(1)

James Witte and John Ryan 11

MUSICAL TASTE AND SOCIABILITY: EVIDENCE FROM SURVEY2000

Introduction

􏰆 The young, thin, white, male, college freshman was unloading his posses- sions out of his Jeep Cherokee in front of the dorm. It was moving-in day. His middle-aged father hovered nearby helping where he could,

clearly feeling out of place. The boy, too, appeared awkward, caught in a tempo- rary intersection between the adolescent world of home and family, and the new independence of college. In mid-stride, he put down a box, went back to the Jeep and flipped on the stereo. The air was filled suddenly and dramatically with a pounding bass line and the voice of three-time MTV Music Video Award winner Eminem intoning the lyrics:

hi, my name is . . .what? my name is . . .who? my name is . . . Slim Shadyhi, my name ishuh? my name is . . . what? my name is . . . Slim Shady(Eminem “My Name Is [explicit version]”)

We suspect this freshman was hoping to send a signal. Perhaps something like:

“Accept me, I’m like you, I’m cool, I’m wild (and maybe a little bit dangerous), just ig- nore my dad unloading (out of the $35,000 Jeep they bought for high school graduation) that stack of clothes carefully washed, ironed and folded by my mom back home . . . I’m like you, I’m like you.”

Beyond the subtleties of the content of the message intended by this signal, an equally important empirical question concerns the choice of the signal itself. In his

(2)

Consalvo 065-140 2/26/04 10:19 AM Page 119

witte and ryan | Musical Taste and Sociability 119

effort to make a statement to his newfound peers, what prompted our new college freshman to choose this medium, this artist, this track to make a statement? What led him to believe that this signal would resonate with the intended audience? Even if one interprets this scene quite differently—perhaps, the intended audience was the young man’s father and not the nearby students

—this question remains relevant. The music was not a random track from a randomly selected CD. Musical taste, as with other forms of cultural

preference, is rooted in a subtle process of education and socialization. As is often done, to simply point the finger at “the music industry” is to substitute an

(3)

easy anthropomorphism for a plausible sociological explanation. The music industry never directly walked up our young freshman and suggested he listen to Eminem. Arguably the music industry does have tangible in- struments for shaping tastes (e.g., youth-oriented radio, television, and maga- zines), yet to go down this route does not answer the question, but simply pushes it one step further in a potentially infinite regress. Why does our young friend listen to this pop station and not another? Why does he read this magazine and not another?

The analyses presented in this chapter consider sociability—real interaction with other individuals—as a concrete explanation for the articulation of musical taste. The premise is quite simple: musical tastes are created and shaped through interaction with others. As a testable hypothesis, it follows, ceteris paribus, clear musical preferences are most likely to be found among those individuals who are most sociable. The hypothesis is tested using data from Survey2000, a Web-based survey with nearly 25,000 U.S. adult

respondents. What we find not only corre- sponds to popular views about the

“demographics” of particular genres, but also shows that sociability is positively related to articulating a preference for a single genre as well as to having a preference for a number of genres.

Musical Taste and Sociability

Adolescents wear their musical choices like they wear their clothes and their lan- guage, as a way of distinguishing themselves (Bourdieu, 1984), as identifying with some reference group or another and, just as important, not identifying themselves with some other groups (cf. Arnett, 1991).1 Researchers such as Weinstein (1994) have highlighted the fact that music is an integral part of local teen “scenes,” draw- ing boundaries around physical spaces as well as between members and nonmem- bers. This idea has been taken even further, especially by the Birmingham School, positing distinct subcultures built around music preferences. However, Bennett (1999) prefers the term “neo-tribes,”

suggesting a much less involving and more fluid association between musical preference and lifestyle.2

Whether music is used to form subcultures, neo-tribes, or is just used to dis- tance oneself from one’s parents, it is clear that musical taste, like taste in clothes, food, art, and other cultural choices, is often an important part of the presentation of self. However, exactly how musical tastes develop is a matter of much speculation.

(4)

Consalvo 065-140 2/26/04 10:19 AM Page 120

120 places, politics, and policies of the internet

For example, the relationship between cultural participation of all sorts and eco- nomic class has long been accepted (cf. Veblen, [1899] 1934), but the predictive value has never been that strong and actually seems to be weakening for higher status groups (see Peterson, 1992). Age, too, is an important factor

(5)

(Zill & Robin- son, 1994), but considerable variation exists within these age groups as well. For example, younger adults are more likely to like jazz, blues, reggae, rap, and new age, but few like all of these genres.

Education also is associated with particular cultural choices. For example, Zill and Robinson report that two-thirds of adults who have been to graduate school say they like classical music, compared with one-fourth of adults with no college education. In fact, those with more education appreciate more types of music, with the notable exception of country music, which they are less likely to appreciate.

