Music streams,smartphones,and the self

Domestication and articulations

The present article originates from the tradition of domestication studies that focuses on the social processes that are active when innovations are turned into taken-for-granted objects deeply integrated in everyday life. Silverstone stated that such processes include a mutual dynamic between emerging and established technologies as they are socially shaped and reshaped (2005, p. 14). Moreover, it was suggested that domestication consists of four main phases: appropriation, objectification, incorporation, and conversion (Silverstone, Hirsch, & Morley, 1992). This framework was later extended with the phases of commodification (Silverstone, 2006, p. 233) and imagination (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996). In the early days of domestication studies “the double articulation of media technologies” was considered a key concept. It referred to how the domestication of media technologies implied both material objects and transmitted content. Both must be interpreted by users in order to fit the media and communication technologies into everyday life (Livingstone, 2007; Silverstone & Haddon, 1996; Silverstone & Hirsch, 1994). ¹ Yet, the most emphasized aspect of domestication studies was indeed the context that the technologies were integrated into. This was seen as very much neglected by traditional reception studies. With the rise of mobile media consumption practices in recent years, context has stood out as an articulation in its own right. It contains the potential of influencing the meanings of media consumption commodities regardless of the specific object in use (Courtois, Mechant, Paulussen, & De Marez, 2011; Courtois, Verdegem, & De Marez, 2012; Hartmann, 2006). However, media technologies must also be interpreted and defined into our view of ourselves and our relationship with the world around us. Thus, I propose to add the self as the fourth articulation. This is the main topic of inquiry for the present article.

Role play, signals, and consumption

According to Goffman (1959), the self is constructed trough the roles that the individual takes on in solitude as well as in social encounters. The performances take place either in the front region where observers expect them to adhere to certain conventions, or in the back region where conventions and observers are more lax. When performing a role, the individual deliberately gives signals as to how he or she wants to be perceived. Yet, observers might also pick up signals that the sender is giving off unknowingly. This can make cracks in the role mastery and in the worst case, ruin it. With mobile and Internet technologies, intended and unintended signals may also reach mediated venues like, for instance, Facebook. This increases the risk of “context collapse” that occurs when different front and back regions are merged into one (boyd, 2014).

Also, when incorporating artefacts into everyday lives, people engage in self-construction and impression management (Douglas & Isherwood, 1996). However, the symbolic meaning of artefacts may blur in a situation where consumer choice seems unlimited. Schwartz (2005) claimed that modern consumers continuously face an abundance of options where plenty of alternatives must be left unexplored. Allegedly, this impairs the individual’s capability of making committed choices. In effect, the modern consumer experiences a lack of satisfaction and continues the search for self-fulfillment through consumption. A similar perspective has been advocated by Bauman, arguing that human beings have an inherent drive towards emancipation (Bauman & Raud, 2015). He used the metaphor “liquid” to denote the modern sociality where innovations in media and communication technologies are embraced because they so strongly contribute to people’s self-construction project.

Self-construction through music consumption

The narrative of the self is developed also through music consumption in everyday life. Frith stated that music “seems to be a key to identity because it offers, so intensely, a sense of both self and others, of the subjective in the collective” (1996, p. 110). Hesmondhalgh expressed a similar view when pointing to how music experience “often feels intensely and emotionally linked to the private self” (2013, p. 1) while it at the same time “often [is] the basis of collective, public experiences” (2013, p. 2). Also DeNora depicted music as a venue for self-construction when she elaborated on the concept of “music as a technology of self” inspired by Foucault. She described music as “the cultural material par excellence of emotion and the personal” (2000, p. 46).

