Van Eijck, Koen. 2001. “Social Differentiation in Musical Taste Patterns.” Social Forces 79 (3): 1163-1184.
Sample from Dutch population of patterns in musical taste. Higher status groups tend to be more diverse in music genre selections than lower-status groups, BUT this difference is small and has to do with ranking of musical likings rather than favorite genres. Uses delineation of “highbrow, pop, and folk” to construct basic discourses, noting that new middle class groups combine all three of these taste patterns.
Cultural consumption as related to person’s social status – a la Bourdieu (1984) – those of higher-status groups have more cultural capital to draw from than lower-status, due to broader, more diverse social networks, demands of multigenre literacy, new memberships due to upward social mobility in recent decades. Cultural capital – “knowledge and appreciation of highbrow culture and the arts, ‘good’ taste, and appropriate manners” (1163) – implies relation between cultural field (where cultural products can be positioned) and social field (where consumers are positioned)—- this is called homology. Socialization as a predictor of cultural consumption. Cultural capital is determined by time and place of research, are not fixed in nature and are in competition with other new cultural products (DiMaggio 1992, Heilbrun 1997), even within musical genres where reinterpretation and performance are regularly debated (Farnsworth 1969, Hennion 1997).
“Cultural tastes, opinions, and consumption patterns are a part of a broader vision on moral, social, and cultural values” (1164). However, musical taste is not necessarily a point of belonging (or desire to belong) with a specific context or group to which a genre is linked/produced.
“Each more or less personal taste can exist only if it combines elements of different styles” (Simmel 1997a, here 1167).
Transcendence as an aesthetic cultural experience – highbrow; fun as routinized, emotional cultural experience – pop, integration as a cultural experience of placement.
Occupational status as most determinant of musical taste patterns (Peterson and Simkus 1992) – (kx^ however, how does this apply to the new economies of partially and underemployed, largely educated non-working groups?) Youth as cultural omnivores with broad repertoires.
Bordieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Routledge.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. “Cultural Boundaries and Structural Change: The Extension of the High Culture Model to Theater, Opera, and the Dance, 1900-1940.” Pp. 21-57 in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier. University of Chicago Press.
Farnsworth, Paul R. 1969. The Social Psychology of Music. Iowa State University Press.
Heilbrun, James. 1997. “The Competition between High Culture and Popular Culture as Seen in the New York Times.” Journal of Cultural Economics 21:29-40.
Hennion, Antoine. 1997. “Baroque and Rock: Music, Mediators and Musical Taste.” Poetics 24:415-35.
Peterson, Richard A. and Albert Simkus. 1992. “How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational Status Groups.” Pp. 152-86 in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier. University of Chicago Press.
Simmel, Georg. 1997. “The Problem of Style.” Pp. 211-17 in Simmel on Culture, edited by David Frisby and Mike Featherstone. Sage Publications.