Metal, Rock, and Jazz: Perception and the Phenomenology of Musical Experience by Harris M.

Berger
Review by: Mikel J. Koven
The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 116, No. 459, Creolization (Winter, 2003), pp. 120-121
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of American Folklore Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137949 .
Accessed: 12/02/2015 04:02
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.

University of Illinois Press and American Folklore Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of American Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.54.92.31 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:02:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

120

JournalofAmericanFolklore116 (2003)

of many mythological animals (griffins, centaurs, giants, cyclopes, and so forth) was
influencedby the ancients'attemptsto explain
the large fossilized bones that littered their
landscape. Mayor argues, for example, that
griffins are derived from the bones of
Protoceratopsand Psittacosaurusin ancient
Scythia (chapter 1); that the monster on a
Corinthianvase (fig. 4.2) is an effectiverepresentation of a fossil skull weatheringout of a
cliff; and that the bones identified by the ancients as those of giants and mythical heroes
were in fact fossil bones (chapter 3). Mayor
writesentertainingly,and this book has almost
more of the tone of a voyageof discoverythan
a scholarlywork. In some places,this is rather
frustrating;in particular,I found referencesto
both ancient works and modern scholarship
sometimes lacking in the footnotes (e.g., who
is the "Romanpoet" on p. 141;and try matching the researchon pp. 165-66 with the sources
in n. 4. Surelymore than one endnote per page
is permissible!).Giventhe patchynatureof her
ancient sources,much of the book is necessarily speculative, perhaps rather more so than
Mayorindicatesin her text. But her researchis
intensive,her evidencestrong,and her conclusions (by and large) persuasive.
The book is significantlyflawed,I think, by
Mayor'sfailureto take into accountthe difference in date and genre between her texts.
Mayor'ssources range over a thousand years;
the evidence,which appearsstrongand obvious
when gatheredtogether,is in factdisparateand
scattered.Greeksand Romansbelongedto very
differentcultures,each one of which embraced
a number of shifting ideologies; the "ancient
Greco-Romans"(p. 224) are as much (and as
unlikely) a hybrid as many of the monsters
Mayordiscusses.The advancesin understanding madein the ancientworld (summarizedon
pp.226-27) did not occurto anyone individual
in the ancientworld,but werescatteredinsights.
Moreover,as she herself points out, ancient
scientific texts by and large tended to ignore
fossil finds, as they were far more concerned
with sortingand dealingwith whatthereis than
discussingwhat might have been. Most of her
sourcesareauthorswho dealtin the fabulousor
in travelers' tales, and who, in many cases,
should not be taken at face value, as Mayor

tends to do. They themselveswere often aware

that they wererecordingmarvels,not scientific
fact. Mayor'sparaphrasessometimes obscure
this distinction. For example, Phlegon's account of "the triple head of a human body
[which]had two sets of teeth"(BookofMarvels
11.1) becomes in Mayor's appendix "large
bones with threeskullsand two jawboneswith
teeth"(p. 271)-the human origin of the skulls
is lost, and they become "large"(Phlegon said
nothing about their size). Similarly,since photos are given of fossil bones, why not of the
Greek pots that she refersto, ratherthan her
own drawings?And in some placesshe is simply not criticalenough; for example, her suggestion that the bulls in BronzeAge bull-leaping frescoes represent the aurochs (p. 102)
assumes that the artists are depicting the animals in proportion and ignores the entire debateoverwhetherbull-leapingtook placeat all.
Despitethesecriticisms,thereis much in this
book that is valuableand interesting.In bringing togetherinto one placeall the sourcesdealing with the ancient understandingof fossils,
Mayorhas shed light on an almost unnoticed
sourceof ancientmythmaking.The finalchapter,on hoaxesor "palaeontologicalfictions,"as
Mayortermsthem, offerssome intriguingparallelsbetween the ancient and modern worlds
regardingthe interactionof imagination,myth,
and science. In spite of the reservationsabove,
I found her conclusions interesting and frequently persuasive.This is a stimulatingbook
and I hope thatit will provokethe interdisciplinary debatethat its author seeks.

Metal,Rock,and Jazz:Perceptionand the Phenomenology of MusicalExperience.ByHarris

M. Berger. (Hanover, N.H., and London:
WesleyanUniversityPress,1999.Pp.334, introduction, notes, glossary, index, 16 photographs.)
MIKEL J. KOVEN

Universityof Wales,Aberystwyth
HarrisBerger'sMetal,Rock,andJazzis a lengthy
and philosophicalaccount of how ethnomusicology can be informed by phenomenological
discourse.Throughhis fieldworkin the metal,

This content downloaded from 155.54.92.31 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:02:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BookReviews

rock,andjazzscenesof ClevelandandAkron,
thesharedexBerger's
projectis to understand
periencesof the playersin musicalformation
withineachmusicaltraditionandwithintheir
respectivesocioeconomicand geographical
contexts.
Thebookbeginswithanethnographic
considerationof eachof thethree,mutuallyexclusive musicalcontexts-three separateclubs,
bands,andformsof popularmusic.Immediatelyone problemwith the projectemerges:
choiceof contrasts
andcomparisons
is
Berger's
neitherlinkednorreallyjustified.Clearlyhe is
mostinterested
in talkingaboutoneparticular
formof "heavymetal"rockmusic-so-called
deathmetal;in thesesectionsandchapters,
the
detail,and
paceof thewriting,theethnographic
the depthof interactionwithhis informants,
DannSaladin,allpickup.In conparticularly
trast,his otherdiscussionsof the Cleveland
"hardrock"scenewith the local band Max
Panicandhis comparisonof twojazzcontexts
elsewherein Ohio(onewhiteandoneAfrican
American
and
jazzensemble)arelesssuccessful
functionawkwardly.
In fact,onewonderswhy,
in thiseraof "publish
orperish,"
Bergerdidnot
breakthisworkdownintothreeseparate
books
thatcouldreference
eachother.
The sectionson death metal are strong
theirownvolume.Whatparenoughtowarrant
me in thesediscussions
was
ticularlyfascinated
informed
Berger's
ethnographically
exploration
of theconceptof "heaviness"
in music."Anyelementof the musicalsoundcanbe heavy,"he
states,"ifit evokespoweroranyof thegrimmer
emotions,andthehistoryof metaliscommonly
understood
asthepursuitof greater
andgreater
heaviness"
thelan(p.59).Thuscontextualizing
taxonoguageof rockfansthroughitsvernacular
mies,Bergergivesinsightintotheirworld.He
alsogivesperhaps
themostintelligent
of
analysis
I'veread(pp.72-73).
"moshing"
On the otherhand,Berger'sethnographic
descriptionsof the barswherehe observedthe

live musicalperformances
aremuchless successfulandarewrittenasif byrote.Hereis one
example:
Enteringthe mall'swide corridor,you see an
arrayof darkenedshopsand hearmusicfrom
speakersinset in the ceiling.Steppinginside

121

Rizzi's,youaregreetedby a hostesswearing
blackpants,a whiteshirtanda bowtie.On
mostnightsthewaitforatableisshort.Immespace
diatelybeforeyouis a largerectangular
dividedin half;tablesfortwoandfourfillthe
diningsection,anda lowwallandtwosmall
stepsupmarktheedgeof thelounge.(p.101)
Althoughthereis nothinginherentlywrong
to ethnography,
it is,to use
withthisapproach
inclua loadedphrase,boring.Theuninspired
sionof detailsliketheseis automaticandnever
queried.Andin thiscaseit shouldbe.
Muchof thebookis givenoverto defending
the author'sposition,of justifyinghis study,
andthesedimensionsinterrupttheworkunIt appearsthatBergeris tryingto
necessarily.
howis thisethnoghis
justify studyrepeatedly:
death
whenit is so obmetal,
raphy?
Whystudy
of popular
form
an
viously unimportant
fringe
music?Howis popularmusica worthy/legitiTheserepeated
matefocusfor our discipline?
attemptsto justifywhathe is doingbog the
readerdown.Bergerneedsto recognizethathe
to thechoir(whorecognize
is already
preaching
the legitimacyof the ethnographicstudyof
popularmusic,deathmetal,andtheexperience
andthathisarguments
of goingto nightclubs),
areunlikelyto makeanynewconvertsunless
theyarealreadyon theirown roadsto Damascus.
Berger'sreal contributionto ethnomusicologyin the bookis not the subjectstudied,
but his theoreticalorientationandmethodolhe doesnot
However,
ogy,hisphenomenology.
distinguishbetweenthe orthodoxphenomenologyof theearlytwentiethcentury(Bergson
and Husserl),and its development,problems,

overthepasthundred
changes,andreworkings
he
mention
the distinctions
Nor
does
years.
betweenorthodoxHusserlianphenomenology
and more recentdevelopmentssuch as Reader-

Theory.Finally,
TheoryorReception
Response
workis
so
although muchethnomusicological
artist-based,I hoped to see more consumer-

baseddiscoursein thisbook.Berger's
emphasis is so heavyon the positionof the culture
producerthat those readerswho do not make
music themselvesare often at a loss and probablymiss out on some importantphenomenological points for debate.

This content downloaded from 155.54.92.31 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 04:02:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions