C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
Music, Media, and the Public Sphere
In 1964, Jürgen Habermas defined the “public sphere” as “a realm of our social life in
which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed
to all citizens.” In Western society, Habermas’ “public sphere” has only been
accessible since the dawn of democracy and the allowance of individuals to
congregate privately, fearless of governmental restraints. Habermas accredits the
earliest newspapers as the first medium through which public opinion could
securely form and spread. “Karl Bücher characterized this great [media]
development as follows: ‘Newspapers changed from mere institutions for the
publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion – weapons of party
politics’.” The politics described refer to those of the public sphere and not of
government or authoritative bodies – an important distinction. “The state and the
public sphere do not overlap, as one might suppose from casual language use.
Rather they confront one another as opponents. Habermas designates that sphere
as public which antiquity [the feudal system, etc.] understood to be private, i.e. the
sphere of non-governmental opinion making.” Thus, the public sphere is an
encompassing result of the opinions conceived by any individual or parties being
shared through the media that shape cultural views.
Advancements in technology have allowed the contemporary public sphere
to manifest through magazines, radio, television, and the “one ring to rule them all”
– the Internet. Habermas’ original concept of the public sphere has held true to the
definition and spans across more mediums. The impact of said mediums – namely
1
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
the Internet, today, due to its combinatory platform of all media types – has greatly
increased the speed in which opinioned content reaches and laces the public sphere.
Through the many opinion-based social networks, such as personal blogs, facebook,
and Twitter, the expression and distribution of ideas is as simple as a re-quote, repost, or re-Tweet. As everyone and their mothers utilize some form of social
network, one can imagine the absurd vastness of bullshit that the public sphere
engulfs. However, within the sphere there are certain public matters that receive so
much attention and media dominance that they combine to result in an entire subentity of their own: popular “pop” culture.
Pop culture is easy to grasp conceptually, but how any single opinion can
snowball strongly enough to become a massively noticed and consumed object
within the sphere is mysterious. So mysterious in fact, that one may be inclined to
ask if individual opinions are really at the roots of growth and support for such mass
matters. Jimi Hendrix said in a 1969 interview: “To me, ‘pop’ just means ‘pilgrimage
of peace’ [from art]”. With the media’s cultural sway and the publics’ undying
interest, media organizations undoubtedly have a power that can be exploited
commercially unto the eager consumer. Interestingly, Habermas hints at this notion
in his defining of the public sphere: “publishers insured the [media] a commercial
basis, yet without commercializing [it] as such. The press [is] an institution of the
public itself, effective in the manner of a mediator and intensifier of public
discussion”. Thus, the question is: are the pop culture opinions in the public sphere
2
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
commercially controlled or miraculously popular enough by themselves to earn
spherical prominence?
Of course, there are opinions within the public sphere that remain pure, in a
sense, because they do not offer any blatant commercial gain, and therefore remain
safe from the hands of pop culture. A contemporary example of such purity is
evident in the online music blog, PitchFork, whose sole and unbiased purpose is to
review and discuss newly released albums from the most indie of bands to more
renowned artists. Musicians use personal Twitter accounts, uncontrolled by
publishers and labels, to keep constant communication with fans and even openly
discuss amongst one another about ongoing projects for the public to stay updated
on. Unfortunately, this notion of purity is harder to find than one might hope, as the
commercial side of industry maintains leverage over the masses. Theodor Adorno
and Max Horkeimer pessimistically address the issue of cultured commercialization
in their literary study, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.
“Because the inhabitants [of the public sphere], as producers and as consumers, are
drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystalize
into well-organized complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm
presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general the
particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial
framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested
in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows.”
3
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
With this commercial power complex in mind and within the context of this
paper, Habermas’ use of public opinion should now be viewed more so as public
object. In the public sphere, the public object may take the form of an artist, an
artwork, an ideal, or event. When any public object popularizes and receives mass
spherical notoriety, it becomes a pop object. Certainly, within the public sphere
there are medium-specified sub-pop objects, but this paper deals with music-related
ones, as they constitute the forefront of cultural opinion, media, and entertainment.
