Phonography, Rock Records, and the Ontology of Recorded Music

Author(s): Lee B. Brown

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 361-
372
Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/432181 .
Accessed: 12/10/2012 11:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
 LEE B. BROWN
Phonography,Rock Records, and the Ontology of
RecordedMusic
In his recentstudyof the aestheticsof rockmusic,
Theodore Gracyk has brilliantly described not
only the phenomenologyof rock sound, but also
how the technology has made possible a type of
musical workunknownin the age of live music.1
In fact, however, we can conjure with two pos-
sible classes of such works, and it is their rela-
tionship that will concern me here.
In this paper,I shall first develop the concept
of, and detail the featuresof, whatI call worksof
phonography-that is, sound-constructscreated
by the use of recordingmachinery.2I shall then
turnto Gracyk'sstudy.It makes a case thatsince
works of rock music spill out beyond the bounds
of any style-even the style associatedwith rock
'n' roll-rock music cannotbe defined in stylis-
tic terms.However,Gracykstronglysuggeststhat
it may be possible to assay rock works as an on-
tologicalratherthana stylistictype. Oncethe two
types are placed alongside each other,we notice
something interesting-their strikingsimilarity.
So, it seems importantto find out if there is a
way to differentiatethe two classes from each
other. One possibility is to appeal to a specific
applicationof RogerScruton'sconceptof anartis-
tic representation.However,the resultof this ma-
neuver,I shall suggest, seems to force Gracyk's
account of rock back into the stylistic one he
rightly tried to avoid. I shall explain, however,
why this does not underminehis rich and fruit-
ful approachanyway.
I. DOCUMENTATION AND FABRICATION
Like Evan Eisenberg,who arguedthat soundre-
cordinghas openedup entirelynew kinds of mu-
sical experienceunknownin the age of mere live
performance,3TheodoreGracykhas opened his
ears to what WalterBenjamin had to say about
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism58:4 Fall 2000
the implicationsof mechanicalreproduction.Both
see sound recordingnot as a mere convenience
but as charged with far-reachingimplications,
and even new forms of art. A little history helps
profile this new perspective.
The recording industry has lived mainly by
whatmightbe calledthe transparency perspective,
accordingto which a sound recordingis under-
stood on the model of a transparentwindowpane
throughwhich we can see things undistorted.In
recentyears,however,a growingchorusof voices
has spoken out on behalf of very different po-
tentialitiesforphonography. Butthesewerepartly
anticipatedby certainearly figures-by Leopold
Stokowski, for instance.
When Stokowski discoveredin 1929 that or-
chestral sound was subjectedto electronic mix-
ing, he was shocked, feeling that the engineer
was replacing him as conductor. One solution
was to cue the engineer-in effect, making him
a memberof thePhiladelphiaOrchestra.Butwhen
Stokowski went into the recording booth and
started twisting the knobs himself, it was not
clear what he was doing. On the one hand, he
might have been exploiting technical resources
on behalf of a more realistic phonographicdoc-
umentof musicalperformance.Orperhapshe was
foreshadowingwhatwas to happena few decades
later when the class of musical entities I term
"works of phonography"would see the light of
day.
For the existence of this category of entities,
we owe recordingtechnology-if we really can
give them unqualifiedontologicalcredence,that
is. I shall enter a caveat about the matter at the
end of this essay.
A tapereleaseof a performanceof Beethoven's
Opus 111 in which the tape speed variednotice-
ably wouldbe a failure.This could hardlybe said
362
of the very same soundsshouldthey be exploited
in the postwar experimentin sonic modernism
called musique concrete, with its charmingly
naive effects-e.g., the peculiarsoundof a piano
note's decay heard backward, rising in a cre-
scendo until choked off, reflecting the reversal
of the acoustic envelope. Orconsideran attempt
to sabotage a classical music recording session
by sneaking into the control booth duringa re-
cordingsession andgraduallyturningthe record-
ing level down. Clearly, the resulting sound
wouldnot be constitutiveeitherof the workor of
a performanceof it, but somethingto avoidat all
costs. But the same kind of fade-out might give
the cinematiceffect of a parademoving off down
the street, as on the Miles Davis albumSketches
of Spain.4In the second case, we have the mak-
ings of a work of phonography.
A crudecharacterizationof works of phonog-
raphywould describethem as "doctored"or ma-
nipulated recordings. But a case can be made
thatall recordingsaremanipulated.Considerthe
facts aboutthe earliest, so-called "acoustic"era
of recordingtechnology.In those days of record-
ing, nothing electronic was involved in the pro-
cess. The scaled-down orchestra backing the
singerstoodin unconventionalpositionscrowded
aroundthe recordinghorn. Every connection in
the process was mechanical-from the vibrat-
ing columnof air in the horn, to the vibratingdi-
aphragmin the recording arm, to the grooves
carvedin wax by a vibratingneedle, to the play-
back needle latervibratingin the same grooves,
to the vibratingcolumn of air emergingfrom the
morning glory horn. No wonder these early vo-
calists sounded as if they were almost literally
pushingtheirmusicout into space,into"thatrear-
most of balconies,the living room,"as Eisenberg
nicely describesit.5 The sound reflected a real-
ity.Pianissimoswere in dangerof being lost com-
pletely unless physicallybroughtforward,or up
in volume-either by singing louder,or by mov-
ing closer to the horn. Conversely,a Heldentenor
had to back away from the recording horn in
orderto preventhis fortissimos from turningthe
playbacksound into a nerve-wrackingblur.
If we move aheadto the "electrical"era of 78
rpm and vinyl recordings,the putativetranspar-
ency of the recordingprocess was typically en-
gineered with the help of electronic "compres-
sion," by means of which the distance between
loud and soft wouldnot be as extremeas it would
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
be if the music wereheardlive, on the theorythat
this was more suitableas a "living room"sound.
And therehas alwaysbeen an argumentbetween
those who advocateseparatemiking of separate
instrumentsin ensembles and those who prefer
a single mike-or no more thantwo-for stereo.
It is likely that neither setup would bring home
exactly what one hears in the concert hall.
