


































Microsoft Word - eruptors formatted_MF3 .docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts  Volume 4, Issue 1 
http://artivate.org  pp. 9-24 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2015, the authors      
 
 

CREATIVITIES, INNOVATION, AND NETWORKS IN GARAGE PUNK ROCK: A 
CASE STUDY OF THE ERUPTÖRS 
Gareth Dylan Smith, Institute of Contemporary Music Performance 
Alex Gillett, The York Management School, University of York 
 

Abstract 
The two authors are members of punk rock trio the Eruptörs. Both also teach in higher 

education – one in popular music, and the other in management and marketing. Writing from 
experience in the Eruptörs, we present a case study of the band, and draw on theoretical 
perspectives from our respective, intersecting fields to explore the Eruptörs’ entrepreneurship, 
collaborations, networks, and creativities in the “DIY” underground punk rock scene. The paper 
provides cross-disciplinary insights into internal and external cultures of the Eruptörs. Proposing 
this as a teaching case, the authors conclude that students, scholars, and practitioners in music 
education, popular music studies, and related disciplines and fields involving entrepreneurship 
could benefit from engaging in reflexive and entrepreneurial practice which explores and 
incorporates ideas, models, and syntheses discussed in this paper.  

Keywords: Creativities, innovation, networks, DIY, punk rock.  
 

Introduction and Methodology 
The Eruptörs is a three-piece rock band, sonically and aesthetically influenced by punk, 

garage rock, and punk/metal cross-over bands such as Motörhead, Gluecifer, Electric 
Frankenstein, and The Hellacopters, defining its output as “1000% Rock.” The authors of this 
paper are members of the Eruptörs. Our classic “power trio” instrumentation consists of guitar 
(Alex Gillett), bass (Geoff Irwin) and drums (Gareth Dylan Smith), with all three of us 
responsible for vocals. Irwin and Gillett share lead vocals, with Smith joining in for the “gang” 
vocal sections of some songs. The Eruptörs share creative responsibilities as evenly as possible, 
working collaboratively in ways that Burnard (2012, p. 43) terms “collective creativity” (writing, 
rehearsing, and performing music together) and “production creativity” (making recordings and 
albums together). These intra-band creativities support and are enabled by “entrepreneurial 
creativity” (Burnard, 2012, p. 71) – marketing our music and carving a niche for the band – in 
collaboration with external agents, in ways similar to those identified as typical for (necessarily) 
entrepreneurial musicians for hundreds of years (Hallam & Gaunt, 2010; Menger, 1999; Weber, 
2004). In this paper the authors use selected frameworks from scholarship in business and 
marketing to approach a richer understanding of the Eruptörs’ entrepreneurship and multiple 
creativities.  

Rashidi (2012, p. 84) states that punk rock is “a genre formulated on critical thinking” 
and advocates for “self-awareness.” Reflecting Cook’s observation (2012, p. 120) that “rock 
[musicians] prefer an intuitive approach over creativity toolboxes,” the account that we present is 
a reflexive, post-facto framing of ways in which the Eruptörs have worked, rather than an 
explicit re-presentation of past strategies. We do not seek to claim that the Eruptörs’ experience 
exemplifies or epitomizes that of garage punk/metal cross-over bands in the U.K. or anywhere 
else. Rather, we are aware through our work as a band and in the members’ other musical 
activities (including working in other bands of various sorts and, for one of us, in popular music 
in higher education) that many bands work with similar – although different and necessarily 
unique – practices (Burnard, 2012; McKinna, 2014; Shank, 1994; Smith, 2013a). We have in 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 10 

common with other punk bands and punk musicians an “assumptive frame of reference” 
(Tiryakian, 1973, p. 199; Jorgensen, 2003, 29); acknowledging the “we-pole” orientation 
(Tiryakian, 1973, p. 193) or the “emic” perspective (Feleppa, 1986, p. 244) on our ways of 
working that we share with others in the punk community.  

There is an increasing emphasis in the literature in music education, and especially in 
higher music education, on preparing students for portfolio careers in music (Bennett, 2008, 
2013; Halla m & Gaunt, 2012; Parkinson, 2014; Smith, 2013b) and musical lives external to 
institutional education (e.g. Partti, 2012). With the majority of literature in popular music studies 
focusing on commercially successful bands and coverage in mainstream media also privileging 
artists and performers that are highly visible (and audible) to the general public (Smith, 2013b, 
pp. 29–30), we hope to offer an alternative, authentic (McKinna, 2014, p. 57) account of being in 
a band. In a statement reflecting the cases of popular music studies and higher music education, 
John Berger (2002, p. 176) observes that “there is a huge gap between the experience of living a 
normal life at this moment on the planet and the public narratives being offered to give a sense to 
that life.” Bennett (2013, p. 238) asserts that students in higher education “need to form 
themselves for entrepreneurship, even while they are studying.” The authors thus hope that this 
paper might help to bridge some of this gap, thereby serving the higher music education and 
broader higher education community by helping to orient students towards conceiving of 
themselves as entrepreneurs.  

Bresler & Stake (2006, p. 278) advise that “in music education, we have a need for… 
experiential understandings of particular situations.” We argue that these types of understanding, 
such as we offer in this paper, are likely to be helpful in other educational contexts beyond 
music. Musicians do not, after all, exist in a field-specific epistemological vacuum, and as such 
we are reminded of Miles & Huberman’s (1984, p. 27) observation that “a ‘case’ always occurs 
in a specified social and physical setting: we cannot study individual cases devoid of their 
context.” The context on which we position this paper is cross-disciplinary, involving music, 
education, and business. We propose, therefore, that this interdisciplinary study may be helpful 
as a teaching case – in (at least) both marketing and popular music education contexts. In the 
authors’ respective pedagogical contexts of marketing and higher popular music education, 
applied “real-world” experience as collaborative musician-entrepreneurs affords us what 
Bourdieu & Passeron (1977, p. 19) have termed “pedagogic authority” – credibility, ascribed by 
learners, that is arguably essential, and certainly highly beneficial, to teaching in these 
environments. This is perhaps especially important in the current climate where “employability 
has become a dominant concept through which the value and purpose of higher education has 
been rationalized in official discourse in the U.K.” (Parkinson & Smith, in press). As Bourdieu 
and Passeron (1977, p. 19) go on to explain:  

In real learning situations ... recognition of the legitimacy of the act of 
transmission, that is, of the [pedagogic authority] of the transmitter, conditions the 
reception of the information and, even more, the accomplishment of the 
transformative action capable of transforming that information into a mental 
formation (training). 

We therefore encourage colleagues in higher education to discuss and analyze examples of their 
own and others’ interdisciplinary practice (in music or other domains) in similar ways.  
 

The Eruptörs as a Collaborative Innovation Network 
In searching for a means to frame the way that members of the Eruptörs collaborate, we 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 11 

were especially drawn to Peter Gloor’s work on collaborative innovation networks (COINs). The 
COIN model has been applied in fields as wide-ranging as medical research (Gloor et al., 2011) 
and collaborative editing of wiki sites (Iba et al., 2011). While the concept is often applied to 
larger-scale collaborations such as these, when introducing the model, Gloor (2006, p. 23) also 
uses the example of a trio of collaborative musical composer-performers to illustrate the 
functions of COINs, indicating how the COIN construct can be applicable to musicians (and 
others) working in networks of various sizes. Gloor (2006, p. 3–4) observes that groups of people 
have behaved in ways framed in his research for hundreds years – “many of us have already 
collaborated in COINs without even knowing it.” The Eruptörs can be seen as a quintessential 
example of a functioning “COIN,” for the model captures much of what is termed by punk and 
other musicians as a “DIY” approach, explored further below. Gloor tells us that “in a COIN, 
knowledge workers collaborate and share in internal transparency. They communicate directly 
rather than through hierarchies. And they innovate and work toward common goals in self-
organization instead of being ordered to do so” (Gloor, 2006, p. 4). This is certainly true of the 
Eruptörs. 
 
Swarm creativity 

The Eruptörs’ website (Eruptörs) states that the band members play, respectively, lead 
guitar, lead bass, and lead drums. We position ourselves all as “leaders,” not because we are 
competitors for superiority, but to show that we are all of equal importance as parts of the whole, 
all of our ideas have equal validity, and we are all equally in control. None of us can achieve the 
band’s goals without the other members, and we all want to be a part of the Eruptörs. In order to 
realize our shared (individual and collective) goals, we share expertise, knowledge and skills 
openly. Gareth Dylan Smith wants to be the drummer in the Eruptörs, and the other two 
members of the band want his drumming to be a part of what they do in that context. If we each 
contribute for the collective and individual good then we all gain in ways unachievable on our 
own; this type of working together Gloor identifies as “swarm creativity” – taken from studies 
into how insects such as bees and ants work individually and together in colonies – and it is fast 
being recognized as a highly efficient and productive modus operandi for human interaction 
(Gloor, 2006, p. 75). In Gloor’s terms, the Eruptörs “share the same goal and are convinced of 
the their common cause… COIN members develop new ideas as a team; the whole is much 
greater than the sum of its parts” (Gloor, 2006, p. 11). In Burnard’s terms (2012, pp. 43 & 71), 
thus does the band realize its collective and production creativities in writing, rehearsing and 
performing music, and in making and recording albums together.  

The Eruptörs is not a money-making project. It is a rock band; it exists to make rock 
music, which we find inherently worthwhile. Although the Eruptörs is not a financially 
motivated venture, in order to write, perform, record, produce, and generate interest in the band, 
it has been necessary to interact with elements of the “business,” which we explore in detail, 
below, with reference to relevant concepts and theories. Our peers (other musicians and fans of 
the rock and originals band scenes) understand our raison d’être. We will probably never have a 
“hit” song, undertake a major world tour or become household names, but that has never been an 
objective of the band. This is also a typical COIN characteristic, in that “people initially join 
COINs because they are fascinated by the challenge and care deeply about the goals… The 
primary currency of reward is peer recognition” (Gloor, 2006, p. 75). The number of peer-fans of 
the Eruptörs’ music is small, but the band members are all pleased with the music we have 
produced. Being in the band is to a large extent its own reward (the notion of “unpopular” 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 12 

popular music like ours is discussed further by Smith, 2013c, p. 33). Ehls describes 
collaborations such as the Eruptörs’ as a “social exchange processes” in which: 

As long as the organizational stimuli (inducements) are greater or in equilibrium with the 
individual’s objectives, the individual will continue to participate (make contributions). 
In other words, as long as the organization provides sufficient benefits, it will attract 
participants to contribute to the organizational objective and ensure the success of the 
coalition. (Ehls, 2014, pp. 45-46) 

Dawkins (2010, p. 273) calls this commitment to the band’s cause, for its and our own sakes, 
“the logic of self-fulfilling labor.” This ethos is common among “Do-It-Yourself (DIY)” 
practitioners (Milne, 2008), and is not, of course, limited to punk music scenes. It has been 
observed among “niche communities” online (Andreini & Cassia, 2009, p. 1), and is theorized in 
literature across domains including crafting and human computer interaction where scholars have 
“emphasized the pleasure, expressiveness, and communicative practices involved… rather than 
the utility of their end products or their ability to generate profit” (Tanenbaum et al., 2013, p. 
2604).  
 
Functioning as a COIN 

Gloor identifies three characteristics that define the behavior of COINs. Collaborative 
innovation networks: 
 1. Innovate through massive collaborative creativity 
 2. Collaborate under a strict ethical code 
 3. Communicate in direct-contact networks   
(Gloor, 2006, p.12) 
We now look at how the Eruptörs meets each of these characteristics.  

