On the Fetish-character in

music and the Regression

of Listening
Reading notes for the 1938 essay
by Theodor Adorno

Reading Adorno
Adorno is a member of the

Frankfurt
school of philosophers and social critics.
These thinkers were (are) strongly
influenced by the thought of Karl Marx,
and also by Freudian ideas; they use
these ideas as tools for social criticism.
This essay uses Marxs idea of
commodity fetishism to analyze the
phenomenon of popular music.

More background on Adorno

Adorno is not only a philosopher but a musician and
composer, a student of Schoenbergs student Alban
Berg.
The popular music Adorno is writing about is jazz in the
late 1930s. But his ideas are at least as valid for
contemporary popular music as they were for the jazz of
his day.
For some background on Adornos theory of music, here
are two web address:
http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/papers/var9mkm
.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/

The basic idea

Music both popular and the classical

music played in concert halls and on the

radio is driven primarily by commercial
interests. Music, with all the attributes of
the ethereal and sublime which are
generously accorded it, serves in America
today as an advertisement for
commodities which one must acquire in
order to be able to hear music.

The basic idea (continued)

In other words, commercial music exists to

sell CDs, stereos, i-pods and concert

tickets rather than these things existing to
make music available. Both the music
makers and the listeners have become
submerged in the commercial process,
and neither is really musically free.

Commodity fetishism

A fetish is a substitute object of desire. So, in the most

familiar kind of case, sexual desire might be displaced
onto garments worn by the individual whom one cannot,
for whatever reason, directly desire or have.
Karl Marx said that commodities can be fetishes. In this
case, the displaced desire is the desire for freedom, and
for the fruits of your labor. Heres what happens.
You are alienated (estranged, separated) from the fruits
of your labor. The products you help make are too far
from your control for you to recognize them as your own.
In return for your labor, you get dollars, which are only a
small percentage of the value you have added to the
product.

Commodity fetishism (continued)

Marx defines the fetish character of the

commodity as the veneration of the thing

made by oneself which, as exchange
value, simultaneously alienates itself from
producer to consumer.the relation of
the producers to the sum total of their own
labor is presented to them as a social
relation existing not between themselves,
but between the products of their labors.

Commodity fetishism (cont.)

So instead of a relationship between you and

some musicians, who would play for you in
exchange for some service you would render to
them, there is now a relationship between your
dollars and their CD.
But the dollars and the CD are part of a capitalist
system that is driven by the need to make
money, not the need to make and hear good
music.

Commodity fetishism (3)

To put this in everyday terms, you work hard. You know

you should get back more than you do, and what you get
should not just be money but also freedom and
enjoyment. When you can get enough money to afford a
good concert ticket, it feels like you are getting back a
little of what you put out. The price of the ticket, spent
on your own pleasure, makes you feel good.
But this is actually an illusion, say Marx and Adorno.
Underneath the surface of the transaction, commercial
interests are taking even more of the fruits of your labor
from you. And what they are giving you in exchange is
fake music. It is bland, repetitive, and formulaic. It
disappears quickly, to be replaced by more of the same,
because that is what makes money. It is not free.

Popular (and classical) music as

fetish

What do you really like when you like a popular song, a

rap concert, or a performance at the symphony? Not the
music, says Adorno. Rather, its the (illusory) feeling of
your own wealth (when you buy the concert ticket); the
feeling of belonging, of being cool, when you like what
is popular, or of being individual when you like
alternative music or non-commercial rap. (The
illustration of the ham radio operator. Translate it to your
own case!)
The entertainment system, and the money you give it,
contain the fruits of your labor, which you want. But the
freedom and satisfaction you want wont be found by
giving the system money. It wont be found, says
Adorno, by listening to commercial music.

Regressive Listening

The commodity system of music requires regressive (i.e.,

childish) listeners. Their (our) primitivism is not that of
the undeveloped, but of the forcibly retarded. Whenever
they have a chance, they display the pinched hatred of
those who really sense the other but exclude it in order to
live in peace.
Regressive listening is tied to production by advertising.
[It] appears as soon as advertising turns into terror, as
soon as nothing is left for the consciousness but to
capitulate before the superior power of the advertised
stuff and purchase spiritual peace by making the imposed
goods literally its own thing.
Watneys ad: We demand (what you are selling us).

Regressive Listening

The illusion of freedom: Alternative music.

Notice Adornos remarks (top of page 540) about
the wire fences between different kinds of
music, and the remarks from the bottom of 544
to 546 about individuals trying to break free from
the system and establish an individual taste.
Adornos point: there is a commercial slot
waiting for every individualist.
Vocabulary tip: reified = made into an object

Advertising as terror
Why does Adorno describe advertising as

terror? Do you think he is right?

How does the advertising system work to
promote music? Does it shape musical
taste?

Thinking about Adorno

How much truth is there in Adornos

analysis of popular music?

How does the commercial music and
entertainment system work?
How did you acquire the musical tastes
you have?
How much musical training do you have?

Thinking about Adorno

Is popular music simple-minded?
Is classical music (as played by orchestras

and on the radio) just as commercial as

popular music, as Adorno claims?
Does commercialism tend to swallow up
musical originality, substitute simpleminded formulas, and keep the audience
simple-minded?

Thinking about Adorno

Can you think of some ways that Adorno is

wrong? In particular, can you think of examples
of genuine originality in popular music?
What about musical taste? Are you growing in
your ability to hear and appreciate different kinds
of music? Do you hear more than you used to?
What about your musical expression? Do you
sing? Dance? Are you a better musician than
you used to be?