Rethinking Materiality of Music: The Transformative Practices of Music Streaming

Abstract

This study examines the evolving materiality of music in the streaming era, arguing that music’s materiality in streaming contexts is not fixed and predefined, but a dynamic and relational phenomenon emerging through the interplay of user practices, technological affordances and cultural meanings. Drawing on qualitative interviews and online ethnography with indie music enthusiasts in China, the research explores two key aspects of streaming music consumption to examine music’s materiality: playlisting practices and users’ reflexive interactions with recommendation algorithms. The findings reveal a co-evolutionary relationship between user practices and technological affordances, where both users and algorithms actively shape the experience and materiality of music. Playlist curation emerges as a new form of meaning-making, transforming intangible streaming music into personalised, structured objects; while user-algorithmic interplay creates a dynamic environment where music perception and engagement are constantly negotiated. These cases illuminate a new perception of music materiality – one that is constantly emergent and relationally constituted. The article contributes to broader debates on the digitalisation of culture, the changing nature of cultural consumption, and the role of technology in shaping cultural experiences. It invites a re-examination of the concept of materiality in the context of digital platforms.

Keywords

algorithm digital culture materiality playlist streaming music streaming platforms user practice

Introduction

Over the past half-century, a significant digital transition has reshaped landscapes of the cultural field, whereby various forms of culture, including music, literature and films, are increasingly presented and accessed digitally. This shift has transformed not only how they are distributed but also how we consume and engage with them. Taking music as an example, this digital transition commenced with the advent of CDs, evolved through the controversial mp3 era, and has culminated in the widespread use of streaming media since the 2010s. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2023) reports that in 2023, 73% of global music listeners engaged with music primarily through streaming services, with even higher percentages in some countries, such as China and India, exceeding 90%. ‘Dematerialisation’ characterises the transformation of cultural products within contemporary technological settings, but intriguingly, this transition has catalysed a ‘material turn’ in social science (Hicks and Beaudry, 2010). This shift redirects scholarly inquiry towards understanding how materiality influences sociocultural phenomena. It necessitates a rethinking of social ontologies to account for the intricate interplay among technology, culture, individuals and society, which shapes our experiences and perceptions of the world and our everyday lives.

Music occupies a distinctive position in this discourse, as it embodies an intricate blend of tangible and intangible elements. The rise of streaming technology further accentuates this multiplicity, making music more ubiquitous while potentially reconfiguring our engagement with its representations. This requires us to reconsider the foundational question about music’s presence – the ontology of music – in the new digital environment. However, this question is ambitious and multifaceted, and difficult to address in a single article. This article attempts to focus on one particular aspect of the ontology of music: materiality. In other words, it will be attending to how music is manifested, has persisted and is recognised in the specific technological context of streaming. By concentrating on how music is attended to, experienced and interacted within streaming environments, we can trace how the materiality of streaming music is formed and transformed.

Previously, physical mediums like cassettes and CDs embodied music in tangible, bounded forms. Each copy represented a complete, self-contained unit of musical content. Even mp3 files maintained a sense of discrete materiality – each file was a distinct, storable object. This boundedness made it easy to conceptualise music’s existence. Whether played or not, music had a specific location and form. However, in the streaming environment, music exists in a fundamentally different way – in a more distributed, networked state unconstrained by any single physical object or location. Music becomes a readily accessible, constantly flowing object within the streaming ecosystem (Barr, 2013). This distributed existence necessitates new theoretical tools to address its unique material status.

Existing research on music’s materiality has significantly contributed to our understanding of music as a social and cultural phenomenon but struggled to fully capture the new reality of streaming. Some studies have prioritised analysing music carriers or technological forms. For instance, scholars like Bull (2000, 2007) and Magaudda (2011) explored how physical forms, especially listening devices, influence music consumption behaviours. While valuable, these studies focus more on music’s material extensions than the materiality of music per se, risking the reduction of music’s materiality to its physical or technological manifestations. Contrastingly, sociological research on music’s object-ness centred on its social construction. Scholars (e.g. Benzecry, 2011; DeNora, 2000) examined how music is constructed and interpreted as an aesthetic object through social practices and cultural frameworks. These works reveal the socially embedded nature of musical experience and meaning. Nonetheless, in focusing on social construction, they sometimes neglect or oversimplify materiality issues, often implicitly equating materiality with physical properties or viewing it merely as a backdrop to social processes. Building on these approaches, scholars like Antoine Hennion and Georgina Born offered more multifaceted perspectives. Hennion’s (2012, 2015) pragmatic approach emphasises the mediation through which music is enacted; while Born’s (2005, 2015) concept of musical assemblages provides a framework for understanding music as a complex phenomenon encompassing social, material, and temporal dimensions. These perspectives offer valuable tools for reconceptualising music’s materiality in the streaming context, potentially capturing the fluid and networked nature of streaming music more effectively.

In the context of streaming music, this article argues that materiality should not be understood merely in terms of physical properties or technological manifestations, nor solely as a backdrop for social construction. Instead, building upon previous research, it proposes a more dynamic and relational concept of materiality that emerges through the interplay of user practices, technological affordances and cultural meanings. Accordingly, this study focuses on exploring how users engage with music within streaming platforms, tracing the ways in which music acquires substance and presence in their everyday experiences.

This article seeks to engage in a crucial question: How do streaming platforms, with their interactive features and algorithm-driven landscapes, (re)shape our perception of music’s materiality and its intersection with everyday practices? This qualitative study explores the digital practices of Chinese indie music enthusiasts on streaming platforms, focusing on two key phenomena: playlist creation and curation, and critical engagement with platform algorithms. It examines how users actively construct the sonic landscape, redefining their relationship with music in a context where materiality emerges relationally through digital practices and technological affordances. It argues that in the streaming era, music’s materiality has shifted from a tangible, static object to an emergent, relational phenomenon, continually actualised through interactions between human agency, technological affordances and cultural contexts.

The article first reviews ontological discussions in music sociology, examines the impact of streaming platforms on music consumption and then presents research methodology and findings, focusing on the playlisting practice and algorithmic engagement. By foregrounding the emergent and relational aspects of music’s materiality, this study contributes to broader discussions on cultural objects in digital environments. This approach moves beyond binary oppositions of material/immaterial or digital/physical, focusing instead on how music acquires material significance in the streaming ecosystem. This perspective enriches our understanding of contemporary music consumption and offers insights into the evolving relationship between technology, culture, and materiality in the digital age.