Hakaman and Wells (1993), argue for gender and ethnicity as the main explana- tory variables in musical taste, but here, too, considerable variation exists.

Demographics do not completely explain musical taste, a concept captured by Gans’s (1969) notion of “taste publics.” But how do we account for the

formation of taste publics within demographic groups? A likely explanation is developed by Mark (1998) in his conception of musical forms occupying an ecological niche within the sociodemographic segments of society. For Mark, the key factor in the development of musical taste is interaction with friends and family. He argues that demographic similarities and differences between various taste cultures are largely an artifact of the way our social networks are structured by these same variables. That is, we tend to associate with

individuals who are similar to ourselves in atti- tudes and taste, and such individuals are also likely to be demographically similar.3

Mark uses data from the 1993 General Social Survey to test a number of hypoth- eses relevant to his ecological theory. He is able to demonstrate a number of findings consistent with his model. For example, he is able to show that the closer one is to the center of the demographic niche associated with a particular genre, the more likely one is to like that genre. However, the GSS does not contain a measure of the extent of social ties—the key variable in his model of taste formation. If musical taste is formed through interaction with friends and family, the actual extent of those interactions should have an impact on taste. In this chapter, we have not attempted to reproduce Mark’s demographic taste niches but, rather, we have simply looked at the impact of levels of interaction with family and friends on musical taste, while

controlling for key demographic variables.

Survey2000: Survey Design and Sample

Our analyses use data from Survey2000, a Web-based survey focusing on geographic mobility, community and cultural identity.4 Over 80,000 individuals worldwide took part in Survey2000, which was placed on the home page of the National Geographic Society. Publicity for the project was generated by the Na-

(6)

one line short

Consalvo 065-140 2/26/04 10:19 AM Page 121

(7)

Table 1: Demographics of the Survey2000 Adults (Age > 18) Sample Compared to the 1996 and 1993 General Social Surveys1

1996 General 1993 General Survey 20002 Social Survey Social Survey

%N%N%N

Gender Female

Male Median age Race 48.9 15,147 51.1 15,801 55.7 1,614 44.3 1,283 57.3 918 42.7 683 43 years 38 years Black 1.4

44 years13.9 402 11.2 White 94.5 Other 4.1

EducationLess than HS degree 0.9 HS degree 31.9 Associate’s degree 7.8 Bachelor’s degree 34.1 Graduate degree 25.2 428 29,004 1,268

292 9,882 2,421 10,569 7,785 80.9 2,344 5.2 151

15.2 441 54.1 1,567 6.7 194 16.3 471 7.7 224 179 83.9 1,343 4.9 79

18.1 289 52.5 840 6.2 99 15.8 253 7.4 118

1. Sample is restricted to age 19 or older to facilitate GSS comparison for all data sources. 2. There were also 713 respondents who did not provide information on race.

(8)

tional Geographic Society and a team of researchers who advertised the effort through discussion groups, colleagues, and Web sites around the world. Here we rely on data from nearly 25,000 U.S. adult respondents who voluntarily took part in the survey.

Table 1 compares the demographic makeup of the Survey2000 sample to two recent GSS samples. This comparison shows, for example, that whereas just over half of the Survey2000 sample is male, female respondents constitute the majority in the 1996 and 1993 GSS samples.5 Furthermore, the Survey2000 sample is considerably younger, with a median age of 38 years, than that estimated by the GSS (44 years in 1996 and 43 years in 1993). The Survey2000 sample also supports the widely held view that minorities are underrepresented on the Internet; 92.5% of the Survey2000 respondents are white. Finally, Table 1 indicates a large difference between the educational makeup of the

Survey2000 sample and the U.S. popula- tion at large. For example, the proportion of Survey2000 respondents with a high school degree but no postsecondary degree (31.9%) is considerably lower than that found in the 1996 GSS (54.1%) and the 1993 GSS (52.5%). Correspondingly, respondents with postsecondary degrees are overrepresented in the Survey2000 sample.

(9)

one line short

Consalvo 065-140 2/26/04 10:19 AM Page 122

122 places, politics, and policies of the internet

Describing Demographics, Sociability, and Musical Taste

The musical tastes of U.S. Survey2000 respondents are summarized in Table 2.

