I only had only one more thought for Harker discussion, wasn't going to bother but this is an example of it.

It struck me that writing a book from a very specific philosophical perspective, published on an academic imprint, allowed Harker to avoid explaining a lot of things that underly his approach. Either the reader is supposed to already understand the approach, including the jargon, or they find out about it from the bibliography.

I think that is a cop out as it makes like hard for many people who are experts on (or like me just interested in) his subject matter. I wonder if the other volumes in that 'Popular Music in Britain' books series are like that.

I had a mate who fell in with one of the Marxist groups of the 1970's. His attempts to explain what is was all about involved literature like the abtract to the paper Jack links. I came to the conclusion he didn't understand it either.

Back on topic, I disagree with Jim that this should be in his other discussion. It would be handy to have something specific to refer to (not too often I hope).