Even in the age of digital technology, many
wouldclaim thatthe transparencytoutedso much
by the industryremains a chimera. Philosophi-
cal phonophiles may finally appeal to science-
fiction rigs-hypothetical contraptionsinvolv-
ing holographicand multiphonicreception-to
warranttheiroptimisticclaims.However,it seems
likely thattransparencywouldbe yieldedby such
setups only under artificially controlled condi-
tions. This remindsus of a problemNelson Good-
man poses aboutvisual representations,namely,
how to constructan exact two-dimensionalana-
log of an object as seen from a certain angle.6
His argumentis that perfect perceptualequiva-
lence would be achieved only at the cost of im-
posing conditionsof viewing quitedifferentfrom
those of normal viewing. Analogous considera-
tions bear on the phonographicproblem.
Onereasonconsumershavenot been sensitized
to theseissuesis the industry'sperennialtendency
to suggest that its documentaryrecordingshad
already achieved full transparencyearly in the
developmentof the technology. The rhetoricof
the industry has tended to suggest that its re-
cordings were transparentin virtue of the mere
fact that they were documentary.The putative
conceptualconnection can be broken easily, of
course.A blurredphotographcould hardlybe re-
garded as transparent,even if it is essentially
documentaryin its function. However, the re-
cording industryhas not been quick to acknowl-
edge the analogousfact aboutsound recordings.
For this reason, a historicalsurveyof the indus-
try's rhetoricis ratheramusing.Each of its tech-
nical breakthroughs,from acoustic to electric,
fromshellacto vinyl, frommonophonicto stereo-
phonic,and from analogto digital,was described
in the same glowing terms as the one that came
before. The cliche image of Nipper mistaking a
recordingplaybackfor his masteris only the best-
known piece of hype the industry has always
used to sell the idea that its transparencyis a re-
alized fact.
But we need not dogmatizeaboutthe theoret-
Brown Phonography,RockRecords,and the Ontologyof RecordedMusic
ical possibilityof transparency.The crucialques-
tion is this: Even if technical manipulationsdo
not succeed in providingcomplete transparency,
and even if all recordingsinvolve manipulation,
would it follow that all recordingsare works of
phonography?Clearly not. Technicalmanipula-
tion can serve ends thatare documentaryas well
as those that are not. As Gracyk has astutely
pointedout, not all studiomanipulationsarewill-
ful distortionsof sound.7For instance, consider
the difference between the early use of single
microphones and the later use of several (non-
stereo)mikes for recordingbluegrassbands.The
improvementhardlyyieldedperfecttransparency,
but it did make a documentarydifference-less
overprintingof one instrumentby another and
more even dynamics,for instance.Technicalma-
nipulationcan clearly serve ends that are docu-
mentary as well as those that are not.
But it is time to describethe class of entities I
term works of phonography.
II. WORKS OF PHONOGRAPHY
Examples of works of phonographylie along a
spectrum of types, accordingto their degree of
"artiness." At one end we have cases such as
VladimirUssachevsky's experimentswith mag-
netic tape, such as "UnderwaterWaltz,"a piece
generatedby recordingthe lowest A on the piano
at multiple tape speeds. And we can cite mini-
malist worksby Steve Reich, createdentirelyout
of tape-manipulatedsnippetsof humanspeech.In
the same place, of course, we find the huge cat-
egory of electronicmusic. At the otherend of the
spectrum,we find novelties for the pop market,
like the pastiches put out almost a half century
ago by RCAVictor,underthe name,"TheSinging
Dogs,"withtuneslike "Camptown Races"stitched
together out of isolated dog barks. More famil-
iar, of course, are the vocals by the imaginary
group, The Chipmunks,whose infantile timbre
was achievedby acceleratingthe recordingtape.
Here are some of the chief featuresof works of
phonography:
a. Some characteristicsof an ordinarywork-
performanceare not constitutiveof the musical
workbeingperformed.A specificnuanceof piano
rubatoin a given performanceof a given work,
Beethoven's Opus 111, for instance, is not con-
stitutive of any authentic performance of that
work. With works of phonography,such details
363
would, on the contrary,constitute those works,
just as the hues and brightnessof paintings and
etchings constitutethem.A listener to a piece of
musiqueconcretelike "Primitive1948"has a right
to expect any other authentic playback of that
work to sound that way in detail. One might say
that such works are replete.8
b. Worksof phonographyare sound-constructs
createdby the use of recordingmachineryfor an
intrinsicaestheticpurpose,ratherthanfor an ex-
trinsic documentaryone. (They are a species of
artistic representation-a conceptI shall expand
upon furtherin section vi.) The sonic paletteout
of which a workof phonographyis createdmight
contain stretchesof ordinaryperformedmusic.
But it might contain an almost unlimited range
of materials that would be out of place in a
merelydocumentaryrecording.And it mightmix
the two types of ingredientsfreely-like cinna-
mon and sugar in cookies. The classic way to
manipulatesonic materialis with magnetictape,
which can be speeded up, slowed down, dove-
tailed, or run backward,as needed.
c. Worksof phonographycannotbe performed.
"Primitive 1948" contains music we can audi-
tion only through an authentic playback of its
recording.The music in a work of phonography
is only phono-accessible.
Let us turn to a considerationof the second
categoryof phonographicartifactsto which I re-
ferredat the beginning.
III. ROCK WORKS
The category of rockmusic is an establishedcat-
egory of popularmusic. Now, it might seem that
we coulddefinerockin termsof rock'n' roll style,
and then go on to unpackthe latterto complete
the definition of rock. However,Gracyk warns
his readersthatrock must be distinguishedfrom
rock 'n' roll.9Paradigmexamplesof the latterin-
clude songs by Bill Haley and JerryLee Lewis.
Paradigmexamples of rock are the Beatles' Sgt.
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Pink
Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Is a rock style
definable?Gracykthinksnot. While rock 'n' roll
is a performingstyle associatedwith rock, a con-
siderationof the Beatles makes it clear thatrock
is not restrictedto rock 'n' roll style. Indeed,rock
seems to be all overthe map stylistically.Gracyk
tries to steer clear of the problemthat besets at-
temptsat a stylistic definitionof rockby concen-
364
trating on the project of characterizingrock as
an ontological kind.'o
Now some of Gracyk'scharacterizationsneed
augmentation if theyareto individuaterockmusic.
He approvesof JohnLennon'svivid statementthat
"the basic energy [of rock] is on the records."1''
He characterizesrock as music of "veryspecific
sound qualities and their combination."' Em-
ploying a distinction made by Stephen Davies,
Gracykwritesthatsomemusicalworksarethicker
than others in that they dictate more properties
of theirperformances,or more generally,of their
instances.'3 Rock 'n' roll songs, by contrastwith
Brahms symphonies,for instance, are ontologi-
cally thin. (You do not need a piano for Jerry
Lee Lewis's tune,"A Whole LottaShakin'Goin'
On.") By contrast with both kinds of case, the
specific sound of a rock "recordis part of the
musical work."'4Such works"areontologically
thick."'5 Indeed, "song"is an "awkward"cate-
gory for rock.16As a result,with rockrecordings,
Gracyksays, the relationshipbetweenrecording
and performanceis flipped around.That is, live
rock performanceshave the job of mirroringthe
recordingsratherthan vice versa.17
However,muchof the foregoingseems equally
applicable to jazz. "Song"is an awkwardcate-
gory forjazz, too, whereindividualizedvariation
and nuance counts so heavily. As Gracyk says
aboutrock, we can respondto classic jazz-like
the 1930s KansasCity music of Benny Moten or
Andy Kirk-"only as great recordings."1sAnd
modernrepertorybands-like the Lincoln Cen-
ter Jazz Orchestra-can only model their per-
formances of Jelly Roll Morton's music on re-
cordings. So the requirementthat live art must
imitate recorded art does not seem peculiar to
rock music.
One might reply on Gracyk's behalf that the
problemfacing a repertoryband playing classic
jazz is quite different from the problem facing
live performersof rockworks.True,LincolnCen-
ter's task is a difficult one. Even when he tries, a
modernplayer such as MarcusRobertsdoes not
get the precise bounce of Jelly Roll Morton's
piano swing. Perhapsbecause he is schooled in
too many styles, WyntonMarsalisdoes not quite
summonup the mournfulsoundof BubberMiley
on trumpet.Modernrhythmsections just do not
get the specific swing feel of the old recordings.
But these examples show thatthe reason we can
respond to classic jazz only as "great record-
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
ings" is not that such a piece of music is the re-
cording.The reasonis thatit is only in the record-
ings that we can catch the authenticstyle of the
era. The reason for the thickness of rock works,
by contrast,wouldseem to haveto do with thepe-
culiarrole of recordingtechnologyin this sphere
of music.
At first glance, however,the role of the engi-
neer in rock music does not seem distinctive.
GracykobservesthatElvis Presley'searlyrecord-
ings "could not be reproducedin any live situa-
tion except a very small and empty ... room"
partlybecause otherwise the acoustic guitarand
bass "simplycould not be heard."19But was this
kind of problemany less seriousfor classic jazz?
In a dance hall-where a band not completely
unlikeJellyRollMorton'sRedHotPeppersmight
have been heard-it would have been very diffi-
cult to control the balance between loud horns
and drum kits, on the one hand, and softer in-
strumentslike guitars, or even Morton's piano
itself. However,in spite of the manipulationsthat
go into the making of them, mainstreamjazz
recordingsremainessentially documentary.
Thatrockrecordingsarespecialin this respect,
on Gracyk'saccount,becomesplausiblewhenwe
considerthatsome of its unsungheroes were the
producers,arrangers,and engineers-artists in
theirown right,like the Beatles' George Martin.
A considerationof their work shows that, with
paradigmaticrock works, composition, perfor-
mance, and recording technology all blur into
each other.Ratherthan constitutinga represen-
tationof a performance,rockrecordings"collate
features from many partial performances."20
Further,the paletteof soundout of which a work
of rock music is constructed owes much of its
characterto the input of the recordingtechnol-
ogy itself. Once taped,for example,rock artistry
includes the alterationof sounds by accelerating
or deceleratingthe tape,runningit backward,or
by layeringsound sources one upon another.
It is clear,then,thatfor Gracykwe couldnot ac-
cess rockworksindependentlyof theirrecordings.
Indeed,they cannotthemselvesbe performed,on
this account.True,someone can sing a tune that
is an ingredientin Sgt.Pepper.But the work,Sgt.
Pepper,cannot be sung, or played. So, the task
that live rock performances have of mirroring
the recordingsis only superficiallysimilarto the
one thatconcernslive and recordedclassic jazz.
The special problem for a live performanceof
Brown Phonography,RockRecords,and the Ontologyof RecordedMusic
Sgt. Pepperis that its model is itself a sonic con-
struct owing some of its essential featuresto re-
cording technology.21
To pull the foregoing together,let us articulate
three featuresof rock works, as Gracyksees the
matter:(a) while ordinarymusicalworksarerel-
atively thin aesthetically, works of rock music
arerelativelythick; (b) the reasonfor theirthick-
ness, however, is that they are sonic constructs
with intrinsic aims, as contrasted with the ex-
trinsicaim of documentingotheracousticevents;
(c) the musictheymake availablecan be accessed
only throughelectronic playbackequipment.
IV. ONE CATEGORY OR TWO?
Gracyk admits that a few rock recordings do
owe theirexistence simply to the documentation
of performances.22Are there too many of these
cases to treat casually? If so, what makes them
rock recordings,given that the option of defin-
ing rock by referenceto their "rockish"stylistic
features has been foreclosed? A nice question.
However,it is the converse question that I shall
now address:Do manynonrockcases fit Gracyk's
characterization?
For consider where we are: The determina-
tions of rock music, on Gracyk's account, seem
to fit our characterizationof works of phonogra-
phy. As with the hues of a painting, specific
sonic featuresboth of rock works and works of
phonographyareconstitutiveof thoseitems.Once
incorporatedinto works of either sort, musical
materialslose any independencethey might oth-
erwise possess and henceforthbelong to the re-
cording.Andthe musicthatbelongsbothto works
of phonographyand to works of rock music is
accessible only throughthe recording.Such re-
cordingsarenotmeredocumentsof performances
existing independentlyof the documentation.