People consume music to influence the experience of self and sociality in several ways. According to Greasly and Lamont (2011), common motivations are to regulate mood, bring back memories, concentrate on tasks, reduce feeling of loneliness, get comfort, and get energy. Krause, North, and Heritage (2014) found that the use of music listening applications on Facebook was mainly driven by motivations related to entertainment, communication, and what they call habitual diversion gratification. Turning to mobile music listening practices, Heye and Lamont (2010) found that the use of MP3 players while travelling tended to be motivated by the need for enjoyment, passing time, and enhancing emotional states. Bull (2010) emphasized how mobile music listening practices, exemplified by the use of Apple iPods enabled people in urban settings to claim “a mobile and auditory territory for themselves through a specific form of ‘sensor gating,’ permitting them to screen out unwanted sounds and producing their own ‘soundscape’” (2010, p. 56). Yet Prior (2014) stressed the plurality of motivations for using mobile music devices, ranging from the need for social withdrawal to the need for enhancing social spheres. As stated by Krause, North, and Hewitt (2015), the greater control that music technology affords to the individual, the more complex patterns of everyday music usage will appear. This resonates with Hagen’s study of how Norwegian streaming users relate to this fairly new music consumption practice. Applying Schütz’s (1967 concept of “lifeworld,” she proposed that streaming services “enhance music’s role as a malleable lifeworld resource” (Hagen, 2015a, p. 81).

According to Kibby (2009), the transition from physical to digital music consumption implies that music is increasingly being valued as an experience and less as an artefact. Still, her study of users’ experiences with personal music collections consisting mainly of intangible MP3 files indicated that also these were seen as an expression of taste and identity. In particular, playlists were used as identity markers. Through the management and use of the MP3 collections, people “were attaching a materiality to their music even when it lacked a physical presence” (Kibby, 2009, p. 433). Hagen found similar tendencies in her in-depth study of how dedicated music users in Norway related to the playlist functionality on music streaming platforms (2015b). These platforms will usually also contain features for social interaction. However, Hagen and Lüders (2016) questioned the sociality of streaming practices based on qualitative material from Norway. They found that music streaming users continuously negotiated the personal and social aspects of the streaming practice due the heterogeneous crowd they encountered on such platforms. A study by the present author (Nag, 2010) on the transition from physical to digital music consumption in Norway before the introduction of streaming services suggested that impression management was crucial to music sharing among people with stronger social ties while hardly considered when navigating the weaker and content-centric ties of user-driven file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Lime. Yet, as shown by Hagen and Lüders, streaming services may have both stronger and weaker ties present at the same time. Accordingly, such platforms contain the potential for context collapse that in effect may impair role performances.

The current article contributes to the research presented before by studying the experience of the interplay between self-construction and smartphone centric music streaming consumption. To my knowledge, this is a research topic that is currently not well covered in the rich body of literature on music consumption and self-construction.

Phenomenological approach

The focus on human experience in this study reflects a phenomenological approach that requires room for improvisation and creativity (van Manen, 2014). A basic purpose of such studies is to unravel commonalities of how people experience a certain phenomenon rather than to investigate the particularities experienced by individuals (Creswell, 2013, p. 76). In their very essence, human experiences are immediate, temporary, and intangible. However, they can be recalled through reflection and dialogue. Because research interest is in meaning production rather than, for instance, in measurable cause–effect relationships, qualitative material is preferred over quantitative one. Focus group discussions are considered a suitable method for data collection. Such discussions become venues for “collective sense-making” that resemble conversation people can have also in everyday settings (Liamputtong, 2011, p. 18). Even heterogeneous focus groups can provide discussions valuable for research because the participants relate to something they have in common (Liamputtong, 2011, p. 36).

Moderating focus group discussions of phenomenological character is very much a balancing act between control and flexibility. On the one hand, the moderator has certain topics that need to be addressed. On the other hand, he or she must create a space for the participants to share reflections freely. In this balancing act, open questions are preferred. They serve to direct the attention of the participants towards the issue(s) of concern, but concurrently allow a wide range of answers. By using follow-up questions, the moderator can ask for elaborations and encourage the whole group to engage. Moreover, the moderator must be able to improvise as the discussions can take unexpected, yet relevant turns.

Interpretation is essential both for the focus group participants recalling and reflecting on everyday life experiences and for the researcher stimulating these reflections as well as translating them into scientific contributions (Giddens, 1984). Accordingly, drawing the line between data collection and analysis is not straightforward in this kind of research. Often the interpretative process starts during the focus group discussions if not even prior to them, for instance, as the interview guide is developed. Furthermore, preunderstandings of the research topic are likely to influence the researcher throughout the research process (van Manen, 2014). This implies that I bring along my own experiences and preconceived notions when embarking on research efforts (Giddens, 1984, 1991). This is a methodological challenge that cannot be avoided. Thus, awareness of the matter is required.

