Written by Michael Walker
Adorno’s concerns and thoughts regarding fetishization and regressive hearing could be applied to many musics, but perhaps overwhelmingly to popular and hip-hop music. When considering his views towards the fetishization of music, it is important to address its relationship to commodification. For Adorno, there is a corollary between commodification and fetishization. The extravagant irrational devotion to certain aspects of music is in direct relationship to the marketing of the music. Of music, Bowman (1998) stated, “The only way it can maintain its right to exist is to resist the gravitational pull of fetishization and reification that lies behind appeals to spirituality.” (Bowman, 1998, p. 314) In Adorno’s view, music must resist easy access and familiarity. It should not be treated or experienced as simply a consumable commodity.
Given the influence music has on society, and its potential nulling effect, a significant amount of Adorno’s concern is valid. People report that music helps to relax and calm them, yet according to Adorno, this is in direct contravention to what ‘good music’ is supposed to do. Because of this, Bowman posits that Adorno detests the impact of reification and commodity fetishism. With that said, there are parallels within current musical trends. For example, young people tend to like music because their friends like the same music. It is an experience of social consumption. As a result, secondary music students can suffer from a resistance to work at creating music, seeking only to consume it. The music industry perpetuates this in a cyclical approach to marketing; in that, popular music styles are promoted until a new popular music style . Adorno suggests that most music is designed for popular consumption, including categories like light rock, pop, and unfortunately, he includes jazz in these consumer musics. However, with Adorno’s ideas on the qualities of modern music being innovative and challenging, it is hard to see him placing jazz and jazz improvisation in the same category. Bowman points out that Adorno was short-sighted in his interpretation and assessment of jazz and jazz improvisation, by explaining that he simply did not understand the musical intellect and creativity involved in jazz, and especially jazz improvisation. Unfortunately, this limited view is not uncommon in many areas of music education. The creative and improvisatory nature of much of jazz is neglected or missed in Adorno’s assessment. I would assume he did not listen to Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, or Thelonious Monk.
As for regressive hearing, this too is an area that has some validity. Too often, music is used as a passive experience – something playing in the background to be ignored. The absence of constructive engaged listening is a concern; although most of society (including many educated musicians) fall short in Adorno’s eyes. The listener should be completely engaged and totally focused on the music. “It is a listening that fully grasps the concrete reality of the music” (Bowman, 1988, p. 320). Even in this, however, Adorno concedes that only a small group of professionals would truly fit into this category of listeners, and even then, not at all times.
References
Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives of music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Philosophy of Music 