Content uploaded by Liam Maloney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liam Maloney on Mar 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
57
AVANT, Vol. VIII, Special Issue
ISBN: 978-83-944622-04-6 avant.edu.pl/en
DOI: 10.26913/80s02017.0111.0006
Music as Water:
The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
Liam Maloney
University of York, UK
lmaloney-@-gmail.com
Received 21 March 2017; accepted 26 September 2017; published 21 November 2017.
Abstract
The rapid increase of technologically enhanced listening platforms gives listeners
access to music with ever-increasing ease and ubiquity, giving rise to the sugges-
tion that we should now conceptualize music as a resource similar to water; some-
thing that is utilized to achieve everyday goals. This paper proposes that music is
a utilitarian resource employed by listeners to augment cognitive, emotional, be-
havioral, and physiological aspects of the self. To better explore these notions this
paper examines the potential role of the “functions of music,” first espoused by
Alan P. Merriam in 1964. Merriam suggested music has a situational use and an
underlying function (music’s ability to alter the self through listening).
The research presented here asserts that listeners interact with specific musical
materials to achieve or orientate themselves towards contextually-rooted goals.
Reinforcing Tia DeNora’s suggestion that music is a “technology of the self” this
research presents the results of a 41 publication meta-analysis exploring the pos-
sible functions of music. The resultant Aggregate Thematic Functions Framework
(ATF framework) identifies 45 possible utilitarian functions of music, spread
across five domains of action. The framework also proposes a meta -domain and an
emotional sub-domain.
Keywords: augmentation; functions; goal; listeningof music; regulation; resource;
utilitarian.
Liam Maloney
58
Music as Water
“Music can now be seen as a resource rather than merely as a commodity” (North,
Hargreaves, & Hargreaves, 2004, p. 42) from the perspective of the listener. North
et al.’s stance is grounded in the psychological and sociological employment of music;
they suggest that music is capable of performing useful functions for listeners. The
utility of music has been highlighted in numerous studies, each illustrating music’s
potential to augment various aspects of the self: psychological (e.g., Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2007; Greasley & Lamont, 2011; Laukka, 2007), emotional
(e.g., Gantz, Gartenberg, Pearson, & Schiller, 1978; Laiho, 2004; Sloboda, 2005), social
(e.g., Bennett, 2015; Christenson & Roberts, 1998; Laiho, 2004), and physiological
(e.g., Juslin, Liljeström, Västfjäll, Barradas, & Silva, 2008; Sloboda, 2005).
Alternatively, Kusek, and Leonhard (2005) echo the ideas of David Bowie (Pareles,
2002) by suggesting that, in the current climate, we should conceptualize music as a
resource akin to water; a basic utility for all. They argue from an economic perspective
that, for the music business to survive and thrive, music should be considered a house-
hold utility. These two views are not incompatible; rather they are complimentary and
interrelated. The notion of water as something that has utility for us in everyday life
(hygiene, survival, agriculture, etc.), and the notion of water as an economic model
(subscription based) is entirely applicable when examining the current instantiation
of music in everyday life. We should perceive listening from a utilitarian perspective.
DeNora (1999) referred to music as “a technology of the self” as it is a tool we use to
augment facets of ourselves as listeners (social interaction, emotions, physiology,
etc.). As a resource, music is also somewhat dependent on its transmission via tech-
nological mediums. The increasing reflexivity and portability of music listening
devices “means that the choice to hear specific music can be exercised in more and
more situations” (Sloboda, Lamont, & Greasley, 2012, p. 1). Krause, North, and
Hewitt (2014) suggest that music can become imbued with new functions for us, and
that these new uses spring from the increasing ubiquity of music in the world. Yet,
this adaptive behavior does not exist in a vacuum. Scherer and Zentner (2001) point
to the potent interplay of music, situation, and individual factors when individuals
utilize music to achieve specific outcomes. Further compounding the issue of listen-
ing is the omnipresent sonic landscape in which we live, with sound as an increasingly
pervasive force in retail establishments, restaurants and bars, television, associated
media, recreation, etc. often occurring in direct opposition to our desired listening
material or use of said materials. To fully understand the current state of utilitarian
listening we must begin by facing two questions: firstly, how has our listening shifted
over time with new technologies? Secondly, what functions can music perform for us?
