Adorno on Popular Music

In 1941 Adorno wrote his famous essay "On Popular Music" in which he ripped the piss out of Tin Pan Alley and Jazz. Or in more academic terms, (so you can give me a citation in your essay*): a harsh critique of popular music that attacked both its artistic and political integrity, with particular reference to the most prominent forms in his time: in Pan Alley and Jazz. (It is worth noting that Rock n' Roll had not yet emerged from its roots in black music at this time.)

*NB. anyone who does actually reference me in their essay gets a cookie. That's called bribery.

Adorno draws a distinction between popular music and what he calls "serious music" IE. Classical or what we might call "art music." That is not him saying that pop music cannot be serious, he means it's not sophisticated in the sense that classical music is. (Frank Sinatra said Rock N' Roll was the music of "Cretinous Goons" so it's perfectly possible that people who are into one thing just plain like flinging mud at people who are into another thing.)

Adorno continues to say that the "fundamental characteristic of popular music is standardisation," pointing to the prevalence of 32-bar choruses and predictable structures (no prog-rock to speak of in 1941.) Consider that these are the very forms that the Punk Rock backlash to early 70s excess embraced, "Three Chords and the Truth Baby!!!!" Simple hooks and interchangeable chord sequences.

In my view Adornos best argument for what makes classical... ahem, sorry, "serious" music, better than popular music is (perhaps by no coincidence) the main thrust of his argument: Popular Music puts emphasis on the parts of songs rather than the whole, whereas classical music is through-composed. That is to say a listener enjoys the overall evolution of the piece, to quote: "Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece." Adorno evokes the example of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. He states that the second theme in the piece only gets its "expressive quality" through its context in the whole of the piece and explicitly states that "Nothing corresponding to this can happen in popular music." (Well, Adorno obviously never heard of the concept album, and probably a good thing, he'd probably have scratched his ears out.)

Whenever I'm trying to explain this to someone in lay terms I always take the famous March from Tchaikovsky's nutcracker as my example, listen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj0xuPF6Es

At 0.00 you get that ever memorable: bum-bumbumbum-bum-bum bum-bum-bum

Then at second 0.25ish you get the rather ominous variation: bum-bumbumbum-BUM-bum-Dun-Dun-Duuun!

Now for my money, the second piece of music I'm pointing at is way more awesome that he first one, but the awesomeness of it would make no sense at the beginning of the piece. That variation is so cool because you've heard the first one already, in Adorno's words: it "derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece." (As it so happens, Adorno dismissed Tchaikovsky, also, for writing "pop tunes" - he didn't like music that sold itself on melody, and the fact that lay persons would find 'good melody' synonymous with 'good music' because it was something easily comprehensible to them.)

We do have things in popular music that derive their sense from the concrete totality of the piece, such as going to the relative minor for a middle-8 after the second chorus or guitar solo, but that's hardly a rebuttal of Teddy's assertion that popular music is standardised. That trick is so widely used that quite the opposite is true. Teddy's got ya by the balls pop.

Adorno says that market competition created the musical standards: hits are then copied in other songs that imitate the successful one, but for people who can hear out their ears it's booooooooring. We still see it today, short-lived sub-genres, like hair metal in the 80s, nu metal when I was in school , emo a couple years back. The Used make it big and there are a million Fall Out Boys and Panic at the Discos to follow. Adorno says that when one trend is superseded by another the standards of structures (32-bar choruses, ABABCB etc.) tend not to change, he says they have become "frozen." .... But hold on a minute Teddy, haven't you heard of SONATA FORM? Classical Concerto FORM? Rondo FORM. ABA ??? What about Bohemian bloody Rhapsody? oh well...

Adorno did admit that chord sequences found in many standards and jazz music are often far more harmonically sophisticated than most classical music (sadly untrue of the 4-chord wonder that is the main staple of the pop charts today) but he really doesn't give a damn. He wants music that is "challenging." Oh yes! Says he, "Structural Standardisation aims at Standard Reaction" ...

What the f&%k does that mean?

It means that popular music's "Inherent nature... [is] antagonistic to the ideal of individuality in a free, liberal society [which] promotes conditioned reflexes." ...

What the f&%k does that mean?

It means that contrary to the popular view as rock music as catharsis for the rebel, the standardisation of popular music reflects the wish of the ruling class to subdue the populace into some kind of Orwellian group-think.

