House of Golden Records: Portugal’s Independent Record Stores (1998–2020)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents the outcomes of an interesting empirical research project on the role of record stores in the cities of Lisbon and Portugal. The paper presents a breath of data collected through qualitative research and links the data to relevant concepts from earlier research of popular culture and creative economies, most notably the notions of the aspirational economy and subcultural capital. I would very much like to see this paper published. However, I have some reservations that I would like the authors to consider.

First, the PDF of the article does not contain the bibliography of the paper while it abundantly references sources. I am assuming that sources such as Sarah Thornton on subcultural capital are being referred to, but as the bibliography is lacking, I can hardly assess the extent to which the paper is properly linked to the current academic debate.

Second, I find basic information on the empirical method lacking. How where the 10 record stores selected? How were owners and customers selected for interviews? I am assuming a sort of snowball sampling technique was used but there is no information on this. How where interviews structured, what sensitising concepts guided the observations and interviews? How was the data analysed (with the use of Atlas.TI or other qualitative data analysis software)? What labelling/coding strategy was used? Moreover, I am wondering whether some considerations as to the socio-demographic position of the interviewees should be discussed. It seems to me these are all people in their 40s/50s, they also strike me as predominantly male and with higher education levels. In other words, what are the general characteristics of this subcultural group?

Third, for me a stricter separation of the theoretical and methodological sections of the paper and the empirical parts would be preferable. I am somewhat puzzled as to what the distinction between sections 2 and 3 is. Moreover, section 3 titled ‘theoretical framework’ contains an abundance of empirical data. Also, in the following sections empirical information and theoretical sources are mixed. This leads to unclarity as to how in this research project theory/concepts and empirical observations relate to each other. I am very much in favour of iterative research that employs a sort of dialectics between concepts and theory but that should be indicated in the Introduction, explaining how the paper presents theory and data.

Last, for me the aim of the paper – its wider relevance – could be formulated more poignantly. Is the aim to say something towards the changed position of physical record stores (as the conclusion seems to be doing)? Or to argue towards the ritualistic aspects of music consumption in a digitalised industry (in which case I find references to the ritualistic aspects of pop music festivals lacking)? Or an argument about how outdated technologies have gained specific values based on ritualised consumption? The research could speak to all of these but I suggest picking one central scope that carries the argument more clearly. Or could it be indicated which question(s) sparked the research initially, and towards which question(s) it has gravitated?  

If the authors can consider these points and improve the text towards them, I feel this is a very interesting and original contribution to the debate that should be published.

Some minor remarks to the text:

Page 2, line 55: The term ‘overview of the stat of the art’ is not clear to me.

Page 2, lines 56-58: I suggest reformulating the sentence to: We explore the emergence of a new aspirational economy based on curation and on being in the know, that rebuffs the Veblenian rationale of ostentation. (Maybe this is the central aim of the paper?) Furthermore, a statement such as : “In music scenes, curations demands legitimacy” cannot go without a reference.

Page 2, line 80: ‘as we have seen’ implies that as a reader, I have read the argument before in the text but I fear it is being used as a phrase to indicate observations of the researchers. This obfuscates what is based on empirical material and what is based on theory.

Page 3, line 113: exactly the same problem.

Page 3, lines 146-147: More explanation is needed here. Who, what type of actors tend to be identified as these new cultural mediators?

Page 4, lines 205-211: How does this community ‘show up’ empirically? Because they regularly visit the stores? Because they visit without buying (i.e. for a chat)? Because they are friends of the owners? Or through online participation on particular platforms? The text also raises questions as to what the size of this community is.

Page 4, line 252: How does being recognised in the music scene occur? Do these people need to be musicians themselves? Or do they need to visit concerts or other types of events? Or do they need embodied cultural capital in the sense of having a long history in the local music scene?

Page 6, lines 291-306: The analysis in the text before the quote and the quote are not about the same thing. The quote indicates employees tend to be recruited from loyal customers. The analysis in the text is on employees starting up their own record store and taking customers with them.

Page 6, line 309: It is odd that so late in the paper we read “We begin our analysis” while the analysis has already begun earlier in the text.

Page 7, line 314: This is the third (or fourth) point in the text where Andjelic is referenced. In my book that points to a problem in the structure of the paper.

Page 7, lines 320-327: This part of the text confused me. What is meant here? I think the tactile aspect of holding a record in one’s hand and the necessity of treating it gently as to not damage the vinyl are being referred to. This is simply not explained very well. What noises are indicated in line 326?

Page 8, line 366: The coffee machine is mentioned. Is it actually used? By whom? How often? Do you have data on that?