Towards a Trans-actional Understanding of Music

Over the past few decades, the widespread use of digital devices and the internet, particularly mobile internet, has raised a series of significant epistemological and ontological issues in the field of music. It has been argued that as the production, circulation and consumption of music become increasingly digitised and networked, and as new technologies are reconfiguring the relationship between music and materiality, our understanding of music itself needs to be rearticulated to better comprehend and analyse the relationships among objects, meanings and practices (Magaudda, 2011, 2012). Certainly, the concept of music is inherently multilayered and dynamic, particularly from a sociological perspective. But the processes of digitalisation and networking have exacerbated the complexity of music and accentuated its attribute as the ‘multiply-mediated, immaterial and material, fluid quasi-object’ (Born, 2005: 7). In this context, music is positioned as a synthesis of various material and immaterial elements (Born, 2005, 2015; Hennion, 2012, 2015; Prior, 2015, 2018).

The synthesis of material and immaterial elements in music raises a pivotal question: How do these components elucidate the existence of music? Scholars have extensively deliberated on music’s ‘object-ness’, scrutinising its recognition as a discrete but discernible cultural entity. Historically, this concept is linked to the external presentational aspects of music. It has even been posited that the very notion of music as an object is precisely emerged with the evolvement of material embodiments of music such as notation systems (Goehr, 1992) and, later, recording technologies (Chanan, 1995; Katz, 2010; Wallach, 2003). These technical presentations create a perception of music as a fixed, repeatable object. The commodification of music, particularly in the 20th century, significantly reinforced its status as an object of cultural product. The music industry’s practices of producing, marketing, and selling recorded music as physical products (vinyl records, cassettes, CDs) positioned music alongside other consumer goods (Hull, 2004). This commercial framing encouraged both producers and consumers to think of music in terms of bounded, ownable units. While the technical and commercial developments have facilitated the dissemination of music, they have also influenced our understanding of music, often conceptualising it as a predefined cultural object with inherent properties and meanings.

This perspective has sparked critical discourse within music sociology. Adorno (1938, 1962, 1991) scrutinised the ‘reification’ of music, contending that it leads to ‘fetishisation’ where music’s material manifestation is misconstrued as its essence, obfuscating its social and historical roots. Adorno’s analysis highlights the risks of reducing music to its tangible form, which can lead to a neglect of its deeper sociocultural implications. His critical examination laid the groundwork for subsequent scholars to interpret music’s ontological status beyond its material representations. Small (1998) introduces the concept of ‘musicking’, shifting from viewing music as a static ‘thing’ to an ongoing, participatory process or activity. This conceptualisation challenges the conventional perception of music as a fixed and preconceived entity, advocating an interactive framework that underscores the active dimensions of music and its co-construction with audience practices. Small’s approach promotes a holistic understanding of music as a social and cultural phenomenon, continually shaped and reshaped by the interactions of its participants and the contexts in which it is embedded.

This shift is perhaps most prominently represented in the works of Tia DeNora (2000, 2003a, 2011), who argues for understanding music as a dynamic resource that people actively use in their everyday lives. DeNora appropriates the concept of ‘affordances’ (Gibson, 1979) to articulate how music offers potential for action and meaning-making, asserting that these affordances are not intrinsic to music itself but ‘are constituted from within the circumstances of use’ (DeNora, 2000: 44). This perspective underscores the reciprocal and dynamic interplay between music and its audience, suggesting that listeners not only shape their musical experiences but are also shaped by the music they engage with. In her words, this is a ‘reflexive process whereby users configure themselves as agents in and through the ways they relate to objects and configure objects in and through the ways they – as agents – behave towards those objects’ (DeNora, 2000: 40). Accordingly, she argues for studying music ‘in action’ (DeNora, 2003b, 2011), underscoring the imperative to observe and analyse real-time instances of music use rather than considering music as an abstract construct.

DeNora’s framework posits a co-constitutive relationship between music and its listeners, redirecting music sociology towards a more interactional understanding. This perspective finds particular resonance in the examination of digital music. For instance, Sterne (2012) extends the critique of music as a preconceived entity by dissecting the mp3 format, positing that our conception of ‘music’ is influenced by the technological and cultural practices of its creation, distribution and reception. The format of music is not just a passive conduit for musical content; it actively sculpts our understanding and experience of music. This, in turn, shapes listeners’ experiences and modes of digital music engagement, continuously (re)shaping the audience’s interpretation of music and its functions (Bull, 2007; Prior, 2014). This perspective effectively moves beyond technological determinism, offering a more layered explanation of the listeners’ subjective agency in music consumption compared to early structuralist methodologies.

Rimmer (2024), inspired by Dewey and Bentley (2008), interprets this transition in musical ontology as a shift from ‘self-action’ to ‘inter-action’. However, Rimmer observes that this paradigm shift has not entirely transcended substantialism. Despite its emphasis on interactivity and mutual construction between subject (music listeners) and object (music), it continues to tacitly presuppose an ‘independent essence’ preceding the interaction. This critique suggests that while DeNora’s perspective acknowledges the co-construction of music and its audience, it may still cling to a residual notion of pre-existing entities. In response, Rimmer advocates a more relational and ‘trans-actional’ perspective, positing that subjects and objects do not possess inherent identities or attributes, but emerge within the dynamic, co-constructive relationships. In this framework, the relationship and engagement between listeners and music are not merely adjuncts but the very essence that constitutes and defines them.

Recent theoretical developments in the sociology of music also reflect this perspective. Hennion (2012) introduces the concept of mediation as a novel lens to view music as an inherently relational phenomenon. He posits that music is not a fixed object subsequently mediated, but is instead constituted through the very processes of mediation. Hennion (2001, 2004, 2015) also underscores the proactive, embodied engagement of listeners with music, facilitated by an array of material and discursive media. He illuminates how listeners actively forge their musical tastes and identities through practices of listening, collecting, and discussing music. These ‘attachments’ are not just subjective interpretations of objective musical works but constitute the reality of music as a social and material phenomenon. This framework dissolves the conventional subject–object dichotomy, recognising both listeners and music as emergent outcomes of mediating practices. Born (2005) offers a perspective on musical assemblage that further explores music’s relational ontology. Drawing on Deleuzian philosophy (Deleuze and Guattari, 1981) and actor-network theory (Law, 1992), Born conceptualises music as a heterogeneous assemblage of human and non-human actors, material and immaterial elements, and social and technical processes. This approach emphasises the distributed and temporally extended nature of music production, circulation and reception. Born’s framework highlights how musical assemblages span multiple scales of time and space, from the moment of performance or listening to broader historical and cultural contexts. Conceptualising music as ‘a particular combination of mediations’ (Born, 2005: 8) broadens the scope of unpacking music’s object-ness to include not only sound and technology but also discourses, institutions, and social relations. Importantly, the notion of musical assemblage accentuates the contingent and processual characteristics of musical existence, with music being perpetually reconfigured through the interactions of its constituent elements.

The ontological understanding of music is significantly enriched by adopting a relational and trans-actional perspective. This approach offers a sophisticated and nuanced basis for grasping the intricate, mutable and dynamic qualities of contemporary musical engagements. In the streaming era, music exists in a perpetual state of transformation, embodying both immaterial and material, individual and social, as well as human and non-human. The trans-actional viewpoint facilitates a transcendence beyond binary divides, inviting a deeper focus on the complexities inherent in music’s existence. In this context, streaming platforms are not simply natural channels for music consumption; they actively participate in defining and sculpting music through the dynamic interplay of user engagement, musical content, and technological affordances.

Streaming Music and the Evolution of Musical Materiality

A number of studies have explored the multifaceted implications of streaming technologies on musical experiences and the reconfiguration of music’s presence in the digital age. One of the fundamental changes towards streaming platforms concerns music ownership, as users now access vast cloud libraries rather than own physical or digital copies. This change has not only highlighted the commodification of auditory experiences but also intensified the view of music consumption as a quantifiable activity (Maasø and Hagen, 2020). Many recent studies have shown that this transformation emphasises the datafication of user activity in contemporary technological and commercial contexts (Drott, 2023; Meier and Manzerolle, 2019; Prey, 2016). As music becomes increasingly associated with metrics like play counts and playlist inclusions, traditional notions of music’s cultural value are being challenged, weakening the conventional links between music, identities and sociocultural dynamics (Krogh, 2023).

These perspectives seem to represent academic criticism of music streaming; however, Hesmondhalgh (2022) perceptively notes that such concerns about commercialisation and technologisation are not unique to the streaming era but echo long-standing anxieties about music industrialisation – fears that music is becoming passive, losing artistic value, and tending towards homogenisation. Hesmondhalgh argues that while streaming platforms may encourage more functional and passive engagements, they also offer possibilities for deeper engagement, broader discovery, and more personalised relationships with music. Studies show that music listeners use playlist creation to cultivate moods and emotions (Siles et al., 2019), develop personalised strategies for music discovery and curation, and integrate music into their lives in new ways through interconnected streaming platforms (Hagen, 2016; Siles et al., 2024b). Nonetheless, we must recognise the significance of new affordances offered by streaming platforms in this process. These new musical experiences are increasingly driven by algorithmic recommendations, fostering complex socio-technical relationships between listeners and algorithmic systems (Freeman et al., 2022; Prey, 2018). In the light of this, it is imperative to adopt a more ‘fluid’ viewpoint (Siles et al., 2024a) to understanding agency in relation to algorithms. This perspective recognises the relationship between humans and technological affordances as negotiated through tensions, mediations and transversalities, rather than a simple binary opposition of domination or resistance. This, once again, underscores the need for a relational perspective to interpret music’s presence within the context of streaming platforms.

In the streaming media environment, our understanding of user agency and technological mediation continues to evolve, transforming music into an increasingly dynamic object and experience. User engagement and algorithmic influence directly impacts the existence and perception of music within streaming spaces. The networked, personalised, and algorithmically mediated characteristics of streaming platforms underscore music’s malleability and contextuality. Consequently, we must reconsider the materiality of music – specifically, how it manifests, persists, and is recognised within the streaming contexts. This inquiry reflects a broader academic trend towards a paradigmatic shift in understanding materiality in a digital world. Leonardi (2012) argues that the materiality of digital artefacts can shape social practices and interactions beyond human determination. In streaming music, boundaries between physical and digital, individual and social, human and non-human become increasingly blurred. These categories are ‘reassembled’ (Latour, 2005) in streaming environments, giving rise to new perceptions of materiality that are neither purely digital nor entirely materialised. These perspectives, alongside other ‘new materialist’ turns, challenge traditional ontological categories.

However, the specific nature of these reassembled relationships in the streaming music environment remains insufficiently explored. Magaudda (2011, 2012) argues that digitalisation has facilitated a re-materialisation of music consumption, emphasising new relationships between objects, meanings and practices. This perspective challenges the concept of digital dematerialisation, positing that digital technologies create new forms of materiality. Here, Magaudda’s focus is primarily on the materiality of the technologies themselves. In streaming music, new forms of materiality may be manifested in the ways users engage with playlists, algorithms, and other platform affordances. Nevertheless, the fluidity of streaming music (Hagen, 2015; Hagen and Lüders, 2017) complicates this understanding. Unlike physical media or downloaded files, streaming music exists in a state of perpetual potentiality – accessible, but not owned in the traditional sense. This contests conventional notions of ownership, which has been a key aspect of music’s materiality. Moreover, the personalised attribute of streaming services, particularly algorithmic recommendations, creates a highly individualised and ever-changing form of materiality. Simultaneously, the ubituity of streamed music as an ‘infrastructure’ (Hagen, 2016) further challenges traditional materiality concepts. As it integrates into daily life, streaming music transcends isolated objects or practices, becoming part of everyday existence. This infrastructural quality obscures the boundaries between music as object, practice and technological system, forming a complex assemblage defying simple categorisation as either material or immaterial.

This study aims to dissect these complexities by adopting a relational and trans-actional perspective to examine how the materiality of music emerges through dynamic interplays between human actors, technological systems, and cultural meanings on streaming platforms. In doing so, it seeks to transcend the material/immaterial dichotomy, instead focusing on the relational ontology of streaming music. As emphasised in Barad’s (2003, 2007) concept of ‘material-discursive practices’, this article seeks to conduct a more in-depth investigation of how matter and meaning are inextricably interwoven.

Methods

This article is grounded in empirical data of a larger study on the music socialising practices of young Chinese indie music enthusiasts, examining their practices and interactions across both digital and physical spaces. Specifically, the subset of data used and analysed in this article focuses on how streaming platforms influence music enthusiasts’ digital music behaviours, perceptions of music, and participation in music-related activities.

The study conducted 31 in-depth interviews with Chinese indie music lovers, aged 19 to 31, including 17 females and 14 males. Employing a theoretical sampling strategy, it targeted those actively involved in the indie music scene and digital music activities. Conducted in Beijing from September 2019 to May 2020, the interviews – both in-person and online due to the COVID-19 pandemic – used semi-structured formats to delve into participants’ experiences as active music enthusiasts. This included their motivations, socialising practices, and use of digital technology for music. The subset data for this article, however, concentrates on activities surrounding streaming music. In these interviews, I engaged with participants’ personal narratives, exploring their experiences and practices in these platforms. Following a micro-sociological approach well-established in previous music sociology studies (e.g. Benzecry, 2011; DeNora, 2000), this study sought to understand how individuals perceive and use music in the context of everyday life, interpreting the meanings they ascribe to music and comprehending their musical practices.