Collection of data

The material for this analysis was collected through three focus group discussions conducted in Oslo in September 2013. Data collection was conducted by the Clouds & Concerts Project where the author was an associate team member. ² Focus group participants were recruited by word of mouth in social networks online and offline, that is, snowballing through the Clouds & Concerts’ contact network. A total of 14 participants were recruited, of which six were male and eight female. The youngest participant was a 19-year-old male and the oldest was a 40-year-old female, while the rest were in their 20s. Furthermore, 11 of them were university students, two were working full time, and one was unemployed. The participants were each compensated with a gift card with a value of 500 Norwegian kroner. All have been given new names in this article for the purpose of anonymization.

The participants were divided into three mixed-gender groups for semistructured discussions based on an interview guide developed by the Clouds & Concerts research team and the author. Group size was limited to four to six participants to reduce barriers to discussion and engagement (Liamputtong, 2011). Furthermore, running three groups based on the same interview guide, allowed the discussed concepts to become saturated. The interview guide was structured along three key topics: (a) characteristics of music streaming and of music use on mobiles, (b) sharing and recommendations of music, and (c) mobile music use compared to or combined with other types of content consumption. ³ Each focus group discussion lasted for about 60 minutes. The author and the associate professor heading the Clouds & Concerts research project alternated the roles of moderator and observer. In addition, a research assistant was present to record the discussions and take notes.

Coding and analysis

The analysis presented in what follows was carried out through an iterative process of the focus group discussion material. Several categories of analysis were tested and applied in search for themes and discursive threads that could spawn analysis of academic value. Shortly after the focus group discussions were completed, the material was coded in HyperRESEARCH in collaboration with the Clouds & Concerts research team. This coding was merely descriptive, and the main codes were (a) mobile music use in general, for example, online versus offline, individual versus social, changes in use, strong versus weak social ties, ownership versus rental, private and public impression management, purchase of streaming service; (b) playlists and search, for example, music management and discovery; (c) problems related to mobile music streaming, for example, battery lifetime, Internet access, price, user interface, sound quality; (d) contexts for mobile music streaming, for example, at the gym, at parties, at concerts, at home, and time of day; (e) mobility, for example, commuting, walking, car drive, mobility as a factor for streaming service subscription decision; (f) types of use on the mobile, for example, recording, music-tracking apps, music discovery, sharing of music, sharing of streaming service subscription; and (g) use of other music media on the mobile. After this first processing, I reverted to the raw material to explore how it could be structured also into analytical frameworks. This led me to the triple articulations of media and communication technologies presented before. I mapped the focus group material into these articulations to search for similarities and differences between music streaming on smartphones and the use of other means for music consumption. This operation turned out to be useful in at least two ways: (a) it revealed the complexity of this fairly new music consumption mode and (b) it spurred the idea that self-construction was lacking from the articulations framework. Based on this, I decided to pursue the idea of the self as the fourth articulation of media and communication technologies by analyzing the empirical material from this perspective. Accordingly, the study developed from being an exploration of mobile music streaming to a study of the self-construction project in the situation of instant and apparently unlimited music access. This scoping-as-you-go is characteristic to phenomenologically inspired research.

