engaged.33 Scholars similarly regard participatory music as a reflection of an authentically “most democratic” society34. Moreover, these debates illuminate academic anxieties over the issue of a supposed decline of (music) participation in the West. In their quest for pure participatory authenticity, however, they often fail to recognize qualitatively different and often hybrid types of participation among various Western communities.35 

Prominent among these types is the notion of audience and concert participation at American punk and DIY shows. In the 1960s, active audience participation by American countercultural youth at folk singing nights already became a marker of ideological opposition to alienation, conformity, and commerciality of the dominant society.36 These attitudes gained new meaning and vehemence among early British and American punk participants in the second half of the 1970s. Rejecting the alienated spectacle of the mainstream rock and mass culture, they initiated a return to direct communication, immediacy, and interactivity between audiences and performers.37 Early punk performers also engaged with audiences in a confrontational and provocative manner, with an attempt to challenge and subvert what they saw as the corrupt social norms of the time.38 Furthermore, “audience participation” in punk worked as a synonym to the DIY approach to forming bands, playing and organizing shows, and producing and distributing records. In this way, punk became a more inclusive way of participation in the music scene, particularly for lower social classes and musical amateurs.39 It also became more open for participation by women; however, with a new wave of more combative and non-compromising hardcore punk in the late 1970s and early 1980s, moshing, an aggressive type of dancing, became the ultimate expression of audience participation at hardcore punk shows.40 Consequently, the scene grew more exclusive and hostile, particularly to many women.41 

In the mid-1980s, a new notion of audience participation started to emerge among the American punk and DIY communities. This version focused on countering the aggressiveness of the moshing pit and espoused non-violence, safety, inclusiveness, and social equality pertaining to gender, race, and sexuality.42 Concern with inclusive, equal, and safe audience participation at shows became even more pronounced within the American punk and DIY scenes in the 1990s and 2000s, particularly with riot grrrl and race riot movements.43 

ROLE OF CO-CREATIONAL, NON-SYNCHRONOUS, AND NON-MUSICAL PARTICIPATION AMONG AMERICAN DIY COMMUNITIES

[Mike:] I think coming back to politics too, [it might be] a stretch, but [. . .] you could think of a house show or a house scene as a model of democracy: every actor is really important, and there’s a lot of very small amount of barriers between . . . going between roles, going up and down the scene, as if how important you are and how unimportant you are, your absence is felt when you don’t go to shows, and your presence is also important too. (Personal communication with residents of Villanova House, in Davis, CA; 20 January 2011)

DIY live shows in the US unite diverse DIY music communities and their DIY music genres, ranging from punk and indie rock to experimental music. They often happen in houses, warehouses, or all-ages venues, which enable greater interaction between performers and audiences due to their small size or lack of stage and backstage spaces. These spatial features work dialectically both on the epistemological level of discourse and on the ontological level of affect. On the one hand, they are imbued with value, and are therefore consciously sought for, overemphasized, and standardized through iteration, while on the other, they simultaneously have a direct affective impact on DIY participants.44 

DIY shows occurring in these venues are social assemblages comprising various kinds of interactions among mainly three types of participants: performers, audiences, and organizers. Their interactions suggest participation that is not only physical, music-related, and synchronous, but also spectatorial, and co-creational; and not only harmonious but also antagonistic. The focus of the following section is on co-creational, non-synchronous, and non-musical participation at DIY shows.

One view of co-creational or organizational participation is expressed by DIY participant Aaron from Portland:

I do it [organizing shows] because I have a deep karmic debt to the scene [. . .]. I felt I was sort of a tourist in everybody else’s scenes, when I was touring. I certainly played far more shows that I’ve put on, and I’ve put on a great number of shows over the past 10, 15 years, but I felt like I owed, not necessarily [to] anybody in person, but just [as a] sort of a mentality of hosting people who are traveling. I still, I am returning the favor. And it might be to somebody else, but just to sort of keep the energy moving. And I feel the same about house shows. The people who opened their homes to me, honestly, I guarantee, some people who [. . .] didn’t like the music we played, [. . .] I mean it helps [. . .], if they like the music you play, but [that’s not the main reason]. It’s funny how people put on house shows and they do it because they’re compelled to create that space. Because there is no place for local bands to play, or whatelse [sic]. (Personal communication, April 11, 2012)

DIY participants see a reciprocal relation between playing and organizing shows. Playing is not only giving something to the audience, but also receiving a favor from the organizer, so the musicians feel compelled to reciprocate, or to “return the favor” as organizers, and thus establish an alternative economic model for playing and booking shows that is based on the reciprocal exchange of venues.45 

Audiences also feel a need to reciprocate, through establishing their own bands, offering their own spaces for shows or other events, or contributing in other ways: by making posters, flyers, zines, art, and doing anything that others see as creative or a contribution to the scene.

Furthermore, simply attending shows is important and an element of “participation.” As Mike from Villanova House states above: “Your absence is felt when you don’t go to shows, and your presence is also important too.”46 This is similar to how Barry Shank describes the type of participation in Austin’s punk and rock’n’roll scenes, not only as temporary engagements at local events and performances, but also as “constant participation” based on the notion of the “intensity of commitment.”47 

These kinds of participation point to a reciprocal relation among the variety of interchangeable roles among audiences, musicians/artists, and organizers within the system of DIY participation.48 This configuration also reflects the ideological efforts of DIY participants to enact their egalitarian political ideals through social and musical practice, where there is no hierarchy in the social division of labor at DIY shows. As Mike claims above, “There’s a lot of very small amount of barriers between . . . going between roles, going up and down the scene.”

While this is an example of how non-musical actions are an integral part of the DIY musical scene and the participation within it, a reverse relationship also exists.49 In this sense, music or music-related participation becomes an integral part of socio-political engagement and a rejection of consumerist mentality.50 John Benson, a DIY musician and organizer from Oakland, describes the implicit arrangement:

Anytime you charge money, even if it’s two dollars, people pay their money and expect to be entertained. They have a level of expectation that ruins the entire inclusiveness . . .—instead of [imitates the situation] “Wow, we all just stumbled in this together and we are all equally responsible for entertaining each other” [. . .] I hate that expectation of being entertained . . . because it’s a sense of entitlement. I am entitled to be passive, and that feeds apathy, that feeds people feeling like they don’t have to take power . . . I mean any kind of situation, meeting the neighbors, or getting involved in local government, feeding the homeless, walking by somebody on the street who’s bleeding. That kind of apathetic way of looking at the world has everything to do with a sense of entitlement that you deserve to be entertained. [This r]uns really deep for me. It really does [laughs]! (Personal communication, September 14, 2012)

This statement makes two salient points. First, the levels of musical and non-musical participation, or audience and citizenship participation, are intrinsically related to each other, so that playing music and participating at shows are part of a broader socio-political engagement, and vice versa. The musical is social (participation), and the personal is political (participation). This all-encompassing and integrated vision of DIY participation represents for many DIY-ers a “model of democracy.” Second, Benson’s quote shows how the DIY community defines itself through the practice of “active” participation, and therefore as distinct from the “passive,” “apathetic,” “consumerist” society. However, “active” participation as a form of social capital within American DIY music communities is open to a variety of approaches and interpretations, keeping the distinctive boundary of American DIY communities open and fluid.

The co-creational mode is a form of non-synchronous participation by DIY individuals contributing to the music-making scene as organizers.51 Concomitantly, non-synchronous participation occurs when audience members are inspired to start music projects and bands after attending DIY shows. Consider for instance how residents of the Villanova House talk about this aspect of participation:

[Mike:] [. . .] If you have someone set up, and it’s couch surrounded, instead [of] on a stage [. . .] it’s not like someone being praised, it’s more like . . . you’re one on the same level [. . .] It might even encourage, for the better or worse, a lot of people to start more acts, more bands, more projects. [John:] I probably wouldn’t have started to play music [. . .] if I wouldn’t started going to shows. (Personal communication with residents of Villanova show house, in Davis, CA; January 20, 2011)

Moreover, the Internet serves as a platform that helps non-synchronous and co-creational DIY participation in organizing shows. It is also a site of synchronous participation by offering a platform for online discussions.52 In this way, electronic media serve as a stage for establishing an imagined DIY community, as well as an offline and online, face-to-face and/or person-to-person DIY community.53 

As an ethical and ideological part of co-creational participation, American DIY participants and organizers endeavor to implement spatial DIY policies that work toward greater inclusiveness within DIY spaces and encourage larger social participation within the DIY scenes, while generating egalitarian and inclusive DIY communities. These policies comprise (a) inclusive music programming that sometimes specifically favors queer, non-white, female, and/or beginning performers; (b) accessible donation-based, all-ages door policies; and (c) “safe space” policies at DIY shows. Explicitly stated on posters, flyers, and/or invitations, “safe space” policies aim to discourage any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia within DIY spaces (fig. 1). American DIY participants post signs and practice the policy of safe spaces by “calling out” (i.e., verbally confronting) any individuals exhibiting oppressive behavior in DIY spaces.54 Some female, queer, and non-white DIY participants, however, report that oppressive attitudes and practices persist, even within the DIY scenes and communities.55 In this way, they engender a dialogue on race, gender, and sexuality within American DIY scenes that feeds back into discussions and enactments of safe space policies.56 

FIGURE 1

Door sign from a Jurassic Park House show in Portland (18 January 2012), indicating DIY door and safe space policies. Photo: David Verbuč.

