Books about music come in various guises. Academic journals typically review only a small portion and mostly books written by university researchers. Nonetheless we all have shelves of books written for fans, biographies of singers, photo books, promotional volumes celebrating 25 years of a record label. John MacPhee's Encyclopedia of Political Record Labels has entries for 798 record labels. Each entry has the logo and a brief paragraph about the history of the label. MacPhee explains that by ‘political’ he means leftist, radical, revolutionary. The encyclopaedia includes socialist, anarchist and communist labels, but deliberately excludes right-wing and racist organisations such as the John Birch Society, which released recordings under the label Key Records.
Most academic writing about record labels takes the form of a case study of one label or a small number of labels. I have argued elsewhere that record labels can be usefully studied as a field, as suggested by the work of Pierre Bourdieu (O'Connor, Reference O'Connor2008). In his study of the literary field, Bourdieu offers a diagram (Bourdieu, Reference Bourdieu1995, p. 122) of the literary field in France at the end of the 19th century, which includes Mallarme, Zola and Verlaine, but also vaudeville and cabaret songwriters. Bourdieu writes case studies (his book on the literary field deals mainly with Flaubert's career), but he also does large-scale research with hundreds of cases (such as Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1988, his study of the academic field in France).
Those of us interested in large-scale research on musical fields face many obstacles. One key problem is how to constitute the field. If we want to write about the field of punk rock, what bands count as punk? Do we include punk photographers and writers? What record labels do we include in our study? How the field is constituted is absolutely crucial and will in many ways determine our research results. If we only include leftist punk bands, we will conclude that punk rock is leftist and radical. These strategic research decisions are implicit in many case studies. Academics will typically write a book about (for example) The Clash because they consciously or unconsciously hold that band to typify punk.
When we move beyond case studies, we encounter serious difficulties. What constitutes the field of (for example) hardcore punk in the United States? A researcher confronting this problem can look to Burkhard Jaerich's magnificent US Hardcore Discography (Jaerich, Reference Jaerich2001). Weighing several pounds and the size of a city telephone book, this astonishing book attempts to list all recordings by all American hardcore bands known to the compiler. Books like this, frequently a labour of love by fans, are invaluable research tools for anyone who wants to do large-scale research on the field.
To be sure, this kind of reference book needs to be treated with care. Bourdieu would say we need to ‘objectify’ the writer. In his helpful Introduction, Josh MacPhee identifies himself as a member of the late 1980s–early 1990s DIY hardcore punk scene. Although his musical interests have widened since that time, it is clear that his formation has shaped crucial decisions about what to include in his encyclopaedia. Notably, he excludes major record labels, even if sometimes they issued political records (Sandinista! by The Clash). And someone with his background obviously doesn't want to give space to right-wing and racist organisations. What I want to argue is that, provided we understand how they are constituted, reference books like this are an invaluable resource for researchers.
MacPhee's reflections on the process of assembling his encyclopaedia are useful. For example, he is interested in graphic design such as record covers and record label logos. This leads to the interesting suggestion that our research matter is not sounds, but packaged music. However, he also includes spoken word recordings. The major surprise for him was the discovery of the intersection of music and nationalism. He decided to include record labels promoting Armenian, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Gaelic and Welsh struggles for sovereignty. His thoughtful remarks on absences from his encyclopaedia open up many lines of research. It is understandable that liberation movements in poor countries did not have access to vinyl printing presses. Yet why did the radical AIDS movement of the 1980s not produce protest songs? MacPhee focuses on vinyl records and does not follow the story into digital formats and streaming services, although he might suggest useful research questions. Is it possible to select an online stream of ‘political’ songs as he defines them? And how many of the recordings described in this book are even available on services such as Spotify?
Books such as this deserve our attention, not just as fans of music and political activists, but also as invaluable primary research for those of us interested in large-scale research on musical fields.
