Adorno's piece focuses heavily on the comparison of popular and serious music. He argues that “Popular” music is to blame for a decay within art and, through it's simplicity and mass produced nature, it has led to music becoming standardized.
He counters this by praising classical, or “Serious” music, for its ability to be appreciated within the art circle and it's creative complexity.
The trend of manufactured artists within the popular music industry supports Adorno's theory through their replicated construction, leading to the industry becoming predigested.
However, due to the competitiveness of the genre more artists are being forced to play their own instruments to compete and be original, therefore making it unfair to judge the genre as a whole.
Adorno links music with individualism, freedom and happiness and the fight against capitalism, making it even more understandable for his criticism of popular music with its nature being so heavily influenced by modern culture and industry.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Monday, 23 February 2009
How useful is Peterson's production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of rock 'n' roll?
Peterson appears to forget what rock and roll is all about in his piece on it's birth. He clearly outlines the clinical production process of the industry through focusing on the fight to be different on radio to the accessibility of the vinyl records. At no point does he ever give reference to the music itself.
He even goes as far as to discard the talent of the early blues and country musicians who's talent clearly gave at least inspiration to the generation of rock music, let alone contribute to it's birth.
The genre of rock and roll has always focused heavily on attitude and sound; the desirability of picking up a simple structured song and enter fantasy land for a whole 3 and a half minutes. To not explore the development of the musicians and instruments within the genre leaves his piece cold and patchy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)