Adorno and Horkeimer argue that music-pop objects are commercially created
consumer-based products used to monopolize pop culture in the public sphere,
demonstrating “the absolute power of capitalism.” In Culture, industry, genre:
conditions of music creativity, Keith Negus offers the view of Fordism in the music
industry, describing the business to be as mass-producing an enterprise as any
other corporate entity. Although varying in portrayals of malice, these views
suggest that the music industry is simply another for-profit system exploiting the
publics’ entertainment desires. As Nate Savary shared based on his years of
production experience, the industry is “twenty percent music, eighty percent
business”.
Howard Sandroff, a renowned composer and producer, expressed his views
on today’s commercial music industry in comparison to when he was an active
jingle writer in the 1970’s, saying that “the industry is dead”; dead in the sense that
there is little to no money to be made in commercial music – most material we hear
on television advertisements today, for example, is either recycled from decades ago
4
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
or scalped from small time producers who are willing to work for cheap. In a
nutshell, the music monopoly selects economical resources with promising lucrative
potential. If everything comes down to cold hard cash, must the creative nature of
music be stunted beneath these financial pillars? It would seem that the limitations
placed on the many starving artists seeking recognition – or, at the very least,
financial security – force them in the corner of creating for success, popularity, and
money. Negus demonstrates the paradox of structuralism versus instructuralism
within the music industry: is creativity produced around political economy or do the
politics of the industry react to artistic creation? Negus believes both are true, and
suggests the paradoxical model: “industry produces culture [as] culture produces
industry”.
In the 1970’s, London experienced the youth-cultural movement of “punk
rock”, based around breaking traditions and creating shock value. The cultural
transformation evolved hand-in-hand with the many punk music groups popping up
like dandelions across London’s underground scene. Punk bands, such as The Clash
and The Sex Pistols, gained diehard followers and inevitably brought media attention
to the newly birthed subculture. Through the media’s portrayal, the punk lifestyle
was exposed in an intriguing thus entertaining light, and corporations capitalized on
the music, the look, the ideas, etc. All of a sudden, punk music labels formed, the
radio was playing “pop punk” songs, and the genre exploded into pop culture. The
evolution of the punk subculture demonstrates an instance of Negus’ paradox due to
the artistically pure origins of the movement and the eventual objectifying
5
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
capitalization of the image. Through this example, the weight of the industry seems
inevitable to fall unto any subcultural and genre-defying movement.
A hybrid theory of Habermas’ public sphere definition and Negus’ culture
industry paradox suggests that state should be considered industry, and therefore
the separation of state from the musical sphere is not made. If industry serves
economy, artists cannot help but serve the industry through the many financial and
licensing constraints they face. In the Plunderphonia chapter of his book, Audio
Culture, Chris Cutler argues for the full disbandment of copyright and music
licensing because it instills fear amongst creators not looking to catch a lawsuit and
diminishes the plethora of material available to create from. The hatred expressed
by Adorno and Horkeimer towards capitalism is understandable because the purity
of an artistic work is lost when it is utilized for consumption purposes.
In fact, according to Tia DeNora in her books, Music and intimate culture,
music is used in our everyday consumer lives as a “device of social ordering”. Chain
stores, such as, American Eagle Outfitters, play a specific genre of music, throughout
all of its locations, pertaining to a particular social subgroup. Members of different
subgroups are audibly repelled from American Eagle stores because the musical
ambience is so specialized. Corporations implement these soundtracks strategically
to draw in and entertain only the customers they want, and use them as a social
class to uphold the company’s cultural image. The same tactics are used in
restaurants, fitness centers, social gatherings, etc.…anywhere a specific crowd or
mood is sought after.
6
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
Human beings associate certain musical genres with certain activities and
feelings: house music with dancing and parties; cool jazz with intelligence; reggae
with relaxation; death metal with anger. Perhaps it is the emotional impact that
music has over individuals within the public sphere that explains why music is so
prevalent in daily life. Most, if not all of the musical associations made are based on
what we experience through the public sphere. Individually, people have their own
personal variations of association, but as a mass cultural entity, our associations are
based on musical portrayals within pop culture. Because of this, you may hate Miley
Cyrus for your own reasons, but when you are at a club with a lot of other people
and her one of her radio pop songs comes on, you are socially expected to know it
just as you are socially expected to enjoy it.