Complementing the interviews, online ethnography (Hine, 2015; Pink et al., 2016) was carried out. These data form a component of a larger dataset examining both social media and music streaming platforms, with the current article narrowing its lens to the latter. Through a detailed examination of platform features – such as user interface, playlist mechanisms, recommendation functions, and social interaction capabilities – the analysis aimed to uncover the subtle ways streaming platforms influence access to music and the broader cultural and social contexts surrounding musical experiences. By focusing on the structural and functional aspects of these services, the online ethnography aims to illuminate the complex interplay between technology and music consumption, offering insights into how digital platforms are (re)shaping the perceptions and practices of music listeners in the context of the Chinese indie music scene.

Adopting an abductive research strategy (Blaikie, 2010; Timmermans and Tavory, 2012), the study refrained from formulating hypotheses prior to data collection and opting for an iterative process of data analysis after each round of data collection. This abductive approach, moves back and forth between empirical investigations and theoretical frameworks, avoiding preconceived answers to research questions. It attempts to uncover and encapsulate the perspectives of research participants from the data, thereby facilitating the cultivation of thorough insights into the complex social dynamics inherent in music practices. This analysis primarily focuses on the most significant cases related to the use of music streaming platforms and associated activities. Among various cases identified as pertinent to streaming music consumption, this article concentrates on two notable aspects: the creation and curation of streaming playlists, and user interactions with platform data and algorithms. Both of these are the results, or derivative behaviours, of the application of streaming technologies to music consumption. These selected cases will be presented and discussed to explore the evolving perceptions of materiality in the context of streaming music.

Findings

‘Playlisting’ and Collecting under Unlimited Accessibility

The widespread adoption of music streaming platforms has fundamentally altered how people access and engage with music. These platforms, especially through their subscription models, have substantially lowered the barriers to accessing a wide array of musical resources (Arditi, 2021). This transformative impact of streaming services on music accessibility is particularly evident in the Chinese context, where the streaming music market has experienced rapid growth and evolution in recent years. Here, music streaming services predominantly follow two models. The first, typified by Apple Music, operates strictly on a subscription basis, requiring users to pay a fee to access the service. The second and more prevalent model in China is the so-called ‘free and paid’ model, as seen in major local platforms like QQ Music and NetEase Cloud Music. This approach offers basic access to a substantial portion of the music library at no charge. This contrasts with platforms like Spotify that incorporate audio advertisements;¹ Chinese platforms instead restrict sound quality for non-paying users, reserving high-quality audio and access to an expanded or exclusive music library for paid members.

The affordability of these streaming services in China further amplifies music accessibility. While direct price comparisons of music subscriptions across countries can be misleading due to variations in average income and purchasing power, a relative comparison within each context is illuminating. For instance, in the UK, a monthly subscription to Apple Music or Spotify is priced at £9.99 at the time of writing, roughly equivalent to the cost of a physical CD. In contrast, in China, streaming subscriptions range from ¥8 to ¥28 RMB per month, depending on the platform and the level of membership benefits. This price is significantly lower than that of a CD, often by two-thirds or more. As a result of advancements in streaming technology and strategic business models of streaming services, users are afforded access to an extensive array of musical resources, which are nearly limitless in scope.

Admittedly, although the adoption of streaming services has introduced new consumption norms and platform controls (Maasø and Spilker, 2022; Morris and Powers, 2015), it represents a shift in how music is accessed as well as in the ways users interact with music. Some researchers have observed in the streaming context, everyday passive listening becomes prominent as users navigate expansive music libraries (Kamalzadeh et al., 2016). And the algorithmic recommendations within streaming platforms further amplify and encourage users’ functional listening, potentially creating a bias towards inattentive musical experiences (Pedersen, 2020). Some scholars express concerns that while music streaming platforms offer more individualised and personalised experiences, they might also represent ‘a movement away from music’s embedded social meaning towards its identification with social function’ (Rekret, 2019: 64, emphasis added). It is important to note that these observations are part of a long-standing debate on inattentive listening that predates streaming, as exemplified by Kassabian’s (2013) concept of ubiquitous listening. The streaming era has brought these concerns to the forefront once again. However, as Hesmondhalgh (2022) contends, cultural sociologists should avoid simplistically pitting music’s embedded social meaning against its functional uses in everyday life, as these aspects are not necessarily incompatible.

For the participants in this research – a group of music enthusiasts, rather than passively consuming music, they demonstrate proactivity in navigating the vast amount of music available in the cloud for a meaningful personal music experience. This is particularly evident in their approach to playlist creation, a prevalent practice among these enthusiasts. The study reveals that they actively use playlists not just as a collection of favourite tracks, but also as a tool for crafting more nuanced personal experiences. These playlists are thoughtfully organised based on various criteria such as music genre, listening scenario or mood. This active engagement in playlist curation demonstrates a deliberate and personalised interaction with boundless music resources. As George, a 26-year-old male interviewee, said:

I make my playlists on NetEase. For example, what kind of playlist would I listen to when I sleep, what playlist I listen to when I’m in a good mood, and what music I might want to listen to when I’m on vacation and have a drink by myself. This is the most vital way I organise my songs.

Through his practice of categorising and organising music into various playlists, George actively engages with streaming technology and sculpts his musical experience. This process transforms the songs from being arbitrary, generic elements within a streaming library to a structured and meaningful collection. As Hagen (2015: 641) aptly argues, ‘the practices of creating playlists and then keeping them encompass experiences of exclusivity and subjectivity that bring about [. . .] a felt ownership of the music’. Research participants’ playlisting² practices challenge the views of scholars like Burkart (2008), who argue that online music platforms primarily distribute music in the form of a service rather than a product, thereby creating an enclosure at both the technical and legal levels that inhibits users from actually owning and collecting digital assets. The act of playlisting itself can be seen as a service provided by streaming platforms, yet the way users engage with this feature transcends mere service consumption to include practices traditionally associated with ownership. George’s careful selection, arrangement and personal investment in these playlists surpass the act of simple compilation and organisation, embodying a personalisation of the songs and meaningful interaction with them, and thus gaining a sense of ownership over the digital music (Kibby, 2009). What is particularly noteworthy here is how music materiality emerges relationally: George does not simply organise music functionally; rather, he creates a structure where streaming music takes on presence and persistence through its relationships with specific temporal, emotional and situational contexts. It exemplifies that streaming music’s materiality emerges through the active process of connecting music to lived experience. In this way, the materiality of music manifests through relations – between songs and situations, user practices and platform affordances, and personal meanings and technological infrastructures. This view is also reflected in the discourse of Lesley (female, 20), another research participant:

Playlists are really important to me. They are like my wardrobe. Just as you would carefully consider which clothes to buy, how to organise them, and what to wear when you go out, it’s the same with playlists. Every playlist I create is made carefully. For instance, when I hear a song that I really like, I think carefully about which playlist it should go into [. . .] Every song in my playlists is a favourite of mine, and then I don’t really want others to know. I feel it’s very personal, very private. It’s kind of like, if someone asks me, ‘Can I see your playlist?’ I feel like they’re asking ‘Let me see your wardrobe.’ That’s the feeling. Really!

