Organised Sound

http://journals.cambridge.org/OSO

Additional services for Organised Sound:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Just Don’t Call it Trip Hop: Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre

Jeff Wragg

Organised Sound / Volume 21 / Special Issue 01 / April 2016, pp 40 - 50

DOI: 10.1017/S1355771815000369, Published online: 03 March 2016

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1355771815000369

How to cite this article:

Jeff Wragg (2016). Just Don’t Call it Trip Hop: Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre. Organised Sound,
21, pp 40-50 doi:10.1017/S1355771815000369

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/OSO, IP address: 130.217.227.3 on 04 Mar 2016

Just Don’t Call it Trip Hop: Reconciling the
Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre
JEFF WRAGG
PhD candidate, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Email: info@jeffwragg.com
Trip hop music emerged in the early 1990s, however, as a label
the term ‘trip hop’ has always been problematic. Portishead,
Massive Attack and Tricky, the artists frequently credited with
creating trip hop, have unanimously rejected the label,
claiming their music has nothing to do with trip hop. Despite
the artists’ objections, music industrialists, fans and academics
continually label their music trip hop or its alternate term
‘Bristol sound’, though specifics are never given as to what, if
anything, distinguishes the two terms. This article seeks to
mediate the discussion between opposing viewpoints by
describing the Bristol sound as a style that relates to the trip
hop genre. Following the introduction, the second section
discusses the controversy surrounding the term ‘trip hop’ and
suggests possible reasons behind the artists’ rejection of the
label. The third section addresses the terms ‘genre’ and ‘style’
and outlines their similar points of reference while also
highlighting their different areas of inquiry. The final section
analyses several trip hop songs and identifies common elements
that relate to the trip hop genre, before identifying explicit
differences that distinguish the Bristol sound style. The analysis
of style focuses on the spectral quality of the works and draws
from Smalley’s (1997) theory of spectromorphology.
1. INTRODUCTION
The term ‘trip hop’ was first used by Mixmag in June
1994 to describe the track In/Flux by DJ Shadow and
other similar artists on the Mo’ Wax record label
(Phillips 2009). Subsequently, Bristol-based artists
such as Massive Attack, Portishead and Tricky were
grouped under the trip hop label, although these artists
have consistently and thoroughly rejected the tag. This
discursive conflict raises the issue of whether the label
itself is meaningful and appropriate.
Authors in the field of popular music studies have
implicitly argued that the validity of labels is not
necessarily dependent on acceptance from the artists.
As Fabbri (2007) notes, it is the community that accepts
the rules of a genre, and that community is not limited
to artists but also includes fans, journalists, record
labels and academics. Accordingly, artists do not have
carte blanche over how their music is categorised, and
yet their opinions cannot be discounted for the same
reason: they too are a part of the community. The
challenge is then to reconcile the divergent viewpoints.
This article seeks to mediate in this discussion by
Organised Sound 21(1): 40–50 © Cambridge University Press, 2016.
examining the work of artists labelled ‘trip hop’
through the lens of genre and style. This approach
allows one to identify points of musical continuity
across a range of artists, while also acknowledging the
points of musical difference.
This article proceeds as follows. The second section
provides further background to this debate by briefly
discussing some of the reasons new genre labels are
invented, and why the term ‘trip hop’ was so maligned.
There are several reasons the trip hop tag was rejected,
not least because many artists reject any attempt to
classify their music, viewing labels as restrictive
stereotypes that suggest formulaic composition
(Walser 1993). However, I argue the rejection was due
to two processes in particular: genre naming as a
merchandising strategy, and genre naming as cultural
appropriation (McLeod 2001). I conclude the second
section by briefly discussing the term ‘Bristol sound’,
and note its synonymous use with ‘trip hop’. The third
section, following Fabbri (2007), provides definitions
for the concepts of genre and style. This sets up a
framework for the subsequent analysis. The fourth
section discusses the work of nine trip hop artists and
focuses on three areas that relate to genre: the
prevalence of producer-led outfits, opaque mediation
(Brøvig-Hanssen 2013) and intertextuality. This
section seeks to specify common areas among the nine
trip hop artists, therefore lending some validity to
those that use the trip hop label, while also supporting
the notion of trip hop as a genre.
The final section analyses trip hop music through the
lens of style, and groups the nine trip hop artists into
three distinct, yet related styles: the Bristol sound,
post-trip hop and instrumental hip hop. Many
compositional practices commonly found in electro-
acoustic music are also relevant to trip hop. Tools from
electroacoustic analysis can therefore yield fruitful
results. Drawing from Smalley’s (1997) theory of
spectromorphology, I consider trip hop in regard to
notions of gestural surrogacy, spectra and spatiomor-
phology, and relate each concept to a specific example
from the genre. This is not to suggest that conclusions
have been drawn from a single musical work, rather
the ideas put forward are the result of a wide range of
analytical listening, with individual works put forward
doi:10.1017/S1355771815000369
 Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre
as representative models. This is not to suggest either
that each musical work belonging to the Bristol sound
style, for example, will adhere to the approaches
described; rather, these observations are more likely to
relate to works that fall under the Bristol sound
umbrella. The main aim of this article is to distinguish
the Bristol sound as a style, as these artists are most
vocal in their objection to the trip hop label. In order to
achieve this aim, however, it is necessary also to discuss
the works of other trip hop artists so as to provide a
point of reference.
2. TRIP HOP AND THE BRISTOL SOUND
In order to understand why certain artists have rejected
the trip hop label, it is necessary to explore some of the
motivating factors behind the creation of new genre
labels. The process for naming new genres of music is
not just a result of the evolving nature of music.
Record companies and music magazines create genre
labels as a merchandising strategy and also to market
music to new audiences. Similarly, subcultures use
subgenre labels as a gatekeeping device to bar entry to
those lacking the prerequisite knowledge required to
become part of a scene or community (McLeod 2001).
McLeod (2001) describes five motivating factors for
the creation of new genre labels within electronic/
dance communities. I argue that two of these moti-
vating factors are most directly responsible for the
rejection of the trip hop label: subgenre naming as a
merchandising strategy, and subgenre naming as cul-
tural appropriation. I discuss these two strategies
within the context of trip hop below. I have arrived at
this conclusion based on a wide reading of interviews
with the artists, in which they express their aversion to
the term ‘trip hop’.
2.1. Subgenre naming as merchandising strategy
Record labels face constant uncertainty over the
success of their product so use genre labels as a means
of linking producers (artists) with the anticipated
consumers (market) (Negus 1999). Genre labels com-
municate meaning to the potential consumer about the
likely sound of the product, thus increasing the
likelihood it will meet the consumer’s expectations.
When faced with marketing a new genre to an unfamiliar
market, record companies and music media often work
together to create and promote new labels and generate
buzz around the new genre (McLeod 2001). However,
the manufacture of genre names by record labels and
music magazines often creates an air of corporate-driven
inauthenticity. Accordingly, artists saddled with these
labels will react negatively if they perceive it as a con-
trived term created in a corporate office. In an interview
with The Guardian in 2008, Portishead’s Geoff Barrow
stated ‘the whole trip hop tag was nonsense. It was
41
developed by people in London, and the people in
Bristol just had to put up with it’ (Simpson 2008: 1).
Although trip hop was initially aligned with the Mo’
Wax record label, it was subsequently used to describe
the music of Massive Attack, Portishead and Tricky,
possibly due to the difficulty journalists had in
categorising their music.1 The disparity between the
song-based music of the Bristol artists and the instru-
mental music on the Mo’ Wax label led many to
denigrate the term ‘trip hop’ as a corporate invention.
When discussing trip hop artists, Barrow said ‘all the
other stuff was kind of made by record companies that
thought Bristol was cool. They were kind of like
products of the media’ (Schild 2011: 6). Others simply
reacted to the differences between trip hop and the
Bristol sound, arguing that the term, authentic or not,
is simply not an accurate descriptor. Tricky told Ray
Gun magazine in 1999 ‘if you listen to trip hop … if you
actually listen to what trip hop is, my music doesn’t
sound nothing like it’ (Woodlief 1999: 3).
2.2. Subgenre naming as cultural appropriation
A great deal of electronic music popular amongst
white, middle-class audiences is derived from black,
urban communities. Creating a new subgenre label can
realign the ‘otherness’ of the original name and assign
new meanings that have less association with black
culture. Trip hop, as a name, implicitly strips the black
identity from the music (McLeod 2001) and moves it
out of the ghettos and into the predominantly white
rave scene. British music media presented trip hop as a
safer alternative to hip hop, leading many to criticise
the genre as exploitative, a chance for middle-class
whites to experience a taste of hip hop while
sidestepping difficult issues of race, class and poverty.
‘According to this critique, trip hop is merely a form of
gentrification, a case of middle class whites moving in
when the underclass blacks have moved on or been
moved out’ (Reynolds 1999: 324).
This critical view of trip hop is shared amongst many
people, including some of the artists branded with the
label. Wheaton, author of Dummy (Portishead’s debut
album) for the 33 1/3 series, states ‘they [Portishead]
hated it then and they probably hate it now. Most of the
credible musicians (Massive Attack, Tricky) felt the
same way because it was sold, in the music press, as a
distinctly British “improvement” upon American hip
hop’ (Mistry 2011: 1). Given that the music of Massive
Attack, Portishead and Tricky is steeped in the hip hop
tradition, and given the high esteem in which they hold
other hip hop artists, one can understand how they
1
New Musical Express described Massive Attack’s Blue Lines as
mixing ‘soul, funk, reggae, house, classical, hip hop, and space
rock’. http://massiveattack.ie/media/gallery/nme-magazine-review-1/
(accessed 9 August 2015).
42 Jeff Wragg

would take offence at the racial subtext of trip hop and

seek to distance themselves from the label.
Additionally, many artists will naturally bridle at
the suggestion their music is a ‘safer’, white version of
hip hop. Speaking with Ray Gun, Tricky states ‘I hate
the word trip hop, ’cause it’s just like, it’s a nice way of
putting hip hop. It doesn’t scare people. People don’t
want hip hop in their eyes. They don’t want their kids
Figure 1. Relationship between genre and style.
to hear hip hop. It’s scary. But trip hop – you give it a
nice little name [and] you get loads of students makin’
the music and it becomes nice, friendly, sellable music’ approach by noting explicit differences in the two
(Woodlief 1999: 2). ‘types’ of trip hop, as well as suggesting a third type,
Accordingly, I argue that trip hop as a merchandising and situates artists such as Portishead, Massive Attack
strategy and trip hop as a form of cultural (mis)appro- and Tricky not as a ‘type of trip hop’ but as a distinct
priation are the most compelling reasons several artists style that is related to the trip hop genre. Before
have rejected the trip hop tag. beginning the analysis, the following section briefly
outlines how the terms ‘genre’ and ’style’ are used
2.3. The Bristol sound throughout this article.
Due to the controversy surrounding the term ‘trip
hop’, some people prefer the term ‘Bristol sound’ as a 3. GENRE AND STYLE
stylistic descriptor. The difficulty is that these terms are
Fabbri (2007) defines genre as ‘a set of musical events
either used synonymously, or specifics are never given
whose course is governed by rules accepted by a
as to what distinguishes them. Within academic
community’. The term ‘community’ accounts for the
literature some authors prefer the term ‘trip hop’,
creators of a musical work and also those responsible
others the ‘Bristol sound’, while others go back and
for its organisation, distribution and reception. By
forth, implying they are simply two names to describe
emphasising the notion of community, the musical
the same thing. Webb (2007) prefers the term ‘Bristol
events he describes refer not only to formal musical
sound’, which he calls a genre, but makes occasional
events such as tempo, form, or instrumentation, but
use of the term ‘trip hop’. Prendergast (2000) uses the
also extra-musical events such as behaviour, ideology
term ‘trip hop’, as does Johnson (1996), though he
and semiotics. Accordingly, labelling a type of music
occasionally uses ‘Bristol sound’ synonymously,
as a genre describes certain musical details that are
while Sullivan (2014) consistently uses ‘Bristol sound’.
expected to exist within a work as well as certain social
While ‘trip hop’ is the preferred term within music
conditions that are expected to inform the interpreta-
journalism, other instances can be found where the
tion of that work.
terms are used interchangeably.2
Fabbri (2007) defines style as ‘a recurring arrange-
In Global Noise, however, the authors begin to draw
ment of features in musical events which is typical of an
a possible distinction between two different types of
individual, a group of musicians, a genre, a place, a
trip hop, though they refrain from using the term
period of time’. Here the emphasis is on the (formal)
‘Bristol sound’. They describe the first branch of trip
musical code, whereas genre relates to all kinds of
hop as instrumental hip hop, associated with the Mo’
codes, therefore the two terms cover different semantic
Wax label. The second type of trip hop is a synthesis of
fields. The distinction between genre and style can be
hip hop sensibilities and the format of conventional
understood in terms of scope and level of articulation.
rock, citing Portishead’s Dummy as the prime example
Genre has a wider scope of inquiry, accounting for
(Hesmondhalgh and Melville 2001). Here one begins
musical and non-musical properties, while style focu-
to see a distinction between the abstract, instrumental
ses on formal musical properties. While genre accounts
music of Mo’ Wax artists such as DJ Shadow and the
for musical properties in terms of a common musical
song-based approach of artists such as Portishead,
competence, style articulates these musical properties
Massive Attack and Tricky. This article furthers this
with a higher degree of specificity and an expanded
2
‘Trip hop, also known as “the Bristol Sound,” was born in the U.K. musical competence. Figure 1 provides a visual
city of Bristol.’ www.salon.com/2008/04/17/portishead/ (accessed representation of the way in which genre and style are
31 April 2015); ‘Trip hop (also known as the Bristol sound) is a term related.
coined by British dance magazine Mixmag, to describe a musical
trend in the mid-1990s.’ www.electronicmusicstyles.com/down The benefits of defining genre and style in this way
tempo_idm_trip_hop_bristol_sound.html (accessed 31 April 2015); are twofold. First, it allows a genre to describe not only
‘The “Bristol Sound” or “trip hop” as branded by the media, con- musical factors but also social factors. Second, it
jures sensory associations of smoked sounds, dark scents and
heavy thumping beats.’ www.britishcouncil.org.il/en/rewind-bristol allows for multiple styles to be brought under the
(accessed 31 April 2015). umbrella of a single genre, thus highlighting both the
 Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre
Figure 2. How three distinct styles relate to the trip hop genre.
similarities and the differences that may exist between
songs by various artists.
4. THE TRIP HOP GENRE
The aim of this section is to apply Fabbri’s rules of
genre and identify common traits that exist throughout
trip hop. The goal is to lend some validity to those that
use the trip hop label, while also supporting the notion
that trip hop is best considered as a genre. The analysis
focuses on nine artists and situates them within three
distinct styles that are related to the trip hop genre
(Figure 2). Portishead, Massive Attack and Tricky
represent the Bristol sound. Morcheeba, Sneaker
Pimps and Lamb represent post-trip hop, a style that
followed in the success of the Bristol sound but incor-
porated elements from rock and pop. DJ Shadow, DJ
Krush and U.N.K.L.E represent instrumental hip hop.
4.1. Producer-led outfit
The division of labour can be classified as a social/
ideological rule of a genre (Fabbri 1981). Within trip
hop this can be characterised by the prevalence of
producer-led outfits (PLO). A PLO is either an
individual or a core group of two to three people that
are at the centre of a group’s writing and production
activities. Music that emanates from a PLO is the
result of the interaction between individuals and tech-
nology, rather than the interaction between several
individuals: the music is conceived (and realised) in the
studio, not in the rehearsal space. Consequently, the
studio moves from being an archiving centre and
becomes a laboratory for sculpting (Brøvig-Hanssen
2013). Whereas previously the realisation of music
relied on a complex network of composers, arrangers,
musicians, engineers and producers, technology has
enabled an individual to perform all the roles necessary
to make a successful recording (Théberge 1997).
All the artists mentioned above can be characterised
as PLOs. DJ Shadow has dispensed with the traditional
43
separation between artist, engineer and producer,
making himself the embodiment of all three (Moore-
field 2005). The same could be said for DJ Krush,
likewise U.N.K.LE has featured a revolving group of
people with James Lavelle the sole consistent member.
The core production team in Morcheeba is Paul
and Ross Godfrey, who are responsible for writing and
production. They feature a cast of guest vocalists
across their eight studio albums and recruit additional
musicians for live performances. Liam Howe and
Chris Corner form the core of Sneaker Pimps,
while Lamb consists of Andy Barlow and Lou Rhodes.
The founding members of Massive Attack – Robert
Del Naja, Grant Marshall and Andrew Vowles – all
come from a DJ background, as opposed to being
instrumentalists, and all three are credited as writers
and producers on their debut album. Tricky is also
not an instrumentalist, but is generally credited
as a composer and producer. Portishead consists of
Barrow (DJ), Adrian Utley (guitar) and Beth Gibbons
(vocals), yet a wide variety of instruments can be heard
in their music and they did not perform live until after
their debut album Dummy was released.
4.2. Opaque mediation
Mediation describes the technological process that
occurs during the recording, editing and processing of
sound, and while it is always involved in popular music
production it is evident to greater and lesser degrees.
Transparent mediation describes the attempt to
conceal the technological process, whereby music is
recorded, edited and processed in a way so as not to
draw attention to the intermediary existence of
technology. Alternatively, opaque mediation specifi-
cally draws attention to the intermediary effect of
technology, thus foregrounding the medium rather
than attempting to conceal it (Brøvig-Hanssen 2013).
Foregrounding medium can be understood as a type of
semiotics, one of Fabbri’s rules of genre, in that the
associated sounds of a medium can convey meaning
to a listener. Biddinger and Yochim, for instance,
write ‘throughout both their history and in the con-
temporary moment, vinyl records have been articu-
lated with human characteristics, such as fallibility,
warmth and mortality, which, for record enthusiasts,
imbue vinyl with authenticity’ (Biddinger and Yochim
2008: 183).
While opaque and transparent mediation are useful
categorisers to describe the production process, they
also represent aesthetic choices made by the producers.
Rather than attempt to conceal the technological
mediation, trip hop artists explicitly draw attention
to it. Reacting against digital technology’s victory over
low fidelity, their recordings feature the sound of pre-
digital recording and playback media and exaggerate
sonic signatures that were once meant to be ignored
44 Jeff Wragg
(Brøvig-Hanssen 2013). The crackling sound of a vinyl
record can be clearly heard in Tricky’s Hell is Around
the Corner, Massive Attack’s Teardrop, Morcheeba’s
Never an Easy Way, Sneaker Pimps’ Becoming X and
U.N.K.L.E’s Lonely Soul. Brøvig-Hanssen (2013: 94)
describes this as a kind of ‘schizophonic experimenta-
tion’, whereby the characteristic signature of earlier
media is split from its source and inserted into a new,
digital context to produce an aesthetic effect.
Opaque mediation is evident in other ways through
these records, such as extreme time stretching, abrupt
edits or the creation of surreal spaces through contra-
dictory applications of reverb. Portishead’s Biscuit
takes a vocal sample from I’ll Never Fall in Love Again
by Jonnie Ray and reduces the original tempo of 102
bpm to a languid 68 bpm; the resulting changes in
vocal timbre drawing explicit reference to the artificial
manipulation. Abrupt edits in DJ Krush’s What’s
Behind Darkness highlight the fact that the recording is
not of a continuous, human performance, but rather
an assembly of various sound sources, collected and
artificially fused together. Additionally, the vocals on
Lamb’s Gabriel are seemingly positioned in a con-
sistent environment – medium-sized room with hard,
reflective surfaces – yet they are occasionally treated
with a contrasting reverb suggesting an open, caver-
nous space with many reflective surfaces. Opaque
mediation is evident in several different ways but is a
consistent thread running through trip hop, leading
Brøvig-Hanssen (2013: 96) to suggest ‘the most
characteristic aspect of trip hop may in fact be the
particular ways in which the music foregrounds its
mediation’.
4.3. Intertextuality
Intertextuality describes the presence of a specific and
identifiable work within another work. Frith discusses
intertextuality as one of Fabbri’s rules of semiotics, as
it refers to ‘how music works as rhetoric … [and] the
ways in which “meaning” is conveyed’ (Frith 1996: 91).3
Intertextuality can exist in a musical work in a number
of ways but the most common is quotation.4 The
significance of quotation is that it not only references
musical gestures but also the cultural and historical
associations of that gesture, and just as a performer can
transform a quoted melody, cultural and historical
associations can also be transformed (Metzer 2003).
To understand these associations, it is not necessary
that the listener identify the intertextual reference.
Borrowing often acts on the original source as a
stylistic topic (Leydon 2010), and it is the associations
implied by a work’s style, performance technique,
or timbre that carry cultural resonance. For example, a
3 musicological differences that exist within trip hop,
Italics and quotation marks in original.
4
For further discussion of quotation and intertextual references, see
Wragg (2015).
novice listener is unlikely to listen to Portishead’s
Sour Times and identify the sample from the
soundtrack of the Mission: Impossible television series.
However, they may well suggest ‘it sounds like spy
music’.
Intertextual references are common throughout trip
hop and not only reference other works but also other
styles, periods and cultures. Intertextuality directly
informs trip hop’s stylistic multiplicity, as references to
hip hop, soul, reggae, jazz and film music intertwine.
Additionally, intertextual references occur in a number
of different ways, which I shall discuss using Lacasse’s
(2000) terminology. The most common intertextual
reference is autosonic quotation, whereby the recording
of a pre-existing work is inserted into a new work; a
practice more commonly known as sampling. The
Sneaker Pimps’ 6 Underground, Morcheeba’s Trigger
Hippie, DJ Krush’s Big City Lover, Lamb’s Górecki
and U.N.K.L.E’s Celestial Annihilation are just a few
examples. Allosonic quotation describes a work that
quotes another work, but not the recording of that
work; for example, the way Massive Attack’s
Angel references Horace Andy’s You Are My Angel.
Allosonic allusion describes a work that references
another work without directly quoting from it; for
example, the way Portishead’s Half Day Closing
references The American Metaphysical Circus by the
United States of America. A cover is a work that
remakes another work in the style of the covering
artist, such as Tricky’s cover of Black Steel in the Hour
of Chaos by Public Enemy. Finally, plunderphonics
describes a work that is assembled from a large number
of pre-existing works, such as DJ Shadow’s In/Flux.
Intertextuality is one of the most significant traits of
trip hop, evidenced by the sheer number of specific
intertextual references that exist, as well as the variety
of ways they are implemented.
5. STYLE ANALYSIS
Having identified three common traits that may help
define trip hop as a genre, it is possible to note differ-
ences in musical style within this label. The aim of this
section is to apply electroacoustic analysis techniques
and identify specific musical differences that suggest
the existence of three distinct styles related to the trip
hop genre. The argument is that, while trip hop may be
an appropriate umbrella term, it does not account for
the variations that exist between artists.
Analysis of form, rhythm and harmony may assist in
drawing distinctions between the various styles, however,
a more relevant focus may be the manner in which trip
hop artists manipulate the sonic and spectral elements of
their work. This is not to diminish the significant
however, it is the sound that can identify a tune, band, or
musician (Brøvig-Hanssen and Danielsen 2013).
 Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre 45

5.1. Gestural surrogacy communications network. After 20 seconds, first order

surrogacy gives way to known instruments using
The first area of analysis distinguishes the Bristol
known gestures. Second order surrogacy continues
sound through its deeper engagement in gestural
until 1:31, when an unknown sound enters the sonic
surrogacy.5 Gestural surrogacy concerns the ways in
space before disappearing after a few seconds. The
which the vocabulary of sound is expanded beyond
track continues in this manner for the next five
known sources and known gestures. When we listen to
minutes. Second order surrogacy creates the texture
traditional instrumental music, we not only perceive
while third order surrogacy decorates it. The final
the sound, but also infer the sounding body and
70 seconds consists of a radio transmission of spoken
physical gesture that produced it; thus, the production
word, and it is the continual presence of first order
of sound and the perception of sound are inter-
references in the opening and closing sections that
connected. When the relationship between a sound and
suggest they are integral elements of the texture.
its source is unclear, it draws the listener’s attention to
the distinctive features of the sound, as well as height-
ens the instability of the listener’s perception (Clarke 5.1.2. Post-trip hop
2005): they have difficulty identifying the source of the
Post-trip hop primarily relies on second and third
sound or the gesture responsible for the sound’s
order surrogacy, and explores the third order to a
behaviour.
greater extent than instrumental hip hop. Known
The relationship between sound, source and gesture
instruments comprise the texture of a work while
can be blurred, stretched, or broken entirely. The var-
unknown sounds frequently decorate the space to
ious stages of gestural surrogacy describe increasing
create interest. For example, the Sneaker Pimps song
remoteness of a sound from its source, gesture, or both
Low Place Like Home opens with several sounds, the
(Smalley 1997). First order surrogacy refers to sonic
source or gesture of which are unknown. The onset of
objects outside the traditional musical structure:
the opening sound is compressed, creating a ‘pushing’
sounds that are not intended for musical use though we
effect, which is then followed by a percussive sound
can recognise both the source and gesture. Second
with an extended onset and an immediate termination.
order surrogacy describes traditional instrumental/
Two distinct percussive sounds follow whose gesture
vocal activity where an acknowledged performance
can be inferred as a striking motion though the source
skill is employed: the source and the gesture can be
is unclear. At 0:23 known instruments replace the
recognised. Third order surrogacy describes sound
unknown sounds and continue until 1:20 when the
whose source and/or gesture is unknown: the relation-
opening unknown sounds return. These sounds
ship between sound, source and gesture is ambiguous.
continue through the second verse before being
Remote surrogacy refers to the remnants of gesture
replaced by known instruments at the second chorus
when human interaction disappears completely: source
(2:00). Known instruments continue to create the tex-
and gesture are unknown and unknowable. All trip
ture for the remainder of the song while the unknown
hop artists rely primarily on second order surrogacy:
sounds reappear at strategic points to maintain
known instruments and gestures. The extent to which
momentum.
first, third and remote orders are explored are good
indicators of one particular style over another, as is the
manner in which these explorations function within 5.1.3. The Bristol sound
a work.
The Bristol sound primarily relies on second and third
order surrogacy, however, unlike post-trip hop, refer-
5.1.1. Instrumental hip hop ences to third order surrogacy are functional rather
Instrumental hip hop primarily relies on first and than decorative: their absence would fundamentally
second order surrogacy. Known instruments provide change the texture of the work. Unknown sounds often
the bulk of the texture, however, sounds not typically work in concert with known instruments to define the
associated with music are also used frequently. texture, and are therefore more indicative of the
References to third order surrogacy can be found, overall sound. Massive Attack’s Risingson opens with
however, they are more decorative than functional in three distinct sounds whose source and gesture are
the sense that their presence is not essential in main- unknown. The onset of each sound varies, sometimes
taining the work’s structure and they are less indicative sudden, sometimes gradual, and the continuation des-
of the overall sound, though they may heighten the cends in pitch before fading out. At 0:09 an undulating
aesthetic value. For example, DJ Shadow’s What Does ‘mechanical’ sound moves around the foreground
Your Soul Look Like (Part 1 – Blue Sky Revisit) opens space in centrifugal motion for ten seconds before
with the sound of radio chatter over an electronic appearing to morph into an explosive sound emerging
from the centre, its spectral energy pulsating before
5
All terms in italics are Smalley’s. fading out. At 0:30 the verse begins, however, rather
46 Jeff Wragg
than relinquishing space to known instruments, the
unknown sounds continue, drawing the listener’s
attention as they explore the sonic space, left to right,
background to foreground. During the first verse, the
only sounds we recognise are vocals, drum set and
electric bass, and of the three only the bass provides a
pitch reference, with the exception of decorative vocal
swells at 0:47 and 1:13. The second verse continues in a
similar manner, with second and third order surrogacy
equally responsible for defining the texture. At 2:35 a
new sound is introduced, its ‘artificial’ source and
pulsating gesture are unknown. This sound provides
the basis for the next two minutes of the song until the
initial unknown sounds return at 4:30 to close
the track.
5.2. Spectra
The second area of analysis concerns the artists’
treatment of spectral information and space. A parti-
cularly useful tool to distinguish between the styles is
the notion of inharmonic saturation – the adding of
spectral components to move a harmonic note towards
inharmonic noise. A note has an absolute pitch that
can be precisely identified, whereas noise does not and
must be described spectromorphologically. However,
the border between the two extremes is not clear.
Spectral components can be added to a note to move it
towards noise, just as the colour and resonance of noise
can be manipulated to move it towards note. If the
composer takes an interventionist approach, the
balance between note and noise can be manipulated,
and as a note moves towards noise the listener’s
attention shifts away from the fundamental pitch and
towards the spectral qualities. As a consequence of this
approach, the sound that the listener perceives is not
dictated by a harmonic instrument’s natural timbre,
rather it arises as a result of the composer’s interven-
tion in the mediation process. Alternatively, if the
composer takes a naturalist approach, the natural
timbre of an instrument is largely responsible for its
spectral quality.
The notion of spectral space is also pertinent. Here,
spectral space may refer to the distance between the
highest (canopy) and lowest (root) audible sounds.
Important factors concern the distribution of sound
within this spectral space – whether it is densely packed
or sparsely filled, and whether the sounds are dis-
tributed evenly, concentrated, or separated into
streams with intervening spaces. Findings in each area
help to shape how the listener perceives the sound.
5.2.1. Instrumental hip hop
Within instrumental hip hop, spectral components are
rarely added to a note. Rather, the instruments’
natural timbres are most responsible for their colour
and character. This is not to suggest that the note’s
timbre is not important, rather that it is perceived as
unmediated and ‘pure’, and can be easily reconciled
with the original source. The song Unreal from
U.N.K.L.E is indicative of this approach. The struc-
tural texture of the song is composed of drum set,
string bass and organ, and in each of the instruments
the spectral quality appears to be unimpeded, as can be
heard at 1:08. An acoustic guitar is frequently
employed to provide decoration, and its timbre is
likewise unmediated. One may suggest that the listener
does not focus attention on the particular sound of the
guitar, merely identifies it as a guitar. Spectrographic
analysis of Unreal demonstrates important details
regarding the spectral space commonly found in
instrumental hip hop. The spectral space is extensively
filled, the density is compressed, and there is little
evidence of empty space. The spectral energy becomes
slightly more concentrated as we move from the
canopy, through the centre, and down to the root,
however, it is generally diffused throughout the space.
There are traces of horizontal streams of energy,
though they do not stand out in stark relief, and there
appears to be no intervening spaces separating them.
5.2.2. Post-trip hop
Post-trip hop employs a similar approach with respect
to inharmonic saturation. Instrumental timbres are left
unmediated, allowing the listener to perceive the nat-
ural sound of the instrument. The purity of the
instrumental tones is one of the factors that give post-
trip hop its ‘polished’ sound, suggesting that great care
has been taken to preserve the richness of the original
timbre. This approach can be seen in Trigger Hippie by
Morcheeba. The structural texture of the song com-
prises vocals, electric bass, drum set and synthesiser –
playing sustained notes with a gentle organ sound.
Each instrument projects a pure sound, unaltered by
spectral interference. An electric slide guitar plays
melodic fills as embellishments and likewise, the timbre
is clean and pure, as can be heard at 1:20.
Within the post-trip hop style one begins to find
examples of spectral space that, while dense, start to
become more opaque than those found in instrumental
hip hop.
Trigger Hippie serves as a useful model and spec-
trographic analysis shows a more diffuse spectral space
with less concentration towards the root, and a less
compressed density: one can perceive gaps in the
texture. Some horizontal streams of spectral energy
can be observed, with a small degree of space separ-
ating them.
5.2.3. The Bristol sound
Artists working in the Bristol sound style employ a
different approach in terms of both inharmonic
saturation and spectral space. Spectral components are
 Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre
often added to a given note, thus shifting it towards
noise and altering the balance between pitch and
timbre as they vie for the listener’s attention. The
composer’s hand is evident in the mediation process
from source to listener, and the sound that we are
finally confronted with differs from the original source.
A common approach in the Bristol sound style is to
overload a signal pathway in the mediating process,
resulting in an overdriven preamp that fuses the note
with distorted noise. This has the effect of creating a
very ‘dirty’ sound and may encourage the listener to
pay greater attention to the spectral quality of a note in
addition to the pitch. For example, Portishead’s
Wandering Star opens with a bass whose timbre is
noticeably distorted, produced from the fusion of note
and noise. The bass retains this sonic signature
throughout the track, suggesting that this particular
spectral quality of the bass functions as an integral
element of the texture. This approach can encourage
the listener to consider the actual sound of the bass,
rather than simply identifying it as a bass.
Noise that moves towards note is also frequently
heard, and often functions as part of a track’s texture.
For example, on Portishead’s Elysium a continuous
noise accompanies the drums, and its resonance gives
the suggestion of pitch (0:12). Its continued presence
along with the drums significantly alters their tone and
draws the listener’s attention towards the kit. Each of
these types of sound often appear as integral aspects
of a track’s texture, rather than as decorative
embellishments.
Turning to the treatment of spectral space, one
begins to find a much more transparent density in the
Bristol sound. As demonstrated by spectrographic
analysis of Wandering Star, spectral energy is often
concentrated around the root, opening up significant
gaps in the centre and canopy. Horizontal streams are
clearly evident, they are compacted and separated by
intervening areas of space. These approaches can give
an impression of emptiness to a listener, but also allow
for a more nuanced perception of micro-level details.
If ‘high density is the enemy of low-level detail’
(Smalley 1997: 121), transparent density can be its ally.
5.3. Spatiomorphology
Spatiomorphology is concerned with the exploration
of spatial properties and spatial change within a
musical work. My focus is on spatial properties as they
exist within Moore’s (2012) model of the soundbox, the
three dimensional space revealed by the ‘laterality of
the stereo image, the perceived proximity of aspects of
the image to a listener, and the perceived frequency
characteristics of sound-sources’ (Moore 2012: 31).
Spatial properties can reflect actual physical environ-
ments that the listener relates to a previously experi-
enced space, such as a room or concert hall, or they can
47
reflect artificial spaces that do not exist in nature.
Artificial spaces can become surreal to the extent
that ‘what is heard departs from the convention for
normal sound production within a particular context’
(Brøvig-Hanssen and Danielsen 2013: 75). Smalley
develops six categories to discuss the spatial style of a
work, two of which are pertinent to this analysis.
A single spatial setting relates to music that is situated
within a single spatial environment. The environment
can be perceived at the outset or it may be revealed
over time as the work progresses. ‘Spatial awareness is
cumulative, and the listener eventually realises that
there is a global spatial topology into which the whole
work fits’ (Smalley 1997: 124). Spatial simultaneity
relates to music that is situated within different spatial
environments simultaneously. For example, a listener
may perceive a very direct and intimate sound where
low-level detail is evident, suggesting a tightly enclosed
space, while simultaneously perceiving a distant sound
obfuscated by large reverberation and/or echo.
Smalley also raises the idea of microphone space,
which he describes as a ‘compositional tool for creating
proximate spaces which beam to us small and micro-
scopic presences and details of spectral space’ (Smalley
2007: 43). Microphone space therefore becomes a
means of creating what Moore (2012) calls the intimate
zone within his model of proxemics, whereby the
vocalist is within touching distance of the listener by
virtue of microscopic vocal nuances.6 The use of micro-
phone space to create intimacy between singer and
listener is a frequent occurrence in the Bristol sound.
5.3.1. Instrumental hip hop
Instrumental hip hop is generally enclosed within a
single spatial setting, and the listener is aware of this
space within the first few moments of a work. Vocal
narratives are not often heard in instrumental hip hop,
however, when they are, the vocalist generally inhabits
the social zone (medium distance from the listener and
situated in the centre of the soundbox). Big City Lover
by DJ Krush serves as an example. The track opens
with saxophone and vocals and the reverb suggests a
large, empty space with numerous hard surfaces. As
the drums enter, the long reverb tail of the snare drum
is consistent with the elongated space and we perceive
the drummer positioned towards the centre of the
soundbox. At 0:36 the instruments suddenly stop
playing and the reverb decay is clearly heard for two
seconds, giving the listener a clear sense of the enclosed
space. As the track progresses, the listener perceives
each instrument as being placed at a specific location
within the soundbox. Certain instruments such as the
saxophone are perceived as being at a greater distance
from the listener while others, such as the vocals and
6
For a full discussion of vocal proxemics, see Moore (2012).
48 Jeff Wragg
bass guitar, are perceived as being closer, yet each
instrument can be situated within the same environment.
The spatial properties are explicitly communicated to the
listener within the first 30 seconds of the work and, once
stated, do not deviate throughout the remainder of the
track. The vocalist is positioned in the social zone, there
are no microscopic vocal sounds, and she is integrated
within the space rather than being positioned in
front of it.
5.3.2. Post-trip hop
Post-trip hop is also generally enclosed within a single
spatial setting. At times the spatial properties are
revealed to the listener at the onset, however, they can
also be revealed over time as the work progresses.
Vocalists tend to inhabit either the social or personal
zone, whereby the singer is within arms’ length from
the listener near the front of the soundbox. In Lamb’s
Górecki the opening suggests a large hall with a
medium-long decay. At 0:41 hand drums enter and
widen the stereo spread and at 1:18 a string bass enters
and expands the depth of the space. At 2:00 decorative
percussive hits expand the vertical space and the
listener perceives the soundbox as expanding gradually
as the work progresses. At 2:30 the drum set enters and
the full scope of the spectral space is revealed. The
vocalist is positioned within the personal zone, slightly
back from the front of the soundbox. The vocalist’s
projection varies from soft to medium and we can
perceive occasional vocal nuances such as a breath
intake before singing a phrase. Like instrumental hip
hop, different instruments are placed strategically
around various points of the soundbox but each
instrument can still be reconciled into a singular spatial
setting.
5.3.3. The Bristol sound
In the Bristol sound we are more likely to find examples
of surreal spaces, as developed by the simultaneous
presentation of contradictory acoustic environments.
The contradictory environments do not fit easily
into Moore’s model of the soundbox, as a work can
often not be resolved into a single spatial setting.
Rather, the listener is aware of multiple environments
simultaneously. Vocal performances are often based
within the intimate zone, the singer is placed at
touching distance from the listener and microscopic
vocal nuances can be perceived. The immediate open-
ing of Tricky’s Suffocated Love suggests a tight
enclosed space with a reasonable amount of absorbent
material. The bass guitar and hi-hat are very dry and
positioned very close to the listener, suggesting a very
small reverb with a fast decay. Three seconds into the
track the first snare drum hit carries a noticeably larger
reverb and longer decay, and we can clearly perceive
the reverb tail as it dissipates. During this time, the
listener is aware of two spaces occurring simulta-
neously: the tightly enclosed space of the bass and
hi-hat and the larger open space of the snare drum.
When the vocals enter at 0:35, they are positioned
extremely close to the listener with only a minimal
amount of reverb, suggesting the vocalist is placed
within a small room whose surface absorbs most of the
reflections. At 1:00 a string section enters and their
implied space is very large with multiple hard surfaces
spaced some distance apart. This creates a recycling
echo effect that obscures the attack of the strings and
highlights the vast number of reflections. At 1:24 a
female voice enters and the reverb suggests a larger
room than her male counterpart, with more reflective
surfaces. The listener is now aware of five simultaneous
spaces: (from near to far) male voice; bass and hi-hat;
female voice; snare drum; string section. The whisper-
ing quality of the vocal performance and the audible
intakes of breath place the vocalist within the intimate
zone. The close placement of the vocalist and minimal
reverb allow for a nuanced listening of many low-level
details, such as the grainy quality of the voice when he
sings the word ‘love’ at 0:42.
The preceding analysis relates to the sound of trip
hop, as it is the sound that may lead to identification of
an artist or style. The analysis shows there are three
distinct areas in which the sound of the Bristol sound
differs from other trip hop-related styles. When
listening to the Bristol sound, one is more likely to
encounter sounds whose source and/or gesture is
unknown, creating an ‘otherworldly’ impression.
Furthermore, timbres will often be distorted, resulting
in a ‘dirty’ and ‘grainy’ sonic quality. Finally, surreal
spatial environments contribute to the ‘otherworldly’
quality, while perceptions of space and emptiness
allow for greater recognition of low-level details,
offering more subtle nuances to the listener.
6. CONCLUSION
The term ‘trip hop’ has always been problematic,
largely due to its continued use by fans, industry and
academics, despite the artists’ objections. Rather than
promoting one side of the discussion over the other,
I argue that the more accurate way to position these
artists is within distinct styles related to the trip hop
genre, as shown in Figure 2. By approaching the
discourse through the lens of genre and style, I have
demonstrated three significant areas that unite trip hop
artists: prevalence of PLOs, opaque mediation and
specific intertextual references. These common areas
that exist within trip hop, in addition to the importance
of the community’s viewpoint regarding genre labels,
may provide support to those who continue to use the
term. Conversely, I have demonstrated unique sonic
signatures of the Bristol sound regarding gestural
 Reconciling the Bristol sound style with the trip hop genre
surrogacy, inharmonic saturation, spectral space and
spatiomorphology. As it is the sound or a recording
that may initially engage the listener, these differences
cannot be overlooked. In this article I have argued that
the opposing viewpoints need not contradict each
other, rather they can be reconciled into a holistic
model that may ultimately benefit artist and
community alike.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the helpful feed-
back from Ian Whalley and Nick Braae.
REFERENCES
Biddinger, M. and Yochim, E. 2008. ‘It Kind of Gives You
That Vintage Feel’: Vinyl Records and the Trope
of Death. Media, Culture & Society 30(2): 183–95.
Brøvig-Hanssen, R. 2013. Music in Bits and Bits of Music:
Signatures of Digital Mediation in Popular Music
Recordings. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo.
Brøvig-Hanssen, R. and Danielsen, A. 2013. The
Naturalised and the Surreal: Changes in the Perception of
Popular Music Sound. Organised Sound 18(1): 71–80.
Clarke, E. F. 2005. Ways of Listening: An Ecological
Approach to the Perception of Musical Meaning. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fabbri, F. 1981. A Theory of Musical Genres: Two
Applications. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Popular Music Studies. Amsterdam, June
1980.
Fabbri, F. 2007. Browsing Music Spaces: Categories and the
Musical Mind. In A. F. Moore (ed.) Critical Essays in
Popular Musicology. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Frith, S. 1996. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular
Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hesmondhalgh, D. and Melville, C. 2001. Urban Breakbeat
Culture: Repercussions of Hip Hop in the United King-
dom. In T. Mitchell (ed.) Global Noise: Rap and Hip Hop
Outside the USA. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press.
