Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers an original and innovative contribution by focusing on a distinctive group of musicians and shedding light on the relationship between the city and musicians in a novel way.

However, there are several aspects that require greater clarity, and some statements where the author should exercise more caution:

1. The opening sentence reproduces a cliché and serves as an example of the author's tendency to overuse evaluative and value-laden expressions.
2. Although the fourth paragraph includes a brief literature review, the claim in the first paragraph that West Hollywood has been overlooked in academic research remains unsupported. Similarly, the sentence in line 42, “there is no shortage of scholarship…”, lacks scholarly weight.
3. The author repeatedly refers to conducting arts-based research. If this is indeed the case, it should be clearly explained, as conducting research in the arts is not equivalent to employing arts-based research methodology.
4. The panel discussion mentioned in line 82 (later elaborated slightly) requires clarification on how it contributed to the study.
5. Collaborative ethnography is mentioned under section 2.2; however, there is insufficient and unclear evidence to demonstrate how this specific methodological approach was actually implemented in the study.
6. The author claims that the study is grounded in postmodern approaches. Yet, I believe this section could be removed entirely, as almost no theoretical tool today—including those cited by the author—can be considered unrelated to postmodernism.
7. In section 4.1, while discussing why Bourdieu’s concept of cosmopolitanism is avoided, the author refers to their own previous work. I find such a reference unnecessary in this context.

Overall, the article addresses an original topic and draws attention to meaningful dynamics that merit publication. However, contrary to the author’s claims, the theoretical and methodological discussions appear rather weak. I suggest adopting a more modest tone, engaging more rigorously with key concepts, and deepening the analysis section.

 

Author Response

Please see attached PDF for a complete response to Reviewer #1's report. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an ambitious proposal in seeking to understand how independent musicians from West Hollywood influence local cosmopolitanism; however, it exhibits theoretical, methodological, and analytical weaknesses that limit its scope and depth.

The text begins with the assertion that Los Angeles is the “creative capital of the world” — a statement of a clearly ethnocentric nature, which is neither problematised nor empirically justified. Such a claim reveals a lack of critical distance and suggests an excessively self-centred perspective, showing little sensitivity to other cultural geographies.

Furthermore, the author’s motivation — presented as the combination of their personal trajectory as a violinist and their sociological interest — points to an autoethnographic bias that is not adequately anchored in central references within the field. While the use of personal experience could enrich the narrative, it lacks solid theoretical grounding on the role of reflexivity and “research from the self”. Moreover, it is mentioned only at the beginning of the text and not developed throughout the article. In fact, it would be interesting to draw a parallel with Howard S. Becker, who was both a sociologist and a jazz musician and who has produced an extensive body of self-reflective work of the highest calibre in this regard. Becker also wrote extensively on styles and methodologies of sociological writing, and his work contains notable approaches to the sociology of art and music — and, importantly, he was an American citizen, the national context at the core of this article.

When citing major figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Max Weber, Adorno, Barthes, Hall, Becker, and DeNora, the article fails to establish clear connections between these authors and the specific object of study. The references appear to serve a decorative function rather than contributing effectively to the argumentative construction. This practice weakens the theoretical density and conveys an impression of misplaced erudition. This issue recurs in several moments of the text, where discussions are not developed in sufficient depth. The same occurs with concepts such as postmodernism and “post-postmodernism”: these categories are introduced in a very brief and superficial manner, without engaging with central debates or problematising the epistemological implications of these currents for the analysis of music and urban culture.

The text incorporates the LGBTQ+ dimension of the neighbourhood only tangentially, without fully integrating it into the central axis of discussion. At times, the issue of sexual diversity appears as a justificatory add-on rather than an organic component of the analysis. This creates a lack of definition: either the theme takes on analytical prominence (including in the title) or it should be treated as a secondary element, with coherence and proportionality. There is a shift in the article’s focus and a certain highlighting of this issue without connecting it to the dynamics of the musicians themselves.

The article devotes several pages to methodological description (sampling, coding in NVivo, data collection, dissemination events), but does not deepen the reflection on the methodological choices themselves. Descriptive sections are lengthy, yet they engage only minimally with broader issues in the sociology of music.

The excerpts from the interviews occupy excessive space without being interrogated or connected to robust analytical categories. There is a lack of explicit links between the interviewees’ statements and key concepts such as “authenticity” (which could be further developed through Walter Benjamin), “success” (which could draw on Antoine Hennion to map categories of meaning), or even the role of networks and cultural policies in artistic legitimation.

