IN WHAT STANDING IS
THE INDIVIDUAL TO
MUSIC PRODUCTION
UNDER WESTERN
CAPITALISM?
Capital culture in music production analysed from the point of view of the individual.
ALEXANDER HILL
MAY 2013
Student Number: 216787
Tutors: Matthew Hodson
Module Code MP11
Contents
A.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
B.
The appeasement of the individual (consumer) is secondary to profit. ............................................................. 2
C.
Music production as an industry puts a price on culture (i.e. the share of ideas among individuals), .............. 3
D.
Industry has difficulty justly appraising the realization of the labour of individuals. ......................................... 4
E.
Music production as an industry is empowering and enabling of the individual. .............................................. 4
F.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
G.
References........................................................................................................................................................... 8
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 1 of 10
A. Introduction
Even death cannot stop music production. Often for years after the death of an individual, the creative force
they embodied can continue to propagate indefinitely (Stanyek and Piekut, 2010). This is difficult to contextualise
in terms of the individual. The individual is in little standing if this is exploitation but in great standing if this is a sign
of respect. The system both oppresses and empowers simultaneously.
There are a number of ways of looking at a problem. For the sake of keeping focus applicable to the reader,
this essay views the problems facing the underlying concepts that govern the application of music production from
the point of view of the individual. Capitalism creates homogeny but also accelerates development in music
production. It is a double-edged sword for the individual music consumer or producer. This essay will take into
presumption the notions that progression and development are positive for the individual whereas restriction and
homogeny are negative. The development of creative pursuits and cultural discourses are a positive while the
restriction of creativity and prevention of communication are negative. This is affirmed with theories of Adorno and
Horkheimer concerning their “culture industry”, a phrase as coined in Dialectic of Enlightenment in year 1944
(Horkheimer, 2002). A further presumption made by this essay is that there is a distinction between and “industry”
and “field”. Industry defined as an operation of manufacture and or trade in the name of pecuniary gain; field
defined as an area of human interest, activity or academia. This is no assertion that the two concepts are mutually
exclusive, just that the there are many conflicts that can be attributed to this divide.
Music production as a field meets uneasily with music production as an industry. “Culture industry” was a
phrase coined by as a kind of slur that could be seen to encompass music production as an industry. The quality of
the relationship the individual has with music production is secondary to that which is most profitable. The industry
manipulates the culture surrounding the individual in alignment with capitalism rather than with in alignment with
an “organic” mass culture. Music production as a field suffers from developmental and progressive restrictions
from this relationship with individuals.
B. The appeasement of the individual (consumer) is secondary to profit.
Music production as an industry is adept at conflating the notions of the individual and the notions of a culture
and can tend to habituate around formulaic mass reproductions to achieve the highest value for what it sells. Taste
is a cultural phenomenon (Boer et al., 2011), yet the taste of mass culture is manipulated by music production as an
industry, and tempered to be appeased by the products of mass production itself. In Berlin, club music has
undergone changes, reactionary or otherwise, as a result of “value creation” in the production of the music (Lange
and Bürkner, 2013). The appraisal of appeal to a mass audience guides the production of music. Habits which mass
culture had been inclined towards previously dictate the standing of the individual. This is recursively backward
looking and does not allow for development progressively. Economics guides the exposure of the individual to
music productions. Productions become homogenized and individual appeasement is secondary to profit.
The canons of music literature are formed based on economic, centralized and circular notions of what is of
historical value (Kärjä, 2006) and this extends to music production. This restricts the field and/or industry contexts
of music production unto the individual. Mainstreaming circularly influences the canon of the individual producer
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 2 of 10
of music. The individual producer is then inclined to produce within these confines. Then, the individual music
consumer is restricted in access to music: Both in the breadth and diversity of literary records and critiques that
would be available if mainstream sources documented more broadly, and in the diversity and breadth of music
accessible due to the recursion into repetition of music producers.
C. Music production as an industry puts a price on culture (i.e. the share of ideas among
individuals),
Fans are often deceived by industry into thinking that our access to culture should be via a toll; in fact fans
may be viewed less as individuals and more as penned-in consumers of culture as a commodity (Horkheimer, 2002)
by music production as an industry. There is a struggle between culture as being made of individuals free to “RW
(read/write) culture” and “RO (read/only)” (Lessig, 2008). This is to say that there is a great deal of regulation in
place preventing people from engaging with music production on the creative “writing” level if that engagement
does not profit music production as an industry. Copyright law restrains the creative individual producer in music
production from the point of view of a producer having the freedom to synthesise ideas. Extremism with regards to
copyright on the side of the industry and establishment creates extremism on the side of the individual consumer
of music production (Lessig, 2007). According to Lessig (2007), “economy of influence” orders that which
individuals are free do by means of the law. In response to this, there is an extremism among consumers where
there is a complete disregard for copyright. Capitalism and music production as a field are working uneasily
together, reciprocally damaging one another by working towards extremes. The industry of music production
displaces the individual in the felid. In addition, the appeasement of individual consumers is secondary to profit and
the appeasement of individual producers is secondary to presumption of what outdated legislation entail for their
creative freedoms.
