My Vulgar Hatred of The '90s

I was glad to hear that I am not the only person I know who hates the 90s.

I don't know what I find more annoying about the pop music of the 90s, the fact that they constantly shat out lyrics that would be insulting to the intelligence of even the ditzy 14 year old girls that bought it, cases in point: 

• "oh baby you're so fine, I'm gonna make you mine, your lips they taste so sweet," 
• "you are my fire, the one desire, believe when I say, I want it that way," 
• "you drive me crazy, I just can't sleep, I'm so excited, I'm in too deep, crazy, but it feels alright, baby thinking of you keeps me up all night" 
• and etc. ad infinitum. 

Or rather, the fact that all these idiots went out an bought copies of this crap by the millions. I mean what does that say about the level of sophistication of our culture? 

The 2000s was definitely better. People who played their own instruments dominated the charts even if it was boy-band-metal such as Linkin Park or pop punk stars such as Sum 41 and Bowling for Soup.

At least the 2010s risque and unashamedly id, hedonistic and indulgent (Gaga, Kesha, Nicky Minaj, et al.) All right, most of the pop music of our era it is a bag of balls, but at least it isn't the "oh we are so nice and innocent and sweet, and completely asexual" which was the staple of the 90s, and of course, completely disingenuous. There was nothing more satisfying than when these good little boys and girls were exposed for taking recreational drugs at parties or behaving indecently. It broke the façade. 

Much of the disco music of the 90s was simply 70s disco music less the typically well arranged horn and string elements, or 80s disco music less the variety of synth or which was by this point considered "cheesy." We also said goodbye to the overblown rockist power-ballad with attendant guitar solo in pop, also to be considered mawkish and dated. I remember remarking once that M People's single One Night sounded remarkably 70s, only later to discover that it bore a striking resemblance to 1975 number Highwire by Linda Carr and The Love Squad. Likewise One For Sorrow, a track by an innately disposable and all but forgotten 90s band, Steps, is a dead ringer for The Winner Takes It All by Abba. 

Of course  was a lot of great music in the 90s outside of the charts, although I have thought compared to 60s and 70s and to a lesser degree 80s it was on "The Downward Spiral."  For each Nine Inch Nails there were a dozen Stabbing Westwards, for each Nirvana there were six hundred Silverchairs, a thousand clone bands who tried and failed to carry the movement forwards by replicating the sound of what they liked. For each Alanis Morisette or Cheryl Crow a thousand chart-topping acoustic acts have to have been forgotten in time, and you really have to shake your head in dismay.  

I don't really listen to contemporary rock so I don't know what it going on with it, but nothing I have heard so far has really grabbed my attention so maybe I have simply stopped paying attention. The crucial difference is, thanks to the advent of the internet, I can listen to virtually anything I like the sound of, from anywhere in the world, at any time - and from any time. Regardless of whether you happen love or hate the music of the 90s, you have one distinct advantage over your 1990s counter-part (or former self.) You can always get access to whatever music floats your boat!

Music - visceral vs. intellectual

An interesting thing about music is that it is often very much seen as a largely visceral creative outlet and, by non musicians, there is some kind of sorcery or magic involved - I remember a key moment when I was in primary school and the teacher split the class in four to sing the canon: "London's Burning." I was utterly astounded, that these four simple melodies could be superimposed to create such a wonderful and hypnotic cacophony! (It certainly seemed to resemble wizardry!) Yet the more we learn about how music works the more we appreciate the fact that a musician is simply just someone who has heard music and loved it enough to want to understand how to do it. Songs and compositions are designed much in the way an architect designs a beautiful building: with an eye for aesthetics, but based on certain principles steeped in science and always built out of the correct materials for the job. In our case these materials are rhythmic and melodic features which merge with harmonic and timbral choices. Having quite an analytic mind, the aspects of music that I have seen myself to be particularly apt for, I have often noticed while teaching, are breaking elements that seem rather complex down into their constituent parts so that they can be more easily assimilated and then reconstructed. Sometimes when a student is having trouble learning part of a piece it can help to create "easier versions" that go through graded stages of picking up certain melodic or rhythmic features of the music that lead up to being able to play the piece as it is written, also understanding what each of these elements contributes to the concrete totality of the piece. I always refer to myself as a "better teacher than player," as I know I am not the most virtuossic player to be found.

on some matters I've been studying regarding the philosophy of T. W. Adorno

1)   What is “kitsch” and how does it relate to the Avant-garde?