Abundance and loss

The focus group participants described a daily life where the smartphone normally would be within arm’s reach, and where music would accompany a wide range of activities and social settings. With a streaming service on the smartphones, they found themselves with an unprecedented abundance of music to choose from. Kristian (28) put it briefly and aptly when he said: “Everything is just one click away. Always.” The commonly used services, Spotify and WiMP (now Tidal), both had tens of millions of tracks available in their catalogues. If the users were not connected to the Internet, thousands of tracks could be stored on the smartphone for offline playback, accessible through the associated streaming app as playlists. Furthermore, the streaming functionalities made it easy for users to build personal collections of tracks and playlists as well as to discover new music either through editorial content and playlists, recommendation engines, or other users. Linda (23) explained how she easily could find the music she wanted even if she did not recall key information: “I can remember one word [from a song] or half the name of an artist and search, and then the service gives me suggestions.” Anne (25) described the access to the music libraries as a way of “discovering new stuff and then just pick from the candy box.” The combination of vast catalogues, self-made playlists, and flexible playback options (e.g., shuffle, repeat, skip) as well as the portability of the smartphone enhanced the users’ room of maneuver in music consumption. However, the omnipresent music abundance also left some participants with a sense of deprivation as expressed by Cecilie (25) who said: “We lose something. It’s not that intimate relationship with the music and I think that’s a pity.” Even if the total amount of time spent on self-initiated music consumption might have increased, the swap to streaming apparently brought along a more substantial shift for several participants as to how music was valued. Heidi (24) pondered about this when she stated: “I don’t store music anymore. It is available all the time. Maybe the exclusivity is lost because you have it always.” David (26) made a similar point when he said: “Earlier we had access to less music. Then you appreciated the bands more.” The tension between intimacy and detachment in the music consumption ties directly to the self-construction process of the individual as will be elaborated next.

Streaming as technology of self

The participants discussed streaming modes with different levels of intensity and engagement. David (26) elaborated on how his involvement in listening sessions varied depending on whether he was moving between places or staying at home: “I have a more intimate relation with the music when I am out walking . . . At home, I compose playlists, but [for listening at home] I just put something on to play in the background.” His different approaches were not merely shaped by the equipment he used, the music he listened to, and the social context he was in at any given time. They were also shaped by a personal desire to regulate the sense of self. This regulation was more likely to happen through music when he was on the move. By listening through a smartphone-connected headset, he could immerse himself into the sonic experience as the physical and social surroundings were displaced. At home, he said he was more likely to direct his attention to other activities and tasks. Ada (26) said she used music streaming with headphones “all the time” and described domestic situations where she would wear them connected to her smartphone to spare the rest of the family from her obsession with certain songs while at the same time spending time with them. Regardless degree of immersion, the smartphone–headset–streaming triangle allowed David and Ada to live out their personal aural space without imposing it on others nearby. The same might also have been said about previous mobile music players. In that sense, the accounts of David and Ada can be seen an example of how the shaping of emerging technologies is influenced by practices developed for established technologies. Still, streaming apps on smartphones provide an unprecedented range of music consumption options that could be used to continuously redefine and adjust the state of self through the day.

The focus group participants had embraced the playlist affordance of the streaming services in particular. It enabled them to customize soundtracks to specific activities, moods, and memories. Linda (23) pointed to the effort and result of this functionality when she explained why her music listening was skewed towards playlists: “I have spent so much time making these amazing playlists of mine so I prefer listening to them. They are like ‘mood 1,’ ‘mood 2,’ ‘mood 3,’ and so on.”

Playlists that had not been used recently could function as carriers of memories. Nora (26) had recently come across a playlist she had labelled “Summer 2011” and described how listening to it brought her back to “the mood and the things I did back then.” However, she also pointed to how the plasticity of the playlist could work against it as a memory container, noting: “If one has a good playlist, it tends to get constantly changed and updated. Then maybe you get a different connection to it.” Petter (28) expressed a similar sentiment when he stated that the relation between specific music releases and specific memories was “starting to fall apart.” He elaborated on how it used to be when he had bought a new CD and listened to it over and over, partly because it was a hassle to swap to another one. He concluded: “now we just pick wildly from everywhere so it is more difficult to associate an album with a specific event or time period.” Ada (26) expressed a similar point of view when she said: “If I look back, there are so many songs that have meant a lot to me, like reminding me about something or that I know the lyrics which I relate to something. It is no longer like that.”