With the vast expansion of artistic material created daily, it is questionable as
to why our pop culture maintains a tightly knit circle of like artists, who all perform
within roughly the same group of subgenres. The subgenres all fall under the meta
pop umbrella, but span from pop dance, pop R&B, pop rock, pop punk, pop hip-hop,
etc. Most of what plays through today’s radio is a female voice over electro pop
beats, focused around similar lyrical content – party life, thug life, high life – and
similar innuendos – sexuality, drug use, hedonism. From the 1960’s, for example, to
2013, the American pop culture within the public sphere has shifted from peace,
love, and harmony to sex, drugs, and…sex. According to the current state of the
public sphere, these traits reflect what the mass culture appreciates in their music.
Not just the music, but film, literature, and the many personal online, user-upload-
7
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
based photo collages. All of these mediums draw from the same pool of qualities
and its creative participants bank on the consumption exploitation. Sex has always
sold, but its undying presence in contemporary pop culture is that of a stale
joke…it’s old news.
Apparently not though, as the success of this select group of pop objects
doesn’t waiver, but grows. Nobody knows the exact amount of money invested into
the image of any individual pop objects – cleverly dubbed “pop stars” by the music
industry in the attempt to conceal these artists’ true objectified nature – but the
evidence behind pop music is thick. Looking beyond the performer and realizing
the true composers and producers of the pop songs streamed and broadcasted daily
shows that the performers themselves are mere spectacles.
The face of the pop star seems the most important part of their contribution
to their own success. With auto tune technology in the production process, you
don’t even need to have a superior voice. Pop stars have the support of corporate
labels and thus acquire professional production squads at their disposal. Miley
Cyrus’ label, RCA, commissions a song from a residency, such as the Universal Music
Publishing Group (UMPG), which RCA then produces with Cyrus’ voice, followed by
a scandalous music video release. Largely, this has been the pattern in Cyrus’ case.
When the hype and shock value slightly simmer down from her latest music release,
her manager will plan an elaborate public stunt, attempting to keep the attention on
Cyrus at all times, such as the VMA scandal. Cyrus remains a prevalent pop object
8
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
because she keeps sending shockwaves through the public sphere, coaxing more
public opinions to rise.
The many forms of media that Cyrus and others of her spectacular kind –
Kanye, Brittney, Lohan, Lil’ Wayne, etc. – are portrayed through generates enough
spherical output to reach every participating individual within the public realm.
The constant multimedia presence not only benefits the artist and label, but all
license and copyright owners, and the media outlets themselves. Adorno and
Horkeimer’s dark demon behind the industry shapes these pop objects into their
respective spectacular natures. The public sphere engulfs whatever pop and mass
culture deems to be current in cultural interest and values. Even though the top of
the pop has remained stagnant in originality and genre, new shockwaves are
constantly omitted into the public sphere simply based on outrageous attentionseeking actions.
The values in content will change, the genres will change, the subgenres will
change, and the faces will change, but the meta pop culture will remain the same.
The public sphere exists as the realm of public opinion and public objects. Negus’
“culture industry” complex clarifies the nature of industry within the public sphere,
and its impacts on our social lives and social order. The industry may stunt the
potential of variety within pop culture and the largest layers of the public sphere
itself, but it is the individuals of a culture forming mass opinions that the industry
adapts to and capitalizes on. London’s punk movement demonstrated the power of
individuals to promote change and create an entire different style of art, untouched
9
C. Hildreth
11/19/13
MUSC201
Paper 3
until it’s popularized. From Habermas’ initial spherical inception and the exposition
of the cyclic relationships amongst artists, industry, and consumers, the
contemporary public sphere exists as a metaphorical onion (in fact, you can’t have
“opinions” without “onions”): the largest, most outer layer being the pop culture –
that which makes it to the top and is viewed through mass media – and then the
varying levels of controversy and popular opinion-provoking matters, objects, and
products bury themselves according to the attention they receive on mass scale.
The purist creators show little care as to where they fall, but sadly, these are the
artists that only true fans will remember, and their likelihood to maintain presence
within the public sphere in the long haul is null.
10