Different Kinds of Buzz: Hybridization of Electronic Music in Thailand

1st National and International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences
October 31, 2014, KU Home, Bangkok, THAILAND
Different Kinds of Buzz: Hybridization of Electronic Music in Thailand

Pachararit Wismol*
Abstract
This study examines the interweaving cultural relations between the global and the local. In
particular, it investigates (a.) how the relationship between the global and the local is articulated, and (b.)
how power is implicated in these processes, by drawing from a case study of local electronic music
activities. The study utilizes participant observation as a research method that allows researcher to
examine the phenomena on the ground rather than merely analyzing from texts and media. The main
objective of this study is to interrogate prevalent assumption in international relations about media,
globalization, and cultural power. International relations approach to culture tends to portray the local as
victim of global homogenization. This view more or less implicitly buttresses a reading of the local as
default site of resistance against the encroaching influences of powerful media and cultural hegemonies.
But this picture does not correspond with how cultural relations are experienced on the ground. The
study contends that these assumptions not only exaggerate the conflict between the global and the
local, but it significantly overlooks multiple ways by which global aesthetics is actively appropriated and
negotiated by the local. From fieldwork data, it can be seen that the local invest their laborious efforts in
order to create pathways that connect, rather than oppose, the global to the local. Rather than assuming
that electronic music is another globalizing forces propagated by powerful media companies, then, the
study explores the efforts of local musicians that appropriate while at the same time seeking to contest
the styles through various strategies. Drawing from the notion of hybridization coined by Nestor Garcia
Canclini (2005), the study argues that these cultural practices can be conceived as hybridizing strategies
that generate innovative cultural forms and practices which cannot be reduced to opposition between
global homogenization and resistant practices based on essentialist notion of cultural authenticity. Rather,
local musicians operate in the liminal, in the middle of the global and the local, between compliance
and resistance. This, in turn, suggests a shift from conception of power as an imposition from above
toward an analysis of power that take into account the interwoven relationship between the global and
the local.
Key Word: Global/Local, Hybridization, Electronic Music
*
Masters student, MIR Program, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University; E-mail: markwismol@hotmail.com

Introduction
Recent years have witnessed growing interests in electronic music around Bangkok youth
cultures. Originally a marginal part of larger alternative movement of the 1990s, it became more
prominent and more diverse alongside the indie phenomenon of the 2000s. The development of the
scenes closely parallels the global re-emergence of club cultures and electronic dance music almost
without any clear investment from transnational and local music companies. Due to perceived market
risks, powerful music and entertainment corporations refrain from investing in these emerging styles.
Therefore, it is almost completely up to the local producers to develop strategies to integrate these
forms of music into the local market.
These movements called into question the conventional understanding of cultural relations
between the global and the local, especially in the discipline of international relat ions. The global
hegemony of western popular culture is often taken for granted as encroaching local cultural tradition,
resulting in cultural grey-out (Hamelink, 1983; Schiller, 1976). This explanation posits that, for example,
the ubiquity of American cultural products would dissolve local particularities. Meanwhile, the local is
often read as if it were a kind of default site of resistance to global homogenization, giving rise to
cultural differentialism (Pierterse, 2009: 44-50) that insisted on local cultural purity and difference-a
situation similar to what Samuel Huntington has called the clash of civilizations (Huntington 1996. Cf.
Barber 1996). To put it bluntly, by sticking with tradition, locals maintain their distinctiveness in the face of
an emergent transnational order (Luvaas, 2009: 248). Even though these two views have been criticized as
inadequate (Perterse, 2009; Tomlinson, 1991), they continue to inform much of the discussion about
contemporary cultural relations, especially in the Thai context (Reynolds, 2002a; Phongpaichit and Baker,
2000).
Rather than assuming that electronic music is another globalizing force driven by powerful
companies in their quest for profits, this article explores the efforts by which local electronic musicians
seek to establish dynamic links with the elsewhere-the international musical scenes they witness from
afar. In so doing, I propose to analyze how such connections are formed and maintained through
alternative pathways (Condry, 2006; Finnegan, 1989; Appadurai, 1996), which in turn also give rise to
negotiation, differentiation, and contestation in the making of the local scenes. While the elsewhere
figures prominently in the production of the local scenes, it is never purely xenocentric nor simply
xenophobic, as the studies of contemporary non-western musical scenes tend to portray (Wallach, 2008;
Baulch, 2007; Luvaas, 2009; Condry, 2006).
Using participant observation, the main objective of present study is to examine the interweaving
relations between the global and the local. In general, it seeks to explore the following research
questions:
a) How do the global articulate with the local?
[71]

b) If the development of the local scenes is mostly the works of enthusiasts themselves who
strive to develop the links with the elsewhere rather than being imposed from the dominant scenes,
then, how power is implicated in the process?
Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork, I propose that local electronic musicians articulate with
global styles through various strategies in order to negotiate innovative cultural practices that make
possible other forms of expression (Canclini, 2000; Bhabha, 1994; Foucault, 1986) They assemble sounds
and images from variety of styles and genres, closely aligning themselves with international music
movements, while at the same time seeking to challenge accepted musical norms through experimenting
with styles and practices. In this regard, local electronic musicians are operating in the middle (Luvaas
2009) between the interlacing of the global and the local, amid compliance and resistance, which cannot
be reduced to opposition between global homogenization and resistant practices based on essentialist
notion of cultural identity (Canclini, 2000; Pierterse, 2009).
Notes on Method
As emphasized by Condry (2006) among others (Wallach, 2008; Baulch, 2007), researching the
global-local articulation in popular music, or popular culture in general, requires the researcher to be
there (Gupta and Ferguson, 1997). But as far as the music is concerned, what, or where is there. In
order to grasp complex phenomena such as hybridizing processes and strategies in music cultures, it is
imperative that one must not only focus on the textual, materials, or production facilities, habits and
beliefs of the DJ/producers, but also paying particular attention to the actual sites of performance as well
as collective networks, both online and offline, that surround them. Social networking has been
indispensible means for the aspiring career musicians of any genres. Traditionally, this goes back to what
Howard S. Becker (1963) observes that forming cliques is crucial for securing and maintaining musical
careers among jazz musicians. In our current era of digitally mediated network formation, the virtual social
networking through websites such as Facebook, Soundcloud, and Bandcamp have even more tightened
the senses of sharedness among the cliques of enthusiasts, while at the same time make possible the
expansion of fanbase to include new fans and would-be performers at both local and international level.
This entails not only participating in studios and rehearsal rooms, but more importantly at nightclubs, art
galleries, or abandoned quarry where interaction between enthusiasts shaped and transformed the
scenes. It is through participating at these sites of performance that one can observe how electronic
music is constantly being made and re-made in specific locations through local dialects and for
particular audiences (Condry, 2006: 2). As noted above, this is crucial for international relations
approach to music, media and cultures, which too often relied on theories of global homogenization or
cultural imperialism that presuppose rigid opposition between the global versus the local, the West
against the rest. Through examining cultural practices and performances, one could possibly observe the
dynamic links, or pathways (Finnegan 1989), rather than opposition, that connect the global with the
[72]