2)    What is “false consciousness” and how does one discover its symptoms in new music.

3)    How does Adorno counter the accusation of “intellectualism” in New Music?

4)    Wild Card: Write your own question here.

1. What is “kitsch” and how does it relate to the Avant-garde

The term kitsch (popularized by Adorno, Hermann Broch, and Clement Greenberg in the 1930s) is applied to artistic works which are identified by those qualities which make them widely accessible: easy to understand, entertaining, pleasant, and (while mass-produced and homogenized) present some form of novelty (if only in pretense.) Products taken to be “kitschy” often have a character of sentimentalism for the past, including qualities that are clichéd or “tried and tested to work” applied formulaically to produce immediate appeal.  Adorno writes: “Kitsch has the character of a model. It offers the outline and draft of objectively compelling, pre-established forms that have lost their content in history.”[1]

If this is to be understood, then no feature of music can be kitschy of itself, but by its context. To use an example observed in Adorno’s own writing, “the shabbiness and exhaustion of the diminished seventh chord[s]… in the salon music of the nineteenth century… are antiquated and untimely… They no longer fulfill their function,”[2] whereas “the diminished seventh chord, which rings false in salon pieces, is correct and full of every possible expression at the beginning of Beethoven’s Sonata [opus 111]”[3]

Kitsch contrasted the notion of the avant-garde which defined art perceived as challenging, which attempted to redefine or push the boundaries of its tradition and promoted radical social reforms. To avant-gardists the popularity of kitsch was seen as a threat to culture. Alexis de Tocqueville, analyzing the effects of the progress of society on the arts, stated that “the number of consumers increases, but opulent fastidious consumers become more scarce” and as a consequences the standards of creativity fall. In other words, because people with poor taste could now afford to consume and patronize art, market forces compelled a lowering of its quality while artists were “induced to produce with great rapidity a quantity of imperfect commodities.” [4]

Adorno held sympathy with this view. He believed that the “the culture industry,” the supply and demand of art in response to market forces, not only promoted a poor quality of art to a passive population which accepted it uncritically, but created an alienated population which was passive and uncritical enough to accept such a poor quality of art. “People want to have fun. A fully concentrated and conscious experience of art is possible only to those whose lives do not put such a strain on them that in their spare time they want relief from both boredom and effort simultaneously.”[5] Kitchy art was that to be consumed as a form of distraction and catharsis which rapidly aroused the emotions but was not too demanding, appealing only to the immediate passions rather than good taste.

   7. What is “false consciousness” and how does one discover its symptoms in New Music?

The term false consciousness is applied by Marxists to those who produce what Marx and Engels referred to as ideology, “self-styled radical writers who think their ‘world-shattering’ statements will transform the consciousness of their audience… deluded not only in their political reasoning, but also about its effects.” [6] While ideologies constitute distorted beliefs which individuals hold on society they are legitimated false consciousness. False consciousness may now be perceived as a form of Freudian post-fact rationalization: An unconscious defense mechanism in which opinions, behaviors and feelings perceived as controversial are given seemingly plausible justifications in avoidance of true explanations which may be consciously intolerable. Marxist Philosopher Georg Lukács wrote: “The irrational structure of capitalist society produces the need for theories to explain and justify the confusion and madness that appears on its surface… exchange relations and thus commodity fetishism come to dominate and define more and more of human interaction within capitalist society.” [7]

The Frankfurt school took a serious interest in how false consciousness was generated and edified into social cement and Adorno attempted to apply their findings to the music listener. He felt that largely the music which was most often heard was considered to be the most enjoyable if only by virtue of relative acquaintance, "One cannot avoid the suspicion that liking and disliking are inappropriate to the situation... the familiarity of the piece is a surrogate for the quality ascribed to it." [8]

In On Popular Music Adorno asserts that market competition created false musical standards: a hit tune would be copied by song-writers for commercial success, and while trends in music might change, familiar structures such as 32-bar choruses and verse/chorus structures would edify and become “frozen.” [9] Those who had the ability to listen and analyze music properly would easily identify the homogeneity of these hits, but the average listener take these structures almost as law, a product of a Musical False Consciousness.

Adorno saw little distinction between how the pop hit and ‘official “classical” music’ were received, “[the differences] no longer have any real significance… they are only still manipulated for reasons of marketability.” [10] In both popular music and that ‘serious music’[11] which was popular, the public wanted only music’s “crudest aspects: easily remembered themes; ominously beautiful passages, moods and associations.”[12] One such association Adorno took objection to was Toscanini being paraded like a pop star. He was given the affectionate pet name “Maestro” in order to compel audiences to be wowed by his identity, which bore no relation to the quality of the music he conducted.[13] “The star principle has become totalitarian… The consumer is really worshipping the money that he has… paid for the Toscanini concert.”[14]

The romanticisation of “unfinished” symphonies (such as Schubert’s 8^th) was also condemned by Adorno as the fetishistic commodification[15] of music, another example of false musical consciousness. Simply by virtue of being unfinished these pieces were supposed to attain some magical quality which made them extra special.[16] While there is no particular reason to think an unfinished symphony is superior to a finished one, categorizing it as such adds to its fungibility.

Adorno argued that while the public might perceive the work of Schoenberg to be impenetrable compared to that of Beethoven, this was an illusion of false consciousness. He stated that in order to truly appreciate the significance of (or “adequately listen” to) Beethoven’s work one required far greater technical knowledge of music, while the new music was to be judged only by its own immanent parameters. “Whoever wants to judge music must look the unique questions and antagonisms of the individual work straight in the eye without having any general theory of music or any music history to instruct him.” [17]

10. How does Adorno counter the accusation of “intellectualism” in New Music?

To charge that New Music is guilty of Intellectualism is to say that new music is not art of a creative impulse but merely a technical one, more similar to mathematics than poetry. “The claim that new music springs from the head, not from the heart or the ear… but only worked out on paper.” [18]

Adorno’s overarching view is that this criticism comes from the false assumption that tonality is the “natural” and inherent medium of all expressive music, thus to go beyond tonality is to go against the proper nature of music.[19] This false assumption is the product of a historical economic bias towards tonal music, but ironically the same force of history compelled the new music to emerge as a natural extension of the development of tonal music through its previous stages.[20] “What is truly being lamented is not a degree of decadence that could be healed through some kind of organization-that is, rationality- but rather the shadow of progress.” [21] Schoenberg’s melodrama Pierrot Lunaire and Berg’s opera Lulu are held by Adorno as transcendent examples of heart-felt new music surpassing the quality in expressivity of most impressionist music, while biases against atonality are denigrated as the consequence of a lack of understanding and aesthetic sophistication, “merely a product of incomprehension.”[22]

Those who call the new music merely intellectualized look for nothing more that “self-surrender” to a flow of music.[23] Adorno calls to mind the music of Tchaikovsky, which he dismisses as popular for its catchy melodies.[24] In a harsh rebuke of the “moderate modernist” composers whose music he finds unchallenging and as such has no taste for, Adorno admonishes that if anyone is to be accused of intellectualism it should be they, for they are “constantly in search of the proper mixture of enticement and banality.” [25] To better understand what Adorno means we should bear in mind his statement in On Popular Music (1941) to the effect that the music industry faces a major dilemma: if the music is not enticing enough people will pay no attention to it and won't sell, whereas if they pay proper attention to it they may no longer accept its poor standard, thus it also requires a degree of banality.[26]