FIGURE 1

Door sign from a Jurassic Park House show in Portland (18 January 2012), indicating DIY door and safe space policies. Photo: David Verbuč.

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN AUDIENCES AND PERFORMERS AT DIY SHOWS

DIY shows are usually heterogeneous in music and social terms, leading to a continuum of participatory audience reactions that range from attentive listening to moshing and crowd surfing (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 5).

FIGURE 2

Typological continuum of music participation at DIY shows: from least to most physically active, and from performer-centered to audience-centered.

FIGURE 2

Typological continuum of music participation at DIY shows: from least to most physically active, and from performer-centered to audience-centered.

FIGURE 3

Crowdsurfing at the Halloween show, at Villanova House in Davis, 28 October 2012. Photo: David Verbuč.

FIGURE 3

Crowdsurfing at the Halloween show, at Villanova House in Davis, 28 October 2012. Photo: David Verbuč.

Traversing the continuum from listening to crowdsurfing, the focus of attention at a DIY show shifts from the performers to the audiences. The latter also highlights a greater collaborative role of the audience in shaping the event, and a tendency toward blurring the lines between the performers and the audiences (see fig. 3, fig., 4, fig. 5).57 DIY participant Aaron Scott commented on this phenomenon in his blog:

One great thing about house shows is that the band isn’t always the center of attention. Indeed, some of the best house shows are the ones where everyone is involved, and some people are crawling on the ceiling [reference to crowdsurfing], and the band is just one part of the mayhem.58 

FIGURE 4

Mayyors from Sacramento, playing at the DAM House, Davis, 5 September 2010.65 Photo: David Verbuč.

FIGURE 4

Mayyors from Sacramento, playing at the DAM House, Davis, 5 September 2010.65 Photo: David Verbuč.

FIGURE 5

Seven Feathers Rainwater performing in the middle of Villanova House, Davis, CA, 23 June 2011. Photo:David Verbuč

FIGURE 5

Seven Feathers Rainwater performing in the middle of Villanova House, Davis, CA, 23 June 2011. Photo:David Verbuč

Through moshing and crowdsurfing, DIY participants physically and affectively enact, embody, and experience their egalitarian community ideals. The quote by Scott rejects the socially constructed hierarchy between music performers and audiences, where the former are central in a musical event. In American DIY communities, the music often is just one part of the event. Instead, the collective moments of affective participation and community (often realized through an anarchic “mayhem”) are the key elements of the DIY event. Within this arrangement, all three participating parties contribute equally and collaboratively to the event.59 

In addition, many DIY participants see moshing, as well as the general “mayhem” and crowdedness of the events, as the most exhilarating part of the DIY show experience.60 In a DIY zine about house shows, one participant ruminates about the significance of crowdedness at DIY events: “The shows I have the most fun at are the ones where you’re in a packed basement where you can’t breathe, can’t move and are covered in sweat” (fig. 4).61 In this way, the experience of a collaborative audience interaction at a DIY show, even though not always present or as intense as examples above indicate, is favored over or balanced with the experience of listening and dancing. However, not only moshing and crowdsurfing, but all participatory actions of everybody at a DIY show—moments of intense silence, song requests, and exchanges of anarchically organized witty remarks —are equally significant factors for the constitution of DIY events as manifestations of a DIY community.

Nevertheless, through intensive and intimate physical interaction at more crowded and rowdy DIY shows (feeling and smelling each other’s moving bodies, and sharing sweat), show participants establish a momentary and intimate affective collective that transcends the personal and representational aspects of the show. Some DIY participants only reluctantly let other people into their own personal spaces, but most DIY participants see this as casting off personal inhibitions, letting themselves go, and establishing closer physical and affective relationships with the people around them. This happened, for instance, when Kim from No Babies hugged my leg during their show at Villanova House. In another instance, Elisa, a DIY participant from Davis, both in my interview with her and in her blog, said she believes the sweaty and “sticky intimacy” of crowded DIY house shows are “gross” for her personal taste, but she nevertheless highly praises these interactions and the “community” they generate.62 In this sense, the notion of “personal space” is subverted—the personal becomes public and relational, and private closeness is transformed into public and DIT communal intimacy.

Socio-musical participation plays an important affective and ideological role within the American DIY culture, as it ties together DIY participants into an affectively experienced and ideologically imagined community.63 As Barry Shank explains in regard to Austin punk and rock’n’roll scenes, both levels of affective and ideological community are interrelated: “Fed by momentary pleasures of sensual overstimulation and the occasional linkage that promises completion, this anxiety provides the psychic impetus required to maintain a regularity of contact, a constant participation in the scene.”64 Momentary affective pleasures of participatory interaction at DIY shows, no matter how common, thus become symbolically meaningful for American DIY participants as reconstructed promises of the ideal community they endeavor to recreate at every subsequent show and event. Based on the affective impetus of these experiences, DIY participants design spatial tactics and policies that promise to bring back both affectively experienced and symbolically imagined community, even if this does not happen at every show.

For this reason, the organizers design and follow particular door, programming, and safe-space policies, or prioritize venues without stages as promises of inclusive and heterogeneous community. Furthermore, the performers and the audiences devise various tactics aimed at enticing and enhancing audience participation, which ideally lead to the heightened experience of a DIY community. Individual audience members often encourage others to participate. At Villanova House shows and other DIY shows in Davis, for instance, I often noticed particular individuals, male or female, lightly bumping into other participants to spur them into moving and moshing, which sometimes spread like a domino effect throughout the audience. Performers use their own innovative tactics to encourage audience participation.66 For example, singers and musicians regularly venture into the audience’s zone and perform from there (fig. 4, fig. 5), and they sometimes hand out instruments or microphones to invite the audience to perform with them.67 They tell jokes and initiate conversations with audiences or, as I have often seen at Portland DIY shows, they ask audience members to tell jokes into the microphone in between songs. The Babs Johnson Gang, a garage punk band from Sacramento, often promised giving out prizes to the audience for dance participation, while several other performers, such as Letters, Google Maps, Slimedog, Crank Sturgeon, Lucky Dragons, Destroy Nate Allen, or The Taxpayers, devise fun and interactive tasks and games.

Some performers design their whole sets as participatory games with audiences, whereas some DIY musicians oppose contrived methods for inciting audience participation. For example, a DIY participant from Portland once complained to me about one local band’s participatory tactics as “annoying.” The person said these devices feel like “forced [. . .] church-camp sing-along.”68 By taking into account alternative insider perspectives such as this one, it is necessary to see that audience participation at DIY shows is not only about spontaneous affective experience, but also about ideological programming and “social engineering,” as DIY organizer and experimental musician Todd from Portland called it in our conversation.69 As these practices are not only functioning on an affective, but also on an ideological level, one can see the discrepancies between promises and realizations that every ideology creates. In the case of DIY shows, an interactive experience of audience participation is not necessarily also an experience of utopian and democratic community, at least not for everybody.

Furthermore, there is awareness among scholars, as well as within the DIY scenes, that our capitalist society has co-opted methods for inciting participation. They are present, as Claire Bishop points out, in new business and commercial models that strive to enhance the engagement of workers and consumers, and are used by the media industry, for example, with reality TV and popular TV contests.70 Similarly, actively encouraged consumer participation on social media concomitantly contributes to service improvements as well as to marketing value and popularity.71 Furthermore, Bishop argues that interactive forms of participation can induce an illusion of interactive democracy and thus brush out conflict and contradiction.72 

Observers have also expressed other pertinent objections to the celebratory notion of audience participation. First, spectators often experience pressure to participate and to be active and vocal, which can feel compulsory and oppressive. But silence does not necessarily signify “passive non-participation,” as it can evoke different cultural and political meanings.73 Second, audience participation sometimes is ethically questionable when audiences engage in cultural appropriation, not of content, but of the form of music-making; for example, when they appropriate “participatory” music practices from other cultures to generate or enhance the experience of participation and community.74 Third, I question a celebrated and taken-for-granted notion in ethnomusicology of music-making participation as the primary mode of participatory-observation research method.75 This assumption implies that other possible methods of participatory-observation (e.g., listening, organizing) are methodologically less valuable. These types of performance-centered assumptions create epistemological and methodological hierarchies, leading scholars to discriminate among various forms of music-making and ethnographic methods, while preventing them from questioning the ethical considerations related to these cultural hierarchies.

Some American DIY participants express a more nuanced attitude toward methods of audience participation. Cody, an organizer and experimental artist from Portland, said audience participation “is all forced for me.” He rather creates “a [sonic] bubble” around him, and invites the people to “tune in” (fig. 6).76 His approach emphasizes an introspective kind of listening participation located on the performance-centered side of the participation continuum (fig. 2). However, Cody’s use of the term “tuning-in” semantically also implies an “active,” “physical” (i.e., vibrational), and unifying activity.77 This is similar to the listening practices in Western art music culture, where a “good classical concert [is] measured by the stillness it commands, by the intensity of the audience’s mental concentration.”78 In both cases, stillness, attentiveness, and tuning-in shape physically synchronous and socially unifying togetherness.79 

FIGURE 6

Cody (aka Toning), performing at the Hot Tub House, in Olympia, WA, 7 June 2012.83 Photo: David Verbuč.

FIGURE 6

Cody (aka Toning), performing at the Hot Tub House, in Olympia, WA, 7 June 2012.83 Photo: David Verbuč.

ANTAGONISTIC INTERACTION AND PARTICIPATION AT DIY SHOWS

Still another important aspect of audience behavior appears at American DIY shows—antagonistic participation. For example, one could interpret use of distortion, feedback, and noise in punk or experimental music as sonically confrontational, although many DIY participants understand these sounds as an aesthetically pleasing and sometimes therapeutic aspect of DIY music. Furthermore, moshing, confrontational but ironic verbal remarks or performers’ physical engagement with audiences, for example, by throwing things at them, are forms of antagonistic interaction.

The legacy of performance art and confrontational aesthetic is prominent in experimental music/art and in punk cultures since their beginnings, whether in lyrics and visual aesthetics or in sound and performance.80 Several scholars write how confrontational and provocative punk performances challenge and subvert the established social “order”; how they offer a promise of social change; how they engage the audiences mentally and bodily; and how they blur the line between performer and audience.81 

To some extent, this legacy is still present in today’s American DIY cultures, mostly as a part of punk and experimental music shows and performances. One reporter who interviewed Villanova show performer MUM and designated her as a “provocateur,” interpreted her interaction with audiences: “She does whatever is humanely possible to help people part with their egos and to be free.”82 This insider response resonates with the academic interpretations mentioned above. Furthermore, Martyr from No Babies, also performing at Villanova, explained his band’s approach of using noise and confrontational tactics in a similar way: “We’re not this thing that you just watch or see or hear happen. It’s a live thing going on that you might be forced to participate in [. . . . It] is about eliminating the sense of the audience just being a consumer base.”84 In addition, Cody explained that with his sonically challenging performances, he wants to affect the audiences in such a way that they really “like” them, or “hate” them. He craves any kind of affective engagement by the audience, be it positive or negative, and implicitly rejects their supposed indifference. What these statements have in common is a concern with normative audience reactions that the performers see as passive and joint efforts to force listeners out of these states. These antagonistic efforts therefore represent an interruption of the one-way performer-audience relationship in a consumerist society. Jean Baudrillard understands this kind of interruptive interaction as a restoration of the “circuit of symbolic exchange,” calling it “antagonistic” or “radical” reciprocity.85 

Referring to the theories of “radical democracy” by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Claire Bishop argues that audience participation based on “belonging,” “empathy,” and “harmonious community” is exclusive and non-democratic because it is usually directed toward the artistic in-group that implicitly excludes other constituencies and simultaneously sweeps away the differences, conflicts, and contradictions existing within it. In contrast, she asserts, participation should rest on antagonistic relationships of friction, unease, or discomfort that establish a promise of democratic dialogue and negotiation.86 Moreover, ethnomusicologist Ana Hofman comes to similar conclusions from the viewpoint of affect theory: “From the perspective of the affective sound experience—no matter if it contributes to a more pleasant sensation, or if induces negative feelings—affect can contribute to the mobilization and transformation, and consequently to the change of reality.”87 Both citations reclaim antagonistic relations or sounds as politically promising and significant.

These observations are also relevant for the discussion of noise and experimental sounds and performances at American DIY shows. Whereas observers often see these genres as confrontational, destructive, and negative, they have other potentials.88 For example, a DIY noise artist Julia Litman-Cleper, who was part of the Davis DIY scene during my research there, told me that noise music for her is “cleansing,” “liberating,” and “empowering,” and that it “resists ideologies, and creates new space.”89 Moreover, she asserts that through noise and the feeling of “desolateness” it creates for her, “we can be together in the fact that we’re alone” (ibid.; emphasis added). Noise music therefore not only liberates and empowers individuals, but also creates a radically open community, or “togetherness,” comprising separate individuals, who can nevertheless in those particular moments “tune in” and share an affective state of existential desolateness.90 

Within the DIY scenes, antagonistic interactions at shows might be appear socially exclusive, by sometimes inducing tension and discomfort among some audience members, but they simultaneously point toward the value of affective dialogue and arguably strive to generate a “radical” democracy and the state of “togetherness.” This notion goes beyond the imaginary ideal of community and its implied homogeneity and exclusivity.91 

Attendees at American DIY shows come from a variety of genre-based music scenes (for instance, punk, indie rock, folk, and experimental). Each show comprises not only particular combinations of distinct sounds, but also distinctive modes of ideological and political orientations, as well as specific types of social and musical participation. Participants and communities collectively listen, experience, and affectively respond to a variety of performers, sounds, and social situations. Diverse DIY participants in these moments of shared experiences, however, do not necessarily share the same feelings or the same musical and social meanings.92 Instead, they form heterogeneous “affective alliances,” and generate momentary states and spaces of “togetherness,” not necessarily based on pre-existing ideologies and (music/genre) identities, but more so on the vague, non-essentialist, and non-binding notion of DIY practice or space.93 For example, with their stance of do-it-yourself independence, DIY participants appear to oppose anything corporate and consumerist; however, they do not necessarily share political views. Although they might see themselves as anarchists or leftists (which already constitutes a difference), they might identify with the notion of “DIY community” for multiple other reasons, such as pragmatism, hedonism, or nostalgia. The same happens with musical genres: DIY participants do not always like the bands and performers they listen to or host in their houses, but they usually “support” them and often come to like them, at least when the differences converge at heightened moments at shows.94 This political, ideological, and musical/taste variety is evident at most American DIY shows and scenes.

American DIY participants often engage in antagonistic interactions of radical dialogue, which occur not only through ritualistic response to a performance, but also situationally among the DIY participants within other DIY spaces and occasions.95 For instance, there exist constant online and offline debates within American DIY communities about how to best construct and enforce safe spaces at shows. For example, some DIY participants advocate for a substitution of the more confrontational practice of “calling out” with “calling in,” which they view as a less alienating and more compassionate way of dealing with violators of safe space policy.96 These tensions and debates, as expressions of radical democracy, and aided by music performance and sound, bring together American DIY participants into a community in potentially promising ways.

CONCLUSION

My argument in this paper is threefold. First, the notion of participation, as discussed by Thomas Turino, should receive a broader definition, taking into account a variety of epistemological and ontological perspectives. Particularly instructive in this regard is the “inductive” ethnographic data related to American DIY culture which shows different types of participation—from the spectatorial, co-creational, and harmonious, to non-musical, non-synchronous, and antagonistic—comprising an open and diverse spectrum of coexisting DIY participatory modes. These are not separate and exclusive, but complementary, forming an integrated whole, often at the same DIY event. In this way, DIY concerts represent a heterogeneous mix of music genres, worldviews, performance practices, and participatory modes of social and musical interaction. This constellation also becomes a platform for realizing a temporary, heterogeneous, and often contradictory utopian community where different ways of thinking, music-making, and interacting coexist and rub against each other. While the demands for “active” participation in American DIY scenes on the one hand often function as a form of establishing cultural boundaries and distinctions, on the other, they allow for openness, negotiation, and heterogeneity. In this sense, actively moshing in the front of the stage, as well as listening quietly from the back, or simply coming to the show, or helping with preparing food or fire are all regarded as valid types of participation. American DIY scenes therefore dialectically foster both “solid” and “liquid” forms of community—they cherish commitment and intimate bonding, while at the same time allow for and encourage difference, openness, and fluidity.97 

Second, I advocate for a non-essentialist understanding of cultural categories related to audience participation. I suggest looking beyond socially constructed dichotomies of active/passive and participatory/presentational. I also question the preconceived assumptions that mosh dancing is aggressive, antagonistic performance is hostile, and noise or DIY music is exclusionary. These socio-musical forms serve different purposes and entail various affective and political potentials. Moreover, perceived boundaries between music and social participation, or among performers, audiences, and organizers, do not necessarily apply in every (Western) culture.

Third, participation in all forms is an ideological disposition of an American DIY community that rejects social alienation of its socio-political and economic environment, and thus endeavors to enact the idea of DIY community as egalitarian, musically and socially engaged, and radically democratic. But participation is also a tool for social interaction that engages and affects DIY participants on a direct, physical, and pre-ideological level. This mode of social interaction, according to the Marie Thompson and Ian Biddle’s theory of music and sonic affect, operates as a “circulation of energies, moods, feelings, and intensities” among performers, audiences, and organizers.98 It establishes a socially realized and affectively felt participatory collective, and yet belongs to “nobody in particular.”99 However, “participation” also works as an empty signifier, or more fittingly, as an “affective” signifier, which assumes meanings and emotions through interpretation, appropriation, repetition, and ritual.100 Thus, on one level, participation is an ideologically charged concept, and on another has an affective power in itself. For example, participation can be both a part of capitalist order and circumnavigate it, as it can be mobilized for different cultural, ideological, and political agendas.101 However, “participation” evades fixation in this binary scheme, as it exists within the dialectic circuit between affective and ideological levels of social interaction.

