An Ethnographic Study of Music, Venue, and Youth Subculture Identity

This ethnographic study examines the relationship between music, venue, social influences, and social identity within a youth subculture, focusing on two hip-hop performances at a Melbourne venue. The research, conducted on a Thursday night in March 2016, explores the venue's atmosphere and its appeal to a predominantly youth-oriented crowd. The study analyzes the dynamics of an open-mic performance, observing the interaction between performers and the audience, and highlighting the blend of participatory and presentational elements. The analysis draws on Turino's concepts of performance to understand the blurred lines between performers and audience members and the impact of this dynamic on audience involvement. The report also considers the influence of fashion and the construction of identity within the subculture. The second performance is contrasted to highlight the shift in audience engagement with a presentational style. The study concludes by emphasizing the role of music in shaping individual and collective identities within the subculture.

The purpose of this ethnographic study is to focus on the music, venue, social influences on
performer-audience relationships and social identity of youth sub-culture. Through field research
observations I will examine the audience and performance participants from two separate
musical performances carried out on the same night. The field research took place on thursday
the 17th of March, 2016 at the two story bar, restaurant and venue Boney. I was influenced by
the choice of venue for its hip-hop reputation, and the reason for carrying out my study on this
particular night was based on the hip-hop Open-mic night that is supposedly held every second
thursday.
Venue:
The venue is situated on a side street in the CBD of Melbourne close to nearby public transport.
Immediately after entering the venue, it was obvious that it promoted predominantly a youth
culture. The colourful neon lights behind the bar combined with the Dj playing electronic club
music on the lower floor made it clear that the venue presented itself with an emphasis on a
‘party’ styled atmosphere. The lower floor was where the restaurant was located, with tables
and chairs provided for eating patrons. Upstairs it was a relatively small room with a bar, low
ceiling, posters on the wall and stage to one corner. The age bracket of patron within the venue
appeared to be between 18-35. Throughout the night I noticed that majority of patrons were
consuming alcohol and thought this worthy of noting due to its effects on social interactions.
Open Mic Performance:
The open mic performance started with three instrumental musicians comprising of a keys/synth
player, a bass player and a drummer playing a hip-hop styled groove without introduction. First
observation made was the choice of fashion influencing the instrumental performers. Not only
were the musicians playing instrumental hip-hop orientated music, they also wore stereotypical
hip-hop clothes similar to what you'd see in a modern day rap video (caps, NBA merchandise,
hip-hop merchandise). After this first observation I immediately noticed a similar fashion trend
with the members of the crowd. Much like the instrumentalists on stage approximately 70% of
the audience members were wearing at least one item of hip-hop appropriate attire. This
established communal attire can be linked to Shukar’s argument that members of youth
subcultures “utilize symbolic elements to construct an identity outside the restraints of class and
education, an identity that places them squarely outside of the conservative mainstream
society”1
Initially there seemed to be a segregation between band and crowd. The crowd were a few
meters away from the stage and whilst aware of the performance a fraction of people were still
mingling amongst their social circles. Once the band verbally introduced themselves as an open
mic segment for rappers and emcees to get up and freestyle, the coordinator of the night
immediately got behind the mic and started rapping. Its interesting to note here that as soon as
the rapping began, the talking amongst the crowd diminished and the focus on the second floor
of the venue became the performance onstage. As well as this I also observed that this
particular individual was seen chatting amongst multiple social circles around the venue before
the commencement of the band and appeared to be familiar with majority of the patrons within
1 Shuker, Roy. Understanding Popular Music Culture, 4th edn. London: Routledge, 2013, 176.