Further,if we considerwhereworksof phonog-
raphyand rock works shouldbe placed ontolog-
ically, the groups seem to be on all fours. One
might say that a work of phonographyis the re-
cordingitself.However,this is reallya compressed
way of describinga two-tiered system for deter-
mining authenticinstances of works of phonog-
raphy:(i) authenticplaybacksof a given work of
phonographyare those generatedon appropriate
equipment,by appropriatemeans, from authen-
tic playback artifacts; (ii) authentic playback
artifacts-e.g., vinyl or shellac recordings,CDs,
365
or tapes-are those generatedfrom an original
master tape, or its equivalent. The situation is
analogousto thatof an etching, where authentic
instances are those physically generatedfrom a
given plate. Indeed, with older technology, the
similarityto art prints is quite striking. Shellac
or vinyl disks intended to turn at 78, 45, or 33
rpmwere stampedout like waffles froma record-
ing "matrix."In morerecenttimes, the yardstick
for the legitimacyof instances-e.g., tape"dubs,"
or playbacks therefrom-would be their elec-
tronic descent from a mastertape.
In terms of Nelson Goodman's dichotomy
of artworksinto the autographicand the allo-
graphic, works of phonographybelong in the
formercategory.Goodman'sjudgmentthatmusic
belongs in the lattercategory is thus challenged
by the existence of works of phonography.With
allographicart, authenticperformancesarethose
that "comply"with the "notationalcharacters"
of scores.23But such criteriawould be inept for
"Primitive1948." Note too that, given deceptive
intent, forgeries of works of phonographyseem
to be perfectlyimaginable-e.g., fakedpressings
or ersatztape dubs that lack the rightcausal cre-
dentials. (Forgeability, of course, is a criterion
of Goodmanianautographicart.) A re-creation
of "Primitive1948," concocted with the help of
digital samplerswould, howeverconvincing, be
an inauthenticinstance of that work.
But the foregoing holds for rock works as
well. For instance, a sonic concoction intended
to simulatea rock albumwould, given deceptive
intent,be a forgery.Indeed,Gracykhimself states
thatworksof rockmusic areautographicin char-
acter,not allographic.24
Gracykregardsthe art of creatingrock works
as having come into its own-sometime in the
1960s, presumably-well afterthe beginningsof
rock 'n' roll in the 1950s. Let us test his view by
consideringcases from each period.
a. Clear instances of sonic manipulationof the
sort that Gracyk associates with rock can be
traced back further than he perhaps supposes.
Taken by themselves, the arty prerockconcoc-
tions of musiqueconcrete would not undermine
the generalitythatsoundrecording,priorto rock
music, was a documentarymedium. However,it
is at least misleading for Gracykto characterize
such cases as "marginal"25-mere exceptions
thatdrawattentionto the rule. The exampledoes
366
not stand alone, as the example of Ussachevsky
shows. And in the 1950s, composers like Henk
Badings were alreadyputting togetherpieces of
electronic music.
In fact, overdubbinggoes back to the 1930s,
when ElisabethSchumannrecordedthe "Barca-
rolle"from The Talesof Hoffman,as a duet with
herself.26One of the earliest cases of this type
was concocted in 1936, by the composer Ben-
jamin Britten,the poet W H. Auden, and a staff
of engineers for the documentary film Night
Mail. The piece used the sounds of an instru-
mentalensemble, a text, a compressedair cylin-
der,a sandpaperblock rubbedon a slate, a small
trolley rolling on a steel rail, metal bars struck
together,a drill piercing an aluminumsheet, the
soundof a hand-crankedmovie camera,a length
of metal pipe struck by a hammer,a siren, the
sound of coal sliding down a chute, and a re-
corded cymbal stroke played backwardat high
speed.27
True, such cases are exceptional in the spe-
cialized sense of belonging to the realm of art
music, not that of popular music. But, first, to
judge them as being of marginal characterby
this criterionwould surely be a kind of inverse
elitism. More importantly, even if Gracyk is
correct that the effects of the new technology
were most importantlyregisteredin pop music,
much of that music was not rock music either.I
havealreadycited the worksof The SingingDogs
and The Chipmunks.And some will recall the
Capitolrecordingscreatedby guitaristLes Paul
andvocalistMaryFord-a duo turnedby record-
ing tape trickery into an ensemble performing
impossible musicalfeats.28To furtheradd to the
list, consider the fact thatjazz disks were made
decades ago by the avant-gardejazz pianist
Lennie Tristano,with musical lines dubbed on
top of othersalreadylaid down. Tristanodid not
mind tamperingwith tape speed, either.
If some of these examples are excluded from
the category of rock solely on the grounds that
they lie too farin the past,considerGracyk'sown
treatmentof some "golden oldies" of the rock
'n' roll era. Are Elvis Presley's Sun recordings,
for instance, rock recordings-with everything
thatthisimplieson Gracyk'sview-or justphono-
graphicdocumentsof rock 'n' roll? Primafacie,
they oughtto fall into the lattergroup.In spite of
where they fall on the time line, though, Gracyk
makes exceptionsfor them. Giventheirearly ex-
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
ploitation of technology,he has some reason to
do so. A live performance,or a "cleaned-up"reis-
sue, of "HeartbreakHotel" lacking its charac-
teristic artificial reverberationwould be incom-
plete. Likewise, as Gracyk would surely agree,
when electronic fade-out is used in such record-
ings, it is an essential propertyof the resulting
artwork. (In pop music, this trick is usually a
cliche, of course, but it need not be. Consider
"Dancingin the Streets,"by Marthaand the Van-
dellas, where it gives an impressionof a cosmic
block party that will never end.) We rightfully
reject deviationsin such details as inauthentic.
In consideringwhen to date the beginnings of
full-fledged rock, Gracyk concludes that such
early "recordingsare so stronglyidentified with
rock and roll that it is only in hindsight that the
style, rock and roll, ... can be distinguished from
the recordingaesthetic which characterizesrock
music...."29 He argues for retrospectivelyplac-
ing them on the rock side of the line, in short.
The problemis that the same kind of retrospec-
tive glance ought to identify the same recording
aestheticin "UnderwaterWaltz"or the Les Paul/
Mary Ford recordings.We might try to exclude
these obvious anomaliesamongthe GoldenOld-
ies on stylistic grounds-that is, on the grounds
that they are not in a style that could be de-
scribed as either rock or rock 'n' roll. But this
would recycle the stylistic approachto the defi-
nitional issue that we are trying to avoid.