Page 8, lines 372-380: Really impressive observations!

Page 8, line 383: it is not clear what ‘they’ refers to in this sentence. I am assuming the collector. But is this the store owner or (also) the customer?

Page 10, line 520: ‘on niche’ may be removed.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review 1 of Houses of Golden Records

 

1. This paper presents the outcomes of an interesting empirical research project on the role of record stores in the cities of Lisbon and Portugal. The paper presents a breath of data collected through qualitative research and links the data to relevant concepts from earlier research of popular culture and creative economies, most notably the notions of the aspirational economy and subcultural capital. I would very much like to see this paper published. However, I have some reservations that I would like the authors to consider. Thank you very much for the general understanding and appreciation of the article, below we will address the problems raised and we have highlighted our responses in yellow.
2. First, the PDF of the article does not contain the bibliography of the paper while it abundantly references sources. I am assuming that sources such as Sarah Thornton on subcultural capital are being referred to, but as the bibliography is lacking, I can hardly assess the extent to which the paper is properly linked to the current academic debate. I think it might have been a problem with the file, because the manuscript we’ve downloaded has listed all the final references, in this sense I believe that this issue is solved.
3. Second, I find basic information on the empirical method lacking. How where the 10 record stores selected? How were owners and customers selected for interviews? I am assuming a sort of snowball sampling technique was used but there is no information on this. Regarding this issue, the second footnote there is a brief mention on how we have selected the record stores as empirical data, and in that sense we’ve added a deeper explanation about it on that same footnote. We did this because we found it to be additional information, i.e., not something relevant to be presented in the flow of the text. We also added it to the footnotes to remain the consistency of the text.
4. How where interviews structured, what sensitising concepts guided the observations and interviews? How was the data analysed (with the use of Atlas.TI or other qualitative data analysis software)? What labelling/coding strategy was used? We added some information about the process, we used the NVivo software to summarize the traditional content analysis of the interviews.
5. Moreover, I am wondering whether some considerations as to the socio-demographic position of the interviewees should be discussed. It seems to me these are all people in their 40s/50s, they also strike me as predominantly male and with higher education levels. In other words, what are the general characteristics of this subcultural group? We added that information, the reviewer was actually accurate about the sociodemographic data. We also added some insights about that relationship and consumption on music (CD and/or vinyl), to give some background about the group as a subculture.
6. Third, for me a stricter separation of the theoretical and methodological sections of the paper and the empirical parts would be preferable. I am somewhat puzzled as to what the distinction between sections 2 and 3 is. Moreover, section 3 titled ‘theoretical framework’ contains an abundance of empirical data. Also, in the following sections empirical information and theoretical sources are mixed. This leads to unclarity as to how in this research project theory/concepts and empirical observations relate to each other. I am very much in favour of iterative research that employs a sort of dialectics between concepts and theory but that should be indicated in the Introduction, explaining how the paper presents theory and data. Although we understand the reviewer's point of view, we consider it important to mention that this work is deeply anchored in the perspective of grounded theory, a research method that presupposes this constant crossing between theory and empirics. Thus, we considered that their separation, besides making the article difficult to read, may confer some theoretical and methodological gaps that, with constant crossing, may be easily overcome. However, we have added a brief note in which we summarise this same principle of scientific action and analysis.
7. Last, for me the aim of the paper – its wider relevance – could be formulated more poignantly. Is the aim to say something towards the changed position of physical record stores (as the conclusion seems to be doing)? Or to argue towards the ritualistic aspects of music consumption in a digitalised industry (in which case I find references to the ritualistic aspects of pop music festivals lacking)? Or an argument about how outdated technologies have gained specific values based on ritualised consumption? The research could speak to all of these but I suggest picking one central scope that carries the argument more clearly. Or could it be indicated which question(s) sparked the research initially, and towards which question(s) it has gravitated? We appreciate this input and in that regard we have added a succinct and straightforward explanation about the scope of the article in the introductory section of the article.
8. If the authors can consider these points and improve the text towards them, I feel this is a very interesting and original contribution to the debate that should be published. Thank you very much for the kind feedback.
9. Some minor remarks to the text:

Page 2, line 55: The term ‘overview of the stat of the art’ is not clear to me. We corrected it

Page 2, lines 56-58: I suggest reformulating the sentence to: We explore the emergence of a new aspirational economy based on curation and on being in the know, that rebuffs the Veblenian rationale of ostentation. (Maybe this is the central aim of the paper?) Furthermore, a statement such as : “In music scenes, curations demands legitimacy” cannot go without a reference. We did the changes and added the reference

Page 2, line 80: ‘as we have seen’ implies that as a reader, I have read the argument before in the text but I fear it is being used as a phrase to indicate observations of the researchers. This obfuscates what is based on empirical material and what is based on theory. We’ve removed it

Page 3, line 113: exactly the same problem. Corrected it

Page 3, lines 146-147: More explanation is needed here. Who, what type of actors tend to be identified as these new cultural mediators? Added the information

Page 4, lines 205-211: How does this community ‘show up’ empirically? Because they regularly visit the stores? Because they visit without buying (i.e. for a chat)? Because they are friends of the owners? Or through online participation on particular platforms? The text also raises questions as to what the size of this community is. I feel that this is explained on section 4, when I talk about the building of the community and how it is build, namely through  the same tastes. We did not deepen the extent of the community because that wasn’t the purpose of the article, and to do that we would have to talk about other practices and events, for example, festivals or shows, which would broaden very much the field of research. We also mention the importance of internet.

Page 4, line 252: How does being recognised in the music scene occur? Do these people need to be musicians themselves? Or do they need to visit concerts or other types of events? Or do they need embodied cultural capital in the sense of having a long history in the local music scene? We give an explanation on the page 5, when we mention the need to have symbolic capital rather than cultural or economical capital.

Page 6, lines 291-306: The analysis in the text before the quote and the quote are not about the same thing. The quote indicates employees tend to be recruited from loyal customers. The analysis in the text is on employees starting up their own record store and taking customers with them. I think we made the connection to the human spotify made by the interviewees, and also the link to subcultural capital, and in that sense we’ve removed the other two quotes.

Page 6, line 309: It is odd that so late in the paper we read “We begin our analysis” while the analysis has already begun earlier in the text. We’ve changed it.

Page 7, line 314: This is the third (or fourth) point in the text where Andjelic is referenced. In my book that points to a problem in the structure of the paper. I believe the problem was regarding English problem, we’ve changed it. Besided, this aligns itself with the grounded theory method, making it useful to mention the author once again.

Page 7, lines 320-327: This part of the text confused me. What is meant here? I think the tactile aspect of holding a record in one’s hand and the necessity of treating it gently as to not damage the vinyl are being referred to. This is simply not explained very well. What noises are indicated in line 326? We changed the writing of the argument.

Page 8, line 366: The coffee machine is mentioned. Is it actually used? By whom? How often? Do you have data on that? I feel this comment is a bit out of place, we’re giving a general description of the record store – Carbono – to add up to the argument of the ritualistic practices, I feel that mentioning who uses the coffee machine isn’t important, but rather set the mood of the space to the reader of the article.

Page 8, lines 372-380: Really impressive observations! Thank you

Page 8, line 383: it is not clear what ‘they’ refers to in this sentence. I am assuming the collector. But is this the store owner or (also) the customer? We added the information

Page 10, line 520: ‘on niche’ may be removed. Removed

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is well organized and consists of 6 chapters (Introduction, Conceptualization, Theoretical Framework, The Independent Record Stores as a Space for Collective Rituals, The Place of the Independent Record Stores in the Portuguese (Trans)Local Music Scenes, Conclusion), and it is equiped with abstract, keywords, endnotes and list of references.

On the cases from Portugal (precisely, Lisbon and Porto independent music records stores), here are used ethnographic methods and adequate theoretical models (aspirational economy, space of ritual analysis). The article puts record stores scene as socialization network in contemporary context (use of digital platforms in relation to vinlys is commented), and sociological analysis of this niches for communities of tastes is valuable in contemporary popular music studies. Through the examples from narratives of record stores' employees and customers, special importance is given not only to objects, but to local curations, as practices which keep the scene.

Author Response

Review 2 of Houses of Golden Records

Please see our response, highlighted in yellow below.

This article is well organized and consists of 6 chapters (Introduction, Conceptualization, Theoretical Framework, The Independent Record Stores as a Space for Collective Rituals, The Place of the Independent Record Stores in the Portuguese (Trans)Local Music Scenes, Conclusion), and it is equiped with abstract, keywords, endnotes and list of references.

On the cases from Portugal (precisely, Lisbon and Porto independent music records stores), here are used ethnographic methods and adequate theoretical models (aspirational economy, space of ritual analysis). The article puts record stores scene as socialization network in contemporary context (use of digital platforms in relation to vinlys is commented), and sociological analysis of this niches for communities of tastes is valuable in contemporary popular music studies. Through the examples from narratives of record stores' employees and customers, special importance is given not only to objects, but to local curations, as practices which keep the scene.