This dialectic also embodies the complexities within American DIY scenes concerning harmonious and antagonistic participation, as well as the practices of inclusion and exclusion. DIY communities differ not only in music genres and types of participation, but also in their political views, ethical attitudes, and subject positions, which creates situations of conflict and negotiation within the scenes. In this way, it is important to understand them as socially complex and diverse cultures that are in a constant state of dialogue and change.

Notes

Notes
1.
The research for and the writing of this article was supported by the Faculty of Humanities, Charles University Prague (grant FHS 260 47001).
2.
Wendy Fonarow, Empire of Dirt: The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2006), 192–95.
3.
Moshing is a form of crowd dancing at punk and other energetic DIY shows that involve audiences bouncing and pushing each other, often in an aestheticized and routinized manner. See William Tsitsos, “Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing, and the American Alternative Scene,” Popular Music 18, no. 3 (1999): 397–414.
4.
Crowdsurfing is a form of dance participation at DIY shows where individuals are lifted over the crowd and “surf” in a horizontal position over their heads. The crowds help with their hands to hold and pass the crowdsurfers around.
5.
The research for this paper is a part of my larger doctoral research focused on DIY house concerts and DIY venues, communities, and scenes in the US, mostly on the American West Coast. I conducted interviews, attended concerts, lived in DIY houses, toured with DIY musicians, and studied the DIY literature (e.g., DIY zines, comic books, and blogs). Before I moved to the US for my doctoral studies, I was also a part of similar DIY communities in Slovenia, mostly participating in local scenes as a music journalist and concert organizer.
6.
Sara Cohen, Rock Culture in Liverpool: Popular Music in the Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 96, 87; Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities: The Rock ‘n’ roll Scene in Austin, Texas (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1994), 128; Simon Frith, Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996): 204; Wendy Fonarow, Empire of Dirt, 79, 102, 197, 246.
7.
Kevin Wehr, DIY: The Search for Control and Self-reliance in the 21st Century (New York: Routledge 2012), 14-16.
8.
Holtzman, Hughes, and Van Meter, “Do It Yourself . . . and the Movement Beyond Capitalism.” In Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations//Collective Theorization, eds. Stephen Shukaitis, David Graeber, and Erika Biddle (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2007); Kevin Wehr, DIY; Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place: Building a Better Tomorrow (New York: Routledge, 2014).
9.
seattle diy.com, DIY Directory, [Self-published zine], 2009: 1.
10.
Erik Hannerz, Performing Punk (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 126–28; Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place, 55–63.
11.
Kevin Wehr, DIY; Brent Adam Luvaas, DIY Style: Fashion, Music, and Global Digital Cultures (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 6–14; Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place, 71–74.
12.
Erik Hannerz, Performing Punk, 127–32.
13.
Kay Kaufman Shelemay, “Musical Communities: Rethinking the Collective in Music.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 64, no. 2 (2011): 349-390; Noriko Manabe, “Music in Japanese Antinuclear Demonstrations: The Evolution of a Contentious Performance Model,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 42, no. 3 (2013); Michael O’Brien, “This is What Democracy Sounds Like: Live and Mediated Soundscapes of Wisconsin Uprising.” Music & Politics 7, no. 2 (2013): 1–19; Ian Russel and Catherine Ingram, Eds. Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology (Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen University Press, 2013); Caroline Bithell, A Different Voice, a Different Song: Reclaiming Community through the Natural Voice and World Song (New York: Oxford University, 2014); David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2014).
14.
Thomas Turino, Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 28.
15.
Compare to Stith H. Bennett, On Becoming a Rock Musician (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), 173−74; Sara Cohen, Rock Culture in Liverpool: Popular Music in the Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 87−88.
16.
Turino, Music As Social Life, 29, 43.
17.
Ibid, 35. See also Catherine Bithell, A Different Voice, a Different Song: Reclaiming Community through the Natural Voice and World Song (New York: Oxford University, 2014), 40. Turino also acknowledges possibilities of manipulated music participation of the masses that can lead to totalitarian mobilization and reinforcement of homogeneous, exclusive, and violent social unity, for example, in Nazi Germany (190−210).
18.
Turino also recognizes there are possible mixed situations of both types. See Music as Social Life, 26, 28, 49–50.
19.
Ibid.: 42.
20.
Ibid.: 48−51.
21.
Catherine Ingram, “Understanding Musical Participation: “Listening” Participants and Big Song Singers in Kam Villages, Southwestern China.” In Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology, edited by Ian Russel, and Catherine Ingram (Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen University Press, 2013), 62; Michael O’Brien, “This is What Democracy Sounds Like,” 2013; David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, 84–129.
22.
Wendy Fonarow, Empire of Dirt, 79–121.
23.
Anthony Seeger, “The Suyá and the White Men: Forty-Five Years of Musical Diplomacy in Brasil.” In Music and Conflict, eds. John Morgan O’Connel and Salwa El-Shawan Castelo-Branco (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2010), 123.
24.
See also Christopher Small, Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening (Hanover, NH, and London: Wesleyan University Press, 1998); Lila Ellen Gray, Fado Resounding: Affective Politics and Urban Life (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013), 36-41; Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, 91; Regula Burckhardt Qureshi, “Sufism and the Globalization of Sacred Music,” In The Cambridge History of World Music, ed. Philip V. Bohlman. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2014), 586.
25.
Chantal Frankenbach, Disdain for Dance, Disdain for France: Choreophobia in German musical modernism. (PhD Dissertation, University of California, Davis, 2012), 66−69. Sensual and physical reactions to music were at that time among German music theorists considered “savage” and “feminine,” and associated with French music.
26.
Sulzer quoted in Chantal Frankenbach, Disdain for Dance, 69. See also Lawrence Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). This ideology persisted until the twentieth century. See Stein, quoted in Cook, Beyond the Score: Music as Performance (Oxford University Press, 2013), 309; Edward T. Cone, quoted in Jeremy Gilbert and Ewan Pearson, Discographies: Dance Music, Culture and the Politics of Sound (New York: Routledge, 1999), 31.
27.
Stephen Cottrell, Professional Music-Making in London: Ethnography and Experience (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 156; Nicholas Cook, Beyond the Score: Music as Performance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 321.
28.
Susan Foster, “Movement’s Contagion: the Kinesthetic Impact of Performance.” In The Cambridge Companion to Performance Studies, ed. Tracy C. Davis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008): 46−49. See also Judith Becker, Deep Listeners: Music, Emotion, and Trancing (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004; Greg Corness, “The Musical Experience Through the Lens of Embodiment.” Leonardo Music Journal 18 (2008): 21−24; Anna Gibbs, “After Affect: Sympathy, Synchrony, and Mimetic Communication,” In The Affect Theory Reader, edited by Melissa Gregg, and Gregory J. Seigworth (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010): 186–205.
29.
Marie Thompson and Ian Biddle, “Introduction: Somewhere Between the Signifying and the Sublime.” In Marie Thompson, Ed., Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 19. See also Harris Berger, Metal, Rock, and Jazz: Perception and the Phenomenology of Musical Experience (Hanover, NH: University of New England, 1999), 70; Judith Becker, Deep Listeners: Music, Emotion, and Trancing (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004); Greg Corness, The Musical Experience Through the Lens of Embodiment,” Leonardo Music Journal 18 (2008): 21−24; Paul Hegarty, Noise/Music: A History (New York, London: Continuum, 2013): 139, 144, 145; Fay Hield, “Negotiating Participation at an English Folk Singing Session,” In Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology, edited by Ian Russel, and Catherine Ingram (Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen University Press, 2013), 106; Catherine Ingram, “Understanding Musical Participation”; Eldritch Priest, “Felt as Though (or, Musical Abstractions and the Semblance of Affect).” In Marie Thompson, Ed., Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 47, 54–57; Luis-Manuel Garcia, “Beats, Flesh, and Grain: Sonic Tactility and Affect in Electronic Dance Music.” Sound Studies 1, no. 1 (2015): 59−76.