In fact, tape stitching and overdubbingbe-
came big business in the late 1940s-well be-
fore rock 'n' roll-when producerMitch Miller
learned how to use "tracking,"as it was then
called, in recordingswith MercuryRecords for
artistssuchas FrankieLaine.(The latter's"Mule
Train"made use of tracks laid on top of previ-
ously recordedones.) Millerfurtherexploitedthe
process at ColumbiaRecords for FrankSinatra
and other big-selling pop artists. On this issue,
Will Friedwald'sdiscussion,in his massivestudy
of Sinatra'srecordingcareer,is rich with impli-
cation for Gracyk'sapproach.
The results of Miller's projects were, Fried-
wald says, a "poprecord'sound'per se-an aural
texture(usuallyrepletewithextramusicalsounds)
that could be replicatedin live performance,in-
steadof the otherway around."Friedwaldmakes
the case thatSinatraand his producersexploited
processeswithoutwhich "therecould neverhave
been"rock music.30Further,as his album Only
Brown Phonography,RockRecords,and the Ontologyof RecordedMusic
the Lonely shows, Sinatrawas ahead of most in
pop music when he began workingon his idea of
a 12-inchvinyl recordingas a singleintegralwork
ratherthan a mere collection of songs. As with
rock, on Gracyk's account of it, Sinatra faced
the problemof ensuringthathis concertsmirrored
these "concept"albums.The formal, if not styl-
istic, similaritywith such rock paradigmsas Sgt.
Pepperis striking.In equatingthe rise of the pro-
duced vinyl album with the rise of rock music,
Gracykmay have too hastily accepteda myth.3'
b. Whateverthe sourceof its initial impetus,the
effects of the new technology-to make music
rather than merely to document it-were felt
everywhere duringthe later rock era. Not only
has the technology contributedto "heavymetal"
music, the sound salads of Art of Noise, the dig-
ital creationsof the Utah Saints, and, of course,
the vast sphereof hip-hop music; it continuedto
fire projects of "serious"electronic music. And
we currentlysee a burgeoningfield of computer-
generated works targeted for a similarly high-
browaudience.Clearly,only some of these works
of phonographyqualify as rock works.
With such examples, we seem to be off and
running.For instance, manyjazz-fusion record-
ings made nowadaysprovideillusions of several
instrumentsplaying with and reacting to each
other.And considerthe projectsof JohnCulshaw,
who oversawthe London-DeccaRing Cycle and
Electra projects in the 1950s. Culshaw said of
these latter-daydescendants of Stokowski's re-
cordings thathe was determinedto make a type
of record that was "deeply and unabashedlya
record."32Anyone who has had the experience
of listening to these recordings has at least an
inkling of what he meant. Among other things,
for dramaticpurposesrelevantto the plot, thepro-
duction artificially alteredthe soundof a tenor's
voice in orderto make it resemblethatof a bari-
tone, but without alteringthe key of the passage
in question.
Finally,considerthecase of FrankSinatra,who,
towardthe end of his career,recordeda pair of
albumsof "duets"with BarbaraStreisand,Carly
Simon, and others, since his partnerscalled in
their parts by telephone, the impression in the
recordingsof Sinatrain conversationaldialogue
with his partnersis sheer illusion. (A waggish
commentatorwondered, apropos these record-
ings, if we will come to a time when Rodolfo will
367
declare his love in a New Yorkstudio and Mimi
will phone in her reply three weeks later from
Milan.33)Like worksof phonography, these Sina-
tra duets appearto be phono-accessible, replete
sound-constructscollating features from many
partialperformances.
V. AESTHETIC INTENTIONS
How serious are the implications of the forego-
ing for Gracyk's analysis? It is not clear. Since
his characterizationactually seems to apply to a
much broadersphere of music, it looks like we
have amasseda set of potentialcounterexamples
to his view. A statementburiedin Gracyk'sfoot-
notes may help: Rock works, he grants, might
only be one "form of a broader category."34
This could be read as an acknowledgmentthat
rock worksjust cannotbe differentiatedfrom the
broadercategory. But there is a severe tilt to-
ward rock works as an identifiabletype in Gra-
cyk's versionof the history of phonographicfab-
rication. (Indeed, that type is what his study is
all about.) So it seems naturalto ask how the
specific type is to be analyzed.
WhateverGracykmay think aboutthe matter,
it would be interestingto work out a principled
distinction between the particularform and the
members of the broadercategory. And even if
we do not succeed in this undertaking,we may
learn something by making the attempt.
One way to push some of these examples out
of Gracyk's way is to treat them as essentially
documentaryin spite of the manipulationsthat
go into their making. The music we can access
from the Sinatra"duets,"for instance-or so the
argumentwould go-is the same as music that
could be heard at a hypotheticallive event fea-
turingthose singers and following the same pro-
gram.However,the live singing and playing that
went into the productioneffort are themselves
only ingredientsin the finished product.And, as
forthelatter,of whatperformanceis it a document?
This raises a naturalquestion: Which of the
cases of the kindjust cited are not documentary?
In fact, Gracyk offers a view about the matter.
Speaking of Natalie Cole's ersatz "duets"with
her dead father,Nat Cole, Gracyksuggests that
what places these items outsidethe sphereof the
documentaryis "ourknowledgethatit is theprod-
uct of studiowizardry. ... "35 This is useful. Per-
haps, while the Schumannand Tristanorecord-
368
ings, as well as similar "dual"piano efforts by
Bill Evans, are fundamentallydocumentaryin
function,the Cole "duets"arenot. Rulingon such
cases may not be a simple matter,as I shall ex-
plain latter.But we have at least made a begin-
ning, so let us continue.
It seems clear thatbehind Gracyk'swords is a
tacit referenceto how we are intendedto regard
such phonographicartifacts.Rock works are ar-
tifacts intended to be consumed as artifacts of
technology, not as mere windows onto perfor-
mancesexisting independentlyof the recordings
of them. No one who knows that Nat Cole was
dead at the time of the recordingcould help but
be struckby the manipulationsthatenabledhim
neverthelessto sing the "duets"with his daugh-
ter.However,Gracyk'spoint is surelya stronger
one: We are intended to pay attention to this
phonographic"wizardry."
The problem,of course, is thatthis methodof
dividing cases into documentaryand nondocu-
mentaryones appliesnicely to worksof phonog-
raphy.But maybe we can differentiatethe two
groupsby furtherspecifying intentions.Perhaps
rock works serve some more specific purpose
than works of phonographyin general. But this
needs explaining. I shall attemptto do so by ap-
peal to the concept mentioned earlier-that of
an artistic representation.