Lesley’s metaphor illustrates how streaming music acquires materiality through interconnected dimensions. Playlisting creates a material structure – a system of organisation, access, and control. Her comparison of playlists to a wardrobe is particularly revealing – both represent spaces where objects are not merely stored, but, more importantly, assigned meaning and actively organised, managed, and mobilised in daily life. Just as Born (2005) contends that music is generated through dynamic interplay of technological systems, social practices and temporal patterns, we can think about music’s materiality emerging through the same processes. The materiality that emerges here is not about mimicking physical objects, but rather the practical ways music is structured and accessed, the technological affordances enabling these practices, and the resultant patterns through which streaming music gains concrete presence in everyday experience. The playlist becomes more than a collection of meaningful songs; it constitutes an interactive entity structuring how music exists and operates digitally, suggesting that the act of organising and contextualising songs becomes as significant as the listening itself. These cases demonstrate that streaming music’s materiality is embedded in the dynamic interplay of user practices and technological affordances. Rather than grounded in physical objects, the materiality of streaming music itself is constituted through practices that give it structure, persistence and presence in individuals’ lives. What George and Lesley’s statements reveal are the ways users actively materialise music in a digital environment – transforming intangible streams into collections and organisations that have concrete existence and can be manipulated, displayed, shared or protected. Participants’ playlisting practices do not simply assign meaning to pre-existing objects but actively constitute new forms of musical materiality specific to the streaming context.

Playlisting practices on streaming platforms echo pre-streaming forms of music engagement like mixtapes and mp3 playlists. As precursors to streaming playlists, these formats similarly allowed listeners to curate and sequence songs, create personalised collections, and express themselves through music sharing. Streaming playlists remediate (Bolter and Grusin, 1999) these earlier curatorial forms, but do so in a radically transformed context of musical abundance. Unlike their predecessors, streaming playlists exist in an environment of seemingly infinite music. Users are not organising owned music but actively shaping their musical environment from a vast array of choices. Through their curatorial decisions, listeners imbue songs with personal significance, creating meaningful repertoires reflecting their tastes, moods and identities. In this context, music becomes an omnipresent resource that is continually reshaped through personal engagement.

Consequently, the transformation in music access and curation methods has also altered the meaning and value of physical music formats. As streaming becomes the primary mode of music consumption, physical records remain valued, but not for their function as music carriers. Instead, they are appreciated for their experiential and symbolic qualities. Many interviewees in this study regarded the purchase of physical records primarily as an act of collection rather than for listening purposes. For instance, Craig, a 30-year-old male music lover, put it this way:

Craig:

Firstly, I had listened to it [on a streaming platform] and thought it’s good before I bought this disc.

Researcher:

Would you listen to it [the CD]?

Craig:

Not listening, actually. Just collecting. I won’t listen to it once I’ve bought it back.

Researcher:

Do you have a device to play CDs?

Craig:

Not really.

Researcher:

So why did you buy those discs?

Craig:

It’s purely a collection, with a potential future opportunity for signing. There’s also a curiosity about what the back of the album looks like, the disc itself, and the lyric book. It’s totally like that. When you listen to an album on the internet, you can just view the cover, and there’s no other information. I bought the disc just to see the lyric book, to see the disc, to see the back cover. I just want to see all those, and then the disc can be shelved.

Craig’s case exemplifies a broader shift in the role of physical music formats like CDs in the age of streaming music. As streaming platforms become the primary source for music listening, the function of CDs evolves from traditional auditory mediums to objects of collection. Here, physical recordings are valued not for their utility in playing music but for their role in the act of collecting, a process rich with personal and cultural significance. This shift can be understood through the lens of subcultural capital (Thornton, 1995), where Craig’s collection serves as a means to accumulate specific information and cultural credentials that extend beyond the digital availability of music. Furthermore, this behaviour resonates with Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of objectified cultural capital, which emphasises that cultural objects like CDs become an embodiment of cultural possession and experiential pleasure. This reframes the act of collecting as a nuanced form of possession, one that is less about practical control or use (Baudrillard, 1968) and more about a connection to the music.

Streaming music’s defining characteristic of unlimited access to vast libraries has profoundly altered our engagement with and perception of music. The materiality of music, once primarily defined by physical objects and limited digital files, is now shaped by extended digital practices and complex interactions with personal meanings in which music is embedded. Streaming platforms have not simply digitised previous practices but created a new ecosystem where listeners and music continuously constitute, interact and reshape each other under conditions of abundance. This evolution reflects a broader reconceptualisation of materiality in the streaming era, manifesting more in forms of cultural participation and meaning-making. In this context, the materiality of music transcends medium and carrier: it is no longer a fixed attribute of physical or digital objects, but a dynamic aspect of our engagement with music across various media and practices.

Reflexive User–Algorithm Interactions

Another recurrent theme in the interviews was music lovers’ reflexive practice in responding to streaming platform algorithms, particularly manifested in their use of music recommendation features in these platforms. In the pre-streaming era, previous music mediums, from the gramophone to the iPod, aimed to provide music experiences across time and space, allowing individuals to listen to music in various settings. Streaming music platforms have taken this further by providing users with a vast and diverse selection of music. This abundance, while enriching the music experience, also presents challenges for both platforms and users. Despite slight variations in ‘exclusive content’ among platforms, there is a substantial overlap in their music libraries (see Qu et al., 2023; Tang and Lyons, 2016). As a result, one goal of these platforms is to transform from merely music players to comprehensive music service providers, attracting and retaining users. This transformation involves using big data and algorithms to predict users’ listening behaviours and even shape and modify their music preferences (Webster, 2020). Meanwhile, navigating the immense music libraries to discover preferred music has become a routine activity for music listeners. In this context, music recommendation has emerged as a crucial tool for both the platforms and users.