30.
Jaques Rancière, “Emancipated Spectator.” Artforum International 45, no. 7 (2004 [2007]): 270–82; Claire Bishop, “Introduction: Viewers as Producers.” In Participation, ed. Claire Bishop (London: Whitechapel, 2006), 16.
31.
Ana Hofman, Glasba, Politika, Afekt: Novo Življenje Partizanskih Pesmi v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU; Ana Hofman, “Introduction to the Co-Edited Issue “Music, Affect and Memory Politics in Post-Yugoslav Space.” Southeastern Europe 39, no. 2 (2015), 151; Marie Thompson and Ian Biddle, “Introduction: Somewhere Between the Signifying and the Sublime.” In Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience, ed. Marie Thompson (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013).
32.
See Philip Auslander, Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture; Rob Drew, “‘Scenes’ Dimensions of Karaoke in the United States.” In Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and Virtual, eds. Andy Bennett, and Richard A. Peterson (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2004): 64–79; Michael O’Brien, “This is What Democracy Sounds Like,” 2013; David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, 84–129.
33.
Daniel Cavicchi, Tramps Like Us: Music and Meaning among Springsteen Fans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 90–91; Sarah Thornton, Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1996); Erik Hannerz, Performing Punk, 128, 184.
34.
Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000); Thomas Turino, Music as Social Life, 35; Caroline Bithell, A Different Voice, A Different Song, 40.
35.
Noriko Manabe, “Music in Japanese Antinuclear Demonstrations”; Michael O’Brien, “This is What Democracy Sounds Like”; David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters. Nominally, Turino does recognize and briefly mention several instances of music participation in the West, but mainly among small cohorts, or as related to dancing activities (Music as Social Life, 25, 62). Moreover, Turino only allows for a certain set of authentic musical patterns that enable participation, for example, rhythmic repetition, open form, and dense and heterophonic textures, and disregards others, such as extensive variation, closed forms, and transparent and complex structures, as non-participatory (ibid, 37−48, 55, 57). I call for more inclusive and situational understanding of participation, which also gives way to hybrid combinations of various musical and social patterns and is open for possibilities of participation in mediated situations and among large-scale social formations.
36.
Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 40, 41.
37.
Dick Hebdige Subculture: The Meaning of Style, (London and New York: Routledge, 1979) 110; Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 93, 98, 99; Mark Andersen and Mark Jenkins, The Dance of Days: The History of the Washington D.C. Punk Scene (New York: Soft Skull, 2001), 12; Holly Kruse, The Site and Sound: Understanding Independent Music Scenes (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 121.
38.
Dick Hebdige, Subculture, 106−112; Dave Laing, One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock, (Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, 1985), 76−80; Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 105–114.
39.
Mark Andersen and Mark Jenkins, The Dance of Days, 324, Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Rock Underground 1981–1991 (Boston: Little, Brown, 2001), 390; Mark Baumgarten, Love Rock Revolution: K Records and the Rise of Independent Music (Seattle: Sasquatch, 2012).
40.
Joanne Gottlieb and Gayle Wald, “Smells Like Teen Spirit: Riot Grrrls, Revolution and Women in Independent Rock,” In Andrew Ross and Tricia Rose, Eds. Microphone Fiends: Youth Music & Youth Culture, (New York: Routledge, 1994), 255; Sheila Whiteley, Women and Popular Music: Sexuality, Identity, and Subjectivity (London: Routledge, 2000), 97, 98.
41.
Joanne Gottlieb and Gayle Wald, “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” 257; James Stark, Punk ‘77: An inside Look at the San Francisco Rock ‘n’ Roll Scene, 1977 (San Francisco: RE/Search, 1999), 93; Mimi Schippers, Rockin’ Out of the Box: Gender Maneuvering in Alternative Hard Rock (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 2002), 96, 97.
42.
Mark Andersen and Mark Jenkins, The Dance of Days: The History of the Washington D.C. Punk Scene, passim; Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life, 392–393; Brian Edge, 924 Gilman: The Story so Far . . . (San Francisco, CA: Maximum Rockandroll, 2004), passim; Jack Boulware and Silke Tudor, Gimme Something Better: The Profound, Progressive, and Occasionally Pointless History of Bay Area Punk from Dead Kennedys to Green Day (New York: Penguin, 2009), passim.
43.
Joanne Gottlieb and Gayle Wald, “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” 263; Mimi Schippers, Rockin’ Out of the Box, 70, 71, 154; Sara Marcus, Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution (New York: Harper Perennial, 2010); Mimi Thi Nguyen, Evolution of a Race Riot, 1997; Mimi Thi Nguyen, Race Riot 2, 2002, It’s (Not) a White World: Looking for Race in Punk,” Threads & Circuits, [1998] 2010, Mimi Thi Nguyen, “Riot Grrrl, Race, and Revival” In Elizabeth Stinson, and Fiona I.B. Ngô, Eds., Punk Anteriors: Genealogy, Theory, Performance [Special issue of Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory] 22, no. 2–3 (2012): 173–96; Stephen Duncombe and Maxwell Tremblay, Eds. White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race (London: Verso, 2011), 256–294; David Verbuč, ‘Living Publicly’: House Shows, Alternative Venues, and the Value of Place and Space Within American DIY Communities (Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing, Forthcoming).
44.
Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place, 208.
45.
David Verbuč, “Fans or Friends?: Local/Translocal Dialectics of DIY (‘Do-It-Yourself’) Touring and DIY Community in the U.S,” Lidé Města / Urban People 17, no. 2 (2015): 221–46.
46.
Erik Hannerz, Performing Punk, 148.
47.
Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 131; Daniel Cavicchi, Tramps Like Us, 91–95; Robert Lloyd, “The Neighborhood in Cultural Production: Material and Symbolic Resources in Bohemia,” City & Community 3, no. 4 (2004): 360.
48.
Stephen Graham, Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political, and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2016), 187, 188.
49.
Catherine Ingram, “Understanding Musical Performance,” 60, Fay Hield, “Negotiating Participation at an English Folk Singing Session,” 108.
50.
Beverley Diamond, “Metaphors, mood, medium, and modelling: indigenous music workshops and citizenship,” In Ian Russel and Catherine Ingram, Eds., Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology (Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen University Press), 79; Catherine Ingram, “Understanding Musical Participation: “Listening” Participants and Big Song Singers in Kam Villages, Southwestern China,” 60; Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place, 71–74.
51.
Thomas Turino, Music as Social Life, 48−51.
52.
Michael O’Brien, “This is What Democracy Sounds Like.”
53.
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London, New York: Verso, [1983] 2006); Holly Kruse, “Local Identity and Independent Music Scenes, Online and Off,” Popular Music and Society 33, no. 5 (2010): 625–639; David Verbuč, “Fans or Friends?”.
54.
Lorena Cupcake, “Imagining a Safer Space: Building Community & Ending Harassment in Punk,” Store Brand Soda, April 28, 2015, https://storebrandsoda.com/2015/04/28/imagining-a-safer-space-building-community-ending-harassment-in-punk; Jill Krajewski, “The Noisy Guide to not being a Shithole and Making Your Venue Inclusive,” Noisey, July 14, 2016, http://noisey.vice.com/blog/a-guide-for-making-your-venue-inclusive.
55.
Mimi Thi Nguyen, Evolution of a Race Riot; “It’s (Not) a White World: Looking for Race in Punk”; Race Riot 2.
56.
Ibid; Silent Barn Meeting X: Safer Spaces,” New York: Silent Barn, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TFhJhWYTBM.
57.
Claire Bishop, Participation (London: Whitechapel, 2006), 12; Anna Dezeuze, “An Introduction to the “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork,” In Anna Dezeuze, Ed., The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2010), 6, 7; Beryl Graham, “What Kind of Participative System? Critical Vocabularies from New Media Art,” In Anna Dezeuze, Ed., The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2010): 281–305.
58.
Aaron Scott, Don’t Hang Out in Front of the House, 2010; fig. 3.
59.
Charles Goodwin and Marjorie Harness Goodwin, “Participation,” In Alessandro Duranti, Ed., A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 2004), 227; Claire Bishop, Participation, 12.
60.
Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1977), 59, 63, 64, 65.
61.
Gaworski quoted in Shannon Connor, Basements and Living Rooms: A Zine about House Shows & DIY Music, vol. 3. (Milwaukee, WI, 2012), 71. Yi Fu Tuan argues that crowdedness indicates safety, can be “exhilarating,” increases “warmth and tolerance,” and creates a “sense of group solidarity. See Space and Place, 59, 63, 64, 65).
62.
Elisa Hough, “DAM House RIP,” HouseShowsZine, 2012.
63.
Vared Amit, “Reconceptualizing Community,” In Vared Amit, Ed., Realizing Community: Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments (London: Routledge, 2002): 1–20; Anna Gibbs, “After Affect: Sympathy, Synchrony, and Mimetic Communication,” In Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, Eds., The Affect Theory Reader (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 199−202.
64.
Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 131.
65.
Note the singer (without a shirt and with a raised left hand) singing from the middle of the crowd, and somebody crowdsurfing.
66.
Harris Berger, Metal, Rock, and Jazz, 43; Judith Becker, Deep Listeners; Wendy Fonarow, Empire of Dirt, 192–95.
67.
Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life, 148.
68.
Personal communication with the author, March 31 2012 and May 15 2013; Scott Turner, Maximizing Rock and Roll: An Interview with Tim Yohannan,” In Ronald B. Sakolsky and Fred Wei-Han Ho, Eds. Sounding Off!: Music as Subversion/Resistance/Revolution (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1995), 187; Anna Dezeuze, “An Introduction to the ‘Do-It-Youself’ Artwork,” 12, 13.
69.
Personal communication with the author, May 1, 2012.
70.
Hal Foster, “Chat Rooms,” In Claire Bishop, Ed., Participation (London: Whitechapel, 2006), 195; Philip Auslander, Liveness, 52; Ryan Moore, Sells Like Teen Spirit: Music, Youth Culture, and Social Crisis (New York and London: New York University Press, 2010), 123; Stephen Graham, Sounds of the Underground, 56–60.
71.
José Alberto García-Avilés, “Roles of Audience Participation in Multiplatform Television: From Fans and Consumers, to Collaborators and Activists,” Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 9, no. 2 (2012): 429-447; Jeffrey Debies-Carl, Punk Rock and the Politics of Place, 75; Jean Marie McBride, “Social Media & Audience Participation in Regard to Television,” Honors Research Projects 6 (2015): 19–26; Frank Koughan and Douglas Rushkoff, Generation Like, PBS/FRONTLINE production, with Left/Right Docs (Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 2014).
72.
Claire Bishop, “Introduction: Viewers as Producers”; Anna Dezeuze, “An Introduction to ‘Do-It-Yourself’ Artwork”; David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, 99, 100.
73.
Svetlana Boym, “On Diasporic Intimacy: Illya Kabakov’s Installations and Immigrant Homes,” In Lauren Berlant, Ed., Intimacy (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000): 226–52; Jean Baudrillard, “The Masses: The Implosion of Meaning in Media,” In Stephen Duncombe Ed., Cultural Resistance Reader (London: Verso, [1983] 2002), 100–13; Mimi Thi Nguyen, quoted in Addie Shrodes, “The Race Riot Within and Without The Grrrl One; Ethnoracial Grrrl Zines’ Tactical Construction of Space,” (BA Thesis, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2012), 99.
74.
Mirjana Lauševič, Balkan Fascination: Creating an Alternative Music Culture in America (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007); Carol Silverman, Romani routes: Cultural Politics and Balkan Music in Diaspora (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
75.
Gregory F. Barz, Ed., Shadows in the Field: New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology, second edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 4, 5, 17, 18.
76.
Brant, Personal communication with the author, June 7, 2012.
77.
Luis-Manuel Garcia, “Beats, Flesh, and Grain: Sonic Tactility and Affect in Electronic Dance Music,” Sound Studies 1, no. 1 (2015): 59-76.
78.
Frith quoted in Nicholas Cook, Beyond the Score, 309; Timothy Leary, The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead (New York: University Books, 1964).
79.
Stephen Cottrell, Professional Music-Making in London, 156.
80.
RoseLee Goldberg, Performance Art: From Futurism to the Present (London: Thames & Hudson, [1979] 2011); Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, 106−112; Dave Laing, One Chord Wonders, 76−80; Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 105–14.
81.
Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, 106−112; Barry Shank, Dissonant Identities, 110; Martha Wilson, “Performance Art: (Some) Theory and (Selected) Practice at the End of This Century,” Art Journal 56, no. 4 (1997), 2–3; Grant Kester, “Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially Engaged Art,” In Zoya Kucor, and Simon Leung, Eds., Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 76–100; Sara Marcus, Girls to the Front, 200; Dean Lockwood, “Spread the Virus: Affective Prophecy in Industrial Music,” In Marie Thompson, Ed., Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013): 119-131; Stephen Graham, Sounds of the Underground, 190–201.
82.
Josh Fernandez, “Not your mother’s MOM: You will get.” Newsreview.com, 2008, https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/not-your-mothers-mom/content?oid=694014.
83.
Note the “tuned-in” audience in this photo.
84.
Sam Lefebvre, “The DIY ethic of No Babies,” East Bay Express, 2012; emphases added.
85.
Jena Baudrillard, “The Masses: The Implosion of Meaning in Media,” 102.
86.
Claire Bishop, “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics,” In Anna Dezeuze, Ed., The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2010): 257−80; See also Hal Foster, “Chat Rooms,” 195; Barry Shank, “The Political Agency of Musical Beauty,” American Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2011): 831–55.
87.
Ana Hofman, Glasba, Politika, Afekt, 103, 154.
88.
David Novak, Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013), 159, 160, 208, 225.
89.
Personal communication with the author, November 29, 2009; See also Paul Hegarty, Noise/Music: A History; Stephen Graham, Sounds of the Underground, 201.
90.
Michael Wesch, “YouTube and You: Experiences of Self-awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam.” Explorations in Media Ecology 8, no. 2 (2009): 19–34; Luis-Manuel Garcia, “Crowd Solidarity on the Dancefloor in Paris and Berlin,” In Fabian Holt and Carsten Wergin, Eds., Musical Performance and the Changing City: Postindustrial Contexts in Europe and the United States (London: Routledge): 227–55.
91.
Will Straw, “Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music.” Cultural Studies 5, no. 3 (1991): 368–88; Barry Shank, “The Political Agency of Musical Beauty; Biddle, A Different Voice, a Different Song, 207–11; 221–22; Hegarty, Noise/Music: A History, 140, 144; David Hesmondhalgh, Why Music Matters, 99.
92.
Ana Hofman, Glasba, Politika, Afekt, 110, 152.
93.
Georgina Born, “Music and the Materialization of Identities,” Journal of Material Culture 16, no. 4 (2011): 381, 382; Ana Hofman, Glasba, Politika, Afekt, 105, 153.
94.
Barry Shank, “The Political Agency of Musical Beauty.”
95.
Mimi Thi Nguyen, Evolution of a Race Riot; “It’s (Not) a White World: Looking for Race in Punk”; Race Riot 2; Lorena Cupcake, Imagining a Safer Space: Building Community & Ending Harassment in Punk; Jill Krajewski, “The Noisy Guide to not being a Shithole and Making Your Venue Inclusive.”
96.
Sian Ferguson, “Calling In: A Quick Guide on When and How,” Everyday Feminism, 2015; see “Silent Barn Public Meeting X: Safer Spaces” 2013 for additional cases of debate and revision.
97.
Bauman, Community; Garcia, “Crowd Solidarity.”
98.
Marie Thompson and Ian Biddle, “Introduction: Somewhere Between the Signifying and the Sublime,” 5.
99.
Ibid.
100.
Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (London, New York: Verso [1989] 2008), 95; Marie Thompson and Ian Biddle, “Introduction: Somewhere Between the Signifying and the Sublime”; Ana Hofman, “Introduction to ‘Music, Affect and Memory: Politics in Post-Yugoslav Space,” 98.
101.
Stephen Graham, Sounds of the Underground, 56–63.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amit, Vered.
“Reconceptualizing Community.”
In Vered Amit, Ed.
Realizing Community: Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments
.
London
:
Routledge
,
2002
.
Andersen, Mark, and Mark Jenkins.
The Dance of Days: The History of the Washington D.C. Punk Scene
.
New York
:
Soft Skull
,
2001
.
Anderson, Benedict.
Imagined Communities
.
London, New York
:
Verso
, [
1983
] 2006.
Auslander, Philip.
Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture
.
London, New York
:
Routledge
, [
1999
] 2008.
Azerrad, Michael.
Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Rock Underground 1981–1991
.
Boston
:
Little, Brown
,
2001
.
Barz, Gregory F., Ed.
Shadows in the Field New Perspectives for Fieldwork in Ethnomusicology
, second edition.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
2008
.
Baudrillard, Jean.
“The Masses: The Implosion of Meaning in Media.”
In
Cultural Resistance Reader
, ed. Stephen Duncombe.
London
:
Verso
, [
1983
] 2002.
Bauman, Zygmunt.
Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World
,
Cambridge
:
Polity
,
2001
.
Baumgarten, Mark.
Love Rock Revolution: K Records and the Rise of Independent Music
.
Seattle
:
Sasquatch
,
2012
.
Becker, Howard.
“Jazz Places.”
In Andy Bennett and Richard A. Peterson, eds.
Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and Virtual
.
Nashville
:
Vanderbilt University Press
,
2004
.
Becker, Judith.
Deep Listeners: Music, Emotion, and Trancing
.
Bloomington and Indianapolis