Most of the participants also made playlists where the common denominator for the included tracks simply was that they liked them. For Sander (19), the hand-picked collection of old and new found favorites was the only playlist he used. It contained 700–800 tracks, and he always used shuffle mode when listening. He explained: “The fun is that I never know what’s next, but I know I’ll like it. I’ll sit there and then all of a sudden a song that fits perfectly starts playing. And then I have a really good time.” For him, the album format was very much dissolved without regrets. He valued the ability to be his own “music editor in chief,” and at the same time, enjoyed the suspense made possible by having the service software decide the order the songs were played in. The pleasure reached its peaks when randomly selected songs corresponded to, and maybe accentuated, the state he was already in.

Even if the participants seemed enthusiastic about music streaming on smartphones, several expressed a sense of detachment in their relationship with music and related it to the new consumption mode. Prior to becoming a streaming user, Ada (26) mainly got hold of music by downloading from file-sharing networks. She found that the easy access to music through a streaming service also available on the smartphone had decreased the impression songs made on her. She said: “You don’t think that much about what you listen to. You just know it is pleasant in some way.”

The participants described how music had become a constant backdrop to whatever they were doing. This often made it challenging to keep track of what the titles of the tunes were, which albums they were from, and who the performers where. Such a lack of knowledge about the selected music seemed to run parallel to the notion of having a less emotional and intimate connection to it. David (26) described how he missed browsing through the CD collection, to explore beyond the songs of instant appeal and find songs that were acquired taste:

Often you listened to the best songs till they were worn out, but then there were others that grew on you after a while. I find the latter much harder to obtain now that I have Spotify. I miss it.

He reflected on how the turn to streaming had left him yearning for the CD collection as a documentation of his taste: “I somehow miss to have the overview of the whole artists and albums and stuff like that, to know that ‘This is my music, this is the basic foundation of my music.’” Cecilie (25) expressed a similar sense of loss when she said:

Actually, I don’t quite like how I listen to music now. Previously it was a thrill to buy the new CD, sit down and look through the booklet, listen through the CD, find the lyrics, learn the lyrics and so on. But now it is more like putting something on to have something to listen to while doing something else.

Anne (25) described how the album had become an abandoned format for her and put a moral judgment on herself for allowing that change to happen; she said: “It’s been many years since I listened through an album from start to finish, and that makes me really ashamed.” Not all participants had let go of the album format, but according to Tobias (28) it required determination to keep it as part of the music mix. He said: “I try to cling onto the album. I actively take steps to remember the name of the first tracks, but it is a lot harder than it used to be.”

However, Sander (19) had no issues with the intangible quality of music streams. He saw CDs merely as a practical solution under special circumstances, and did not attach any symbolic or emotional value to them as physical objects. He said: “I use CDs only when I’m in my hometown and drive a car with just CD player. Then I might buy a CD, but just for one-time-use. Afterwards I don’t really know where it is.” Ada (26) had a similar relationship to the physical CD, stating: “I have never felt there was that much of a value to actually have an [physical] album, except the very first CDs I got when I was younger.”

Emitting (knowingly or unknowingly) signals through music streams

The self-construction project cannot be separated from the roles we take on and are assigned in social interaction. Accordingly, music consumption becomes one of many ways that individuals give and give off signals of role mastery. Linda (23) described how she used music streaming when visiting her parents after having moved out of the family home. She would prepare for a visit by searching for old music on the streaming service until she found songs her parents listened to during her childhood. With music streaming, Linda could make her parents the equivalent of the predigital mixed tape with music they all could enjoy together, maybe as a means to go down the family memory lane. She elaborated:

The most awesome thing with Spotify for me is coming home and playing old songs that mom and dad haven’t listened to for decades. And they just go “Oh, where did you find it?!” And then I have just searched “old music” and clicked randomly till I found something I recognized. And when I put it on, the mood at home gets tip-top.

For others, the playlist development itself could be a joint activity. David (26) and his flatmates maintained a playlist called “Brotopia” together. He explained: “When one of us has found a great tune, we will add it to the list. Then I always know what the others are listening to.” He described how the list had been a much discussed topic when preparing the long drive to Scandinavia’s largest rock music festival. The group of friends had to agree on which songs to include as it would be the only offline playlist used in the car. According to David (26), it was “a bit prestige-ish to get an awesome tune that the others hadn’t heard before, into the list.” Implicitly, he pointed to how this was not merely about getting the chance to listen to own favorites during the ride, but to have one’s personal taste acknowledged by peers. The collaborative playlist was thus both a collective effort and a compilation of individual accomplishments. It became part of the self-construction project that David and his peers carried out through their roles as music interested friends in a casual, yet somewhat competitive, social setting.

The listening sessions and music preferences may also be shared on social media that have integrated with the streaming service. Provided the user allows such an integration of streaming and social media accounts, he or she decides if streaming activity should be shared by default or if they should filter it. Anne (25) was one of the group participants who had reacted negatively to the integration when it first was introduced. She said: “I think it was because it was so new, almost like someone was peeking into my house.” From a Goffmanian perspective, we may say that she was reluctant to allow the front region audience of her social media contacts into her back region of introvert music consumption as it might mess up her role performances (Goffman, 1959). Sonya (27) had similar concerns, and had refrained from integrating her streaming account with her Facebook account. She stated: “That’s the last thing I want: to have people watching what I listen to cause sometimes I get this ‘Oh-now-I-wanna-be-13-years-again’ urge.” At the other end of the spectrum were Sander (19) and Ada (26) who both stated they were indifferent to how their music streaming might be perceived in their Facebook network. Sander (19) simply said: “I don’t really care about what others might think of what I listen to.” Ada (26) used the same phrase and added: “I do it mostly for my own . . . If friends get annoyed by it, they can just turn off notifications from my end.” Cecilie (25) represented a middle position; she used the social media publishing selectively and turned to offline streaming on her smartphone when she wanted to avoid publishing her listening sessions online. By filtering what was published, she could present herself through music that contributed to the roles she had taken on among her contacts on social media and hide music that might have the opposite effect. She said:

Sometimes I want people to know what I listen to and other times I don’t . . . I have this workout playlist, and it is not representative for my music taste. So yes, I don’t want people to always know what I listen to.

Several of the participants noted that their music taste had become more eclectic after streaming had become integrated into their everyday lives. The instant access and wide availability to music of all sorts spurred the urge to explore and discover beyond genres and artists they already had an established relationship to. This was for instance the case for Trude (40) who said: “I think my genre range has been expanded after I started streaming music, the surfing means that it all is so very at my fingertips compared to earlier times where I had to be more active in my search.” However, Linda (23) believed the increasing diversity in her music taste had more to do with having become more secure with herself and her friends. She said: “I don’t need to prove anything to them any longer. There is nothing we are supposed to figure out, so if I hang around rock people, but don’t listen to rock myself, it’s no big deal.” This might imply that music regardless consumption practice plays a larger role when establishing social relations than when maintaining them over time. It may also indicate that as one gets older, the self-construction work relies less on music and more on other attributes of the individual like family, career, places of residence, and travels. However, David (28) shared Trude’s view that increased diversity in personal music taste was a result of wider availability through streaming. He also suggested that this wide availability influenced the position of music as an identity marker in general when he said:

Music used to be a much bigger identity marker than it is now. I still remember a time when I, who then was a hip-hoper, listened to rock and it was considered a little weird. You don’t face such demarcations today. Neither do you have music collections that define you as people come and visit, because your collection is invisible.

Kristian (28) regretted the lack of personally owned music collections in music streaming as he stated: “The most negative is the good old ‘own versus rent’ issue. I just rent the music. I don’t have it.” However, he believed the role of music in identity processes would be revitalized as the streaming services were further developed, and elaborated: “it’s not just about sharing music, but to show who one is. I think that is a very large chunk of your identity. But I think it will gradually move online.” When asked if he saw indications of such a move, he answered:

You know, you may “like” stuff on Facebook, but it is not sufficient. It is not neat and it’s impossible for others to look at. I feel it does not represent me as it is organized now. I believe when it comes, I and many others will do it.