local (Condry, 2006: 2), which in turns allow the examination of simultaneous processes of absorption,
hybridization, and contestation of cultural norms and practices.
The sites of performance that were investigated in this research are as varied as international and
local music festivals, special events and regular nightclubbing, small gathering at local pubs, rehearsal
rooms, to home and professional studios. I limit my fieldwork data collection mainly to nightclubs as I
was told early on by participants-including both performers and experienced clubbers-that these are the
places that I must be there in order to get the feel of what electronic music and club cultures is like. The
process of data collection consists of formal and informal interviews with peoples from the scenes. This
includes musicians/DJs/sound-engineers, independent label executives, event organizers, record shop
owners, as well as amateur student-musicians, fans and audiences from various backgrounds to attempt
to capture the kaleidoscopic realities of their creative practices and how they imagine the scenes
elsewhere and attempt to form the connection through articulating them with the lived experience of
local conditions. In general, during the course of research I have attended more than forty events and
regular club nights, formally and informally interviewed about 20 participants from the scenes. The
fieldwork spanned from July 2013 to June 2014, and is still ongoing in order to critically assess continuity,
change or the lack thereof, especially when the genre is now at the tipping point in the United States.
Ignorant Soundmasters
Anyone who has a chance to meet Wannarit Pok Pongprayoon (2014) would be surprised by
his shyness and quiet personality, especially given his highly expressive and emotionally charged musical
performances. He has been known for his work as the other half of the group Stylish Nonsense, which
he formed with his close college friend Yuttana June Kalambaheti. Even though he is widely regarded
as the pioneer of the new electronic music movement of the 2000s, he has always been reluctant about
calling himself electronic musician. He preferred instead to relate his works with those of the Beatles,
for their innovative uses of studio and electronic equipment.
As a multi-instrumentalist, he moved with ease from bass, guitar to keyboard, and has been
known to play support as a keyboardist for the group Day Tripper, while also have been working as live
sound engineer at several nightclubs around Bangkok. Wannarit also founded Panda Records-not a
record label in the strict sense but a loose collective of like-minded independent musicians and
producers. Apart from those many responsibilities, he is also a sound design instructor at Silpakorn
University, a role he only recently took up despite the fact the he was not formally trained in the field.
The following draws from my field notes as I followed him through his organizing of Stone Free Music
Festival, which took place at an abandoned quarry in Kanchanaburi.
At the Stone Free I saw him running around, setting up musical instruments for other bands,
sound-checking, rehearsing, preparing meals for rosters and roadies, etc. He told me that he did all of
these works, trying to put together a music festival to provide space for more than 50 emerging bands
[73]

that make interesting music but there was no place for them to perform in Bangkok. The Stone Free
festival was organized, like many of his projects, without support from sponsors. The lighting and soundsystems were borrowed from friends and colleagues, participants had to bring their own foods, drinks, and
tents, and that the only provided facilities were toilet. Even these, he jokingly remarked that after it is
finished he might quit organizing festivals, not only because of tiredness, but also because of having to
deal with too many parties, opinions, and businesses that ultimately drained him out of creative energy.
As he was testing keyboards and synthesizers for other bands that will be performed in the night,
Wannarit told me that he got his hands on synthesizer almost by accident. He told me that in his teens,
like many of Thai kids in the 1990s, the fashionable instruments to play alternative music would be those
conventional rock instruments such as guitar, bass and drums. As he wandered around the second hand
markets and pawnshops around Bangkok to find guitar and affect pedals, he saw a crummy analog synth
which was being sold cheaply. So he bought it back home and messed with the dials, knobs, and keys.
He recalled that back in those days, there were no available resources on how to operate a synthesizerat least to his knowledge as a youngster: There were no magazines, manuals, or the Internet. So he
went by trial-and-error, mostly self-taught, before he discovered that each random tweak could have
subtle effect on the sounds. To him, it seems as if this is not a matter of being hip-being in the knowby which participants cultivate and display subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995) in order to distinguish
themselves from the anonymity of the masses. It is rather an exploration of what music can do, by
deliberately pushing it to the limits. Surprisingly, he said that his first synthesizer model was really old
and full of analog quirks. When he liked a sound he was adjusting, it could not be saved nor is it the
same in the next day. Each time he played that synth was a new discovery.
And he took that spirit into his approach to composition and performance. With wry humor, he
said that the concept of the group Stylish Nonsense was never meant to be an electronic music project.
It was rather because he and his band mate, June, did not have drummer, so the circumstance forced
them to use electronic drum machines, which in turn led them to be more experimental with sounds. He
thought that drum machines do not sound good with live music format and therefore have pushed them
to include more synthesized sounds. Fully aware of the electronic music as a part of alternative music
movement of the 1990s, he said that he did not want anyone to put a musical label on his work, such as
Pok is a Breakbeat, Techno, this-and-that guy. Some people might like it. To be settled with some
genres. But Im not. Rather, he chose instead to draw across wide range of styles and sounds,
juxtaposing harsher beats with sugary Rhode pianos, trippy noises and repetitive synthesized patterns,
while singing sometimes in English and the other moment in Thai, or not singing at all. The sound
resulted almost in unclassifiable mess, which could only grouped under the umbrella term of electronic
music. Even that, he was not satisfied with this broad category either. His live performance often
featured lengthy intros and improvisations, which sometime abandoned synthesized sounds altogether.
Stripped to the barebones, he used only bass guitar or electric piano with no effects, while June played
the live drum kit and percussions-intentionally challenge the accepted convention of electronic music.
[74]