:
Indiana University Press
,
2004
.
Bennett, Stith H.
On Becoming a Rock Musician
(
Amherst
:
University of Massachusetts Press
,
1980
.
Berger, Harris M.
Metal, Rock, and Jazz: Perception and the Phenomenology of Musical Experience
.
Hanover, NH
:
University of New England Press
,
1999
.
Biddle, Ian.
“Quiet Sounds and Intimate Listening: The Politics of Tiny Seductions.”
In Marie Thompson, Ed.
Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Academic
,
2013
.
Bishop, Claire.
Participation
.
London
:
Whitechapel
,
2006
.
Bishop, Claire.
“Introduction: Viewers as Producers.”
In
Participation
, ed. Claire Bishop
London
:
Whitechapel
,
2006
.
Bishop, Claire.
“Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.”
In Anna Dezeuze, Ed.
The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media
.
Manchester, UK
:
Manchester University Press
,
2010
.
Bithell, Caroline.
A Different Voice, a Different Song: Reclaiming Community through the Natural Voice and World Song
.
New York
:
Oxford University
,
2014
.
Born, Georgina. “
Music and the Materialization of Identities
.”
Journal of Material Culture
16
, no.
4
(
2011
):
376
88
.
Boulware, Jack, and Silke Tudor.
Gimme Something Better: The Profound, Progressive, and Occasionally Pointless History of Bay Area Punk from Dead Kennedys to Green Day
.
New York
:
Penguin
,
2009
.
Boym, Svetlana.
“On Diasporic Intimacy: Illya Kabakov’s Installations and Immigrant Homes.”
In Lauren Berlant, Ed.,
Intimacy
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
,
2000
.
Cavicchi, Daniel.
Tramps Like Us: Music and Meaning among Springsteen Fans
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
1999
.
Cohen, Sara.
Rock Culture in Liverpool: Popular Music in the Making
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
1991
.
Connor, Shannon, ed.
Basements and Living Rooms: A Zine about House Shows & DIY Music: Road Tour Trips, and More!
vol.
2
. Self-published zine.
Milwaukee, WI
,
2011
. [part of queer zine archive project, Milwaukee, WI].
Connor, Shannon, ed.
Basements and Living Rooms: A Zine about House Shows & DIY Music. Subtopic: Marginalized Identities in DIY & Punk
.vol.
3
. Self-published zine.
Milwaukee, WI
,
2012
. [part of queer zine archive project, Milwaukee, WI].
Cook, Nicholas.
Beyond the Score: Music as Performance
.
Oxford University Press
,
2013
.
Corness, Greg. “
The Musical Experience Through the Lens of Embodiment
.”
Leonardo Music Journal
18
(
2008
):
21-24
.
Cottrell, Stephen.
Professional Music-Making in London: Ethnography and Experience
Aldershot
:
Ashgate
,
2004
.
Cupcake, Lorena.
“Imagining a Safer Space: Building Community & Ending Harassment in Punk.”
Store Brand Soda
, April 4,
2015
. [https://storebrandsoda.com/2015/04/28/imagining-a-safer-space-building-community-ending-harassment-in-punk/ accessed 2 August 2016].
Debies-Carl, Jeffrey S.
Punk Rock and the Politics of Place: Building a Better Tomorrow
New York
:
Routledge
,
2014
.
Dezeuze, Anna.
“An Introduction to the “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork.”
In
The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media
, ed. Anna Dezeuze
Manchester, UK
:
Manchester University Press
,
2010
,
1
24
.
Diamond, Beverley.
“Metaphors, mood, medium, and modelling: indigenous music workshops and citizenship.”
In Ian Russel, and Catherine Ingram, Eds.
Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology
, eds.
Aberdeen, UK
:
Aberdeen University Press
,
2013
.
Drew, Rob.
“‘Scenes’ Dimensions of Karaoke in the United States.”
In Andy Bennett and Richard A. Peterson, Eds.
Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and Virtual
.
Nashville
:
Vanderbilt University Press
,
2004
.
Duncombe, Stephen, and Maxwell Tremblay, Eds.
White Riot: Punk Rock and the Politics of Race
.
London
:
Verso
,
2011
.
Edge, Brian.
924 Gilman: The Story so Far…
San Francisco, CA
:
Maximum Rock and Roll
,
2004
.
Ferguson, Sian.
“Calling In: A Quick Guide on When and How.”
Everyday Feminism
,
May 2015.
[http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/guide-to-calling-in/accessed 25 February 2017].
Fernandez, Josh.
“Not Your Mother’s MOM: You Will Get.”
Newsreview.com
,
2008
. [https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/not-your-mothers-mom/content?oid=694014 accessed 26 July 2016].
Fonarow, Wendy.
Empire of Dirt: The Aesthetics and Rituals of British Indie Music
.
Middletown, CT
:
Wesleyan University Press
,
2008
.
Foster, Hal.
“Chat Rooms.”
In ed. Claire Bishop, Ed.
Participation
.
London
:
Whitechapel
, [
2004
] 2006.
Foster, Susan Leigh.
“Movement’s Contagion: The Kinesthetic Impact of Performance.”
In Tracy C. Davis, Ed.
The Cambridge Companion to Performance Studies
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
,
2008
.
Frankenbach, Chantal Stillman.
Disdain for Dance, Disdain for France: Choreophobia in German musical modernism
.Ph.D. Dissertation.
Davis, CA
:
University of California, Davis
,
2012
.
Fraser, Nancy. “
Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy
.”
Social Text
25
, no.
26
(
1990
):
56
80
.
Frith, Simon.
Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
,
1996
.
Garcia, Luis-Manuel.
“Crowd Solidarity on the Dancefloor in Paris and Berlin.”
In Fabian Holt and Carsten Wergin, Eds.
Musical Performance and the Changing City: Postindustrial Contexts in Europe and the United States
.
London
:
Routledge
,
2013
.
Garcia, Luis-Manuel. “
Beats, Flesh, and Grain: Sonic Tactility and Affect in Electronic Dance Music
.”
Sound Studies
1
, no.
1
(
2015
):
59-76
.
García-Avilés, José Alberto. “
Roles of Audience Participation in Multiplatform Television: From Fans and Consumers, to Collaborators and Activists
.”
Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies
9
, no.
2
(
2012
):
429
447
.
Gibbs, Anna.
“After Affect: Sympathy, Synchrony, and Mimetic Communication.”
In Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth, Eds.
The Affect Theory Reader
.
Durham, NC
:
Duke University Press
.
Gilbert, Jeremy and Ewan Pearson.
Discographies: Dance Music, Culture and the Politics of Sound
.
New York
:
Routledge
,
1999
.
Goldberg, Rose Lee.
Performance Art: From Futurism to the Present
.
London
:
Thames & Hudson
, [
1979
] 2011.
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin.
“Participation.”
In Alessandro Duranti, Ed.
A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology
.
Malden, MA
:
Blackwell Publishing
,
2004
.
Gottlieb, Joanne, and Gayle Wald.
“Smells Like Teen Spirit: Riot Grrrls, Revolution and Women in Independent Rock.”
In Andrew Ross and Tricia Rose, Eds.
Microphone Fiends: Youth Music & Youth Culture
.
New York
:
Routledge
,
1994
.
Graham, Beryl.
“What Kind of Participative System? Critical Vocabularies from New Media Art.”
In Anna Dezeuze, Ed.
The “Do-It-Yourself” Artwork: Participation from Fluxus to New Media
.
Manchester, UK
:
Manchester University Press
,
2010
.
Graham, Stephen.
Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political, and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music
.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan
,
2016
.
Gray, Lila Ellen.
Fado Resounding: Affective Politics and Urban Life
.
Durham
:
Duke University Press
,
2013
.
Hannerz, Erik.
Performing Punk
.
New York, NY
:
Palgrave Macmillan
,
2015
.
Hebdige, Dick.
Subculture: The Meaning of Style
.
London and New York
:
Routledge
,
1979
.
Hegarty, Paul.
Noise/Music: A History. New York
,
London
:
Continuum
,
2007
.
Hegarty, Paul.
“Brace and Embrace: Masochism in Noise Performance.”
In Marie Thompson, Ed.
Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Academic
,
2013
.
Hesmondhalgh, David.
Why Music Matters
.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK
:
John Wiley & Sons
,
2014
.
Hield, Fay.
“Negotiating Participation at an English Folk Singing Session.”
In Ian Russel, and Catherine Ingram, Eds.
Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology
.
Aberdeen, UK
:
Aberdeen University Press
,
2013
.
Hofman, Ana.
Glasba, Politika, Afekt: Novo Življenje Partizanskih Pesmi v Sloveniji
.
Ljubljana
:
Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU
,
2015
.
Hofman, Ana. “
Introduction to the Co-Edited Issue “Music, Affect and Memory Politics in Post-Yugoslav Space
.”
Southeastern Europe
39
no.
2
(
2015
):
145-64
.
Holtzman, Ben, Hughes, Craig, and Kevin Van Meter.
“Do It Yourself … and the Movement Beyond Capitalism.”
In Stephen Shukaitis, David Graeber, and Erika Biddle, Eds.
Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations//Collective Theorization
.
Oakland, CA
:
AK Press
, 2007.
44
61
.
Hough, Elisa.
“DAM House RIP.”
HouseShowsZine
.
2012
. [https://houseshowszine.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/dam-house-rip/ accessed 12 April 2017].
Ingram, Catherine.
“Understanding Musical Participation: “Listening” Participants and Big Song Singers in Kam Villages, Southwestern China.”
In Ian Russel, and Catherine Ingram, Eds.
Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology
.
Aberdeen, UK
:
Aberdeen University Press
,
2013
.
Joseph, Miranda.
Against the Romance of Community
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota
,
2002
.
Kester, Grant.
“Conversation Pieces: The Role of Dialogue in Socially Engaged Art.”
In Zoya Kucor, and Simon Leung, Eds.
Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
,
2005