the venue. As the first emcee was rapping he explained within his lyrical content who he was
(Jono), who the band was (La Loops) and the purpose of the night: the band to provide live
beats for emcees to freestyle over and have a good time, which was followed by a clapping and
woo’s from the crowd. Jono then asked everyone to move to the front of the stage which was
reciprocated by compliance amongst majority of the crowd, and in particular the compliance
came from the social circles I had witnessed him associating with earlier in the night. He then
handed the mic to the closest associate who immediately commenced rapping along to the
music provided by the band. Emcee’s from here out would take a few minutes rapping before
passing it onto the next emcee displaying interest near the front of the stage. This continued
until the set ended.
Throughout the band’s thirty minute set some interesting observations were made. The most
interesting and obvious being the relationship between audience and performer. This
relationship was not your ordinary clear cut segregation due to the nature of the performance.
The relationship was blurred as to who is a performer and who is an audience member,
however this resulted in an increased involvement amongst the venues patrons. This can be
linked directly to Turino and his definition of both participatory and presentational performance
which is as followed: “Briefly defined, participatory performance is a special type of artistic
practice in which there are no art-audience distinctions, only participants and potential
participants performing different roles, and the primary goal is to involve the maximum number
of people in some performance role. Presentational performance, in contrast, refers to situations
where one group of people, the artists, prepare and provide music for another group, the
audience, who do not participate in making the music or dancing.”2
The behaviour of the crowd was consistent with the crowd closest to the stage who appeared to
be dancing by bobbing their head to the pulse. At the outskirts of the room, that is, near the bar
and on the walls, there were some patrons bobbing there and some simply observing.
Corresponding to Turino2 we can analyse the first performance and conclude that it is both
somewhat participatory and somewhat presentational because it is a group taking turns
individually presenting a performance. No doubt, the overall objective of the performance was to
get participants involved which was established through positive reinforcement from the
audience when emcee would step up and step down to the stage. This objective was also
promoted by particular emcees who would lyrically involve participants in the crowd through call-
and response technique as well as specifically calling up friends. As Turino mentions “In
participatory events everyone’s contribution to the performance is valued and in fact is
considered essential for a performance to be deemed successful.”3
In addition to this overall objective there also appeared to be the individual objective of the
emcee/rapper to present their visturosic skills within the hip-hop genre. This objective was
predominantly apparent amongst the more skilled and confident participants and was applauded
more enthusiastically by the crowd. It is interesting to mention that this objective comes from a
2 Turino, Thomas. Music as Social Life : The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2008, 26.
3 Turino, Thomas. Music as Social Life : The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2008, 33.

more of a presentational than participatory nature, yet it should be noted that the less skilled
Emcees were still met with applause. Everyone who contributed onstage was applauded for
their participation regardless of their skill level. This observation can be is supported by Turino:
“In places where participatory music and dance are at the center of social occasions,
opportunities to improve one’s skills are common. The inclusion of people with a wide range of
abilities within the same performance is important for inspiring participants. The presence of
other people with similar abilities as oneself makes joining in comfortable. If only virtuosic
performers were present, the gap between them and neophytes would be too great, and
inexperienced performers would be discouraged.”4
As well as this I also observed a partially participant, partially presentational objective carried
out by the band. Whilst their overall objective coincided with the participation nature of the
event, it was obvious that there was preconceived musical material that was being utilized. It
appeared that particular preconceived harmonic, melodic and rhythmic information had been
agreed upon prior to taking the stage. The repetitive nature of hip-hop was employed as a
vehicle for improvisation amongst the instrumentalists, emcees and crowd. For example the
band would use harmonic, melodic and rhythmic information from well known commercial hip-
hop song and repeat that information to serve as the framework for which the emcees/rapper
could rap upon. Whilst this information is repetitive enough for an emcee to feel musically
comfortable (consistent pulse, diatonic harmony) the instrumentalists use other musical
elements such as dynamics, stop and starts and ornamentation in an impromptu manner in
order to enhance the performance experience in correlation to the emcee on stage. I assume
this impromptu nature due to obvious on stage visual and verbal communication between band
members. This objective or appreciation for making the music sound good arguably comes from
a presentational nature much like the aforementioned virtuosic emcees and in similar response
to the more skilled participants, successful attempts to enhance the musical sound was meet
with enthusiastic applause from the crowd. This mix of participatory and presentational
performance is actually categorized by Turino as sequential participatory music. “In which
everyone takes a turn alone or smaller groups perform for the other people in the event; in a
sense, then, sequential participatory traditions begin to include features of presentational music-
making”5
Using the definition of core and elaboration as set by Turino6 we can analyse the performance
and categorize the three instrumentalists as core participants with the interchanging emcee
deemed elaboration participants. The observation could even suggest that the off stage crowd,
through means of applause and responsive verbal cues, could be deemed as elaboration
participants.
Participatory performances are somewhat unusual to come by in contemporary musical settings
due to commercialism and consumerism promoted by media outlets. This appreciation and
involvement to an unorthodox performance nature as well as many observations on the night
potentially support Kotarba’s argument about the influence of music upon social identity (p. 3)
4 Turino, Music as Social Life, 31.
5Turino, Thomas. Music as Social Life : The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2008, 48.
6 Turino, Music as Social Life, 31.