The use of the concept of post-materialism is problematic. The argument associates the interviewees’ musical upbringing with post-materialist values without providing a convincing theoretical foundation; it overlooks the fact that the survival and fulfilment of these musicians depend heavily on public cultural policies, which contradicts the liberal reading of post-materialism as a detachment from material conditions.

When discussing “cultural omnivorousness” and “moral capital”, the text conflates concepts without unpacking their implications or engaging with their critiques. There is no dialogue with more recent debates on mediation, taste, and networks (for instance, Hennion, Crossley, Bennett, Guerra).

The work separates the musicians’ subjective experiences from the structural conditions that enable or constrain them. There is no consistent discussion of how forms of artistic labour, precarity, the attention economy, and neoliberal logics shape these trajectories. This results in an overly romanticised view of “passion” and “authenticity”, far removed from the field’s real tensions. Again, the author would benefit from engaging with the work of Antoine Hennion and Nick Crossley.

The article has potential as a qualitative study of a specific urban–cultural setting, but its execution lacks rigour and theoretical depth. It must remain within its specific scope. The holistic ambition to extrapolate from a highly particular experience — that of musicians in West Hollywood — differs significantly from the reality of most musicians globally and cannot serve as the basis for generalisation. The core flaw lies in the opening sentence, which posits this locality as the cultural capital of the world. There is thematic dispersion, superficial use of references, insufficient analysis of the data, and weak articulation between individual experiences and structural contexts.

For publication in a quality academic journal, it would be necessary to:

Revise the initial premises to avoid ethnocentrism.

Consistently integrate theoretical references with the object of study.

Clearly define the scope (LGBTQ+, independent music, or both) and maintain thematic coherence.

Reduce descriptions and transcriptions, expanding critical analysis.

Discuss the chosen theoretical categories in depth, or replace them with others more suited to the empirical material.

Reposition the narrative so that subjectivity and structure are addressed together, avoiding a liberalising and depoliticised reading of artistic production.

Given these limitations, I recommend that it should not be accepted in its current form, with the possibility of re-evaluation following substantial revision.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF for a complete response to Reviewer #2's report. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, you have taken most of my concerns and suggestions into consideration, and I thank you for your efforts in revising the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article demonstrates originality by investigating independent musicians in West Hollywood and their role in constructing urban cosmopolitanism. Its focus on local cultural practices and musical identities offers a distinctive perspective compared to more general studies on music and urban culture. Following revision, ethnocentric statements were reduced, the scope was more clearly delimited, and the study’s relevance was reinforced as an analysis of a specific context. The author removed the initial claim that Los Angeles is the creative capital of the world. The introduction now presents West Hollywood as a “creative city” and provides historical and cultural contextualisation.

The article has strong potential as a qualitative study of a specific urban–cultural setting. The revision incorporated key references (Hennion, Crossley, Becker), thereby expanding the academic discussion. The revised version dedicates more attention to WeHo’s LGBTQ+ history (pages 4–6) and includes empirical data (48% of participants identify as LGBTQ+), although this information is not yet fully integrated analytically with the theoretical issues discussed.

The article follows a clear and logical structure, with well-defined sections for the introduction, theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, and discussion. After revision, the paper displays greater thematic coherence, reduces lengthy transcriptions of empirical material, and strengthens critical analysis, resulting in a clearer and more objective narrative. Some conceptual generalisations (post-materialism, omnivorism) could still be further problematised. The revision improved the connection between theoretical references and empirical data, making the theoretical dialogue more robust, though it still lacks depth and critical engagement. While the LGBTQ+ dimension is now better integrated, it still appears somewhat tangential in certain parts of the text.

Overall, the revision successfully addresses previous limitations, achieving greater thematic consistency, deeper critical reflection, and improved theoretical–empirical articulation, which makes the manuscript more solid. However, it still lacks a more in-depth structural analysis, as discussions on the attention economy, the music market, or precarity were not included.

The references are appropriate and relevant, encompassing classic works in the sociology of art and music (Becker, Bourdieu, Crossley, Hennion) and more recent studies on cultural mediation and music networks. Following revision, the critical use of these sources has been strengthened, with fewer “decorative” citations and a more consistent connection between theory and empirical analysis. Nonetheless, Crossley’s work, while cited, remains used in an illustrative rather than analytical manner.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf