A response to prompt 2: “Adorno argued that ‘the consumption of light music contradict[s] the objective interest of those who consume it.’ What did he mean, and does this argument apply to today’s media?” By Kyle Fitzgerald Theories of Communication Drs. Jacob Johannsen and Heidi Herzogenrath-Amelung University of Westminster 17 October 2016 Fitzgerald 2 Introduction This essay is concerned on whether the consumption of light music is contradictory to the objective interest of the individual, and whether this argument is applicable to today’s media. This essay will take steps to answer the question and will particularly focus on the popular music sector of the media industry. The essay will begin with an analysis of Theodor Adorno’s argument concerning the relationship between light music and its relationship with the consumers – i.e., how its consumption contradicts the very nature of the consumers’ interest. From there it will explore common patterns in music before assessing whether Adorno’s argument might stand in today’s music scene. Understanding Adorno’s Argument Before one can assess how music might be consumed today, one must first have an understanding of Adorno’s thoughts on its consumption by the public. John Storey (1998) cited Adorno’s perspective on light music; it should possess a certain use value which is to be used for the intention of enjoyment. Furthermore, Storey discussed Adorno’s central thesis how light music actually possesses an exchange value – it is created by the market and is intended to be consumed by the market. He is supported by Karl Marx, who defined commodification as a process in which a use value is transformed into an exchange value (Mosco, 1998, p141). Rather than being produced as a means of expression and enjoyment (use value), light music is actually being produced as a means of generating profit (exchange value); consequently, music, which is supposed to be free from the constraints of the capitalist, is submissive to the dominant nature of the culture industry. Fitzgerald 3 There are two more claims that Adorno, as cited by Gauntlett (2005, p20-21) makes in the commodification and consumption of light music: first, culture (light music) is imposed upon the masses by the forces above them and, secondly, that “choice is an illusion” – it is the manufacturer (the record label company, in this instance) that is making the choice. This is a line of thought that claims the consumer has no power in regards to the production, distribution or consumption of light music (or any form of media). The capitalist makes the decisions and imposes its authority and ideologies on those who are lower on the social class. Adorno is also critical of the predictability of light music. Since aspects of light music possess certain patterns, Adorno argues that “once the trained ear has heard the first notes, it can guess the rest;” this homogenization is the byproduct of the culture industry (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1997, p125). One question that arises from this could be, ‘Are these patterns created because the elite are deciding them, or is it a reaction from the preferences of the audience?’ Adorno argues that it is the former. The listener can skip straight to the conclusion because the patterns of light music have been incessantly imposed upon them. Again, Adorno is drawing the distinction that the power of the culture industry is stripping away the freedom of music into something that is more uniform in the hopes of creating more financial capital. The “Millennial Whoop” and how Adorno would perceive this trend There are many patterns in music that have developed and evolved, from the 1950’s Bo Diddly Beat to the I-V-VI-IV chord arrangement that has been the structure of countless hit songs (Haynes, 2016). These patterns tend to shift as newer generations develop their own particular taste in music. The most recent pattern to be Fitzgerald 4 identified in pop music was coined by Patrick Metzger, who described the “Millennial Whoop” in an interview with the Guardian in August of 2016: “It is a sequence of notes that alternates between the fifth and third notes of a major scale, typically starting on the fifth. The rhythm is usually straight 8th- notes, but it may start on the downbeat or on the upbeat in different songs. A singer usually belts these notes with an “Oh” phoneme, often in a “Wa-oh-wa- oh” pattern. And it’s in so many pop songs it’s criminal” (Haynes, 2016). There are several key points to note about this trend in popular music. The first is quite obvious: the songs that are frequenting the radio waves and are being consumed by the masses contain an identical musical arrangement. Some music artists who employ this methodology in music curation include Katy Perry (“Firework”), Frank Ocean (“Ivy”), and Carly Rae Jepson (“Good Time”) (Haynes, 2016). Adorno would argue that, because this pattern exists and is dominating the charts, that consumers are deluded into thinking they are making a choice in listening to different songs by different artists, but are actually listening [and consuming] the same form of product in a different packaging. Does Adorno’s argument stand in today’s music scene? Though patterns are prevalent in music, it does not lead to the conclusion that they exist because of the imposition of the capitalist. Consumers dictate the ebbs and flows of the industries. This is a far cry from Adorno’s top-down theory where culture is forced upon the consumer by the industry that produces it (Gauntlett, 2005, p20). Try as the industry might, it cannot control the consumption or the choices made by the consumer. Jonathan Fiske (Fiske, 1994, p23-24) argued that “culture is a living, active process: it can be developed only from within, it cannot be imposed from without or above.” He further claimed that the culture industry merely produces things that people either accept or reject in a cycle of popular culture. One can identify the Fitzgerald 5 cyclical nature of production in the music industry, for example. Two musical patterns were earlier discussed: the Bo Diddly Beat and the I-V-VI-IV structure. Now, the audience is listening to another pattern: the “Millennial Whoop”. Did these changes happen because the corporate owners of labels, such as Warner Bros. Records, decided to impose their ideologies on consumers in exchange for a hefty profit, or is it because the consumers were enamoured with a particular rhythmic pattern that also gave artists enough space to create hit songs? The former is unlikely because an older generation may very well not identify themselves with some new development in music. Kenton O’Hara and Barry Brown (2006) discuss the ways in which music is integrated into one’s social life; it determines one’s emotions, social groups and even political views. A member of the Baby Boomer generation may very well continue listening to music that was a pivotal part of his or her life in the 1970’s. What would account for the new trend in music, then (and specifically, the “Millennial Whoop”) is the social activity of a new generation and how those fans identify with modern music, thus continuing the cyclical nature of production. Fiske argued that “innovation and change comes from audience activity in the cultural economy (cited in Borchers, Kreutzner, et al., 1992, p62). This is in stark contrast to what Adorno might argue today. As stated earlier, music arrangement changed because it was pleasurable to a modern audience and, through that audience’s activity, become more widespread. In response to Adorno’s possible argument concerning the “Millennial Whoop” (that the listener is duped into thinking that he or she is listening to an original song whilst actually listening to something nearly identical to another hit), one can infer that these songs are at the top of the pops because the audience is making the conscious decision to consume them whilst simultaneously rejecting other forms of music that may not be pleasurable to them. The consumers are actively exercising their Fitzgerald 6 right to choose what they enjoy. This affirms the autonomy of the consumer to listen to music for the innate purpose of listening to it for pleasure. The corporate owners are subject to the preferences of the consumer. Conclusion The thematic topic of Adorno’s argument is that the [modern] consumption of light music is contradictory to the consumers’ objective interest. The objective interest of the consumer is to listen to what he or she enjoys. Though music has been commodified via the production of vinyl records, CDs and, now, downloadable purchases, consumers have a choice to accept or reject whichever commodity is presented to them; it is why some artists are massively popular and others are not. The consumers are the reason why the artist is at the top of the pops. This essay first identified Adorno’s argument that music is a commodity that is forced upon the consumer by the capitalist, and that the consumer does not have a choice in the music he or she listens to; furthermore, it strips away the freedom and innate pleasure of music by placing an exchange value on it. Patterns in music were then identified, with an emphasis on the “Millennial Whoop” because it is the most modern pattern that is associated with popular music. Finally, it responded to Adorno’s claim through a modern contextual lens. Through exploring the social activity of the consumers and the innovations through which they bring, it concluded that consumer activity and shifts in preferences from one generation to the next are the proponents for change in music.