Contrary to their refined studio works, their performances were intensely raw and full of interactions,
especially during improvisatory sessions.
In comparing the global and the local scenes, he said that there is no difference between the
there (global) and the here (local). While seeing the local as already on par with others on the global
stage, he insisted that it is not enough that the locals simply accept the genre boundaries without
questioning them, nor is it all right to naively play up ethnic sounds in order to gain international
recognition. Following genre conventions, whether it is rock, underground electronica, or world music, is
to him unacceptable and uncritical. And much of what he has been trying to do (i.e. founding label,
organizing festivals) is to foster new forms of creativities. The problem of contemporary local musicmaking, he said, is that young people have creative ideas but there were no spaces to blow out their
steams. Dealing with record labels, either large or small, could only result in compromising the creative
activity, and businesses would of course be unwilling to support a product that cannot guarantee
profits. Therefore, it is understandable that younger enthusiasts who hoped to enter the scenes would
always design their works to fit genres and markets in mind, even before they actually get their hands on
composition. He related this to his recent experience as a sound design instructor at university: College
kids came up to me wanting to know how to emulate some international big sound. I simply told them
that I couldnt teach them. It could only be calculated guess, never precise, but more importantly, that
was definitely not my way of learning how to play synthesizer. Wheres the fun in that?
Pok Wannarits approach to electronic music struck quite a chord with many budding artists that
began to emerge on the bourgeoning scenes of the early 2000s, recalled Cesar De Guzman. Born to
Filipino architect family but grew up in Thailand, Cesar does not hesitate to call Bangkok his hometown
while regard the Philippines faintly as childhood memories he almost forgot. (Interviewed 5 Oct 2013) He
studied communication arts at an international college in Bangkok. At college he was determined to
make music his career, so he realized the importance of acquiring knowledge and skills in music
production, which was mostly self-taught. Unlike Wannarit, however, Cesar openly embrace his title as
electronic musician, and seriously considered computer as musical instrument in its own right.
While earlier electronic music producers often complained about not having knowledge and
resources to develop proficient skills, Cesar was among the generation that grew up with MTV and the
Internet, and was lucky to be fluent at English language. Not willing to compromise his creative vision
as an artist, he soon came to work on multiple projects, such as making music for advertisements, jingles,
fashion shows and others in order to support his musings in sonic experimentation. He considered
releasing a CD album more like a name card that could showcase his talents and capabilities. As a
result, his works were often eclectic.
Like Wannarit, Cesar is considered one of the busiest guys of the scenes, not that because they
were popular but because they had to simultaneously manage multiple projects at once in order to
financially support their self-releases and setting up their own live shows. However, Cesar went beyond
his cohorts in that his strategy is explicitly looking outward. He recalled that after releasing hi s first
[75]