VI. ARTISTIC REPRESENTATIONS
There is nothing in Gracyk's account of rock
worksthatrequiresthemto be soundmanipulated.
For instance, a rock recordingneed not have the
surrealcharacterof the psychedeliathatcaps off
Sgt. Pepper.In the lattercase, the sheer sound of
the music betokens a recordingmade underthe
collective"artist'scontrol,"andwhich, therefore,
is pretty obviously no mere "mechanicalrepro-
duction."36But some rockworkssoundlike doc-
umentsof performances.A good example is the
Al Kooperalbumfor Columbia,SuperSession.It
is not evident to the ear that the Motown horns
we hear in this recordinghave been overlaidby
theengineersontoperformancesalreadyrecorded.
In fact, though, we could be wrong aboutcases
of eitherkind. Wecan imaginean ArthurDanto-
type counterpartof Sgt.Pepper,for instance,that
would not be a rock recordingat all. (It might be
a sound-portraitof a peculiarly euphonioustur-
bine, or of Martianconcertmusic-or any num-
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
ber of possible events or processes.) Perhaps,in
orderto respondrelevantlyto bothSuperSession
and Sgt. Pepper,we have to understandeach as
intendedto serve a specifically rock function.
But what type of function could this be? We
can glean a possible answerfrom Gracyk'sown
use of conditionslaid down by RogerScrutonfor
being an artistic representation,as contrasted
with a mere mechanicalreproduction.37For in-
stance, unlike mechanical reproductions, the
subject matterof an artistic representationmay
be entirely fictional. By contrast, the existence
of a mechanical reproduction-e.g., a finger-
print,a passportphoto, or a cast of a footprint-
is dependentupon the existence of the thing it
reproduces.
As stated earlier,rock works are artifacts in-
tended to be consumed as artifacts of technol-
ogy,not as meredocuments-mere windowsonto
performancesexisting independentlyof the re-
cordings of them. We can put the point posi-
tively: Rock recordingsare sounds manipulated
for the sake of their artistically representational
function.The artworldis well stockedwith artis-
tic representations,of course,e.g., paintings,sculp-
tures,novels,etc. Comparea purelydocumentary
photographof a Frenchlandscape with a paint-
ing by Corot. Rock works are like the latter,not
like the former.
This foregoing will help us distinguish rock
from some species of works of phonography,
namely,those that have no artisticallyrepresen-
tationalfunctionwhatsoever.(Instancesof the lat-
tertypewouldbe analogousto abstractpaintings-
at least, on a certain view of them.) But surely
manyworksof phonographyalso play artistically
representationalroles. In amplification of the
representationalfunction of rock, Gracykhim-
self makes an analogybetween the sonic "paint-
ing" of which rock artists are capable and oil
painting.38However,a New Age "sound-print"
of the sea, or of the rain forest, would also qual-
ify as such a representation.Likewise, consider
the cinematicparadeeffects in Sketchesof Spain,
cited earlier.Such a pictorialfunction would not
alone qualify such a work of phonographyas a
rock artistic representation.(The Miles Davis
albumis not a rock album.)The questionthen is
this: What kind of artistically representational
function, among many possible artisticallyrep-
resentationalroles, might be distinctiveof rock?
A clue to an answermightbe the thoughtthat-
Brown Phonography,RockRecords,and the Ontologyof RecordedMusic
to put the point paradoxically-there must be
more to a rock recordingthan the music in it. If
the idea seems strange, recall Gracyk's point,
just noted, about the difference between a rock
recording and a mere reproductionof sound. A
naturalway to amplify the proposedhypothesis
would be to say that artistic representationsof
the rock type are those that, whateverelse they
do, intentionallyrepresentsounds.Butthis invites
a more fine-grained comparison between rock
and musiqueconcrete.
Unlike electronic music composers, concoc-
ters of musique concrete made a point of using
"real,"not "synthetic,"sounds. But these "real"
soundswere supposedto be used in a specialway,
namely, "to isolate sounds and to suppress the
evocation of the objects that produce them, by
means of the manipulationsthat are possible in
recordingthe sounds."39These words might be
takento say thatworksof musiqueconcretehave
no artisticallyrepresentationalfunction at all. In
that case, musiqueconcrete will be situatedin a
differentplace on the mapfrom rock, as it should
be. However,a more likely interpretationof the
text is thatsuchmusic does possess an artistically
representationalfunction: to represent some-
thing,namelysounds,butin abstractionfrom their
sources. By this interpretation,we can still dif-
ferentiate musique concrete from rock works.
After all, worksof rock music surelydo not sim-
ply representsound qua sound. Further,this in-
terpretationof musique concrete helps us focus
on whatwe mightsay aboutrockby contrastwith
the former.
If rock works do not representdisembodied
sounds, what do they represent?A naturalsug-
gestionis thattheyrepresentmusicperformances.
Or, given Gracyk's analogy between rock and
painting, we might say thatworks of rock music
are sonic picturesof music performancesor their
aspects. Note that there would be no good rea-
son to object to this approachon the grounds
that such a representationcould not be "made
of" actualperformancesor theirparts, anymore
than there would be a good reason to object that
a statue of the TrojanHorse could not be made
of wood.
On this account, some rock representations,
like Super Session, would come off as realistic,
others, like segments of Sgt. Pepper, as surreal-
istic. A rock artistic representation,then, could
representvariousthings, bothurbanandpastoral.
369
But to be a rock artistic representation,it must
do these things in the course of representingmu-
sical performances or their qualities-whether
they are fictional or real.
But we now face the problemthat many non-
rock works of phonographyalso represent the
soundsof musicalperformance.Considerthe es-
timable Singing Dogs once again. To avoid such
cases, we have to say that a genuine rock repre-
sentationis one thatrepresentsa certain kind of
musical performance.But, what could we mean
by this except"aperformancein a certainstyle"?
Whatstyle? It seems we would need to roundout
the thesis as follows: Rock works are recordings
thatrepresentmusicalperformancesin rockstyle.
We need not speculate on the specific aims of
any of the other species of works of phonogra-
phy that we are trying to individuate from the
class of rock recordings. If the aim of the pro-
ducersof Darmstadt-styleelectronic music-or
of the collected works of The Singing Dogs-
was not the representationof musical perfor-
mances in the relevant style, then we can indi-
viduate them from rock recordings.If, contrary
to all imagining, their aim was to representsuch
music, then those recordingswere rock record-
ings-but failed ones.
How does the proposal fare? First, the thesis
does have some appeal. Its virtue is that it fits
our intuitive sense that connections exist, how-
ever flexible, between rock music and perfor-
mance bases outside the phonographiccontext.
The constructionof rockartworksis not a phono-
graphically hermetic project, after all. Unlike
musiqueconcrete, the sounds of rock music are
the soundsof a characteristickindof thing.How-
ever, we face difficulties. First, consider a very
generaldifficulty.
i. One might feel thatthe view just outlined still
fails to explain cases like SuperSession as rock
artistic representations.If so, then it is not clear
we havereally explainedSgt.Peppereither.Here
is the problem:
A viewer has no reasonfor regardinga photo-
graphicimage as an artistic representationsim-
ply because she or he happensto know thatit has
been superimposed upon another background.
Similarly,even an informedlistenermay haveno
groundsfor attributingany artisticallyrepresen-
tational status to a manipulated recording just
becauseshe or he knows it has beenmanipulated.
370
Some recordings may simply be manipulated
documents,and nothing more. A listener needs
some reason for being alert to the potentialrep-
resentationalcapacitiesof a recording,quarecord-
ing, over and above that of the raw music mak-
ing it up. So a complete Gracykiantheory would
need to provide an account of conditions under
which an appealto the relevantrepresentational
intentionsare appropriate.Whetherany example
is successful in the realization of those inten-
tionsis, of course,a furtherquestion.Withoutany
realscrutiny,we tacitly gaveSuperSession a pro-
visional "pass"on both scores.
Part of the problemhere is that the recording
industryhas not had a consistent stated view of
how it intends its productsto be consumed. The
industry has not made it clear that rock works
are to be consumed as rock works-rather than
as a document of a "rockish"performance,for
instance. How many listeners understandthat
SuperSession is not intendedto be regardedas a
mere document?(Indeed, did its producershave
any clear intentions about this matter?)It is at
least partly because of this indecisiveness that
the rolesof phonographicartifactsarenot in prac-
tice sharply delineated. Millions will, after all,
regardSgt. Pepperas a documentof the soundof
the Beatles' voices.40
ii. The moreimmediateproblemis thatthe analy-
sis of rock works proposed here is in danger of
falling back into the stylistic approachthat Gra-
cyk rightlywanted to avoid. Recall the problem:
Maturerock works, such as those of the Beatles,
spill out beyond the boundsof any style, e.g., the
style associated with rock 'n' roll. This problem
would surely affect the thesis that rock record-
ings are those that represent performances in
rock style.
VII. AFTERTHOUGHTS
It shouldbe clear that the foregoing does not re-
ally undermineGracyk'sefforts.Evenif we could
not succeed in differentiatingrock music from
the broadercategory of music, importantcriti-
cal implications of the project may still hold:
The criticwho finds rockrecordslackingby con-
trast with live music may be making a category
mistake. Worksof rock music, like other works
of phonography,need to be considered in their
own right, not merely as reflections of musical
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
eventsoutsidethe sphereof phonography.If Gra-
cyk's view invitescounterexamples, thatis mainly
because he tends to exaggerate the degree to
which rock music rules the ontological turf he
has identified.
A personal note is in order.The fit between
Gracyk'saccountof rock music and my account
of worksof phonographywas not accidental.My
view about works of phonography,an inchoate
one at first, became clearer to me after paying
attentionto Gracyk'sviews aboutrock music.41
Ratherthan leaving the impressionthathis view
suffers from serious defects, I propose a differ-
ent descriptionof what he has done: While at-
temptingto nail downthe ontologyof rockmusic,
he has identifiedand characterizeda category of
music completely new underthe sun.
Finally, I returnto the caveat about works of
phonographyto which I alludedat the beginning.
Like rock works, on Gracyk's analysis of them,
the main divisionbetweenworksof phonography
and documentaryrecordingsis compromisedby
our actual usage of them. Even if it is not their
primarytelos, full-fledged works of phonogra-
phy can, of course,play documentaryroles. The
Ussachevskyexamplecouldconceivablyserveas
a documentof the tone of the piano note out of
which it is constructed,even if the productionas
a whole could not be so regarded.In the same
way, the recordings by the Singing Dogs did,
after all, documentthe timbreof certainbarking
canines. Less artificially,even though a Sinatra
"duet"is not, taken as a whole, a document of
any single performance,such a recordingwill no
doubtplay a documentaryrole-for those inter-
ested in Sinatra's phrasing at that stage in his
career,for instance. Conversely,the technology
involved in making documentaryrecordings is
sometimestoo salientnot to get special attention.
If Culshaw'sprojectsfall into a grayarea,record-
ings such as the famous 1954 Chicago Sym-
phony Orchestrarecordingof Also SprachZara-
thustra.Even now it is hardnot to appreciateits
stereo wizardryfor its own sake.
The foregoing points toward a more funda-
mental point-one alreadymade in connection
with rock works-namely, thatthe recordingin-
dustry has not shared with the public a consis-
tent view of how it intends even its more radical
products to be consumed. A main reason, pre-
sumably, is that the industry has not given up
making its central sales pitches in terms of the
Brown Phonography,RockRecords,and the Ontologyof RecordedMusic
transparencyperspective. These considerations
make a difference to my thesis about works of
phonography.AlthoughI havewrittenas if works
of phonographyclearly belong to an entrenched
category of art-on a par with painting and po-
etry-their employmentas such is hardlyan es-
tablishedpractice.The category may only be an
emerging category, or a potential one.
If so, the disanalogies between the develop-
ment of phonographyand photography-or, bet-
ter, film-and its conceptualizationsare rather
striking.Whateversignificancewe attachto film's
documentarypotentialities,no one doubtsits ca-
pacity to create a whole world of artistic repre-
sentations.Phonography'slingeringcommitment
to the transparencythesis still partly obscures
its more radicalpotentialities.42
LEE B. BROWN
Department
of Philosophy
TheOhioStateUniversity
Columbus,Ohio43210-1365
INTERNET: brown.68@osu.edu
1. Theodore Gracyk,Rhythmand Noise: An Aesthetics of
Rock (Duke UniversityPress, 1996).