 

Innovation through massive collaborative creativity. The extent to which the Eruptörs 
could be described as “innovating” is debateable from a visual or aural aesthetic perspective; we 
consciously pay homage in our music to our interests and our influences. As Burnard (2012, p. 
44) observes, this is quite normal for a band, for the fact that we are able to identify ourselves as 
a garage rock or punk outfit places us firmly in a recognizable canon of stylized rock music in 
which there has been arguably very little real innovation in the several decades during which the 
music has been around. This being said, the Eruptörs have certainly created “new” music – our 
songs and albums did not exist until we created them, although the idea of three people on bass, 
guitar and drums all playing very loudly and fast has not been genuinely novel for over half a 
century. In this sense, the Eruptörs are, then, in the business rather of renovating rock than of 
innovating it – we deal in evolution rather than revolution, a type of innovation identified as 
“sustained” as opposed to “disruptive” (Gloor, 2006, p. 31–32).  

In her descriptions of collective creativity in action among originals bands, Burnard 
(2012, p. 65) finds that:  

Being in originals bands involves players as individuals, but, critically, as members of a 
long-standing collective of finely tuned musicians, who are able to improvise, embellish, 
jam, and “pick each other’s brains” during group interactions in band rehearsals and 
performances.  

Being in the Eruptörs involves precisely these practices and processes in the contexts that 
Burnard identifies, as well as in the exercising of our production creativity (Burnard, 2012, p. 43) 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 13 

in the recording studio, creating the music that later comes to define the experience that others 
have of us as a collective – on record and “live” at gigs. When the band comes together to record 
at Eruptörs’ HQ in Co. Cork in the Republic of Ireland, our goal is usually to capture as much 
material as we can in a short time-frame that is usually determined by members’ commitments to 
day-jobs. Our means of writing and learning songs together are the archetypal rock band 
“informal” writing and learning practices explained so well in Green’s classic (2002) text, How 
Popular Musicians Learn. 

When we meet to record, we usually also write the songs prior to recording. We have no 
written guidelines about what an Eruptörs composition should sound like, contain or do, but we 
all come with the assumption that if an idea comes from an Eruptör then it’s worthy of the 
others’ attention and collective creative effort toward realization. Each member contributes 
anything from a one-bar riff, drum rhythm or lyric idea, which we share to see what the idea will 
become once it has been experimented with by the collective. Our quality controls – the deciding 
factors over whether a song is worth recording or not – are a) whether we can all play the song, 
b) if it feels like an Eruptörs song. Despite being ostensibly a punk/metal band, we recently 
recorded a couple of tracks that sounded almost country; this is not a problem for us – if we all 
like it and we all played on it, then it’s an Eruptörs song. We share an understanding in the band 
that no-one tells anyone else what to do.  

Eruptörs teach one another riffs and/or song structures that we have written individually, 
but if another member hears the riff differently, plays it “wrong” or only wants to use half of it, 
we accept this as part of the group’s collective creativity  (Burnard, 2012, p. 43). It is because we 
all understand that it is only because the collective is comprised of precisely these individuals’ 
attitudes, preferences, limitations, predispositions, creativities and musicalities (Burnard, 2012; 
Smith & Shafighian, 2013) that the Eruptörs sounds like the Eruptörs. We follow a similar 
process when creating mixes and adding lyrics to songs. If one of us was expecting a mix to 
sound a certain way, or was sure we had agreed on a certain take of a given song, only to find 
that one or both of the other members has mixed the song differently or included something that 
someone else in the band initially disliked, we are able to stand back and say “yes, this is an 
Eruptörs song, and it sounds like us. I am part of the bigger picture and defer to creativity of the 
collective.” This is swarm creativity in action (Gloor, 2006) – the band’s music ends up 
somewhere that none of the individuals would have wanted, chosen or could have foreseen; but 
we all accept it as ultimately better for the band.  

This type of behavior results from what Sennett (2012, p. 22) identifies as a group 
collectively operating in the “subjunctive mood,” where people allow for possibilities, make 
suggestions and wait for things to move along by no-one committing to a position. Sennett 
explains that the most useful kind of discussion is a “dialogic” conversation, defined as “a 
conversation that does not resolve itself by finding common ground.” In the Eruptörs, we 
combine disparate musical elements and perspectives, creating a new “common ground” rather 
than all adhering to a preconceived consensus. We all accept the collectively produced outcome 
and can ultimately agree when we have reached it, but with each little step we might individually 
refuse to do what would perhaps make the easiest, most closely-fitting musical choice. Our 
commonality lies in our higher-level, cooperative and tacit, never-before-now-articulated 
decision that it is our differences that make us work as a whole. Of course, sometimes things 
proceed more synchronously, and the outcome is more musically obvious – by no means less 
desirable for it. Working creatively in both of these ways is crucial to the Eruptörs’ sound. It is, 
as Sennett acknowledges (2012, p. 22), in a subtle dance between the dialectic (discussion 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 14 

moving toward clear consensus) and the dialogic (discussion leading to a more open, more 
innovative product) that the best creative collaborations occur. As science journalist Ed Yong 
puts it, “that’s the beauty of being part of the swarm: even if you don’t know where you’re 
going, you still get there” (Yong, 2013, p. 133).  

For Sennett, the most productive and meaningful conversations and collaborations 
happen in empathic relationships. Empathy is a more mature response to another individual, and 
is more difficult to manage, than its close cousin, sympathy. In sympathetic exchanges, one 
person tries to mimic another, to feel, speak or behave similarly. In empathic relationships, by 
contrast, each person listens and tries to understand the other, but then responds in his or her 
unique way to the situation, thus inviting – indeed, requiring – a deeper, more considered 
response in turn. Sennett (2012, p. 19) observes of musicians that “the players do not sound 
entirely on the same page, the performance has more texture, more complexity, but still the 
players are sparking off one another – as true in classic chamber music as in jazz [and garage 
punk/metal cross-over 1000% Rock].” Thus, deeper mutual musical understanding is embedded, 
and individuals have more opportunity to develop, the collective benefiting exponentially more 
from what each person brings. Sennett (2012, p. 23) describes empathy as “the sentiment of 
curiosity about who people are in themselves;” it is on this that the Eruptörs’ creativities thrive.  

 
Collaboration under a strict ethical code. The Eruptörs have never discussed a shared 

ethical code per se. It is tacitly understood that we all wish and intend to succeed in our 
collaborations, and we each do what we can to help us achieve as a band in the domain of punk 
rock in what Gloor (2006, p. 71) describes as a “delicate balance of reciprocity” where there is “a 
normally unwritten code of ethics that is adhered to… the ‘Tao of COINs.’” (Gloor, 2006, p. 76). 
This Tao of COINs constitutes a shared understanding that we all pull our weight because we are 
motivated deeply and intrinsically by our shared goals in the band. Burnard (2012, p. 46) 
observes that “the practice of group composition [and broader group collaboration] inspires the 
popular musician with a sense of higher purpose.” As Partti explains, “the more generously an 
individual contributes [his] expertise to improve the practice of a community, the more [he] may 
benefit from participating in the practice of that community… at the junction of generosity and 
self-interest” (2012, p. 95). As a result of feeling this sense of higher purpose, members of the 
Eruptörs are each willing to contribute resources discovered independently of the band for the 
group’s collective benefit, and when one member is able to offer an opportunity or resource for 
the good of the ensemble we are all eager to take advantage of this as it benefits us collectively, 
and – therefore – individually (because we all relish the process and product of participation in 
the band). Members are each connected to a range of third parties, all making us many times 
more capable as a whole – this is explored further below. It is the assumption of each member of 
the band – as part of the Tao of COINs – that each of the others will use his network of contacts 
to the mutual benefit of the collective. We each feel a strong sense of having a stake in the band 
because of our own individual networks of contacts; each is thus valued all the more by each 
other member of the band, since the connections of the individuals make possible the better work 
of the whole. This is the Eruptörs’ entrepreneurial creativity (Burnard, 2012, p. 43) at work.  

Alex Gillett (6-string lead electric guitar, vocals) is connected with the visual artist who 
created the artwork for the Eruptörs’ first two albums and who designed and printed our 
merchandise (including t-shirts and underwear); it was a connection of Alex’s that also saw a 
compilation of our songs released in Japan under the title of Microwave Massacre (named after 
the record company owner’s favorite horror film); Gillett’s colleagues at print- and web-based 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 15 

“zines” saw the Eruptörs’ music reviewed in the “underground” music press; and Gillett’s 
knowledge of contemporary marketing strategies saw the band on its way to having a substantial 
web presence (discussed in more detail below). Irwin (4-string lead electric bass, vocals) has 
cost-free access to a recording studio in rural Cork that band refers to as “Eruptörs’ HQ;” he can 
access numerous musical instruments, microphones and amplifiers that we can borrow at no cost 
or hire very cheaply for recording, and a network of very able musicians and actors who have 
appeared on our recordings to augment the sound-world. Gareth Dylan Smith (lead drums, 
vocals, “more cowbell”1) sourced a bass player who was willing to learn our songs and perform 
with us live in London; he found the record label that released our first two albums, and 
facilitated opportunities for us to perform with other popular bands at venues in London. It was 
initially through mutual membership and individual fandom of another band that the Eruptörs 
was formed; Irwin and Smith were playing in an Irish punk band in London called Neck, and 
Gillett attended Neck’s gigs in London, so when Irwin and Gillett decided to transform and re-
brand their previous band into the Eruptörs, they asked Smith to join. Thus was the Tao of the 
Eruptörs’ COIN established, in spring of 2002.  

 
Communication in direct-contact networks. In Swarm Creativity, Gloor provides a 

wide variety of case studies in which COINs function in both digital and corporeal realms to 
actualize what Burnard (2012, p. 43) calls their entrepreneurial creativity, without recourse to 
management “lines” or consultative hierarchies; members are equally empowered (as in lead 
bass, lead guitar, lead drums), and thus are at liberty to make all decisions regarding the future of 
the COIN amongst themselves. The authors elaborate, below, on how this has worked for the 
Eruptörs, functioning independently of contracts with record companies, marketing teams, 
agents, promoters and managers.  

Gloor emphasizes COINs’ utilization of the internet to achieve optimum performance as 
a team, writing (2006, p. 3–4) that a COIN “is a cyberteam of self-motivated people with a 
collective vision, enabled by the Web to collaborate in achieving a common goal by sharing 
ideas, information, and work.” It is not that working together in physical space and real time are 
rejected from the COIN construct; rather, these traditional modes of operation are to be viewed 
only as part of the essential functionality of a group, for collaborators who embrace the working 
practices and potentials offered by the internet become more nimble, thereby expanding their 
opportunities for success. 

It is fairly certain that without extensive use of the internet, the Eruptörs would not have 
survived as a band for as long as it has. The Eruptörs came to function as an internet-savvy 
COIN, not because we had specifically sought out this way of working, but owing to more 
mundane factors. Irwin returned from London to live in Co. Cork, Ireland, whence he hailed, 
because he felt (correctly, as it turned out) that he would find more work as a musician and a 
better life “back home;” Gillett left London for his native Teesside to be closer to the university 
where he was studying, and to live less expensively than in London. Smith remained in London 
because of family, financial and logistical ties, with his band-mates now both at a radius of 250 
to 300 miles away. The easiest, cheapest and most effective way for us all to communicate was 
via the internet, using “democratized technological practices” identified as part of a “broad 
cultural shift in how people engage with technologies” in “DIY and Maker cultures” 
(Tanenbaum et al., 2013, p. 2604) such as the punk culture within which the band operates 
                                                
1 “More Cowbell” references a comedy sketch from NBC’s Saturday Night Live, aired on April 8, 2000.  



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 16 

(discussed further below). It remains via email that the three of us work on musical 
collaborations, and that two of us wrote this paper, underlining some of the parallels that Rashidi 
(2012, p. 84) observes between being a punk musician and an academic.  