The first of these questions is far too nuanced and wide-ranging to explore in this
short paper. Some progress has been made (i.e., Sterne, 2003), but much of our en-
gagement remains obfuscated or unmapped. Rather, this paper is concerned with
Music as Water: The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
59
the second question. Whether we are aware or not of the potential ramifications
music can have on the psychological, emotional, social, and physiological aspects of
life (e.g., Knobloch & Zillmann, 2002; Saarikallio, 2011), it is a resource we employ
on an everyday basis. Thus, this resource has innate functionality we can draw on.
Arguably, music has always served functions for us but, with the growing techno-
logical refinement with which we listen, the potential for music to serve utilitarian
functions has increased. Therefore, what functions does music serve and how can
we begin to identify them?
Uses and Functions
Use then, refers to the situation in which music is employed in human action; function
concerns the reasons for its employment and particularly the broader purpose which
it serves (Merriam, 1964, p. 210).
Alan P. Merriam was the first to suggest, define, and model the functions music could
serve within a society. He explicitly created a divide between use, as being related to
the situation, and function as the underlying rationale relating to the desired effect of
the music. Andrew H. Gregory (1997) is one of the few researchers to strictly adhere
to Merriam’s original definitions and points to several examples of music use
grounded in the situational or contextual aspects of music’s employment: lullabies,
battle, games, etc. Function, however, has generated far more interest in academic
research, with many researchers proposing their own model of the functions of mu-
sic. Merriam was the first to identify functions of music constructed from anthropo-
logical and ethnomusicological study, 10 in total: emotional expression, aesthetic
enjoyment, entertainment, communication, symbolic representation, physical re-
sponse, and four functions concerning social institutions and social stability).
Hargreaves and North (1999) attempted to re-evaluate Merriam’s original model for
the contemporary Western society, placing the emphasis on the social aspects of mu-
sic (adding concepts related to self-identity, interpersonal relationships, and mood
management). DeNora (2000) drew her own suggested framework that related to
specific domains of action (the body, situations, communication, etc.), domains that
are also reflected in the work Sloboda et al. (2012). Bull (2000) and Williams (2006)
both performed work into the functions of portable music in contemporary Western
society. Numerous other models also exist within the literature but there is currently
no consensus as to the functions of music.
It should be noted that there exists no comparative analysis of functions from a his-
torical perspective, and little is known about how functions may have changed over
time as a result of technological or social change. Given the questions raised in the
previous section, this further level of inquiry is not feasible owing to the interde-
pendency of these concepts.
Liam Maloney
60
Aggregate Thematic Functions Framework
Given the variety and variation between the functions presented in the corpus of the
literature, the following analysis attempts to identify an exhaustive list of the poten-
tial functions of music, and group them by domain of action (cognitive, emotional,
physiological, social group, social individual). The analysis then provides a visual
representation of the framework, suggesting possible interconnected functions, one
meta-domain, and one sub-domain.
Literature Search
The search for salient literature was conducted using electronic academic data-
bases. Using multiple keywords, the aim was to gather the broadest range of pos-
sible literature dealing with the functions of music. Keywords included: function,
music, use, regulation, strategy, and listening. Pluralized terms were also used. The
term use was specifically included to overcome the misidentification of function by
many researchers. There were no date restrictions placed upon the search. Articles
that replicated the work of prior researchers, without alteration, were excluded to
remove redundancy.
Methodology
Publications were partially drawn from Schäfer, Sedlmeier, Städtler, and Huron’s
analysis (2013). Additional studies were identified from literature searches and ref-
erences therein. 41 publications were identified in total. The publications draw from
a broad range of disciplines (see Figure 1): music psychology and sociology repre-
sent over half of the body of papers (58%). Other areas include musicology, music
and emotion, and music in everyday life. Sports sciences was the least frequent dis-
cipline (only one publication was identified). Few papers differentiate between rec-
orded music listening and live music listening. This lack of differentiation shall be
maintained here.