Classical/symphony and chamber music along with oldies/classic rock were far and away the most popular genres with approximately 80% of the Survey2000 respondents saying they like these genres or like them very much. At the other end of the spectrum, only 12.1% of all respondents felt the same way about rap or hip/hop music and 18.3% favored heavy metal music. While the general pattern of results is plausible, comparisons of individual genres indicate clear differences between the

Table 2: Musical Preferences of US Survey2000 Respondents

Like it very Have mixed Dislike it Don’t know much much Like it feelings Dislike it very much about it

Classical/symphony and chamber music Opera

(10)

Broadway musicals/ show tunes

JazzBig band/swingMood/easy listeningCountry-westernBluegrassHymns/gospel 9.3% 26.2%

35.0%

24.8%25.2% 37.7% 24.9%

28.1% 19.6% 12.0%

40.5% 33.0% 22.3%

21.6% 25.1% 30.1%

Rhythm and blues 20.4%

Rap/Hip-Hop 3.4%

Dance music(e.g., electronica) 7.9%

Caribbean(e.g., reggae, soca) 12.9%

Latin(e.g., mariachi, salsa) 10.1%

39.9% 8.7%

22.0%

42.9%

35.3%

35.2%

39.2%

42.9% 26.3% 40.1% 13.1%

26.7% 21.3%

32.3%

28.8%

32.0%

22.1%

27.3%

23.9% 25.7% 13.7% 24.0%

Music of your ethnic tradition

(11)

Modern folk/singer- songwriter Contemporary pop/ rock

Alternative rock Oldies/classic rock Heavy metal 17.6% 18.5%

22.0% 21.3% 41.0%

6.2%

39.4% 8.3%

38.0% 19.5%

16.7% 36.5%

2.8% 1.1% 2.0% 19.9% 10.1% 5.7%

8.5% 4.2% 2.1% 7.5% 3.0% 1.8% 6.0% 1.9% 1.9%

14.2% 7.3% 0.7% 17.8% 17.1% 0.7% 15.2% 7.0% 6.9% 16.3% 9.8% 3.4%

7.9% 2.8% 2.2% 23.0% 40.8% 2.8%

19.3% 11.2% 7.4%

7.5% 2.8% 5.2%

11.5% 3.7% 7.4%

2.7% 1.0% 21.4%

7.6% 1.9% 5.5%

7.3% 2.9% 1.1% 14.8% 7.8% 4.1% 3.5% 1.4% 0.4%

21.9% 33.2% 1.6%

34.0%

26.5%

9.9% 30.5% 30.4%

N = 24,980 (US adult respondents). Rows sum to 100%

(12)

Consalvo 065-140 2/26/04 10:19 AM Page 123

Table 3: Measures of Sociability among US Survey2000 Respondents

(13)

Several times About AboutNever Rarely a year monthly weekly Daily

Personal visits with friends within 30 miles Telephone/fax with friends within 30 miles Letter/cards with friends within 30 miles E-mail with friends within 30 miles

Personal visits with friends beyond 30 miles Telephone/fax with friends beyond 30 miles Letter/cards with friends beyond 30 miles E-mail with friends beyond 30 miles 2.4% 6.8%

2.8% 6.4% 17.4% 39.0% 16.7% 15.2%

8.2% 43.4%

6.1% 21.7% 10.0% 35.0% 15.0% 14.2%

10.8% 6.8% 28.6% 6.6% 34.6% 29.8% 40.3% 13.3%

19.5% 14.6% 11.0% 13.1% 9.6% 24.7% 11.9% 19.0%

42.3% 18.1% 42.7% 26.7% 3.3% 0.7% 29.1% 19.3% 3.5% 0.7% 15.1% 2.7% 2.7% 0.2% 25.6%

12.9%

N = 35,092 (US adult respondents). Rows sum to 100%

(14)

Survey2000 sample and similar data obtained as part of the 1993 GSS. These differences (e.g., country and western music is much more popular among GSS respondents than among the Survey2000 sample, which includes a disproportionate share of college graduates), in large measure may be attributed to the nonrandom nature of the Survey2000 sample (Witte et al., 2000).

Although there is no reason to suspect that the Survey2000 sample recruitment process distorts the relationship between musical taste and sociability, these findings underscore the need to control for demographic characteristics in subsequent multivariate analyses.

Respondents also were queried about the frequency of various types of interaction with friends and relatives, distinguishing between those who lived within 30 miles of the respondent and those who lived farther away. To explore the relationship between sociability and musical taste we have focused on contact with friends, who presumably have a greater influence on the musical taste of adults than do relatives. The survey items used to measure sociability are summarized in Table 3.6

Musical Taste and Sociability

Conceivably, contact with friends of any type—in person, by phone, letter, or e- mail—could lead to the definition and articulation of musical tastes.

Therefore, to simplify the model, the different types of contact are combined into a single index of sociability. This index is a simple sum of dimensions, with each ranging from one to six with higher values assigned to more frequent contact. Thus, the higher

(15)