Adorno asserts that great music has always demanded the “alert control” of the listener[27] and suggests that the logic of the new music may be cast in the same light and tradition as an earlier form: the fugue, which, while highly mathematical in nature is favorably regarded for its sophistication and aesthetic quality. The “moderate modernists” are seen to cow-tow to what is popular: the individual and non-contextualized musical moment which is viscerally satisfying, but lacks intellectual depth. On the other hand, the bonafide avant-gardist “obeys the integral laws of musical structure from the single pitch to the drive inherent in the total form, even if-and precisely if-the automatic perception of the individual moments is hindered in so doing.”

12. Using your own example, give some further explanation of Adorno’s view that emphasis should be placed on the whole (or 'concrete totality') of a piece rather than its individual parts in musical composition. What does Adorno want from music?

As we have discussed, Adorno believed the fundamental characteristic of “bad” serious music (and all popular music) is standardization. While bad music puts emphasis on the parts of songs rather than the whole, good music is through-composed and requires of the listener a taste cultivated to enjoy the overall evolution of a piece.

In good music “Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece,”[28] whereas in bad music “the whole is never altered by the individual event and therefore remains… aloof, imperturbable, and unnoticed throughout the piece.”[29]

Adorno evokes the example of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. He states, with in depth analysis, that the second theme in the piece only gets its “expressive quality” through its context within the entire symphony. For the sake of simplicity allow me to use my own microcosmic example of the principle at work:

In the first two bars of the famous March from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite,[30] the following theme is stated:

Later bars 15 and 16 begin:

While some may assess the second excerpt to be of superior interest to the first, it is undeniable that it would not carry the same significance had we not already heard the first bars played. In Adorno's words, it "derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece."

Adorno wants music that is not only challenging to the listener but engenders within him a critical tendency which can then be applied to the wider society. He says “Structural Standardisation aims at Standard Reaction,” meaning that standardization of music proposes to uniform the population, while the antithesis, immanent formal originality, promotes individuality. [31]

---

[1] Adorno, T. W. (1932), “Kitsch”, in (2002), “Essays on Music”, translated by Gillespie, S. W., University of California Press, Berkeley And Los Angeles, California, p. 501.

[2] Adorno, T. W. (1948), “Philosophy of Modern Music”, translated by Mitchell, A. G. (1973), Sheed & Ward, London, p. 34.

[3] Ibid, pp. 34-35.

[4] Tocqueville, A. D. (1935-1840), “Democracy in America”, translated by Reeve, H., Sever and Francis, Cambridge, pp. 56-62.

[5] Adorno, T. W. (1941), “On Popular Music” in (1990) “On Record”, edited by Firth, S. and Goodwin, A. (1990), Routledge, London And New York, p. 310.

[6] Eyerman, R. (1981), “False Consciousness and Ideology in Marxist Theory”, Acta Sociologica, Vol. 24, No. 1/2, p45.

[7] Lukács, G. (1927), “History and Class Consciousness”, MIT Press (1972).

[8] Adorno, T. W. (1938), “On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, in (2002), “Essays on Music”, translated by Gillespie, S. W., University of California Press, Berkeley And Los Angeles, California, p. 288.

[9] Adorno, T. W. (1941), “On Popular Music” in “On Record” edited by S. Firth and A. Goodwin (1990) Routledge, London And New York,  p. 307

[10] Adorno, T. W. (1938), “On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, in (2002), “Essays on Music”, translated by Gillespie, S. W., University of California Press, Berkeley And Los Angeles, California, p. 293.

[11] For serious music we may read “classical music” in the broad sense of all art music as this is the term Adono often uses to distinguish it from popular music.

[12] Adorno, T. W. (1949) “Philosophy of New Music” translated by Hullot-Kentor, R. (2006), University of Minestora Press, p12

[13] Adorno, T. W. (1938), “On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, in (2002), “Essays on Music”, translated by Gillespie, S. W., University of California Press, Berkeley And Los Angeles, California, p. 293.

[14] Ibid, pp. 293-296.

[15] That is to say, in Marxist (and indeed in Adorno’s) terms, that the product (music) is perceived as more than what in actual fact is, “essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, etc.” Marx, K. (1867-1894) “Das Kapital.”

[16] Adorno, T. W. (1938), “On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, in (2002), “Essays on Music”, translated by Gillespie, S. W., University of California Press, Berkeley And Los Angeles, California, pp. 293-294.

[17] Adorno, T. W. (1949) “Philosophy of New Music” translated by Hullot-Kentor, R. (2006), University of Minestora Press, p11

[18] Adorno, T. W. (1949) “Philosophy of New Music” translated by Hullot-Kentor, R. (2006), University of Minestora Press, p13

[19] Ibid, p13

[20] Ibid, p13

[21] Ibid, p15

[22] Ibid, R., p13

[23] Ibid, R., p14

[24] Adorno, T. W. (1948 ) “Philosophy of Modern Music” translated by Mitchell, A. G., (1973), Sheed & Wood, London, p12

[25] Ibid, p12. (I quote the alternative rendering of the same text in this instance for its relative clarity.)

[26] Adorno, T. W. (1941), “On Popular Music” in (1990) “On Record”, edited by Firth, S. and Goodwin, A. (1990), Routledge, London And New York, p. 311

[27]  Less flatteringly, I may add, in the words “[Tchaikovsky] portrays despondency with hit tunes.” Adorno, R. W. (1948) “Philosophy of Modern Music” translated by Mitchell, A. G., p12

[28] Adorno, T. W. (1941), “On Popular Music” in (1990) “On Record”, edited by Firth, S. and Goodwin, A., Routledge, London And New York, p. 304

[29] Ibid, p. 304

[30] Adorno would have to forgive me exemplifying the work of a composer he accused of “portraying despondency with hit tunes,” see footnote 24 for reference.

[31] Adorno, T. W. (1941), “On Popular Music” in (1990) “On Record”, edited by Firth, S. and Goodwin, A, Routledge, London And New York,  p. 311

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!

Taste vs. Quality

On one end of the spectrum we have the position that the quality of music is just a matter of taste, on the other the idea that music has an objective quality which can be compared between examples.

Neither is particularly satisfactory. We want to be able to say that Ashkenazi is a better piano player than Cameron who I'm putting through for Grade 1 this year. We want to say that Beethoven's music is "better" that Brittany Spears, and when you say Band X is better than Band Y you do not usually mean: "I prefer Band X to Band Y" otherwise that's what you'd say. You are trying to assert that Band X is to some degree better.

If the quality of music is all a matter of taste then an autistic child drawing some perverse plesure from hearing the needle continue to scratch at the end of a record is enjoying the pleasure of a work of art just as valid as your cognitive swells at the mere sound of your favourite Goldberg Variation.

On the other hand, it's just so damn hard to give any reasonable objective criteria for what makes good music good. Is it bizarre unexpected harmonic or melodic changes? Or interesting rhythmic features? That kind of thing can sound amazing to the trained musician but go right over the head of a lay person, and by the same token those kinds of innovations can be present and the music can be an absolute pile of crap to listen to.

So how do we zone in to what makes what we consider "good music" good and "bad music" bad? If it's a sliding scale there's plenty of room for what falls in between.

A Music Poem

So much of our breath is wasting, squandered are our words,
We've so much, the more to give them, the less seems quite absurd...
And yet we, in all good conscience, spend each waking day,
Speaking as though spoken-word, spoke all we had to say...

Why ever talk when you can sing?
Are words your only music?
Your music is your everything!
You little bird, you've taken wing!
Now put your heart into it,
And let your voice give your life meaning...

Time is not our only measure, of the here and now,
Your time can make all time a treasure, there's little doubt, here's how,
Just give your all, and everything, to everything you do,
You have got so much to bring, there's so much more to you...

Why ever talk when you can sing?
Are words your only music?
Your music is your everything!
You little bird, you've taken wing!
Now put your heart into it,
And let your voice give your life meaning...

Does Music Express Emotion?

Were we to approach the question of whether music expresses emotion too literally we would perhaps be immediately faced with an insurmountable obstacle in that a piece of music is not animate in the way that a person is animate, therefore, in the strictest sense, a piece of music has no emotions to express,[1] much as a stone has no emotions of its own, a stone merely is. And yet a stone can be sculpted, a stone can be turned into a work of art that can also be understood in our vernacular to ‘express emotion,’ thus it is not uncommon to ask of art, ‘What is this trying to express?’. If we are to make any progress in dealing effectively with the task of ascertaining whether music expresses emotion we must attempt to address the question in the figurative form in which it is intended rather than a crude literal form that yields little scope for consideration. That is to say, we must examine whether music, of itself, conveys emotion, and indeed, what emotion does it convey if it has no emotion of it’s own to express?

In the first instance I am highly dubious about the proposition that music expresses emotion because in my experience as a composer of songs I rarely seek to write music that expresses emotion. Generally I attempt to tell a story (through instrumentation and verse) or give some insight into human condition (to quote Voltaire, “I particularly like the ones which, from beneath the veil of the plot, reveal to the experienced eye some subtle truth.")[2] However, the fact that I do not aim to express emotion in my work does not logically entail that the work produced does not (albeit inadvertently) express emotion, less to speak of leading to the definitive conclusion that music as a medium does not ever express emotion at all. Those things considered we need apply an effective means of investigating the question extensively.

An apt way to do this would be to examine the most plausible examples in which we could imagine that music is likely to express emotion because it follows that if we can establish that the statement is true in one instance then it is likely to hold credit in others, the extent of which we can examine. In contrast, if the most plausible cases fails to satisfy us sufficiently then it naturally follows that less plausible cases will fail by the same lights. This method also adheres to the philosophical principle of logical positivism which states that the burden of proof lies on the positive claim (in this case that music expresses emotion.) That is to say, that rather than beginning with the assumption that music expresses emotion and attempting to discredit it we should see how evidence in favour of the proposition stands to scrutiny. With this in mind let us begin by examining the hypothetical case of an extremely gifted composer writing a piece of music with the aim of the work expressing emotion and, in so doing, achieving the greatest success afforded by what is possible. We will later also consider the role of the performer in music. If we can establish that in some instances music certainly does express emotion then we are in a better position to gauge to what extent it does so in a more general sense, and perhaps may infer when it does and when it does not.

        In order to give our composer a task which is sufficiently meritorious of gleaning insight on the matter, it will be necessary for us to draw a clear distinction between expressing emotion and eliciting emotion. As to the question of whether music can evoke emotion, to my sense of reason there seems little doubt. People often talk of music being happy or sad because listening to certain music entrains them into particular moods or states of consciousness and consequently individuals decide on what music is appropriate to put on when they take a relaxing bath, exercise and want to set the right mood for a party. Music effects the emotional states of people in various ways, that is not in dispute, but it also does little for our discussion, because music does not have to express emotion in order to evoke emotion![3] When the roulette wheel falls on black or red the gambler feels calamity or elation, yet no emotion was expressed by the roulette wheel. If the piece of our composer merely evokes emotion he does not necessarily succeed in having created music that expresses it.

Should our composer create a piece that not only evokes but truly expresses emotion what outcomes entail his success? It seems extremely difficult to be precise on this point. On one hand we could propose that if the listener is able to identify what emotion is being expressed then the composer is successful, on the other hand it is inconsistent with our experience of regular human interactions to say that an emotion needs to be correctly read in order to have been expressed. A further objection I would add is that this criterion is that it is so demanding that if it was the case hardly any music would be thought to express emotion at all because music is a very imprecise art in that respect. As Ridley put it, “Music can show us no objects... All that music can do is to resemble pieces of expressive behaviour in isolation from the contexts in which what they express is fully distinctive.”[4] How then to identify a suitable criterion for success in composing a work that expresses emotion?

Having earlier established that music, having no consciousness of its own, has no literal emotions to express, perhaps we must identify what manner of emotion a composition which purports to express emotions may be expressing. I can conceive of three possibilities: it could be the emotions of the composer, emotion that the composer instils within the creative elements of work in its genesis, or it could be emotion which is simply conjured into existence by the creative process, regardless of the composer’s intent. Each of these possibilities could potentially satisfy the criteria for establishing that music expresses emotion and yet each yields its own controversies. If, as stated in the first instance, the emotions expressed are those of the composer we must consider how they would then be relayed by the music. Does music have the power to communicate the emotions of the composer? Alan Goldman, while considering features of art which are linked to emotional states of the artist mentions the “agitated brushstrokes of van Gogh” but concludes that “our independent knowledge of van Gogh’s personality and mental problems makes his paintings seem so much an expression of his troubled mental states.”[5] An analogue of this in music could be the first movement Smetana’s first string quartet[6] which also seems to be an expression of troubled mental states. We are aware that it was written not long after Smetana went deaf and the subtitle: “Z mého života” (from in my life) is an indication of the personal nature of the piece. Smetana spoke at reasonable length on what it was intended to depict: “The inexpressible yearning of something I could neither express nor define, and also a kind of warning of (my) future misfortune.”[7] This knowledge allows us to relate what we hear to the mental states of Smetana, but without it perhaps we would consider the piece to simply be an effectively haunting composition.

If the emotions expressed in music are the emotions of the composer then it would seem that only a sad composer can write sad music when sad. Accepting this premise would not lead to the definitive conclusion that no music expresses emotion, but it doesn’t seem a very realistic suggestion. We are aware of how compose Brian Wilson spent years of his life thoroughly depressed, reportedly spending weeks at a stretch in bed while composing cheerful pop songs for his band The Beach Boys.[8]  It seems more credible to suggest that one can draw upon their experience of having had those emotions to create music that expresses them, or can seek to create a work which captures and recommunicates (expresses) their essence. This brings us to the second proposition: that the composer can somehow instil emotional expression into the creative elements of a piece.

Alan Ridley calls those elements of music which strike as particularly expressive “melismatic gestures.”[9] I would argue that if the emotion expressed in music is held within the melismatic elements crafted by the composer into his work, then expressing emotion in music becomes a discipline that can be learned and should be tangible enough to be pointed out in the score. It should be possible to isolate particular gestures and quantify what they express succinctly. I return the reader’s attention to the agitated brush strokes of van Goug. Goldman mentions that these can be copied and, until it is revealed that they are not a product of the same painter, they will appear “similarly expressive.”[10] This suggests that the strokes themselves are not truly expressive of emotion, but it is our interpretation of them which superimposes emotional expressiveness upon them. Following this line of reasoning into music, we would be able to document an array of melismatic gestures (styles of brush stroke) - features of timbre, harmony, melody and rhythm - that corresponded to the expression of particular emotions. I present this as a reductio ad absurdum: it is meaningless to isolate small pieces of music as say “this is expressive of happiness” or “this is expressive of sadness,” the meaning of a gesture “derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece,” to use the words of Theodor Adorno.[11]

This criticism raised may however be countered by the proposition that the expression of emotion by music is something ephemeral that arises through the performance of a piece, but which cannot be identified in the score. In considering this point we move towards the third proposal of what manner of emotion a composition may express, which is that the creative process simply conjures the emotion the piece is said to express into existence. In such an instance the emotion is a characteristic feature of the composition being rendered. If indeed that is the case then the successful expression of any such emotion would surely depend on the quality of a performance of the piece given as the amateur performer could easily err in the communication of the intended emotion just as in any other element of the performance. Failing to proceed without considering the importance of the performer would be only to discuss notation not music, and yet in so doing we will perhaps make the composer entirely redundant because when performance is considered, the music we concern ourselves with could just as easily be improvised. The blues for example is an improvisational style of music often closely associated with the expression of emotion. The lyrics concern misery, and melismatic guitar licks closely associated with the idiom are thought to be soulful and expressive of angst,  although some claim that while “to feel blue is to be sad, melancholy or depressed… when Blues are played or sung, it is not to succumb to sadness but to find relief while expressing it.”[12] (My emphasis added.) When one listens to a heartfelt performance of blues music it is hard to deny that emotions are being expressed, and yet we must question whether it is the music which is expressing the emotion or in fact merely performing artist through his playing. Returning to our composer, if the expression of emotion is in the rendering of the piece what role does that leave for him to express his emotions? Perhaps it is in creating melismatic gesticulation which performers can interpret in order to relay those intended feelings to the audience, much like the copyist can emulate van Goug’s “agitated brushstrokes.” Thus there is a final argument to the effect that if someone intends that their art expresses emotion then perhaps it does. Indeed it would be as difficult to argue against an artist’s claim that their work expresses a particular emotion as it would to dispute the underlying meaning of the plot of a book proposed by the author. One would think the artist would be the authority on the matter, though I believe I have provided some grounds for doubt.

It appears to me that when one tells a fairy tale, the telling of that story is not necessarily of itself an expression of emotion. Perhaps the story expresses a view on morality, on heroism, or social norm, or is simply the relaying of an adventure. Similarly a painting may not necessarily covey an emotion, it could just be a picture of a bunch of flowers. That being said, it is not impossible to conceive of someone painting their representation of anger and in such a case, who is to say that anger is not what the painting expresses? Music seems to have a very close relationship to emotions as it has the power to evoke them, yet in many cases it seeks only to create an atmosphere, tell a story or to be beautiful, horrifying or moving simply of itself. Perhaps music is used by some artists as a means of expressing emotions (such as in blues music) but it remains in question whether Smetana’s string quartet and the songs of the blues singer, like van Goug’s brushstrokes, are indeed the expression of the artists mental states, or merely a product of them.

Bibliography

·     Adorno, T. W. (1941) “On Popular Music” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, New York: Institute of Social Research.

·     Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

·     Kivy, P. (1980) “The Corded Shell: Reflections on Musical Expression” Princeton University press

·     Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

---

[1] Aaron Ridley appeared to fundamentally agree with me upon this point, stating: “Melisma (musical gesticulation) itself isn’t expressive–it only resembles something expressive.” Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

[2] Voltaire (1774) “The White Bull”

[3] Peter Kivy seconds my point succinctly in his work The Corded Shell, “No one should doubt that music can and does arouse emotion in this way… What we deny is that this has anything to do with musical expressiveness.” (p30)

[4] Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57

[5] Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

[6] Work without opus number, in E minor, written in 1876.

[7] Way, J. http://www.fuguemasters.com/smetana.html#Quartet_No_1

[8] Fischer, D. corroborated by interview conducted by Friedman, G. available online: http://www.abilitymagazine.com/past/brianW/brianw.html

[9] Ridley, A. (1995) “The Experience of Expressive Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 49-57.

Also see footnote 1.

[10] Goldman, A. (1995) “Emotion in Music” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 53, No. 1 pp. 59-69

[11] Adorno, T. W. (1941) “On Popular Music” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, New York: Institute of Social Research.

[12] “The Blues and How” Claire Music Co. Inc.