10 publications included multiple datasets. Where applicable, these are included and
treated as discrete entities. Across the 41 publications 58 datasets were identified.
620 references to the functions of music were identified. 18 functions were labeled
as “incorrect,” as they did not adhere to Merriam’s definition (the findings were in
fact either use or descriptions of musical aesthetics). These were excluded from the
analysis. The remaining 602 functions were then sorted into five domains of action
(psychological, emotional, physiological, social individual, and social group) based
on their description within the original source publication. Finally, the identified
functions within each domain were combined based on their description in the orig-
inal source publication and semantic coherence using NVivo software.
Music as Water: The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
61
Results
The emotional domain of function was the most frequent within the aggregate body
of functions: 158 instances of emotional functions (26% of total functions). The least
frequent was the social individual domain of functions: 45 instances (7% of total
functions). The social group domain accounts for more than three times that of social
individual with 136 functions identified (23%). Cognitive functions and physiological
functions also occurred with relatively high frequency (22% and 21% respectively).
N.B. percentages are to the nearest integer.
Regarding the publications and individual datasets, social group was the most com-
mon domain of functionality: 45 of the 58 datasets within the aggregate body con-
tained at least one function pertaining to the social group domain. Conversely, the
social individual domain was the least frequent: occurring in only 24 of the 58 da-
tasets. The threefold increase is not represented here, rather an approximate dou-
bling between social individual and social group functions. This implies that whilst
there are fewer functions overall pertaining to the social individual domain, this is
not representative of how likely an article is to contain social individual function.
Analysis identified Christenson & Roberts (1998) as the most function-rich study,
presenting 39 individual references to function. Two datasets did not yield any valid
functions: Hargreaves & North (1999) A, and Packer & Ballantyne (2010) B. Func-
tions were not weighted by citation count or impact factor of the source article.
Figure 1. Paper distribution by discipline.
Liam Maloney
62
The thematic semantic grouping of functions revealed 45 functions of music spread
across the various domains. Five functions appeared within multiple domains, these
were mapped to the meta-domain. Within emotional functions, there appeared a
group of five interrelated functions. These were compiled into a sub-domain: specific
regulatory strategies.
Findings & Discussion
45 discrete functions were uncovered in the Aggregate Thematic Functions Frame-
work (hereafter referred to as ATF framework; see Figure 2) and were sorted into
five domains of action. Two additional domains were also included for clarity (the
meta-domain and the specific regulatory strategies sub-domain). The frequency of
each function within the aggregate dataset is shown, and the total aggregate refer-
ences within a domain is shown with the domain title. The meta-domain and emo-
tional specific regulatory strategies sub-domain also include frequency.
The most function-rich domain in the ATF framework is the physiological domain,
presenting 10 distinct functions, and the social individual domain is the least func-
tion-rich area, only offering 5 functions. Some functions were found in multiple do-
mains, e.g., “Create & Maintain Atmosphere.” These functions act on multiple
domains simultaneously, and are hence grouped in the meta-domain, with the appro-
priate apportionment of references included. The emotional functions of music also
showed a distinct subset of functions related to the directionality of emotional regu-
lation: “Accentuation,” “Change,” “Convey,” “Regulating,” or “Triggering.” These ap-
pear somewhat different from other emotional functions and refer directly to the
specific emotional orientation an individual may desire from listening behaviors.
The most frequent domain-specific function was that of “Interaction & Bonding” (in
the social group domain), occurring 47 times within the aggregate body. This func-
tion is concerned with “socialising” and “belonging” (Bennett, 1999), “social utility”
(Laiho, 2004), and “social actualisation” (Packer & Ballantyne, 2010). The function
concerns individuals using music within group scenarios as a means to establish
and maintain interpersonal relationships. Other highly frequent functions include
“Accompaniment” (employing music to do something to or to accompany mundane
activities) in the physiological domain, “Distraction” (employing music to occupy un-
used attention during tasks or to avoid other thoughts/feelings) in the cognitive do-
main, and “Regulate or Maintain Emotion/Mood” in the emotional specific
regulatory strategies sub-domain (using music to maintain a specific level or arousal
or emotion/mood).
Music as Water: The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
63
Figure 2. Aggregate Thematic Functions Framework
Liam Maloney
64
A caveat should be noted here. Whilst the ATF framework shows frequency of terms
in the body of research, the data does not necessarily equate to the frequency of these
functions in “real world” scenarios. Although a function occurs frequently in the lit-
erature, it is feasible this function occurs with relative infrequency in everyday lis-
tening episodes. The inverse could also be true: low frequency in research but high
frequency of employment in real world situations.
The proposed meta-domain has certain inferences for the functions of music. It
would appear to support the findings of Greasley and Lamont (2011): “People choose
to listen to music to fulfil different functions simultaneously” (p. 63). Given that indi-
viduals use music to achieve multiple functions simultaneously (Greasley and
Lamont stated an average of three functions per listening episode), the meta-domain
may be an expression of this. “Relaxation” functions may occur in several domains
simultaneously. It is also feasible that some functions resonate with one another. “Re-
laxation & Stress Relief” would certainly have implications for functions surrounding
physiological arousal and emotional regulatory functions. In addition, it may be true
that some functions, hypothetically at least, are mutually exclusive. It is unlikely that
“Escapism & Venting” and “Flow & Concentration” functions could occur in tandem.
However, from this analysis, it is not possible to identify which functions are used
simultaneously, or which are in direct opposition to one another.
Conclusions
The ATF framework exhausts the possibilities presented in the available literature.
It also proposes a domain-based conceptualization of function. However, it is possi-
ble that there are further functions of music that have yet to be uncovered, or possi-
bly even other domains of action that have not yet been identified. Given our
increasing technological augmentations of the self through listening, it is possible
that new functions may appear over time.
Scherer and Zentner’s (2001) assertion that the functions of music are grounded in
contextual and personal factors remains a problematic concept. There is little re-
search that attempts to identify which contexts give rise to which functions, and fur-
thermore, which musical features are most conducive to actualizing which functions.
The notion of mapping both musical features and situational factors atop the func-
tions identified here is a daunting one. Some work has mapped musical features to
emotional responses (cf. Gabrielsson & Lindström, 2001), although few have ex-
plored the other domains of action beyond the emotional.
Finally, this analysis aims to present a strong case for Merriam’s (1964) original def-
initions. The confusion and variation in definition across the functions literature only
hinders the search for functions. Often, we see use (the situational aspects), the un-
derlying physiological mechanisms, and even the effects of music listening branded
Music as Water: The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
65
incorrectly as function. Without adhering to the tenets of Merriam (or a newly con-
structed and widely accepted definition), it is unlikely this misattribution and result-
ant confusion of the concept of function will be resolved.
A utilitarian conceptualization of musical function may allow listeners to develop new
methods of listening and active participation when augmenting aspects of the self. Just
as water is a functional and ubiquitous resource, music, understood in this way, may
present a readily accessible and ubiquitous resource for augmentation of the self.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Sue Denham, John Matthias, Jess Rymer, and Hannah Drayson for
their thoughtful and insightful feedback in developing this paper.
NB: References for publications used in the ATF analysis are available on request.
References
Bennett, A. (1999). Subcultures or neo-tribes? Rethinking the relationship between youth,
style and musical taste. Sociology, 33(3), 599–617. doi:10.1177/S0038038599000371
Bennett, A. (2015). Identity: Music, community and self. In J. Shepherd & K. Devine (Eds.), The
Routledge Reader on The Sociology of Music (pp. 143–151). New York, NY: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203736319
Bull, M. (2000). Sounding out the city: Personal stereos and the management of everyday life.
London: Bloomsbury Adacemic. doi:10.5040/9781474215541
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2007). Personality and music: Can traits explain how
people use music in everyday life? British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 175–185.
doi:10.1348/000712606X111177
Christenson, P. G., & Roberts, D. F. (1998). It’s not only rock & roll: Popular music in the lives of
adolescents. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
DeNora, T. (1999). Music as a technology of the self. Poetics, 27(1), 31–56. doi:10.1016/S0304-
422X(99)00017-0
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/cbo9780511489433
Gabrielsson, A., & Lindström, E. (2001). The influence of musical structure on emotional ex-
pression. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research
(pp. 223–248). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gantz, W., Gartenberg, H. M., Pearson, M. L., & Schiller, S. O. (1978). Gratifications and expecta-
tions associated with pop music amongst adolescents. Popular Music and Society, 6(1),
81–89. doi:10.1080/03007767808591113
Liam Maloney
66
Greasley, A. E., & Lamont, A. (2011). Exploring engagement with music in everyday life using
experience sampling methodology. Musicae Scientiae, 15(1), 45–71.
doi:10.1177/1029864910393417
Gregory, A. H. (1997). The roles of music in society: the ethnomusicological perspective. In D. J.
Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 123–140). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). The functions of music in everyday life: Redefining the social
in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27(1), 71–83. doi:10.1177/0305735699271007
Juslin, P. N., Liljeström, S., Västfjäll, D., Barradas, G., & Silva, A. (2008). An experience sampling
study of emotional reactions to music: Listener, music, and situation. Emotion, 8(5),
668–683. doi:10.1037/a0013505
Knobloch, S., & Zillmann, D. (2002). Mood management via the digital jukebox. Journal of Com-
munication, 52(2), 351–366. doi:10.1093/joc/52.2.351
Krause, A., North, A. C., & Hewitt, L. (2014). Music selection behaviors in everyday listening. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(2), 306–323. doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.906437
Kusek, D., & Leonhard, G. (2005). The future of music: Manifesto for the digital music revolution.
S. G. Lindsay (Ed.). Boston, MA: Berklee Press .
Laiho, S. (2004). The psychological functions of music in adolescence. Nordic Journal of Music
Therapy, 13(1), 47–63. doi:10.1080/08098130409478097
Laukka, P. (2007). Uses of music and psychological well-being among the elderly. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 8(2), 215–241. doi:10.1007/s10902-006-9024-3
Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music in everyday life. Music
Perception, 22(l), 41–77. doi:10.1525/mp.2004.22.1.41
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, J. (2010). The impact of music festival attendance on young people’s
psychological and social well-being. Psychology of Music, 39(2), 164–181.
doi:10.1177/0305735610372611
Pareles, J. (2002, June 9). David bowie, 21st-century entrepreneur. The New York Times. New
York. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/09/arts/david-bowie-21st-
century-entrepreneur.html
Saarikallio, S. (2011). Music as emotional self-regulation throughout adulthood. Psychology of
Music, 39(3), 307–327. doi:10.1177/0305735610374894
Schäfer, T., Sedlmeier, P., Städtler, C., & Huron, D. (2013). The psychological functions of music
listening. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00511
Scherer, K. R., & Zentner, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects of music: Production rules. In P. N.
Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Series in affective science. Music and Emotion: Theory and
Research (pp. 361–392). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Music as Water: The Functions of Music from a Utilitarian Perspective
67
Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Everyday uses of music listening: A preliminary study. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.).
Exploring the musical mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function (pp. 319–331). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198530121.003.0018
Sloboda, J. A., Lamont, A., & Greasley, A. (2012). Choosing to hear music. In Oxford Handbook
of music psychology (pp. 1–11). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ox-
fordhb/9780199298457.013.0040
Sterne, J. (2003). The audible past: Cultural origins of sound reproduction. Durham, UK: Duke
University Press. doi:10.1215/9780822384250
Williams, A. (2006). Portable music & its functions. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.