material, it caused quite a stir among bloggers and the MySpace communities, which, to him, happened
by surprise. International acts began contacting him through his webpage, asking whether he wanted to
do remixes for them. Bloggers helped passing his music along in the online spheres, for free, leading him
to contact with international event organizers that result in concerts in several countries on regular basis.
It happened really fast and I wasnt at all prepared. I never thought that it would be possible, he said.
Since then he realized that his fan base is out there and that his music could have global appeal. This
is one of the main reasons why he chose to write all lyrics in English, even though his music were mainly
composed in instrumental forms. The other is that he was not skilled at writing lyrics in Thai. He said that
Thai language, especially its vowels, imposed many limitations on constructing vocal melodies. And
when you tried to twist the sounds, it became unintelligible and funny. Its really not the most flexible
language. Nevertheless, he still considered writing Thai lyrics a challenge as he wanted to share his
feelings and stylistic sensibilities with the locals, and more practically could lead to him performing more
gigs at home. However, when I asked if he had to choose, he chose English without hesitation.
Hybridizing Strategies
Drawing from the works by Nestor Garcia Canclini, I refer to hybridization as the processes by
which diverse actors utilize strategies to reconvert resources and practices (a professional skill, a set of
techniques and knowledge) in order to generate new structures, objects, and practices (Canclini, 2000,
2001, 2005; Bourdieu, 1984). From this formulation, globalization can be perceived not simply as foreign
and dominant force that would operate by replacing local practices, but rather as the attempt at
renovation (Canclini, 2005: 3) whereby diverse actors strive to gain benefit from changing conditions of
production and distribution of cultures. Through analyses of museums, monuments, arts and crafts, and
other cultural practices and institutions in the context of Latin America, Canclini demonstrates how the
elites, governments, business enterprises, play vital role in constructing the narrative of national
patrimonies and heritages as well as canonical works of art through modern use of technologies and
hence reproducing and securing their hegemonies. On the other hand, he also demonstrates that popular
cultural workers and industries have long been integrating new techniques to produce craftworks for the
mass market and to attract tourists and urban buyers.
This strategic aspect of hybridization has been applied to the study of Thai culture by Peter A.
Jackson (2010). Jackson uses Canclinis concept of hybridization to interrogate the ambiguities of
semicolonial hybridities inherent in the Thai elite discourse of siwilai. Following Winichakul (2002), Jackson
characterizes siwilai as selective cultural borrowing and hybridization with aspects of western culture and
local forms of governance, which were used strategically to consolidate power to an otherwise
multiethnic Siam during the era of absolute monarchy. He points out that the debates on whether
siwilai and successor notions including modernity (samai mai), development (karn pattana), and
democracy (prachathipatai), express Thai autonomy from, or subordination to, the West were a
[76]

dominant theme of Thai nationalist discourse throughout the twentieth century, and persists to this day.
(Jackson, 2010: 197; Reynolds, 2002b: 316-322). Strategically, siwilai simultaneously performs dual
functions: reproducing hegemony at the domestic level, while attempting internationally to locate
Siam/Thailand in a position of globally recognized symbolic prestige. (Jackson, 2010: 197) Although
basing his inquiry largely on Thai historiography, Jackson suggests alternative form of an excessive
hybridity that overflow the polite boundaries of state-defined borrowings as popular subaltern strategy
that opposes, resists, or evades the rule of internal colonization (Jackson, 2010: 202).
Although using different approach, Canclini hints toward similar strategy to Jackson in his
discussion of the notion of equalization and discord. In a more illuminating passage that draw
analogies from music production to critique the operation of mass market communication, Canclini draws
on the notion of equalization, which is worth quoting at length:
When hybridization is the mixing of elements from many diverse societies whose peoples are
seen as sets of potential consumers of a global product, the process that in music is called equalization
tends to be applied to the differences between cultures. Thus, in the same way that through electronic
tricks in recording and reproduction variations in timbre and melodic styles lose their specificity,
incompatible cultural forms can much too easily become commensurable. (Canclini, 2000: 47)
From this perspective, equalization tends to play down cultural difference and forged
reconciliation based on elimination of discord (Theberge, 1989). To put it crudely, the forms of musical
hybridization as propagated by mass culture industries can be called as tranquilized hybridity, or a
reduction of points of resistance from other musical aesthetics, and a reduction of the challenges that
diverse cultures bring. (Canclini, 2000: 48)
Canclinis discussion of equalization and discord has significant implication for the
aforementioned studies of transnational music scenes. In terms of Thai popular music, it can be easily
shown how it has been hybridized through multiple strategies across various genres and styles (Lockard,
1998; Siriyuvasak, 1990; Sawangchot, 2013). By tracing histories of mixing, the notion of authentic local
identity as implicated in musical practices became dubious claim as if it is a free-floating signifier that is
fixed by ideology. (Pataradetpisan, 2014; Canclini, 2005: xxviii) From this perspective, the efforts of
electronic musicians examined in these pages can be posited as the attempt to radically reintegrate
discord into what has already been tranquilized. Rather than simply producing the sum of mixture
between the global and the local, their hybridizing strategies seek to generate innovative cultural
practices that make possible other forms of expression (Canclini, 2000; Foucault, 1986; Bhabha, 1994)
Locations of Power
As I have briefly mentioned above, the formation of the dynamic links between the global and
the local electronic music scenes cannot be accounted by simple oppositional reading of local resistance
against global homogenization. This perspective is inadequate for it cannot explain why locals themselves
[77]

established connection and appropriate styles from elsewhere rather than drawing from the homegrown
varieties. The problem with this perspective, then, is that it tends to portray the local as victims, rather
than active agents of social change, and therefore ignores the ways the local actually encounter and
make use of global aesthetics. This vertical conception tends to exaggerate the conflicts between the
global and the local and therefore overlooking complicities and reciprocal uses that knit the web of
relations between them (Canclini, 2001: 142).
In this regard, Canclini (2005: 258-9) suggests power does not function as if bourgeoisie imposed it
over proletariats, whites over indigenous peoples, or media over receivers. He then argues for a shift from
top-down and bipolar conception of power relations to one that is decentered and multidetermined
whose conflicts and asymmetries are tempered through compromises among unequally positioned actors
(Canclini, 2001: 142). The notion of oblique powers, as coined by Canclini, is used to explain the
interwoven power relations between the global and the local where each one achieves an effectiveness
that it would never be able to by itselfwhat gives them their efficacy is the obliqueness that is
established in the fabric. (Canclini, 2005: 259; Foucault, 1980: 142)
Following from this reconceptualization of power relations, in their attempt at forming
connection between the scenes elsewhere and at home, Bangkok electronic musicians are more or less
complicit with and are implicated in transnational regime of power. From earliest development in the
1990s, local producers tend to identify strongly with the global scenes and attempted to recreate those
sounds and injected into the local mediascapes. By 2000s, the forms and styles began to diverge as the
relations between the global and the local were maintained while at the same time contested. This
cannot be read as purely an act of resistance nor does it entail complete subjugation to the hegemony of
global media. Rather, contemporary local electronic musicians are operating in the middle (Luvaas,
2009), as active agents operating between the global and the local, at the intersection between
compliance and resistance that cannot be reduced into opposition between global homogenization and
essentialist notion of local cultural identity.
Concluding Remarks
Since the early 1990s, electronic music scenes in Bangkok have been growing exponentially.
These movements closely parallel the international scenes and the global re-emergence of club cultures
almost without any clear involvement by local and transnational corporations. From tracing the
development of the scenes, it is clear that it was rather through the efforts of enthusiasts themselves
that attempt to integrate these sounds and contribute to the making of the local scenes.
The evolution of the scenes called into question the conventional account of cultural relations
between the global and the local. This account often posits that the dominance of western media result
in global homogenization, which, by implication, must be resisted at all cost. Implicit in this account is
that it prefers to read the local as a default site of resistance against the encroaching powers of western
[78]

media hegemonies. The locals always seek to preserve and maintain distinctiveness in the face of global
homogenization. While this viewpoint has been criticized for its essentialist assumption, more importantly,
it tends to portray the locals always as victims and often overlook the multiple ways in which the locals
have appropriate the global aesthetics.
By drawing from the global sounds and styles, combining with adopted uses of programmable
software, synthesizers, samples, and other collage techniques, it can be read that Bangkok electronic
musicians have created music that is devoid of any reference to local cultural practices and traditions and
insist on being taken seriously as legitimate players on the global stage. These tendencies to privilege the
global might also lend themselves an interpretation that local producers are leaning toward xenocentric
outlook. From the cases examined through these pages, gesturing toward the imagined elsewhere is
clearly a dominant strategy by which Bangkok electronic musicians attempt to construct the local scenes.
However, as agents, they demonstrated that they were not merely passives followers of the global
trends, and they went their own ways in attempting to contest the already accepted musical norms and
practices.
These complex movements require a more nuanced conception of relations between the global
and the local. Their works are certainly hybrid, but they are not the kind of hybrid that can be easily
gleaned from the circulation of the mass market. If electronic techniques are capable of producing a
forged version of reconciliation based on elimination of discord, they can equally capable of producing
unexpected sounds, re-combinations, and improvisations as the works by artists examined here.
Therefore, this article proposes a concept of strategic hybridization as an alternative to explain cultural
relations between the global and the local implicated in contemporary Bangkok electronic music
practices. It posits hybridization as strategies by which artists seek to generate innovative cultural practices
that make possible other forms of expression, which is not merely the sum of a combination between
global and local cultural elements. Moreover, this article also calls for a reconceptualization of power. It
argues that the vertical, or top-down, approach that posits power as if it is imposed from the global
over the local is inadequate to account for the cases examined here. As we have seen, the locals are
active agents that are capable of appropriating as much as contesting the global styles and not merely
being subjugated to them. They are active in their attempts to create links, making connections, while at
the same time sought to negotiate and contest the forms and practices. Rather than insisting on the
opposition between global homogenization and resistant practices based on cultural authenticity, the
examination of hybridizing strategies demonstrate that they are operating in the middle, between the
global and the local, between compliance and resistance.
Reference
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minnesota: University of
Minnesota.
[79]