I would like to thank you for the overall positive assessment as well as the summary ideas presented to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting research and paper. I think the focus on "curational practices" is compelling. The overall structure is clear, the arguments as well.

What I especially like is the focus on the conjunction of expierence, objects, materiality and locality, also I like the idea, that analog and digital media are not to be regarded as dichotomies.

Let me mentioned three points of critique: 1) on a conceptual level, I think you do not need Durkheim's sociology of religion (neither totem for venyl nor sacred space for the record stores) 2) please rethink the three legitimizations for curational practice, in my view spatial and local are very close to each other, if not identical (spell out what you mean by (trans)local) 3) you mention "post-Veblenian economy" quite often, but you do not explain it enough for my taste, you could skip it at some points, but emphasize "aspirational economy" nethertheless

Altogether I would start the article with the second paragraph. The first and third paragraph convey nearly the same content.

I would, at the beginning, introduce the ten record stores you deal with, in order to introduce the reader to them and the regions/city/part of the city. I would also add when they were founded etc.

Author Response

Review 3 of Houses of Golden Records

 

This is an interesting research and paper. I think the focus on "curational practices" is compelling. The overall structure is clear, the arguments as well. What I especially like is the focus on the conjunction of expierence, objects, materiality and locality, also I like the idea, that analog and digital media are not to be regarded as dichotomies. Thank you very much for your appreciation. We are very pleased with your comments and perspectives. We have responded to all your comments with the text highlighted in yellow.

Let me mentioned three points of critique: 1) on a conceptual level, I think you do not need Durkheim's sociology of religion (neither totem for venyl nor sacred space for the record stores) I think it still makes sense, since this approach was based on Bartmanski & Woodward's (2015) analysis of vinyls and record shops and the totemic importance they have in the music scenes. The vinyls have that role, the searching, the flipping through the text, putting on the vinyl player, feeling the imperfections, etc., all of that implies a ritual in Durkheim's sense. Moreover, although I understand his perspective, I believe that the use of key authors in sociology today is all the more pressing because, in fact, they have guided much of the critical and reflective thinking that is carried out today.  

2) please rethink the three legitimizations for curational practice, in my view spatial and local are very close to each other, if not identical (spell out what you mean by (trans)local) They may be close, but they are different. Spatial is the curatorship in the 4 walls, i.e. the curatorship that comes from the legitimacy of the shop, from the subcultural capital of its founder and employees, deep down from the subcultural history that each shop has (and that can be associated with a given musical genre); local, on the other hand, is the importance that a given geographical area has and that is transmitted to the shop: for example, Miguel Bombarda in Oporto. On another broader level, we have cities that end up being associated with music genres in the music tourism market, such as Lisbon, which is now associated with African music and also a place where you can find subcultural bargains

3) you mention "post-Veblenian economy" quite often, but you do not explain it enough for my taste, you could skip it at some points, but emphasize "aspirational economy" nethertheless They are different things, as is explained in the theoretical section. For Veblen, aspirational consumption was associated with the declared display of status, such as branded clothes, expensive watches, etc., in the post-Veblian approach, aspirational consumption has a status display component, yes, but this depends on being 'in the know' as we say, that is, knowing how to navigate the ethical, moral, environmental dimensions, at the moment of cultural (or other) consumption. All this is well explained in the theoretical section where we highlight the difference between both concepts. In this sense, I chose not to emphasize the aspirational economy, because this is a concept that is mentioned throughout the text, in a close relationship with the post-veblian approach.

Altogether I would start the article with the second paragraph. The first and third paragraph convey nearly the same content. We’ve broaden our methodological explanation, which makes it different content paragraphs, in the first one we address the methodological process , and in the third we add some informations about the ways in which the article is structured.

 

I would, at the beginning, introduce the ten record stores you deal with, in order to introduce the reader to them and the regions/city/part of the city. I would also add when they were founded etc. We’ve added a paragraph with that information

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript in revised version and all comments of the authors to my earlier review. They have thoroughly addressed my most pressing concerns. The additions regarding method and structure of the text, help to explain the approach and strengthen the article. Its focus now is clear and the line of argumentation has been carried through consistently.

I still do not agree on their reaction to my remark about section 3. I follow why they have chosen not to revise the order of the manuscript as I suggested as they see this more fitting to their grounded approach, which is an argument I can appreciate. However, I would suggest renaming the section as its current title focuses a reader towards a conceptual perspective while, particularly the latter part of the section is empirically based. Why not label the section 'music curation' or something, which is clearly the point of the section?

I thank the authors for their thorough engagement with my earlier criticism and wholeheartedly support publication of this manuscript.