There is a considerable amount of academic literature on the subject of the perception and performance of music, most of which is oriented from the perspective of musicians in the fields of performance practice, music performance and music pedagogy, or again from more specifically theoretical vantages, such as those of music psychology and (ethno-)musicology. To a lesser degree, philosophers have also made their contributions, and from within these ranks there are those who put forward an understanding of musicality from a distinctly phenomenological perspective (see for example Benson Reference Benson2003; Danielsen Reference Danielsen2006; Sudnow Reference Sudnow1978). The contribution to this area of study made by Tiger Roholt, who is Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Montclair State University, and also a drummer, is by way of a comparison between analytical and phenomenological interpretations and understandings of groove. This he does with a view to adjudicating upon which offers the best prospect for capturing the experience and understanding of this central and essential feature of popular music.

Groove has been discussed a great deal within academic literature, a noteworthy example being Charles Keil (Reference Keil1966, Reference Keil1987), who first initiated the current interest in the timing nuances (or ‘processual discrepancies’) which he identified as being essential to groove. Over the years this interest has been followed up by various academics, including a recent and fascinating study by Mark Doffman (Reference Doffman2013), yet arguably none has succeeded in getting to the essence of the experience (or perception) of groove. In this respect Roholt has offered up some deep and significant insights, not the least of which is that our primary understanding of groove is not as something given through a conceptual process, but rather the manner and the mechanisms by which we feel it. Roholt considers the two aspects of groove noted by Keil, these being the timing nuances by which musicians produce groove, and the feel of a groove in the sense of it ‘leaning’, ‘pushing’ and/or ‘pulling’, and his stated intention is to demonstrate exactly how these aspects are related (p. 3). He aims to do this by fleshing out four pre-theoretical intuitions he identifies as being commonly held about the nature of groove. These are that, as noted, grooves have a feel, also that they involve the body in motion, that to understand a groove is to feel it, and that this understanding occurs through the body (p. 2).

Following the introduction, Roholt presents his argument through the course of four chapters. The first chapter situates the discussion in the context of the Beatles recording of ‘Love Me Do’. Why, he asks, was George Martin not happy with the playing of Ringo Starr on ‘Love Me Do’? And why was he unable to communicate the problem (pp. 13–17)? He goes on to review analytical treatments of musical nuance. As Roholt describes it, analytical conceptions hold that we understand musical phenomena by means of conceptual schemata. For some (such as Dianne Raffman) this means that certain musical effects that depend on timed or harmonic nuances are ineffable, as they are too fine grained to be captured by schemata (pp. 19–21). However, from the analytical perspective, the timing nuances that define groove (as argued by Keil) can still be observed, measured and analysed, and in such a way groove can be clarified and understood. For Roholt, the problem here is that this approach does not offer any significant insight into the perception of groove (p. 26), and it is this theme that is taken up in Chapter 2. Drawing from the ideas of Merleau-Ponty, he argues that musical nuances function in the background of our awareness as perceptually indeterminate aspects of musical sound (pp. 63–5), and as such they make a positive contribution by generating musical effects (p. 61). Consequently, when timing nuances are foregrounded within a process of analysis they lose their indeterminacy, such that the power to realise musical objectives – for instance, the experience of groove – is passed over and lost sight of (p. 65). In Chapter 3, Roholt goes on to argue that to understand how we ‘get’ a groove we have to consider how we relate to music with our bodies. Drawing upon Merleau-Ponty's conception of ‘motor intentionality’ (pp. 93–4), he observes that we achieve this through an active engagement and exploration that is normatively oriented towards musical sound so as to optimise the perception of it (pp. 96–8). In Chapter 4, Roholt expounds on his central theme, which is that the feel of a groove that arises through actively engaging with musical sound is in fact the affective dimension of motor intentionality (p. 105). As perceptually indeterminate, background aspects of sound, timing nuances make their positive contribution to the feel of groove through which we experience a definite rhythmic character – ‘laid back, ‘driving’, and so on (p. 107). To understand a groove, then, is to feel it through a direct, pre-reflective and non-objectifying engagement with musical sound. It is on this basis that we can communicate how we understand grooves, if only indirectly, which all the same means they are not ineffable after all. Had George Martin been in a position to grasp Roholt's argument, he might well have been able to immediately resolve his issues with Ringo (pp. 131–3).

Roholt's book is well written, and his arguments clear and concise. He is firmly situated within his subject matter, and makes good use of phenomenological insights (particularly of Merleau-Ponty) without requiring a prior detailed and informed understanding of the discipline. In fact, this book would serve as a good introduction to the phenomenologically uninitiated, and also provides an informative survey of analytical approaches to the perception of music. If there is any critical remark to make, it is that Roholt perhaps understates the intersubjective dimension of groove. As Keil and others remark, groove arises through the interplay between musicians, who essentially push and pull against the playing of one another as much as they do against a shared sense of pulse. Roholt does discuss this element of groove, but for the most part he seems to be oriented towards the experience of the listener rather than the performer. Arguably, the shared experience (and generation) of groove is an aspect which could be emphasised and explored more. Yet it wouldn't be fair to be too critical for this. Rather, this is an aspect of groove where Roholt's insights can be readily taken up and developed further.