“People construct a sense of identity, individual and collective, around music, how family
members socialize one another to appreciate and understand musical traditions; how musical
performances unfold as symbolic rituals; how the form of organization of music subcultures are
shaped on the basis of what people do in each other’s co-presence, and so forth.”7
Second band
It was clear immediately that the second band’s (Litty Kitty)set was clearly of presentational
nature and the influence this had on the audience was clear. Whilst observing the crowd during
the second band’s set it should be noted there was less involvement, excitement and
enthusiasm. The crowd were still dancing in a hip hop fashion and at the conclusion of each
song the audience would clap, however this was the maximum involvement from majority of the
audience. This can be concluded as a result of the nature of the performance, where the
evaluation of this band was based on the presentation as opposed to the participation as seen
within the first band. Three songs into the their set the lead singer announced that it was hot
and the band proceeded to strip down to their underwear. This was met by an applause from
the crowd who now appeared to be more attentive to the performance. Examining this unusual
stinct we can categorize this action as a means of conservative defiance and a means of
identifying with a particular youth subculture that coincides with what Shukar suggests
“Subcultures often distinguish themselves against others; fractions of a larger social group, they
usually set themselves in opposition to their parent culture, at least at a cultural level.”8 This
observation, as well as many observations mentioned in this study also support Kotarba’s
argument about the effects of music upon social identity. “People construct a sense of identity,
individual and collective, around music, how family members socialize one another to
appreciate and understand musical traditions; how musical performances unfold as symbolic
rituals; how the form of organization of music subcultures are shaped on the basis of what
people do in each other’s co-presence, and so forth.”9
Most of these observations mentioned in this study examine the way in which a particular youth
culture attempts to identify and define themselves an alternative to a conventional mainstream
lifestyle. This particular sub-culture that I witness happen to associate with the depicted
commercial mainstream hip-hop culture as a means of achieving this and through observations
direct links can be made to scholarly sources supporting this. The observation illustrate both the
way in a style of music as well as the performer-audience relationship dictate the behavioural
traits of individuals within a youth subculture.
Works Cited
7 Kotarba, Joseph A. and Phillip Vannini. Understanding Society through Popular Music. New York: Routledge,
2009, 3.
8 Shuker, Understanding Popular Music Culture, 175-176.
9 Kotarba and Vannini, Understanding Society through Popular Music, 3.

Bennett, A. Popular music and youth culture: music, identity and place. Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000.
Bennett, Andy. ‘Subcultures or Neo Tribes? Rethinking the Relationship Between Youth, Style and
Musical Taste’, Sociology 33/3 (1999): 599-617
Cohen, Sara. ‘Ethnography and Popular Music Studies’, Popular Music 12/2 (1993): 123-38.
Hodkinson, P. Goth, Identity, Style and Subculture, Dress, Body, Culture. London: Berg Publishers,
2002.
Kotarba, Joseph A. and Phillip Vannini. Understanding Society through Popular Music. New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Krüger, Simone. Ethnography in Performing Arts: A Student Guide. Lancaster: Higher Education
Academy, 2008.
Shuker, Roy. Understanding Popular Music Culture, 4th edn. London: Routledge, 2013.
Small, Christopher. ‘Musicking : A Ritual in Social Space’, in Aflame with Music: 100 Years of Music at
the University of Melbourne, Centre for Studies in Australian Music, University of Melbourne, 1996,
521-533.
Turino, Thomas. Music as Social Life : The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2008.
Slobin, Mark. Subcultural Sounds: Micromusics of the West. Wesleyan University Press, 1987.