Streaming platforms employ a multilayered approach to gather data on users’ musical preferences, essential for curating personalised music recommendations. Upon account creation, users are prompted to select their favourite genres, providing explicit preference data. Later, the platform continuously collects data based on users’ interactions within the service, such as playlists creation, song reactions (likes/dislikes), track skips and other behavioural signals. These actions are automatically tracked, recorded and analysed by the platform’s algorithms to build a detailed profile of each user’s musical tastes, informing the prediction of their listening behaviours and refining the accuracy of music recommendations.

Here, user-created playlists are once again worth mentioning, as they become a key locus where the materiality of streaming music is demonstrated, enhanced, and intertwined with algorithms. Playlists transform intangible personal tastes into quantifiable patterns that algorithms can analyse and act upon. Far from being mere personal music repertoires, they are integrated into the platform’s broader ecosystem, embodying the digital ‘prosumption’ (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). Each playlist, curated with personal selections and preferences, feeds into the platform’s algorithmic machinery, enriching the data pool from which music recommendations are crafted. The functionality of playlists is further expanded as users have the option to share them publicly, therefore catalysing a broader network of social interactions. These public playlists extend the personal act of music selection into a communal sharing experience, transforming individual preferences into a collective resource. This social aspect amplifies the materiality of streaming music, as playlists become searchable, shareable and influential among users, and may also be recommended by the platform. Each interaction with a public playlist – whether through playing, sharing, commenting or following – generates additional layers of data, enhancing the platform’s understanding of music preferences across its user base. These processes turn playlists into vital components of the platform’s data architecture, where user preferences, behaviours and interactions are materialised into actionable insights.

Along with user behaviours feeding the database and algorithms, the interaction between users and streaming platforms through music recommendation emerges as a crucial factor in shaping musical tastes. Participants in the study frequently highlighted how these algorithms on the one hand connect them to a wider array of music, especially within niche genres, and on the other hand influence their music selection. Over time, algorithms both reflect and shape their tastes. As Francis, a 21-year-old male participant, put it:

[I] listen to music on NetEase, and it recommends you listen to music of the same genre based on its algorithm. It just goes deeper and deeper into that direction, and then I no longer listen to music in other directions. So I’m listening to more and more of a certain type of music and less and less of other styles.

Here, the platform’s algorithm acts as a mediator in Francis’s relationship with his musical preferences. Through guided listening practices facilitated by the algorithm, Francis’s musical tastes are gradually deepened and may also potentially be moulded. These algorithmically influenced musical preferences become an integral part of his music-lover identity through an increasing accumulation of listening experiences. The music he listens to is not just a set of digital files; it is a living, evolving entity shaped by user-algorithm interactions. The materiality of music in Francis’s experience is thus not static, but a dynamic process of integrating the music with his actions and choices under the impact of algorithms. Similarly, another interviewee Helen’s (27, female) interaction with music through the platform’s recommendations further illustrates this point:

Ever since I’ve had these [Daily Recommendations and Private FM], I can’t remember whose songs I’ve listened to. Because it matches songs I like so much, and it just captures my taste increasingly more accurately. I have collected numerous songs [from the recommendation], sometimes I even don’t know what I like. That’s not entirely precise. I should say that as long as the songs it recommends are good, I don’t really care who sings them or which band they are.

For Helen, her music selections are not primarily rooted in the names of musicians or the fame of the bands. Instead, it is the personal resonance and the alignment of the music with her evolving tastes, as facilitated by the algorithm, that holds paramount importance. This perception illustrates how the specific affordances of streaming platforms, particularly algorithmic capabilities, shape user experiences. Helen’s engagement demonstrates a keen awareness of the algorithm’s role in shaping her musical journey, recognising its potential to both reflect and influence her tastes. This awareness exemplifies users’ active engagement with streaming platforms’ technological affordances, becoming more self-aware, as participants, in their musical experiences. In these cases, music recommendation serves as what DeNora (1999, 2000) calls a ‘technology of the self’, albeit in a new technological context. The dynamic interplay between listeners and music has been long recognised in music sociology, as seen in, for example, Small’s (1998) concept of ‘musicking’ and DeNora’s (2000, 2003b, 2011) works on ‘music in action’. However, streaming services provide unique technological affordances that amplify and transform this interaction. The algorithmic curation offered by these platforms creates a distinct socio-technical environment for music consumption. The affordances of streaming platforms allow music to manifest as a more fluid and interactive object, obscuring the lines between material and immaterial, static and dynamic. Here, the materiality of music in the streaming era is constituted through the dynamic interplay of user practices and algorithmic mediations, creating a more technologically embedded, yet fundamentally interactive, element in listeners’ everyday lives. As a result, music transcends fixed objects or a purely social construct to a relational existence that emerges through specific interactions enabled by streaming platforms.

In addition, a notable strategy emerged among participants regarding their interaction with streaming platforms: a purposeful endeavour to navigate and influence recommendation algorithms. As Flora (21, female) encapsulated: ‘There is a process of AI domestication, and then it gets more and more submissive and recommends more songs pleasing to hear, more those niche stuff.’ This perspective reveals a proactive stance taken by some music enthusiasts who, upon recognising the influence of algorithms on their musical experiences, seek to optimise their interactions within the platform’s predetermined framework. By consciously interacting with the platform – through liking, skipping and adding songs to playlists – they aim to refine the algorithm’s accuracy within the boundaries set by the platform, tailoring it to serve their unique musical interests more effectively. Leonard (24, male) provided a more specific description of the process of training the algorithm:

I do press the ‘liking’ button for some songs, not only because I think they’re good, but because I want them to be recorded in the backend so that it can recommend more songs like these to me. Or sometimes, like when there’s a song I don’t like in the Daily Recommendations, I make sure to click the ‘block’, although it’s a bit inconvenient, hiding in the options menu. But to make it recommend fewer songs like that, I definitely will.