Streaming and inbound self-construction work

The playlist comes across as a key feature of music streaming on smartphones. Such an arrangement enables self-interpretation and regulation to an extent that is unparalleled by other music consumption technologies. The focus group discussions contained considerations of how playlists could constantly be altered and adjusted. The malleability is a particular quality of the digital playlist, and it is taken to the extreme with streaming services used on smartphones. This particular affordance seems to pull the self-construction work in two contradictory directions. On the one hand, it makes it possible for the user to assemble sets of songs that he or she anticipates will contribute in shaping the experience of self during particular activities or in specific contexts. Preparing such playlists becomes an act of self-interpretation and construction. Moreover, fine-tuning them to the many settings where individual music consumption takes place requires time and effort from the user. These investments may strengthen the users’ emotional connection to the carefully designed compilations of tracks as well as to the selected songs and artists. Furthermore, as the smartphone has become the main streaming device, the user can use playlists to influence their sense of self in a wide array of settings. If the prepared playlist does not fit with the experience of self that one wants to accentuate or evoke at a specific moment, it can easily be adjusted on the fly provided one has Internet access and with it, access to the vast music collections stored on the streaming servers. Its predigital equivalents, the mixed tapes and burnt CDs, were fairly fixed when they were fully loaded with a rather limited number of tracks. Digital playlists on iTunes and MP3 players are restricted by the music library stored on the device in use. However, the playlist functionality within a streaming service available on a smartphone exists in a setting that invites the user to constant renewal as news on releases, editorial playlists, and recommended artists are published frequently. The user is repeatedly reminded that he or she could choose to listen to something else. Such sentiments were also expressed in the focus group discussions and suggest that music consumption has become more volatile, accentuating music as an experience and diminish it as an artefact. Furthermore, by embracing the playlist functionality, several focus group participants had to a large degree displaced the album format. This had resulted in a sense of loss not merely based on the absence of the CD as a tangible object, but on the embedded constraints that the limited number of songs and their given order imply. The omnipresent music abundance had, for some of the focus group participants, turned into what we may call a music overload. They experienced a reduced ability to form a lasting devotion to music they exposed themselves to. Loosing track of titles, albums, and artists seemed to impair the sense of intimacy with the music. This sense of detachment may imply a devaluation of music in the self-construction project. However, this may be a transient condition that spurs the users to emphasize other aspects of music consumption in the self-construction project.

Streaming and outbound self-construction work

The personal music collection and other expressions of music preferences have, in modern societies, become part of a sign system that guides us in our social interactions. Yet, when everyone can access the same vast catalogues and constantly search for new discoveries across genres and music epochs, this part of the sign system may get blurred. Even if focus group participants experienced that their everyday lives had become filled with music streams, their omnipresent abundance provoked in some of them the questioning of music as an identity marker for the individual. There were indications of increasing variety in individual music preferences, but also of a more shallow relationship between the user and specific releases and artists. Still, the empirical findings reveal a somewhat unresolved situation in regard to music as identity marker. This became particularly evident when discussing the practice of displaying one’s music consumption on social media by integrating, for instance, one’s Facebook and streaming accounts. Accordingly, even the most personal, solitary music streaming experience on a smartphone may be witnessed by others in real time. Having one’s listening session published on social media news feeds may be a conscious act of impression management where the published songs and playlists are carefully curated by the individual. However, our music consumption and preferences may also unwittingly be on display. This made several of the focus group participants not completely at ease with Facebook and streaming integration. They wanted to keep their listening sessions private, at least in certain situations, without having their choice of songs or artists observed, interpreted, and evaluated by random friends and acquaintances based on a Facebook news feed. Following Goffman, this can be seen as a fear of unknowingly giving off signals that can make cracks in the role performance (Goffman, 1959, p. 108). This would hardly be considered a risk if music consumption no longer played a role as identity marker and in impression management. The participants also described how music was used in direct social interaction both with friends and with family. Finding common ground in music preferences and music experiences could function both as social glue and as individual acknowledgement. Thus, music consumption was clearly a way of emitting (knowingly or unknowingly) signals of the self in everyday-life role performances also for users of smartphone centric music streaming. However, the way the signal system is used may change. We might find that music as identity marker is becoming less related to music possessions and preferences and more skewed towards being well-informed about old and new releases or having well-designed playlists for any occasion.