Actually I can see it: Paul Stanley of KISS sings: "This is my music, it makes me proud, these are my people, this is my crowd, these are Crazy Crazy Carzy Craaazzzzy Nights! Oooh Yeah" and that is a song all about finding fellowship in your music, but you know it's "shouted out loud" by a bunch of over-excitable fans in black leather, PVC and IDENTICAL Gene Simmons face paint... The chorus was written specifically to be anthemic! So even with so-called "alternative" music you're vibrated back into the mode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjNBd7sO6M (you will find me on the dance-floor whenever this comes on, and balls to Adorno if he tries to stop me.)

So what are the other horrendous functions of this music in Adornos eyes? Well, the music is one of "distraction and inattention," you listen to it as an escape from the banality of life, it "induces relaxation because it is patterned and pre-digested." What do you think about that?

I can see it personally. If I was out having Crazy Nights of my own maybe I wouldn't feel the need to be listening to my favorite Glam Rock band while typing an essay on Adorno for no grade - on a Saturday night no less. But I have to find some means of procrastination so here I am.

So is Adorno just a Nancy-Negative or has he something contrasting to offer up? He says a "fully conscious experience of art" is only possible for those whose lives are not so demanding that during their spare time they want to overcome boredom by doing something inactive. (Jesus Christ, Martin should make this case to the music department who love to give us twice as many essays per credit to write as any other department in the same 11-week time frame! It's kind of ironic.) In other words, you come home from work, you're tired, and you don't want to think about music, you want to relax, you don't want to try and understand Schoenberg or Weber, and who can blame you? Who the f%&k does? Why would you? Honestly? You've got proper studies to do, and the baby needs changed. It's all dirty Capitalism's fault. If you could sit about doing nothing all day while sponging off the state then maybe you'd be more likely to take an active interest.

Adorno also says the music industry faces a major dilemma in that if people pay no attention to a song it won't be sold, whereas if they pay proper attention they may no longer accept the derivative crap it spews out. He also says that while the industry claims to be giving people what they want, people want it [standardised goods and pseudo-individualisation] only because the process of labour. Ie. working on the assembly line in a factory, or in an office denies people any freshness and they're so used to doing "the same old crap day in day out" at work that they don't know how to appreciate anything other than "the same old crap day in day out" at home when they're listening to music. Says Adorno, "They seek novelty, but the strain and boredom associated with actual work leads to avoidance of effort in that... chance for new experience." Another day another dollar.

Many people switch on classical music to "drift away and relax" so it's highly dubious to claim that it's more strenuous to listen to. But that's not Teddy's point. In fact he'd go nuts. He doesn't want you to listen to the 7th Symphony to "drift away and relax," he wants you to bother your lazy arse to understand and appreciate what makes it so good you ignorant beatnik. Get out of the bath and stop listening to Smooth Classics ffs, it's Radio 3 tonight you no good layabout. Get some freaking taste.

I've saved the most outlandish claim for last (bet you can't wait.) Adorno says that popular music is a "social cement" and it appeals to two main types of socio-psychological people. One is the "rhythmically obedient type" - that's you on the dance-floor after one of those blue pills that set you back a tenner but you bought it anyway because otherwise you'd have to spend £3.80 a pint on booze. The other is the "emotional" type - that's you sitting in the corner of the room crying after s/he's dumped you while listening to that tune that was playing that time in the cafe when s/he fed you the last teaspoon of hot fudge sundae even though s/he paid for it, just because s/he liked the way you smiled when s/he did something nice for you.

The Rhythmically Obedient Type are susceptible to crowd-mindedness, and music allows them to allow rhythmic patterns without the distraction of unexpected changed. The Emotional Type are susceptible to the romanticism of the music, they consume it as an outlet for all their pent up frustrations which they can't otherwise vent constructively.

Yup we're still dancing, and we're still buying CDs that take us back to way back when. But is that really pathological or is that something deeply rooted in human nature? You tell me.

I don't think it's exclusive to popular music, we've heard plenty of dances in art music, not to mention the outpourings of the Romantic Composers, not least those that Adorno cites examples of in his essay: Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak.

Maybe Adornos theories are true to life, or maybe pop and classical music both have a place and fulfill separate functions. What do you think? I like some really crap music when I'm out, like the Blitzkreig Bop by The Ramones say, because it's really fun to jump about to and sing along to, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. When I'm at home 70-80% of the music I listen to is classical but I''m only analysing the music when I'm not doing something else like reading or tidying my room. Sorry Adorno.

Post Script: After writing this I took a taxi home and on the radio they played songs like I Got A Feeling by The Black Eyed Peas and The Lazy Song by Bruno Mars and found myself in a reassessment.  It really is standardised shit!