Since 2005 the Eruptörs have written, arranged, recorded, produced and released three 
albums – Bad Time to be Having a Good Time, Seduce and Destroy and Eruptors/Culo a Boca (a 
split album with Californian punk band Culo a Boca) as well as Microwave Massacre, a 
compilation of demo recordings released in Japan. For only one of these albums was the entire 
membership of the band present during a majority of the recording process; for the first album, 
we all headed to Eruptörs’ HQ in the heart of rural Cork to record drums, guitars and vocals. We 
did not record many bass guitar parts or lead vocals on that occasion, as Irwin was able to 
contribute most of these to the recordings after Gillett and Smith had flown home. Post-Cork, we 
all emailed, downloaded and discussed various takes and mixes, and occasionally even used 
telephones to confer with one another about the latest music sent by Irwin and what to do with it. 
Thus did we actualize our production creativity as a COIN.  

At times it has proved more effective for the Eruptörs to work online, and at other times it 
was better “simply” to meet up in the studio. We were, as ever, relying on one another’s 
commitment, motivation and COIN-Tao to get the jobs done. Sennett acknowledges the limits of 
online cooperation – even with the most effective and mutually understanding of groups – when 
he writes of another project that, “instead of working online, we increasingly started to board 
aeroplanes – the hideous torture-tools of modern society – meeting face to face to practice more 
effective lateral thinking, including everyone fully in the conversation” (2012, p. 28). The 
Eruptörs, or sometimes two of us, meet up in person often to record drums; we also sometimes, 
although less frequently, meet in person to mix or master songs. Discussions over mixes are 
sometimes better conducted face-to-face, for among the Eruptörs, as in other bands, collaborators 
are often especially sensitive around the engineering and production of recordings where the 
empathic, dialogic process can be most visibly at work (Sennett; Smith and Shafighian).  

 
Networks and Entrepreneurial Creativity 

So far this paper has focussed mostly on the Eruptörs’ collective and production 
creativities (Burnard, 2012, p. 43) within the band, underpinned by the COIN framework and 
Swarm Creativity. To understand more fully how the Eruptörs has functioned, it is important to 
focus more on the band’s entrepreneurial creativity (Burnard, 2012, p. 43) involving other, 
external Actors such as record labels, artists/designers and so on. Two helpful constructs in this 
regard are Relationship Marketing (RM) and the associated Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic. 

RM theory has emerged internationally to address perceived limitations of “traditional” 
marketing approaches, although debate remains as to what exactly RM is, as there is no single 
agreed definition. A useful summary is provided by Gummesson (2008, p. 289) who states “RM 
is a marketing perspective on the network organization and the network society.” Most recent 
definitions encompass relationships with any stakeholders including not-for-profit, government 
and voluntary organizations:  

[The purpose of] marketing is to identify and establish, maintain and enhance, and when 
necessary terminate relationships with customers (and other parties) so that the objectives 
regarding economic and other variables of all parties are met.  This is achieved through a 
mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises. (Grönroos, 2007, p. 29) 

Gummesson (2008, p. 5) summarizes that “relationship marketing is interaction in networks of 
relationships.” Such explanations indicate the fuzzy nature and breadth of scope that characterize 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 17 

RM theory. Various models exist to conceptualize the scope of RM but again no general 
framework has been agreed, although a tentative attempt was made by Clarkson et al. (1997); 
this synthesis has been supported and updated by Gillett (2012). This framework identifies four 
broad stakeholder groups or “markets:” Customers, Suppliers, Internal and External.  

Gillett raises the important point that the four categories are not mutually exclusive and 
that there are areas of overlap where multiple types of relationship exist between the organization 
and stakeholder (in Gillett’s analysis of local government procurement the example is given of 
residents as being “customers” as well as internal [e.g.] employees and/or suppliers to local 
authorities). In the case of The Eruptörs, the scope of relationships is summarized by Table 1, 
which provides an overview of the most significant parties with which the band interacts. The 
scope of the Eruptörs’ relationships is discussed below. 

 
Table 1. Scope of the Eruptörs’ Network of Relationships 
 
RM theory thus provides a useful framework for categorising and identifying the broader 

Those to Whom the Band 
Supplies  (Directly or 

Indirectly) 
 
 
• Promoters of live music 
• Venues 
• Record “companies”/labels 

to whom we license our 
music 

• Followers/Fans/Consumers 
of music 

      – Pre-recorded 
            – Live 
• Media/production 

companies/TV and radio 
who we supply with music  

Those Who 
Supply to the 

Band (Directly or 
Indirectly) 

 
• CD 
manufacturers 
• Social media 
websites 
• ‘guest’ musicians 
• Music services, 
e.g. “mastering” of 
audio 
• Art/graphic 
design 
• Merchandise 
• Instruments, 
equipment, repairs, 
endorsements 

Within the 
Band 

 
 
 
• Locations 
• Communication 
• Availability 
• Complimentary 

experience and 
skill-sets  

• Fairly defined 
roles. 

Outside of the 
Band/Broader 
Stakeholders, 

Including Political, 
Legal, and Regulatory 

• Performance royalty 
societies (PRS and PPL 
in the United Kingdom, 
ASCAP or BMI in the 
USA) 

• Press/Media/cultural 
influences 

– Production companies 
– Magazines, radio, 

websites 
– Other musicians 
• “Day jobs” and 

education: 
– All university 

educated 
– Two of the band have 

Ph.Ds. 
– Author 2 and Author 1 

work in academia 
(some contrast with 
our identities as 
musicians) 

• Legal contexts 
(copyright, etc.) 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 18 

network of interactions and relationships in which the Eruptörs is involved.   
The related concept of Service-Dominant (S-D) logic for marketing (Vargo & Lusch, 

2004, 2008) is consistent with RM and swarm creativity models. In S-D, Actors create value 
through service experiences and relationships, co-creating and sharing tangible and intangible 
resources with one another. From a marketing perspective this is usually applied to co-creation 
between customers and suppliers, although, as the S-D Logic explains that every organization is 
in the “service business,” the terms “customers” and “suppliers” may be used very loosely to 
mean any one (or any organization) which exchanges value with others.  

Differentiation is made between operant resources, which are often invisible and 
intangible and produce effects such as core competences or organizational processes, and 
operand resources – those upon which an operation or act is performed to produce an effect, 
such as land, minerals and other natural resources. Because operand resources are often finite, 
groups that possess them have traditionally been considered wealthy, and a goods-centred logic 
has dominated where operand resources are considered primary (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In 
contrast, S-D logic places greater significance on operant resources, which lead to excellent 
service where value is co-created between supplier and buyer. A supplier offers value 
propositions and brings resources together for customers. Organizations and customers interact 
to co-create value in use, rather than organizations marketing to customers. This is a process that 
Cartwright, Gillett & Smith (in press) refer to as “orchestration.” 

Applying these ideas to the context of the Eruptörs, it is possible to view the three band 
members as suppliers of operant resources (e.g. expertise and creativity in their respective areas 
of instrumentation, access to one another’s networks of contacts) as well as operand resources 
(e.g. drum kits, guitars, Irwin’s recording studio, money to finance certain activities such as 
rehearsals and so on). S-D logic also positions the band collectively as a supplier and co-creator 
of value with its network of relationships, perhaps most evidently when performing live where 
co-creation may take the form of song requests or the rapport constructed through iterative 
responses between musicians and the audience. Thus we see the realization of the Eruptörs’ 
entrepreneurial creativities.  

 
RM and S-D logic in practice 

S-D logic highlights the production and entrepreneurial creativities (Burnard, 2012; 
Menger, 1999) realized in the production of albums. For example, for the Microwave Massacre 
compilation the band (based in the U.K. and Republic of Ireland) wrote, recorded and supplied 
the music to the record company – Fixing A Hole, a not-for-profit specialist punk label located in 
Japan. The record company’s mission is to champion and make available the music of 
(particularly English) punk rock bands in Japan. Fixing A Hole then designed the cover art, 
named the album and mastered the supplied music for sonic consistency. All of these activities 
were undertaken with constant communication between band members and record company, 
from the writing and recording of songs through to the distribution for retail of the physical 
compact disk albums. 

The importance of “relationships” within the punk movement more generally is evident, 
particularly if we consider the marketing activities “promotion” (i.e. advertising and publicity) 
and “place” (i.e. distribution). Today, social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter and 
Punkrockers.com provide platforms for bands and artists to interact with audiences on a global 
scale. Social networking, though, has always played an important part in punk culture, long 
before the ubiquity and ease-of-use of the internet (Gordon, 2012; Tanenbaum et al., 2013).  



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 19 

Gillett brought to the Eruptörs insider DIY punk knowledge gained writing for fanzines 
and purchasing DIY punk, rock and heavy metal records via mail order. Bands operating on an 
“underground” (non-mainstream) level did so without the investment or involvement of full-time 
for-profit record companies, thus the DIY approach required artists to self-finance their 
recordings. Bands would thus often source the physical format (usually cassette tapes or vinyl 
records) and distribute and advertise releases themselves (Gordon, 2012, pp. 106–107).  When 
fans purchased a record or demo tape from a band it was common also to receive flyers 
advertising the work of other bands from the “scene,” and catalogues from independent/not-for-
profit record labels and distributors advertising recordings, fanzines, and even other record labels 
and distributors. The Eruptörs adopted such an approach.  

This DIY approach appears more collaborative than competitive, paralleling the spirit 
that Galuszka (2012, p. 70) identifies in today’s wider music climate (beyond the attention of 
mainstream media) as one where bands “do not compete for listeners’ money but for their 
attention.” Often DIY record companies and distribution services have been operated by people 
who were members of a band or bands and who had the skills, knowledge, means and motivation 
to undertake such activities; consistent with S-D Logic, such individuals provided these operant 
services to their peers. An example is the U.K. band Active Minds, who since 1986 have 
operated a mail-order (and latterly also internet-based) record label and distribution network 
called Looney Tunes Records (2014). Active Minds’ approach is common across sub-genres 
such as death metal and grindcore as well as the DIY punk scene, which typically do not 
distribute through mainstream channels.  As well as furthering the music and the message of the 
bands, and enabling them to gain recognition internationally, the economies-of-scale achievable 
through a global reach can make the self-financing approach more achievable.   

An important factor illustrating the blurred lines between stakeholder categories of 
Customers, Suppliers, Internal and External (mentioned above), is that many of the consumers of 
the music in DIY scenes tend also to be active within the subculture as musicians and/or 
distributors, record labels, merchandisers, providers of artwork services, written media and so 
on, and would forward flyers and catalogues to other people with whom they corresponded by 
post or at live events. Therefore, bands have developed and maintained multiple types of 
relationship with others within the networks. An individual may, for instance, be a supplier of 
music via their own band’s recordings, a distributor of their friend’s band’s records, as well as a 
consumer and audience member of other artists’ music. 

The authors contend that it is appropriate to view garage punk rock culture as a niche, 
international service-economy for which social networking has been an important means by 
which it has sustained itself, despite having only minimal exposure to mainstream marketing 
channels. The exchange of operant resources between bands and others in the network of 
relationships – such as expertise and access to contacts (and thus audience “reach”) and the win-
win nature of RM and S-D Logic – has been essential for the Eruptörs and for other 
entrepreneurial underground punk genres more generally. Operand resources of “material” 
products such as records, cassettes and CDs, and the financial means to produce them, are a 
secondary means to existence in a DIY music culture. In this mostly not-for-profit culture, the 
fundamental resources are the music and, in some cases, a “message” or value-set (often 
political) which the artists and bands purvey, and co-construct with their audiences. 

 
Conclusions and Implications 

In this paper we have, through integrating the constructs of creativities, COINs, swarm 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 20 

creativity, Relationship Marketing and Service-Dominant Logic, provided perspectives on the 
DIY habitus (Bourdieu, 1984) of the Eruptörs. The Eruptörs is arguably not an archetypal COIN, 
inasmuch as this model tends to be more readily applicable to larger groups of collaborators than 
the power trio comprising the band. However, the ways in which Gloor (2006) describes COIN 
behavior and characteristics have illuminated and provided new ways to understand aspects of 
the Eruptörs’ collaborations that might not have been apparent without the affordances of this 
theoretical framework. The fact that Gloor uses a musical (jazz) trio as en exemplar COIN helps 
to position his model between, on the one hand, understandings of DIY punk scenes (Gordon, 
2012) and musical creativities developed by Burnard (2012), and, on the other hand, the 
business-derived relationship marketing theory of Gummesson (2008) and Gillett (2012), and 
Service-Dominant Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). We acknowledge the broader context of 
maker cultures and other DIY communities across demographics and domains, within which the 
Eruptörs’ case exists, and hope that focusing, as we have done in this paper, on this single case 
will help serve to help enrich discussion in classrooms and publications.   