2. I have sketched this contrastloosely in my brief essay
"Phonography,"in Aesthetics-A Reader in the Philosophy
of the Arts, ed. David Goldblattand Lee B. Brown (Upper
SaddleRiver:Prentice-Hall,1996). See also "MusicalWorks,
Improvisation,and the Principleof Continuity,"TheJournal
of Aestheticsand Art Criticism54 (1996).
3. Evan Eisenberg,TheRecordingAngel (New York:Pen-
guin Books, 1988).The term "phonography,"which I use in
discussions of these matters,is Eisenberg's.
4. Some of my observations about the use of electronic
fade-out in this essay were borrowedfrom Peter Shickele,
who discussed the matterin one of his 1996 NationalPublic
Radio broadcasts, "Shickele Mix." Attempts to simulate
electronic fade-out in live performance,it might be noticed,
do not nicely preserve the effect as it is embedded in the
grooves of recordings.
5. Eisenberg,TheRecordingAngel, p. 155.
6. Nelson Goodman, Languagesof Art-An Introduction
to a Theoryof Symbols,2nd ed. (Indianapolis:Hackett,1976),
chap. I, sect. 3.
7. In his talk, "Documentationor Transformation?"given
at the annual meeting of the American Society of Aesthet-
ics, Bloomington, Indiana,November 1998. It helps here to
realize thaton olderrecordings,playerswould often "dance"
up to the single mike duringtheir solos, and move back into
the ensemble when they were finished.
8. Goodman, Languages of Art-An Introduction to a
Theoryof Symbols,chap. VI, sect. 1, where Goodman uses
this term in a different sense, to differentiatediagrammatic
schemes frompictorial ones. The common featurein the two
371
usages involves the thoughtthat none of the aesthetic quali-
ties of either kind of item are contingent.
9. Gracyk, Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock,
pp. xii-xiii, 2-7.
10. Ibid., p. 7.
11. Ibid., p. 16.
12. Ibid., p. 61.
13. Ibid., pp. 17-21. See Davies's essay, "TheOntologyof
Musical Worksand the Authenticityof theirPerformances,"
Nous 25 (1991).
14. Gracyk, Rhythmand Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock,
p. 17.
15. Ibid, p. 21. An anonymousreaderof this paperhas en-
tered an objection here, which I interpretas follows: Since
the differencebetweenthicknessand thinness is to be under-
stood in terms of different constraintsplaced upon perfor-
mances by different works, the application of thickness to
rock recordingsmay be a category mistake. Even if this is a
reasonablepoint, however,I shall table the issue here. Else-
where in this paper,I have made a point analogousto Gra-
cyk's about works of phonographyin terms of what I called
"repleteness."
16. Ibid., p. 18.
17.Ibid., p. 83.
18. Ibid., p. 15.
19.Ibid.,pp. 15-16. Gracykis quotingRobertRay's article,
"Tracking," SouthAtlanticQuarterly90 (Winter 1991):781.
20. Ibid., p. 19.
21. Ibid., pp. 79-84.
22. Ibid., p. 19.
23. Goodman, Languages of Art-An Introduction to a
Theoryof Symbols,chaps. IV and V (sect. 2), in which the
theories of notation, compliance, and their applicationto a
theory of work-definingscores are explained.
24. Gracyk, Rhythmand Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock,
pp. 33-34.
25. Ibid., p. 42.
26. I owe the example to Michael Proudfoot.
27. Michael Oliver,BenjaminBritten (London: Phaidon,
1996), pp. 53-54. I owe this example to Michael Proudfoot
as well.
28. See Gracyk,Rhythmand Noise:An Aestheticsof Rock,
p. 230, note 38, where he too acknowledges the case, but
withoutfurthercomment.
29. Ibid., p. 12.
30. Will Friedwald,Sinatra! The Song is You(New York:
Scribners,1995), p. 175.
31. The myth was repeatedon NPR's "All Things Con-
sidered"radioprogramsometime in the summerof 1998, in
remarkscelebratingthe fiftieth anniversaryof the appear-
ance of the vinyl LP. The commentatorclaimed that it is to
rock music that we owe the inventionof the integral 12-inch
recordalbum.Severallistenerscalled in to objectto the thesis.
32. Citedby Eisenberg,TheRecordingAngel,pp. 120-121 .
33. Hans Fantell, "Sinatra's'Duets' Album: Is it a Music
Recordingor TechnicalWizardry?"New YorkTimes,Satur-
day, January1, 1994, pp. 11 and 23.
34. Gracyk, Rhythmand Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock,
p. 230, note 36.
35. Ibid., p. 85.
36. Ibid., p. 57.
37. Ibid., pp. 44-45. Scruton's(controversial)view is that
photographyis invariably mechanically reproductive.For
372
instance,see hisAestheticUnderstanding (New York:Methuen,
1983), p. 105.
38. Gracyk, Rhythmand Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock,
pp. 56-57.
39. See the anonymousliner notes of the album, Ducretet
Thompson DUC 9 ("Second Panorama de Musique Con-
crete"), trans. from French by this author.These may well
be the wordsof eitherPierreHenryor PierreSchaefferthem-
selves, the principalcomposersof musiqueconcrete.
40. I say "partly"because,clearly,even if consumerswere
clear aboutthe intendedfunctionsof varioustypes of phono-
graphicartifacts,they would no doubtstill find reasonto use
them for purposesother than the intendedones.
The Journalof Aesthetics and Art Criticism
41. Before the publicationof his book, at various meet-
ings of the AmericanSociety of Aestheticsin the early 1990s.
42. In writing this paper,I was helped either directly or
indirectlyby commentsfrom JohnAndrewFisher,TedGra-
cyk, RobertHowell, MichaelProudfoot,DianaRaffman,and
an anonymousreaderfor this journal. Only as this is going
to press did I read Fisher's "Rock 'n' Recording:The Onto-
logical Complexityof Rock Music,"in Musical Worlds:New
Directions in the Philosophy of Music, ed. Philip Alperson
(PennsylvaniaState UniversityPress, 1998). Fisher's views
clearly intersectboth my own views and those of Gracyk.