Johnson, P. 1996. Straight Outta Bristol: Massive Attack,
Portishead, Tricky and the Roots of Trip-hop. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Lacasse, S. 2000. Intertextuality and Hypertextuality in
Recorded Popular Music. In M. Talbot (ed.) The Musical
Work: Reality or Invention? Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Leydon, R. 2010. Recombinant Style Topics: The Past and
Future of Sampling. In J. Covach and M. Spicer (eds.)
Sounding Out Pop: Analytical Essays in Popular Music.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McLeod, K. 2001. Genres, Subgenres, Sub-subgenres and
More: Musical and Social Differentiation Within
Electronic/Dance Music Communities. Journal of Popular
Music Studies 13: 59–75.
Metzer, D. 2003. Quotation and Cultural Meaning in
Twentieth-century Music. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
49
Mistry, A. 2011. Why Portishead Still Matters. Toronto
Standard. www.torontostandard.com/culture/why-portis
head-still-matters/ (accessed 24 July 2015).
Moore, A. F. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting
Recorded Popular Song. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Moorefield, V. 2005. The Producer as Composer: Shaping
the Sounds of Popular Music. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Negus, K. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures.
New York: Routledge.
Phillips, D. 2009. Superstar DJs Here We Go. London:
Ebury Press.
Prendergast, M. 2000. The Ambient Century: From Mahler to
Trance – the Evolution of Sound in the Electronic Age.
New York: Bloomsbury.
Reynolds, S. 1999. Generation Ecstasy. New York: Routledge.
Schild, M. 2011. Portishead’s Geoff Barrow. The A.V Club,
26 October. www.avclub.com/article/portisheads-geoff-
barrow-63127 (accessed 8 August 2015).
Simpson, D. 2008. He Takes it Very Seriously and Thinks the
World’s Going to End at Any Minute. In a Musical Sense
He’s Very Dark. The Guardian, 11 April. www.the
guardian.com/music/2008/apr/11/popandrock.portishead1
(accessed 24 July 2015).
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-
shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–26.
Smalley, D. 2007. Space-form and the Acousmatic Image.
Organised Sound 12(1): 35–58.
Sullivan, P. 2014. Remixology: Tracing the Dub Diaspora.
London: Reaktion Books.
Théberge, P. 1997. Any Sound You Can Imagine: Making
Music/Consuming Technology. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan
University Press.
Walser, R. 1993. Running With the Devil: Power, Gender &
Madness in Heavy Metal Music. Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Webb, P. 2007. Exploring the Networked Worlds of Popular
Music. New York: Routledge.
Woodlief, M. 1999. (Never) Mind the Gap. Ray Gun, April.
www.moon palace.de/tricky/raygun99.html (accessed
28 July 2015).
Wragg, J. 2015. Illuminating the Intertext: Categorising
Signifiers in the Music of Portishead. Paper presented at
the Intertextuality in Music Since 1900 Conference at the
University of Lisbon, Portugal. https://waikato.academia.
edu/JeffWragg.
DISCOGRAPHY
DJ Krush. 1995. Big City Lover. On Big City Lover. Japan:
Triad, COCA-12547-CD.
DJ Krush. 1995. What’s Behind Darkness. On Meiso.
London: Mo’ Wax, MW039CD-CD.
DJ Shadow. 1996. What Does Your Soul Look Like (Part 1 –
Blue Sky Revisit). On Endtroducing. London: Mo’ Wax,
MW059CD-CD.
DJ Shadow. 1998. In/Flux. On Pre-Emptive Strike. London:
Mo’ Wax, 314 540 867-1-LP.
Lamb. 1996. Górecki. On Lamb. Los Angeles: Fontana, 532
968-2-CD.
Lamb. 2001. Gabriel. On What Sound. USA: Mercury, 586
538-2-CD.
50 Jeff Wragg
Massive Attack. 1999. Angel. On Mezzanine. London: EMI,
7243 8 45599 2 2-CD.
Massive Attack. 1999. Risingson. On Mezzanine. London:
EMI, 7243 8 45599 2 2-CD.
Massive Attack. 1999. Teardrop. On Mezzanine. London:
EMI, 7243 8 45599 2 2-CD.
Morcheeba. 1996. Never an Easy Way. On Who Can You
Trust? London: China Records, 0630-14373-2.
Morcheeba 1996. Trigger Hippie. On Who Can You Trust?
London: China Records, 0630-14373-2.
Portishead. 1994. Dummy. London: Go! Beat, 828
553-2-CD.
Portishead. 1994. Biscuit. On Dummy. London: Go! Beat,
828 553-2-CD.
Portishead. 1994. Sour Times. On Dummy. London: Go!
Beat, 828 553-2-CD.
Portishead. 1994. Wandering Star. On Dummy. London: Go!
Beat, 828 553-2-CD.
Portishead. 1997. Elysium. On Portishead. London: Go!
Beat, 539 435-2-CD.
Portishead. 1997. Half Day Closing. On Portishead. London:
Go! Beat, 539 435-2-CD.
Sneaker Pimps. 1997. 6 Underground. On Becoming X.
London: Virgin, 7243 8 42587 2 6-CD.
Sneaker Pimps. 1997. Becoming X. On Becoming X. London:
Virgin, 7243 8 42587 2 6-CD.
Sneaker Pimps. 1997. Low Place Like Home. On Becoming X.
London: Virgin, 7243 8 42587 2 6-CD.
Tricky. 1995. Black Steel. On Maxinquaye. London: Island,
314-524 089-2-CD.
Tricky. 1995. Hell is Around the Corner. On Maxinquaye.
London: Island, 314-524 089-2-CD.
Tricky. 1995. Suffocated Love. On Maxinquaye. London:
Island, 314-524 089-2-CD.
U.N.K.L.E. 1998. Lonely Soul. On Psyence Fiction. London:
Mo’ Wax, 314-540-970-2-CD.
U.N.K.L.E. Celestial Annihilation. On Psyence Fiction.
London: Mo’ Wax, 314-540-970-2-CD.
U.N.K.L.E. Unreal. On Psyence Fiction. London: Mo’ Wax,
314-540-970-2-CD.