Figure 1 shows in diagrammatic form how the theoretical constructs explored in this 
paper combine to describe activities in the case of the Eruptörs.  
 

 
Figure 1. Creativity Innovation Networks 

 
At the core of the model is the COIN of the Eruptörs (Gloor, 2006), understood in RM theory 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 21 

(Gillett, 2012) as internal relationships. The next layer of the model shows the immediate 
collaborative workings of the band: our collective and production creativities (Burnard, 2012), 
and innovation and collaboration – two of the operational modes of Gloor’s COIN. The third 
layer shows the tools and context for the band’s outward-focused behavior, understood as the 
communication mode of the COIN and as RM’s supplier, customer and external relationships. 
The outer layer houses the enabling entrepreneurial creativity, through which the band realizes 
the benefits of its other activities, where the energy and output of all the inner layers combine to 
support the Eruptörs’ broader mutual aims – in entrepreneurial creativity. In addition to the 
“collective,” “production” and “entrepreneurial” creativities discussed above, the authors 
acknowledge our own respective and collaborative “scholarly creativities” in writing this article. 
These scholarly creativities are very closely connected to those other creativities that we exercise 
as musician-entrepreneurs in the Eruptörs.  

Peter Cook (2012, p. 16–17) urges people in business across sectors to learn lessons from 
musicians’ approaches to their art and craft. We hope that scholars and students in popular music 
studies and music education (and other peers across our range of networked relationships) might 
find the example of the Eruptörs a useful one upon which to build and whence to develop 
understandings of how musicians, educators and others can realize creativities individually and 
collectively, across networks, to mutual benefit. Beginning to think in terms of the multiple, 
overlapping and intersecting creativities of individuals and ensembles, of COINs and swarm 
creativity, may help those working in diverse fields and disciplines – from music to marketing 
and across cultural domains – to imagine freshly creative and innovative successful futures for 
themselves and their businesses, bands and brands. As indicated in Cartwright, Gillett & Smith 
(in press), looking in this way at networking and what those authors describe as “orchestration” 
within networks to achieve the best results for all, could be helpful to help the “emerging 
musicians” of which the higher education popular music sector is comprised. We hope our work 
will also provide a springboard for further research among scholars of popular music and popular 
music education, who have tended to focus research on mainstream mass culture (Smith, 2013c, 
pp. 29-30). There is life in the underground, and it is vibrant with relationships, creativities and 
entrepreneurship. Hoskyns (2012) warns commentators and academics that “the most authentic 
scenes will be those we [the public and academia] know nothing about” – unless we involve 
ourselves in the mutually sustaining, S-D logic, RM networks of authentic DIY (1000% ROCK) 
music.  

Music educators (Bennett, 2013; Gaunt & Hallam, 2012; Shafighian & Smith, 2013) have 
been calling for institutions and students to embrace awareness of current practices, to be 
entrepreneurial, to be creative in construing and constructing careers in an uncertain musical 
landscape. COINS and new creativities, within and without the academy, are developing all the 
time. There are lessons – positive, negative, discursive and thought-provoking – to be learned 
from the discussion of the Eruptörs’ case presented in this paper. We hope, therefore, that the 
study we have presented here may be of use in classroom situations. In the increasingly 
vocational context of higher education, this case could serve to provide discussion points 
regarding practice and conceptualization of students’ own creative projects, and positioning these 
as viable, collaborative entrepreneurial projects – in music, marketing and myriad fields and 
(inter-)disciplinary approaches. Citing Tuan’s (1977) discussion of “space” and “place,” Smith & 
Shafighian (2013, p. 258) advocate for “transformation of [institutional] place through a creative 
pedagogical approach to… learning, into a more liminal ‘space’, brimming with creative 
potential;” such a democratic and facilitative pedagogical ethos is likely, we contend, to enable 



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 22 

students to benefit the most from the present study. Scholars, educators, students, punks and 
others could benefit from understanding these through engaging in perpetual reflexivity to ensure 
that practices, perspectives, teaching, curricula in music education, popular music studies and 
beyond remain relevant and salient. Through reflexive practice and awareness of one’s and 
others’ positionalities in a landscape of intersecting creativities, networks and relationships 
should continue to work in innovative ways to mutual benefit and development.  
 

References 
Andreini, D. & Cassia, F. (2009, October). The long tail perspective for niche communities 

online: A framework for brand loyalty measurement. Paper  presented at the meeting of 
9th Global Conference on Business and Economics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 
U.K.  

Bennett, D. E. (2008). Understanding the classical music profession: The past, the  
 present and strategies for the future. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate. 
Bennett, D.E. (2013). The role of career creativities in developing identity and  becoming expert 

selves.  In P. Burnard (Ed.), Developing creativities in higher  music education: 
International perspectives and practices (pp. 224–244), London, U.K.: Routledge. 

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge,  
 MA: Harvard University Press. 
Berger, J. (2002). The shape of a pocket. London, U.K: Bloomsbury.  
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J-C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, 

U.K.: Sage Publications. 
Bresler, L. & Stake, R. (2006). Qualitative research methodology in music education. In  
R. Colwell (Ed.), MENC handbook of research methodologies (pp. 270–311. New York, NY: 

Oxford University Press. 
Burnard, P. (2012). Musical creativities in practice. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 
Cartwright, P.A., Gillett, A. & Smith, G.D. (in press). Valuing networks for  
 emerging musicians. In V. Lejeune (Ed.), Les tendances technico-économiques  
 de la Valeur. Paris, France: ‘l’Harmattan. 
Clarkson, R.M., Clarke-Hill, C.M. & Robinson, T. (1997, July). Towards a general framework 

for relationship marketing: A literature review. Paper presented at Academy of Marketing 
Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, U.K.  

Cook, P. (2012). The music of business: Business excellence fused with music. Marston  
 Gate, U.K.: Amazon. 
Dawkins, N. (2011). Do-it-yourself: The precarious work and postfeminist politics of  
 handmaking (in) Detroit. Utopian Studies, 22(2), 261–284.  
Ehls, D. (2014). Joining decisions in open collaborative innovation communities: A  
 discrete choice study. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. 
Eruptörs. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://www.eruptors.com/.  
Feleppa, R. (1986). Emics, etics, and social objectivity. Current Anthropology, 27(3),  243–

255. 
Galuszka, P. The rise of the non-profit popular music sector: The case of  
 netlabels. In Kärjä, A.-V., Marshall, L. & Brusila, J. (Eds.), Popular music and the 

Nordic region in global dynamics (pp. 329–339). Helsinki, Finland: International 
Institute for Popular Culture.  

Gillett, A. (2012). Local government procurement in England: A relationship  



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 23 

 marketing approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teesside University Business 
School, Middlesbrough, U.K.). 

Gloor, P.A. (2006) Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative  
innovation networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
Gloor, P.A., Grippa, F., Borgert, A., Colletti, R.B., Dellal, G., Margolis, P. & Seid, M. (2011). 

Toward growing a COIN in a medical research community. Procedia - Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 26, 1–17.  

Gordon, A. (2012). Building recording studios while Bradford burned: DIY punk ethics in a field 
of force. In A. Furness (Ed.), Punkademics: The basement show in the ivory tower (pp. 
104–124). New York, NY: Minor Compositions. 

Green, L. (2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education.  
Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate. 
Grönroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing (3rd ed). Chichester, U.K.:  
Wiley, 2007.  
Gummesson, E. (2008). Total relationship marketing, (3rd ed). Oxford, U.K.:  
 Butterworth-Heinemann. 
Hallam, S. & Gaunt, H. (2012). Preparing for success: A practical guide for young musicians. 

London, U.K.: Institute of Education.  
Hoskyns, B. (2012, September). This must be the place: Holy grails and musical meccas. Paper 

presented at conference of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music 
(U.K. and Ireland Branch), University of Salford, Manchester, U.K. 

Iba, T., Nemoto, K., Peters, B, & Gloor, P. (2011). Analyzing the creative editing behavior of 
Wikipedia editors: Through dynamic social network analysis. Procedia – Social and 
Behavioral Sciences. 2(4), 6441–6456.  

Jorgensen, E.R. (2003). Toward a social theory of musical identities. In B. Stålhammar (Ed.) 
Music and human beings: Music and identity. Örebro, Sweden: Universitetsbiblioteket. 

Looney Tunes Records (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2014, from http://looneytunescds. 
McKinna, D.R. (2014). The touring musician: Repetition and authenticity in  
performance. IASPM@Journal, 4(1), 52–76. 
Menger, P.-M. (1999). Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of  
 Sociology, 25, 541–574.  
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills,  
 CA: Sage. 
Milne, A. (2008). What makes a maker: Common attitudes, habits and skills from the do-it-

yourself (DIY) community. (Unpublished master’s thesis). McMaster University, 
Hamilton, Canada.  

Parkinson, T. (2014). Values in higher popular music education. (Unpublished doctoral  
 dissertaton). University of Reading, Reading, U.K. 
Parkinson, T. & Smith, G.D. (in press). Towards an epistemology of authenticity in  
higher popular music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education.  
Partti, H. (2012). Learning from cosmopolitan digital musicians: Identity,  
 musicianship, and changing values in (in)formal music communities. Helsinki, Finland: 

Sibelius Academy. 
Rashidi, W. (2012). Punk rock docs: A qualitative study. In Z. Furness (Ed.), Punkademics: The 

basement show in the ivory tower (pp. 66–85). New York, NY: Minor Compositions. 
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. New  



Smith & Gillett            Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, Part 1 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

                                                 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Artivate 4 (1)   

 24 

York, NY: Penguin.  
Shank, B. (1994). Dissonant identities: The rock ‘n’ roll scene in Austin, Texas.  
 Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 
Smith, G.D. (2013a). I drum, therefore I am: Being and becoming a drummer.  
 Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.  
Smith, G.D. (2013b). Pedagogy for employability in a foundation degree (FdA) in  
 creative musicianship: Introducing peer collaboration. In H. Gaunt & H.M.  
 Westerlund (Eds.), Collaboration in higher music education (pp. 193– 
 198). Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate. 
Smith, G.D. (2013c). Seeking “success” in popular music. Music Education Research 

International, 6, 26–37.  
Smith, G.D. & Shafighian, A. (2013).  Creative space and the “silent power of traditions” in 

popular music performance education. In P. Burnard (Ed.), Developing creativities in 
higher music education: International perspectives and practices (pp. 256–267). London, 
U.K.: Routledge. 

Tanenbaum, J. G., Williams, A. M., Desjardins, A., & Tanenbaum, K. (2013).  
 Democratizing technology: Pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and  maker 

practice. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in  
 Computing Systems, 2603-2612. 
Tiryakian, E. A. (1973). Sociology and existential phenomenology. Phenomenology and  
 the Social Sciences, 1, 187–222.  
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota Press. 
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. The Journal of 

Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.  
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the  
 evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10. 
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R. (2011). Service-dominant logic: A necessary step.  
 European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1298–1309. 
Weber, W. (2004). The musician as entrepreneur and opportunist, 1700–1914. In W.  
 Weber (Ed.), The musician as entrepreneur, 1700–1914: Managers, charlatans,  
 and idealists (pp. 3–24). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.  
Yong, E. (2013, May). As new: How the astonishing power of swarms can help us fight 
  cancer, understand the brain and predict the future. Wired (U.K. edition),126–133. 
 


