The E.N.D.

While the music industry is certainly a domineering and controlling one, I find it hard to believe that it is as powerful as some critics argue as to create the audience itself; after all, I’m fairly sure that we don’t live in the world Josie and the Pussycats suggests with an overarching, highly-secretive organization feeding us subliminal orders through pop songs. While Adorno argues that pop music just mirrors itself with variation to make new hits, the charts do not necessarily reflect that idea. Not every pop song becomes a hit; audiences choose which songs they like. The audience indeed relies on the music industry to provide access to music, and often is influenced via marketing and similar techniques, but they aren’t being held down and forced to listen to the X Factor. Music doesn’t all sound the same; therefore, between that and free will, which I like to think I still possess, the audience for music is not directly created by the music industry but is definitely influenced by it.

Exclusive! MixMag Review

If dance music and club culture is your scene, then MixMag is probably what you’re already reading! It’s aimed mostly at the young and cool bloke, but looking at the prices of the tech and gadgets advertised and featured, definitely not the broke. Even though MixMag has tiny print, the large pictures of raves, artists, parties, and fashion make it pretty clear that reading articles isn’t the main focus here. Besides, the language is generally casual and even when it does include slang**, shies away from cursing. One of MixMag’s biggest draws would certainly be its review section – its pretty huge. They review all sorts of clubbing music and mixes, clubs and festivals, gadgetry, and even fashion. The articles aren’t hard-hitting journalism, that’s for sure, and they do include those fluffy articles that ask artists their favourite kind of ice cream, yes, but MixMag is no gossip rag with a page three girl.

Catch Me If You Can

When it comes to downloading, the industry wants us to think that it is killing music; it is not yet evident that these are lost sales across the board. Look at Radiohead. Their whole album, Kid A, was downloaded by millions months before it came out, yet it still reached number one within its first week. And they later released an album online – pay as you see fit – and people did. As Lawrence Lessig argues, out of his four kinds of file sharing, the only one that is truly harmful to the industry is when it is used as a substitute for an actual purchase, but that does not mean a displaced purchase, as a sale may not have happened in the first place. This kind of downloading along with downloading as a sample before purchasing and accessing otherwise inaccessible copyrighted material may be technically illegal; however, they may be beneficial to artists later on as their newfound fans purchase concert tickets or other merchandise. So while downloading is not exactly legal or profitable for the industry, it isn’t necessarily the end of the world either.

Rock the Vote

Although music itself does not directly change anything, it does act as an impetus for political change as a rallying call, anthem, instigator, reminder towards action. It would be rather difficult to quantify the effect music has on politics. There is no real way to determine if this song changed pushed these people to act, but that does not mean that music isn’t effective either. Events such as Band-Aid and Comic Relief can measure in a way as people phone in their monetary support, which is quantified.

As Street points out, music by its very nature is politically charged as it has the power to create visions, articulate ideas and create bonds. So whether it’s a Live Aid concert to raise awareness, a song used by a candidate, a protest song, or charity concert, it is possible for music to rise above the shortcomings of the music industry as a tool for change.  

Part of your World

The term "world music" is both tricky, and rather silly, to define. After all, isn't all music from this world? I'm not sure about everyone else but I for one don't listen to Martian jazz. Record stores would call it music that isn't an Anglo-American genre, or the rather hard to categorize kind of music. Hesmondhalgh points out that this distinction between indigenous and Western music is symptomatic of cultural imperialism. The way we define music itself is cantered on the West. When a song doesn’t fit into the Western idea of a genre due to style, artist, language, it gets shoved into this “other” category – World Music. However, globalization is shrinking the world. Shrinking the world won’t mean a reduction in styles though, as Manual’s experiment in India proved. When genres meet, they do not annihilate each other, but create a new sound. As musicians incorporate more sounds and influences perhaps the very idea of “world music” will change as well.  

Commodity, Art, or Artsy Commodity?

While it is completely possible that all popular music is simply a massed produced commodity, it is rather unlikely that every song that makes the charts lacks artistry or individualization.  Adorno’s observations of the capitalistic nature of the music industry definitely ring true, though, for that is what it has become in many ways – a production line. His respect for classical forms is logical and well founded as well, but it is rather unjust to hold popular music and classical music identical standards as they differ in purpose and form. Not all popular music is high art, The X Factor and that ilk prove that theory wrong, but even if a majority of popular music is just mass produced, thoughtless standardized muck there are those few artists that defy that model and create beautiful, artistic, well beloved music (look at Mumford and Sons – have you heard as many literary allusions in recent times from any song than those in “The Cave”?).  Generalizations are hard to pull off as there is always the exception to the rule, which is where Adorno stumbles a bit.

What about the Music?

While Peterson's production of culture perspective gives clarity to the context of the birth of rock with its analysis of the industry structure, occupational opportunities and legal issues, it also manages to overlooks several other key aspects essential to understanding the rise of rock and roll in the 1950s. Peterson discusses some technological advances that allowed for the rise of rock, looking mostly at delivery of music and not so much at recording or instruments, which was explored by Theberge. Peterson also fails to look at the music itself. 
He sets up a strong framework for how rock came to be but it could be applied to lots of other things as well. Why did rock become popular at all rather than some other genre? Why 1955? Peterson just doesn't quite answer these, although if taken along side Theberge and other analyses, it gives a much broader picture of both the how and why.