Media Culture, Mass Culture and Popular Culture, Critical

Reflection – 5th Week

Maria João Sousa (72399247)

Adorno was a very influential member of the Frankfurt School, who was a group that
mainly focused on developing critical theory through a neo-Marxist lens. In his reading, he
approaches the distinction between what he considers to be “serious” and “popular” music.
This difference is addressed not only as a trivial dichotomy, but also explores the patterns of
“standardization” of popular music. They can be recognized through details like the part that
precedes the chorus instead of the general immaterial feeling of the song, since, abstractly,
they are the same. On the other hand, “serious music” possesses meaning that inherently
connects to the other song’s segments, where the encompassing context matters. Although
formulaic patterns can be found in many serious music pieces, they usually serve a greater
emotion-inducing purpose, whereas in popular music the details must not overbear the
abstract arrangement of the song. Therefore, elements from popular music can be easily
swapped around, among genres and styles, into other songs.

So, the standards are set by media monopolies to purposefully catch the attention of
the listeners, but not so complex as to challenge the listener’s perception of what “natural”
music must sound like: “the sum total of all conventions and material formulas (…) inherent,
simple language of music itself” (Adorno, 1941, p. 24). The structure that holds everything
together is “pseudo-individualization”, which essentially means the illusion of the listener’s
free choice between prefabricated songs, keeping the listener in the delusion it is indeed an
original piece of music. Adorno also concerns himself with the clear paradox between the
production of music that is essentially like the ones that preceded it, yet different enough to
be intrinsically standalone, to, on one hand, maintain levels of consume, and on the other one,
appearing original with one or two trademark aspects.

Adorno, lastly, directs his analysis to the object of this illusion: the listener that must
be alienated. The listener gains a sense of control over this process while media agencies
choose what is or not played to the public. This follows an accumulative logic: if the song is
played enough times, the audience will consider it an entertainment success. Music, then,
plays an essential role as the abstractor that relieves people from the artificial automatic
labor: “this mode of production, which engenders fears and anxiety (…) has its “non-
productive” correlate in entertainment” (Adorno, 1941, p. 37). He also suggests that the very
essence of popular music is, therefore, similar to the ceaselessness of mechanized labor, to
condition us. Like the abovementioned paradox, the listener also faces a sort of conundrum:
to evade monotony without putting in the exertion. These are not congruent so entertainment
must become a stimulus, by recognition of certain patterns. Yet the boredom returns because
it is mutually assured by these paradoxes, so the listener keeps coming back and consuming
entertainment to abstract themselves. Therefore, the “plugging in” is not only mechanized
production of similar songs, but also manufactures and artificializes the sense of boredom.
Adorno, then goes on to state that popular music has broken down the subject of its listening,
since there is a clear power imbalance that the individual tries to abide from within. The
dependency leads, then, to ambivalence and, lastly, to spite against that very same addiction.
So, Adorno believes if there are enough individuals willing to fight those who hold “their
bonds”, possibly revolution will follow next.

Even though this text was written during the Second World War, in my opinion, it
remains very relevant nowadays. The standardization of the 1940s can be perceived in
today’s entertainment industry, in just how many genres heed to the very same models.
Although Adorno could be considered a cultural elitist, it’s very unsettling to verify that most
current genres escape what he considers to be the definition of popular music. Regarding the
clear allusions to Marxist theory of this essay, it very much approaches the matter as a
philosophical one, especially when he delves into the split between those who are powerless
and the ruling class. Although being worrisome, I do not believe it is exclusively a product of
capitalism; still, in the current structuring of production, it is prone to create massive social
problems. Those end up being the issues people need to abstract themselves from, therefore
are still consuming from the music/entertainment industry in the current paradigm. Without
fundamental systematic changes, I do not hold much hope in breaking this pattern.

Jenkins’ reading dives into how the ability of audiences to condition media content
has increased and how that content was shaped to go beyond only “news” and how the
marketing strategy has also evolved. In his book, he refers to convergence as the
methodology array used for distributing media content, particularly, the partnership amongst
different media institutions. He names the relationship media creators, and the consumers
establish as “participatory culture”, where knowledge and resources are shared by the whole
cumulative perception. This is very visible in the way we share and consume media content:
when using a mobile phone to play music, the “old idea” of personal music players is deeply
rooted except it is applied to a “new media idea” of a smartphone that incorporates multiple
media technologies. The digitalization of media contents very much contributed to the
expansion potential of the flowing relationships that can be established across media
platforms, allowing one single media product to perform many different tasks.

I surmise this also explains the current horizontal integration of the entertainment
industry, as it can be perceived through the transmedia exploitation of branded property,
since most of them have other forms of media associated with the original product, to expand
the potential audience and suffuse the market. I believe this is a period of transition that will
affect most aspects of our lives; media convergence has the potential to spark a range of
social, political, economic, and even legal disputes because of conflicting goals between
producers, consumers, and gatekeepers. This current paradigm is very different from
Adorno’s time, when producers had a contained product, who decided on its appeal with very
little interaction from the audience. I expect these contradictory forces are pushing towards
cultural homogenization, commercialization but also towards grassroots cultural production.

Lastly, Hebdige, in his reading, declares subcultures represents a breach between the
structures supporting the transition from real life to media depiction, therefore daring the
codes of discourse and failing to convey any disruptive characteristic once they get
integrated. Hebdige uses the reception to the punk subculture in Great Britain during the
1970s as an example to prove his premise. The concept of social order can be determined
with discourse, whose codes are frequently disobeyed by those who claim to belong to the
punk subculture. Press, then, reacts to the appearance of a brand-new subculture, dividing the
news between those who dismiss it and those who consider it to be fascinating.

If the subculture ends up developing and being brought attention to the public eye, it
will be regularized and pictured in the media. This process can happen in different manners:
by converting certain characteristics of the subculture into mass-produced commodities and
by ideologically re-classifying any irregular behavior by the ruling groups. By being
transformed into a commodity it benefits the relationship between the subcultures and
industries, which is very dubious and creates a hardship to differentiate between consumer
exploitation and uniqueness. Nonetheless, the marketing of cultural motifs removes the
essence from the subculture, making it accessible to every person. The ideological way treats
the Other as a detraction that will threaten a person’s well-being, it can either be played
down, or turned into something different or bizarre, annihilating the threat it poses to society.
The conflict in British society to welcome and assimilate punk subculture bolsters the idea of
an accessible society that the very reality of punk had threatened.