Here, the recommendation algorithm is not a one-way imposition on Leonard’s everyday music listening. This excerpt indicates that Leonard does not want to accommodate the algorithm but instead navigates the pre-designed features of the platform to shape his listening experience. Leonard demonstrates a ‘fluid agency’ (Siles et al., 2024a) in relation to algorithms. Rather than simply accepting or rejecting algorithmic influences, he develops nuanced strategies to sculpt his musical practices within the platform’s design. He does not alter the system’s underlying structure but rather works within its predefined parameters to personalise it. When users engage in the practice of algorithm ‘training’ or ‘domestication’ (Haddon, 2006), in a more sociological term, they demonstrate a deeper level of engagement with streaming services. This process reflects a co-evolutionary relationship between user practices and technological affordances. In this process, music transits from audible artefacts to interplay between users and digital platforms, taking on new forms shaped by both personal preferences and technological constraints. As a result, a user’s relationship with streaming music platforms becomes more reflexive based on their understanding of the platform’s capabilities and underlying logic. The algorithm, while not entirely malleable, becomes a participatory element in the music experience. This reciprocal relationship exemplifies a dynamic form of musical materiality – one that emerges from the ongoing negotiation between user agency and technological affordances.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the practices of indie music enthusiasts in China, exploring the evolving materiality of music in the streaming era. The findings suggest that the materiality of music in the streaming context is not a fixed attribute inherent to music, but rather a dynamic relational phenomenon emerging through complex interplay between user practices, technological affordances, and cultural meanings. The article examines two key aspects of streaming music consumption: the playlisting practices and users’ reflexive interactions with recommendation algorithms. These practices demonstrate that users actively and reflexively engage with and shape their musical experiences within the constraints and possibilities offered by streaming platforms.

The practice of creating and editing playlists reveals a new form of meaning-making in the streaming era. Users imbue intangible streaming music with personal significance and symbolic value through careful curation and organisation. This process transforms streaming music from a ubiquitous and ephemeral service into personalised, structured and meaningful objects. Here, the materiality of music is constituted not through physical properties, but through active engagement and personal investment. This is further evidenced in the changing function of physical records in the streaming age. While still valued, physical records are increasingly appreciated for their symbolic significance and experiential value rather than their traditional role as music carriers. This shift highlights a broader reconceptualisation of musical materiality in digital culture, where the value and meaning of music are increasingly defined by the practices and experiences surrounding it rather than its embedded physical properties. As Barad (2003, 2007) points out, matter and discourse are mutually constitutive, and it is through their entanglement that various phenomena emerge. The transformation of intangible, distributed zero and one into personally meaningful collections thus gives streaming music a perceptible ‘weight’ and presence in users’ lives.

Meanwhile, users’ reflexive engagement with recommendation algorithms further reveals the dynamic nature of music materiality in the streaming environment. The findings indicate that listeners are active participants consciously shaping their musical experiences. Through practices of ‘algorithm training’, users demonstrate a fluid agency, working within the platform’s predefined parameters to personalise their musical experiences. Algorithms, in turn, play a dynamic mediating role, continuously reconstructing the musical landscape based on user behaviour and platform logic. Unlike earlier forms of recorded music (such as vinyl records or CDs), the existence of streaming music is more dynamic and responsive. This co-evolutionary relationship between user practices and technological affordances gives rise to a new perception of music materiality – one that is constantly negotiated and emergent.

While scholars like Hennion and Born have acknowledged the dynamic nature of music mediation and assemblage, this study emphasises how this dynamism is accelerated and intensified in the streaming environment. The research suggests that the materiality of streaming music is not only relationally constituted but also in a constant state of becoming, continuously reshaped by real-time interactions between users, algorithms and sociocultural meanings. The findings challenge the lingering primacy of physicality in theorising materiality, echoing music researcher Wilson’s (2021: 3) call to critically reorient our understanding of the shifting ontology of music and materiality:

[. . .] music does not just reflect the material conditions of its production but actively enables critical play and reorientations vis-à-vis what we believe materiality to be in our contemporary historical moment.

Ultimately, by unsettling entrenched conceptualisations and foregrounding the interplay of individual agency, technological affordances and cultural meanings in reshaping musical materialities, this research contributes a vital provocation: it calls for a radical reconsideration of how we theorise and study materiality in an era where the boundaries between the virtual and physical are increasingly porous. In doing so, it prompts social sciences to evolve theoretical and methodological approaches capable of grasping the complexities of digitally mediated materiality and practice, while retaining critical attention to the power dynamics intertwined with technological systems. It is through such nuanced and reflexive inquiries that we can navigate the unfolding terrain of culture, materiality, and what they mean to humans in a world that is inextricably linked to digital technologies.

Footnotes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sicong Zhao

Notes

Author biography

Sicong Zhao received his PhD in Socio-Cultural Studies from the University of Edinburgh. His doctoral research examines the socio-cultural practices of Chinese indie music lovers, investigating how their musical practices intersect with ongoing socialisation and self-construction. His research interests include popular culture, cultural consumption, and digital media.

References

Adorno

(1938) On the fetish character in music and the regression of listening. In: Arato

Gebhardt

(eds) The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. New York: Continuum, 29–60.

Adorno

(1962) Introduction to the Sociology of Music. New York: Seabury Press.

Adorno

(1991) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.

Arditi

(2021) Streaming Culture: Subscription Platforms and the Unending Consumption of Culture. Bingley: Emerald.

Barad

(2003) Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3): 801–831.

Barad

(2007) Meeting the University Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barr

(2013) Theorizing music streaming: Preliminary investigations. Scottish Music Review 3: 1–20.

Baudrillard

(1968) The system of collecting. In: Elsner

Cardinal

(eds) The Cultures of Collecting. London: Reaktion, 6–24.

Benzecry

(2011) The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

10.

Blaikie

(2010) Designing Social Research (2nd edn). Cambridge: Polity.

11.

Bolter

Grusin

(1999) Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

12.

Born

(2005) On musical mediation: Ontology, technology and creativity. Twentieth-Century Music 2(1): 7–36.

13.

Born

(2015) Mediation theory. In: Shepherd

Devine

(eds) The Routledge Reader on the Sociology of Music. New York: Routledge, 359–368.

14.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 241–258.

15.

Bull

(2000) Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life. Oxford and New York: Berg.

16.

Bull

(2007) Sound Moves: iPod Culture and Urban Experience. London: Routledge.

17.

Burkart

(2008) Trends in digital music archiving. The Information Society 24(4): 246–250.

18.

Chanan

(1995) Repeated Takes: A Short History of Recording and its Effects on Music. London and New York: Verso.

19.

Deleuze

Guattari

(1981) Rhizome, power and desire, diagrams of the social. Ideology and Consciousness 8: 49–71.

20.

DeNora

(1999) Music as a technology of the self. Poetics 27(1): 31–56.

21.

DeNora

(2000) Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

DeNora

(2003a) After Adorno: Rethinking Music Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

DeNora

(2003b) Music sociology: Getting the music into the action. British Journal of Music Education 20(2): 165–177.

24.

DeNora

(2011) Music-in-Action: Selected Essays in Sonic Ecology. London; New York: Routledge.

25.

Dewey

Bentley

(2008) Knowing and the known. In: Boydston

(ed.) John Dewey: The Later Works 1925–1953. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1–294.

26.

Drott

(2023) Streaming Music, Streaming Capital. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

27.

