Critical Review of Cohen's "Ethnography and popular music studies"

The major concern of Cohen’s article is to promote the use of ethnography in the study of popular music. Cohen defines ethnography as “the description and interpretation of a way of life (or ‘culture’)” as derived from direct observation, which involves “a ‘microsociological’ focus upon the beliefs, values, rituals and general patterns of behavior underlying social relationships or networks” (Cohen 123). Cohen notes many of the problems with current techniques of studying popular music. Some of these include a sole reliance on unreliable journalistic and statistical sources, a distinct focus on “stars” of the music scene, and emphasis on youth and their concern with the fast-changing trends associated with pop (thus downplaying any possible continuities that occur over time). Instead, Cohen believes that musicologists studying popular music should focus on music as a social process, i.e. study the cultural, historical, and social implications music has on a particular group of people. Although ethnography, too, has its limitations, Cohen insists that a concentration upon the way humans interact with the music that is created would “[illuminate] the ways in which music is used and the important role that it plays in everyday life and in society generally” (Cohen 127). Although recent studies of popular music have been leaning more towards an ethnographic approach by focusing more on local music consumption than on consumption on a global scale, many of these studies still rely heavily on questionnaires, surveys, and interviews instead of studying people within their own social contexts.
Cohen goes on to describe the strengths of specific research examples that have been conducted on popular music. She praises Ruth Finnegan’s study of “musical worlds.” Finnegan also highlights that these “worlds” are more like “pathways” than communities: they differ in size and inclusiveness, tend to overlap, and are constantly trodden by different people. Finnegan believes, as does Cohen, that “people choose music as a pathway...because it provides a context for activities and relationships, and a means for the expression of personal and collective identity and value” (Cohen 128). This statement makes clear the necessity of using a comparative approach when studying how different individuals, cultures, and forms of media interpret and use music. Cohen also describes her own research on the Jews in Liverpool and the way in which ‘locality,’ “a sense of community of affinity that is linked to notions of place” plays a large role in determining music consumption (Cohen 129) . In her research, Cohen tries to put more emphasis on the historical background of music and on its role within groups as dependent upon religion, ethnicity, and class. Though she performed interviews to do her research, Cohen tried to add aspects of ethnographic study by observing the participation of her subjects in music-related activities. By learning about the history of Jews in Liverpool and collecting individual opinions about the area itself and the music found there, Cohen discovered that locality is portrayed differently depending upon an individual’s situation and relationships. This individual depiction can strongly differ from the sort of locality the larger community promotes. Cohen also brings up the issue of identity and its definition not as a fixed state, but as something that is constantly being invented and that is itself a source of social change. In conclusion, Cohen insists that popular music must be studied on a local scale before it can be studied globally as the two levels are “dynamically interrelated and inseparable” (Cohen 133). Ethnographic study, therefore, might allow anthropologists to discover how international phenomena arise from smaller scales that may differ greatly. The researchers themselves may be made more aware of their own biases in the process and be forced to challenge the preconceived notions of the masses. More details of the culture behind popular music may further justify general statements or teach us that such statements minimize the complexity that actually exists.

Discussion question: At one point in her article, Cohen quotes Frith when describing Finnegan’s work as saying that “the usual social indicators of musical tastes (class, age, gender) are not good indicators of membership of musical worlds...Music, in short, is not simply used as a marker of existing social differences” (Cohen 128). How valid is this statement? Are there certain music scenes whose membership is more or less contingent upon one or more of these factors?