Baulch, E. 2007. Making Scenes: Reggae, Punk, and Death Metal in 1990s Bali. Durham: Duke University.
Barber, B. 1996. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Canclini, N. 2000. The State of War and The State of Hybridization. In Paul Gilroy, Lawrence Grossberg
and Angela McRobbie (ed.). Without Guarantees: In Honour of Stuart Hall. London: Verso, pp.
38-52.
________. 2001. Consumers and Citizen: Globalization and Multicultural Conflicts. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
________. 2005. Hybrid Cultures: Strategies For Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Condry, I. 2006. Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and The Paths of Cultural Globalization. Durham: Duke University.
De Guzman, C and Dhanapura, J. 2014. Interviewed. 5 Jun 2014.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York:
Pantheon Books.
________. 1986. Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16 (1): 22-27.
Huntington, S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York:
Touchstone.
Hayes, M. 2004. Capitalism and Cultural Relativity: The Thai Pop Industry, Capitalism, and Western
Cultural Values. In Refashioning Pop Music in Asia, ed. Allen Chun, Brian Shoesmith, and Ned
Rossiter. London: Routledge.
Hamelink, C. 1983. Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications. New York: Longman.
Jackson, P. 2011. Afterword: Postcolonial Theories and Thai Semicolonial Hybridities. In The
Ambiguous Allure of The West: Traces of the Colonial in Thailand, ed. Rachel V. Harrison and
Peter A. Jackson, 187-205. Chiang Mai: Silkworm books.
Luvaas, B. 2009. Dislocating Sounds: The Deterritorialization of Indonesian Indie Pop. Cultural
Anthropology 24 (2): 246-279.
Lockard, C. 1998. Dance of Life: Popular Music And Politics in Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of
Hawai'i.
Mudkong, N. 2014. Interviewed.20 Mar 2014.
Nederveen P. 2009. Globalization & Culture: The Global Melange. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Phongpaichit, P. and Baker, C. 2000. Thailand's Crisis. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Pongprayoon, W. 2014. Interviewed.12 Jan 2014.
Reynolds, C. 2002a. National Identity and Its Defenders: Thailand Today. Chiang Mai: Silkworm books.
Reynolds, C. 2002b. Thai Identity In the Age of Globalization. In National Identity and Its Defenders:
Thailand Today, ed. Craig J. Reynolds, 308-339. Chiang Mai: Silkworm books.
[80]

Sawangchot, V. 2013. Only Mix Never Been Cut: The Localized Production of Jamaican Music in
Thailand. In Asian Popular Culture: The global (dis) continuity, ed. Anthony Y. H. Fung, 139153. New York: Routledge.
Schiller, H. 1976. Communication and Cultural Domination. New York: White Plains.
Siriyuvasak, U. 1990. Commercialising the Sound of the People: Pleng Luktoong and the Thai Pop Music
Industry. Popular Music 9 (1): 61-77.
Sukosol, K. 2014. Interviewed.7 Aug 2014.
Theberge, P. 1989. The 'Sound' of Music: Technological Rationalization and the Production of Popular
Music. New Formations 8: 99-111.
Thornton, S. 1995. Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital. Oxford: Polity Press.
Tomlinson, J. 1991. Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. London: Continuum.
Wallach, J. 2008. Modern Noise, Fluid Genres: Popular Music in Indonesia. Wisconsin: University of
Wisconsin.
[81]

Different Kinds of Buzz: Hybridization of Electronic Music in Thailand

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Different Kinds of Buzz: Hybridization of Electronic Music in Thailand

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1st National and International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences

October 31, 2014, KU Home, Bangkok, THAILAND