Freeman

Gibbs

Nansen

(2022) ‘Don’t mess with my algorithm’: Exploring the relationship between listeners and automated curation and recommendation on music streaming services. First Monday [Preprint]. Available at: https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11783 (accessed 01 November 2024).

28.

Gibson

(1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

29.

Goehr

(1992) The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30.

Haddon

(2006) The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. The Information Society 22(4): 195–203.

31.

Hagen

(2015) The playlist experience: Personal playlists in music streaming services. Popular Music and Society 38(5): 625–645.

32.

Hagen

(2016) Music streaming the everyday life. In: Nowak

Whelan

(eds) Networked Music Cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 227–245.

33.

Hagen

Lüders

(2017) Social streaming? Navigating music as personal and social. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23(6): 643–659.

34.

Hennion

(2001) Music lovers: Taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society 18(5): 1–22.

35.

Hennion

(2004) Pragmatics of taste. In: Jacobs

Hanrahan

(eds) The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 131–144.

36.

Hennion

(2012) Music and mediation: Toward a new sociology of music. In: Clayton

Herbert

Middleton

(eds) The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction (2nd edn). New York and London: Routledge, 249–260.

37.

Hennion

(2015) The Passion for Music: A Sociology of Mediation. Farnham: Ashgate.

38.

Hesmondhalgh

(2022) Streaming’s effects on music culture: Old anxieties and new simplifications. Cultural Sociology 16(1): 3–24.

39.

Hicks

Beaudry

(eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

Hine

(2015) Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. London and New York: Bloomsbury.

41.

Hull

(2004) The Music Business and Recording Industry. London and New York: Routledge.

42.

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2023) Engaging with Music 2023. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Available at: https://www.ifpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/IFPI-Engaging-With-Music-2023_full-report.pdf (accessed 20 September 2024).

43.

Kamalzadeh

Baur

Möller

(2016) Listen or interact? A large-scale survey on music listening and management behaviours. Journal of New Music Research 45(1): 42–67.

44.

Kassabian

(2013) Ubiquitous Listening. Affect, Attention and Distributed Subjectivity. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

45.

Katz

(2010) Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

46.

Kibby

(2009) Collect yourself: Negotiating personal music archives. Information Communication and Society 12(3): 428–443.

47.

Krogh

(2023) Rampant abstraction as a strategy of singularization: Genre on spotify. Cultural Sociology. Epub ahead of print 22 May 2023. DOI: 10.1177/17499755231172828.

48.

Latour

(2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

49.

Law

(1992) Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systematic Practice and Action Research 5(4): 379–393.

50.

Leonardi

(2012) Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technological systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them? In: Leonardi

Nardi

Kallinikos

(eds) Materiality and Organising: Social Interaction in a Technological World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–48.

51.

Maasø

Hagen

(2020) Metrics and decision-making in music streaming. Popular Communication 18(1): 18–31.

52.

Maasø

Spilker

(2022) The streaming paradox: Untangling the hybrid gatekeeping mechanisms of music streaming. Popular Music and Society 45(3): 300–316.

53.

Magaudda

(2011) When materiality ‘bites back’: Digital music consumption practices in the age of dematerialization. Journal of Consumer Culture 11(1): 15–36.

54.

Magaudda

(2012) What happens to materiality in digital virtual consumption? In: Molesworth

Knott

(eds) Digital Virtual Consumption. New York: Routledge, 111–127.

55.

Meier

Manzerolle

(2019) Rising tides? Data capture, platform accumulation, and new monopolies in the digital music economy. New Media & Society 21(3): 543–561.

56.

Morris

Powers

(2015) Control, curation and musical experience in streaming music services. Creative Industries Journal 8(2): 106–122.

57.

Pedersen

(2020) Datafication and the push for ubiquitous listening in music streaming. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research 69: 71–89.

58.

Pink

Horst

Lewis

, et al. (2016) Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

59.

Prey

(2016) Musica analytica: The datafication of listening. In Nowak

Whelan

(eds) Networked Music Cultures. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.31–48.

60.

Prey

(2018) Nothing personal: Algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media, Culture & Society 40(7): 1086–1100.

61.

Prior

(2014) The plural iPod: A study of technology in action. Poetics 42: 22–39.

62.

Prior

(2015) Beyond napster: Popular music and the normal internet. In: Bennett

Waksman

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music. London: Sage, 493–508.

63.

Prior

(2018) On vocal assemblages: From Edison to Miku. Contemporary Music Review 37(5–6): 488–506.

64.

Hesmondhalgh

Xiao

(2023) Music streaming platforms and self-releasing musicians: The case of China. Information, Communication and Society 26(4): 699–715.

65.

Rekret

(2019) ‘Melodies wander around as ghosts’: On playlist as cultural form. Critical Quarterly 61(2): 56–76.

66.

Rimmer

(2024) Beginning at the beginning: Towards a trans-actional music sociology. Cultural Sociology 18(1): 3–23.

67.

Ritzer

Jurgenson

(2010) Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 13–36.

68.

Sato

(2019) Freemium as optimal menu pricing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 63: 480–510.

69.

Siles

Gómez-Cruz

Ricaurte

(2024a) Fluid agency in relation to algorithms: Tensions, mediations, and transversalities. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 30(3): 1025–1040.

70.

Siles

Valeria-Alfaro

Arriagada

(2024b) ‘Music is just right there on social media!’: Discovering, exploring, and incorporating songs across platforms. International Journal of Communication 18: 3480–3550.

71.

Siles

Segura-Castillo

Sancho

, et al. (2019) Genres as social affect: Cultivating moods and emotions through playlists on spotify. Social Media + Society 5(2): 205630511984751.

72.

Small

(1998) Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

73.

Sterne

(2012) MP3: The Meaning of a Format. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

74.

Tang

Lyons

(2016) An ecosystem lens: Putting China’s digital music industry into focus. Global Media and China 1(4): 350–371.

75.

Thornton

(1995) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity.

76.

Timmermans

Tavory

(2012) Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociologial Theory 30(3): 167–186.

77.

Wagner

Benlian

Hess

(2014) Converting freemium customers from free to premium—the role of the perceived premium fit in the case of music as a service. Electronic Markets 24(4): 259–268.

78.

Wallach

(2003) The poetics of electrosonic presence: Recorded music and the materiality of sound. Journal of Popular Music Studies 15(1): 34–64.

79.

Webster

(2020) Taste in the platform age: Music streaming services and new forms of class distinction. Information, Communication & Society 23(13): 1909–1924.

80.

Wilson

(2021) New Music and the Crises of Materiality: Sounding Bodies and Objects in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.