. [http://www.publicart.usf.edu/CAM/exhibitions/2008_8_Torolab/Readings/Conversation_PiecesGKester.pdf accessed 24 April 2013]
Krajewski, Jill.
“The Noisy Guide to not being a Shithole and Making Your Venue Inclusive.”
Noisey
,
2016
. [http://noisey.vice.com/blog/a-guide-for-making-your-venue-inclusive accessed August 2, 2016].
Kruse, Holly.
The Site and Sound: Understanding Independent Music Scenes
.
New York
:
Peter Lang
,
2003
.
Kruse, Holly. “
Local Identity and Independent Music Scenes, Online and Off
.”
Popular Music and Society
33
, no.
5
(
2010
):
625
639
.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe.
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics
.
Verso
:
London
,
1985
.
Laing, Dave.
One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock
.
Milton Keynes, England
:
Open University Press
,
1985
.
Lauševic, Mirjana.
Balkan Fascination: Creating an Alternative Music Culture in America
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
2007
.
Leary, Timothy.
The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead
.
New York
:
University Books
,
1964
.
Lefebvre, Sam.
“The DIY ethic of No Babies.”
East Bay Express
.
2012
. [http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-diy-ethic-of-no-babies/Content?oid=3422175 accessed July 26, 2016].
Levine, Lawrence W.
Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
,
1988
.
Lloyd, Robert. “
The Neighborhood in Cultural Production: Material and Symbolic Resources in the New Bohemia
.”
City & Community
3
, no.
4
(
2004
):
343
369
.
Lockwood, Dean.
“Spread the Virus: Affective Prophecy in Industrial Music.”
In Marie Thompson, Ed.
Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Academic
,
2013
.
Luvaas, Brent Adam.
DIY Style: Fashion, Music and Global Digital Cultures
.
London
:
Bloomsbury
,
2013
.
Manabe, Noriko. “
Music in Japanese Antinuclear Demonstrations: The Evolution of a Contentious Performance Model
.”
The Asia-Pacific Journal
, vol.
11
,
42
, no.
3
(
2013
). [apjjf.org/2013/11/42/Noriko-Manabe/4015/article.html accessed 22 May 2017]
Marcus, Sara.
Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution
.
New York
:
Harper Perennial
,
2010
.
McBride, Jean Marie. “
Social Media & Audience Participation in Regard to Television
.”
Honors Research Projects
6
(
2015
):
19
26
.
Moore, Ryan.
Sells Like Teen Spirit: Music, Youth Culture, and Social Crisis
. (
New York and London
:
New York University Press
,
2010
.
Nguyen, Mimi Thi, Ed.
Evolution of a Race Riot
.Self-published zine.
1997
. [http://issuu.com/poczineproject/docs/evolution-of-a-race-riot-issue-1 accessed 26 December 2012].
Nguyen, Mimi Thi, Ed.
Race Riot 2
.
2002
. Self-published zine. [http://issuu.com/poczineproject/docs/race-riot-2 accessed 26 December 2012].
Nguyen, Mimi Thi. “
It’s (Not) a White World: Looking for Race in Punk
.”
Threads & Circuits
. [
1998
] 2010. [http://threadandcircuits.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/its-not-a-white-world-looking-for-race-in-punk-1998/ accessed 21 December 2012].
Nguyen, Mimi Thi.
“Riot Grrrl, Race, and Revival.”
In Elizabeth Stinson and Fiona I.B. Ngô, Eds.
Punk Anteriors: Genealogy, Theory, Performance
. [Special issue of] Women & Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory
22
, no.
2–3
(
2012
):
173
96
.
Novak, David.
Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation
.
Durham
:
Duke University Press
,
2013
O’Brien, Michael S.
This is What Democracy Sounds Like: Live and Mediated Soundscapes of Wisconsin Uprising
.”
Music & Politics
7
, no.
2
(
2013
):
1
19
.
Priest, Eldritch.
“Felt as Though (or, Musical Abstractions and the Semblance of Affect).”
In Marie Thompson, Ed.
Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Academic
,
2013
.
Putnam, Robert D.
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
New York
:
Simon & Schuster
,
2000
.
Qureshi, Regula Burckhardt.
“Sufism and the Globalization of Sacred Music.”
In Philip V. Bohlman, Ed.
The Cambridge History of World Music
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University
,
2014
.
Rancière, Jacques. “
Emancipated Spectator
.”
Artforum International
45
, no.
7
([
2004
] 2007):
270
82
. [http://members.efn.org/~heroux/The-Emancipated-Spectator-.pdf accessed 24 April 2013].
Russel, Ian, and Catherine Ingram, Eds.
Taking Part in Music: Case Studies in Ethnomusicology
.
Aberdeen, UK
:
Aberdeen University Press
,
2013
.
Shelemay, Kay Kaufman. “
Musical Communities: Rethinking the Collective in Music
.”
Journal of the American Musicological Society
64
, no.
2
(
2011
):
349
90
.
Schippers, Mimi.
Rockin’ Out of the Box: Gender Maneuvering in Alternative Hard Rock
New Brunswick, NJ
:
Rutgers University
,
2002
.
Scott, Aaron.
[no title]. Don’t Hang Out in Front of the House
.
2010
. [http://donthangoutinfrontofthehouse.tumblr.com/post/1542676016/i-owe-a-quick-shout-out-today-to-dave-frenson-of accessed 6 December 2012].
seattle diy.com.
DIY Directory
. [Self-published zine].
Seattle
,
2009
.
Seeger, Anthony.
“The Suyá and the White Men: Forty-Five Years of Musical Diplomacy in Brasil.”
In John Morgan O’Connel and Salwa El-Shawan Castelo-Branco, Eds.
Music and Conflict
.
Urbana-Champaign
:
University of Illinois Press
,
2010
.
Shank, Barry.
Dissonant Identities: The Rock ‘n’ roll Scene in Austin, Texas
.
Hanover and London
:
University Press of New England
,
1994
.
Shank, Barry. “
The Political Agency of Musical Beauty
.”
American Quarterly
63
, no.
3
(
2011
):
831
55
.
Shrodes, Addie.
“The Race Riot Within and Without The Grrrl One; Ethnoracial Grrrl Zines” Tactical Construction of Space.”
Unpublished BA thesis.
Ann Arbor, MI
:
University of Michigan
,
2012
. [http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/96647/addiecs.pdf?sequence=1%20,%2099 accessed 29 July 2015].
Silent Barn
Silent Barn Public Meeting X: Safer Spaces. [Audio recording of a public discussion]
.
New York
:
Silent Barn
,
2013
. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TFhJhWYTBM accessed 10 September 2016].
Silverman, Carol.
Romani Routes: Cultural Politics and Balkan Music in Diaspora
(
New York
:
Oxford University Press
,
2012
.
Small, Christopher.
Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening
.
Hanover, NH, and London
:
University of New England Press
,
1998
.
Stark, James.
Punk ‘77: An inside Look at the San Francisco Rock ‘n’ Roll Scene, 1977
.
San Francisco
:
RE/Search
,
1999
.
Straw, Will. “
Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music
.”
Cultural Studies
5
, no.
3
(
1991
):
368
88
.
Thompson, Marie and Ian Biddle.
“Introduction: Somewhere Between the Signifying and the Sublime.”
In Marie Thompson, Ed.
Sound, Music, Affect Theorizing Sonic Experience
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Academic
,
2013
.
Thornton, Sarah.
Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capita
.
Middletown, CT
:
Wesleyan University Press
,
1996
.
Tsitsos, William. “
Rules of Rebellion: Slamdancing, Moshing, and the American Alternative Scene
,”
Popular Music
18
, no.
3
(
1999
):
397
414
.
Tuan, Yi-fu.
Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota
,
1977
.
Turino, Thomas.
Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation
.
Chicago and London
:
University of Chicago Press
,
2008
.
Turner, Scott M. X.
“Maximizing Rock and Roll: An Interview with Tim Yohannan.”
In Ronald B. Sakolsky and Fred Wei-Han Ho, Eds.
Sounding Off!: Music as Subversion/Resistance/Revolution
.
Brooklyn, NY
:
Autonomedia
,
1995
.
Varas-Díaz, Nelson, and Niall W. R. Scott.
Heavy Metal Music and the Communal Experience
.
Lanham, Boulder, New York, London
:
Lexington Books
,
2016
.
Verbuč, David.
‘Living Publicly’: House Shows, Alternative Venues, and the Value of Place and Space Within American DIY Communities
.Ph.D. Dissertation.
Davis, CA
:
University of California, Davis
,
2014
.
Verbuč, David.
“Fans or Friends?: Local/Translocal Dialectics of DIY (‘Do-It-Yourself’) Touring and DIY Community in the U.S.”
Lidé Mesta/Urban People
,
17
, no.
2
(
2015
):
221
46
.
Verbuč, David.
‘Living Publicly’: House Shows, Alternative Venues, and the Value of Place and Space Within American DIY Communities (Transcultural Music Studies Series)
.
Sheffield
:
Equinox Publishing
[Forthcoming].
Wehr, Kevin.
DIY: the Search for Control and Self-reliance in the 21st Century
(
New York
:
Routledge
,
2012
.
Weinstein, Deena.
“Communities of Metal: Ideal, Diminished, and Imaginary.”
In Nelson Varas-Díaz and Niall Scott Lanham, Eds.
Heavy Metal Music and the Communal Experience
.
MD
:
Lexington
,
2016
.
Wesch, Michael. “
YouTube and You: Experiences of Self-awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam
.”
Explorations in Media Ecology
8
, no.
2
(
2009
):
19
34
.
Whiteley, Sheila.
Women and Popular Music: Sexuality, Identity, and Subjectivity
London
:
Routledge
,
2000
.
Wilson, Martha. “
Performance Art: (Some) Theory and (Selected) Practice at the End of This Century
.”
Art Journal
56
, no.
4
(
1997
):
2
3
. [http://allyn.faculty.tcnj.edu/vid2week1.htm accessed 23 April 2013].
Žižek, Slavoj.
The Sublime Object of Ideology
.
London, New York
:
Verso
, [
1989
] 2008.
Films
Koughan, Frank, and Douglas Rushkoff.
Generation Like
. [Documentary film] PBS/FRONTLINE production, with Left/Right Docs.
Boston
:
WGBH Educational Foundation
,
2014
.
Wesch, Michael.
“An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube.”
2008
. [Documentary Film] [https://archive.org/details/WeschYouTube accessed 19 July 2017]