The terms of that which is a commodity according to Grundrisse (Marx, 1973) can be refined to describe that
which includes that which generates a surplus of money (Taylor, 2007). Taylor (2007) continues to write that the
commodification of music itself is subject to the inter-relationships between ranges of “technological artefacts”,
specifically. These artefacts could be products such as personal guitars, pianos, computers, compact discs, mp3
players, etc. The argument is that the commodification of music as it is produced is dependent on the
commodification of any number of these- all of which designed to generate money in surplus by the standards of
Marxism (Marx, 1973). Taylor writes his explanation around the example of the player piano- the introduction of
which is enabling of the commodification of music as a record. Over a century later, digital technology
manufacturers are the main arbiter of the capability to commoditize music recordings (Lessig, 2008). The industry
surrounding the production of these kinds of items has a massive influence on that which is achievable by the
individual producer in music production. The individual consumer is also restricted in access to the music of music
production by these same connections. Lessig (2008) attributes this to the conditions imposed by the presumptive
and stubborn nature of law during the 20th century (Lessig, 2007). Society itself has issues deep seated that relate
more to the ideals of capitalism than to legislation alone. The historical context presented by Taylor (2007)
demonstrates how the issues are longer running than the last century. The ideals of capitalism itself define the
relationship of access the individual has to music production. The important thing for this extreme of capitalism is
generating the most money from technology that drives the industry of music production over appeasement of the
individual.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 3 of 10
Musicians and music producers struggle in fight for ownership of “intellectual property”, but the reality is
inescapable that the “property” they fight for is always composed of previous ideas. All new ideas are the synthesis
of other ideas. This is a reduction of the concepts of writing of Kant (Kant, Weigelt and Müller, 2007) in Critique of
Pure Reason. The true source of any idea cannot be an individual. This problem relates to the issue of
commoditization once more. All creativity, including music production represents a culmination of previous
experiences, cultural or otherwise. Industry and legislation hold assertions that do not cater for this and instead
confuse the achievements of cultures for the achievements of individuals (Ferguson, 2012). Music Production
Industry is inclined to prevent “remixes”. Against the previous claim made in this essay that music production as
industry creates recursive homogeny, this may seem paradoxical. However, Ferguson (2012) states that the
appeasement of producers and consumers are what these creative “remix” are aligned with, not inherently the
mere commodification of them, as industry would be. Unto the individual music producer, rampant, sometimes
litigious capitalist rhetoric restrict freedoms of progression and expression.
D. Industry has difficulty justly appraising the realization of the labour of individuals.
Expanding on the Marxist perspective outlined in Society of the Spectacle (Debord, 1983), We are in favour of
appraising content subjectively via style and aesthetics in music production as an industry. We see that how hard
working an individual or collective is has no bearing on the appeal to the chances of industry producing any
content. Essentially, if people do not see something as a good idea or as being part of their discourse then they do
not support it. Mainstreaming influences individuals from the outset, determining their discourses and or musical
canon. Music production industry sorts individuals into unfair hierarchies and pay brackets that have only tenuous
relations to the intensity in labour of their undertakings.
Countless individuals approach the creative industries, labouring for free in order to gain ground towards
entering the sector (Siebert and Wilson, 2013). The industry of music production is especially prone to this. This is
both a consequence and a symptom of the inability of the industry in fairly appraising labour; a clear elaboration of
how individuals are actively restricted in their engagement with music production by overarching notions of what
should be a commodity. The situation is inherently unfair on the individual because the ability to sustain a job
unpaid is exclusive to those who can afford it readily.
E. Music production as an industry is empowering and enabling of the individual.
Music production as an industry has the capacity to drive music production as a field to allow the synthesis of
ideas across cultures and culture divides. It can serve to bring the considerations and philosophies of broader
cultures into the western vernacular.
Often the mainstreaming of music by the music production industry is instrumental in broadening and lending
of exposure to music. Music production is communicative of important messages and engages people in discourse
on issues that would otherwise go unaddressed by a wider audience. For example, mainstreaming has brought the
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 4 of 10
work of musician and rap artist M.I.A., an artist who expresses social and political issues relative to South Asian
cultures, to the attention of a western audience. The discussion of these issues is broadening of understanding of
individuals in any cultures involved (Saha, 2012). Music production as an industry has here allowed a wide channel
of communication between an individual in the field of music production and individual consumers of music
production. This equals greater empowerment of the individuals on both sides thanks to music production under
western capitalism. The “legitimization” of jazz music (Thomas, 2002) serves as an example of many of the genre
definitions that are mainstreamed into western society. Specifically with Jazz music, Thomas (2002) refers to the
institutionalization resulting from mainstreaming citing specific artists and their recordings such as Miles Davis.
Moreover, Jazz music as the product of African American culture creates a further instance where there are new
open channels of communications between perceived culture divides. We can extrapolate that the individual is
empowered by music production, both on the side of the consumer and on the side of the producers of music. This
kind of discussion and communication between cultures is something broadening of understanding for the
individual and could not happen without the influence of music production. In contrast, Music production as an
industry still operates with a disregard for the individual if these broadenings of culture are incidental and come in
relation the intentional pursuit of pecuniary gain. Perhaps mainstreaming has no intrinsic intentionality to
communicate a political or cultural message. Here we still have a counter argument to the idea that mainstreaming
creates homogeny. However, purposefully aiding in development of a discourse is something we cannot logically
argue that music production industry actively engages in. Intentionality towards the individual is the limit of this
essay. Therefore, the individual cannot be in any intentional high standing to industry despite the aforementioned
examples. Nevertheless, the effect unto the individual in the aforementioned examples is entirely tangible and
there has been a positive impact on cultures intentional or otherwise.
There is an increase in quality and technological capability that is accessible to the individual thanks to the
driving force of industry. From a Marxist perspective, the music production industry is exclusive, driven by the
garnering of surplus profit, as explored previously in this essay. However, there are examples of technological
constructs of capitalism for which we can thank the broadening of the field. There are recent advancements
countering traditional professional music recording studio centred values of the record industry of the last century.
This is the shifting of capitalism working in the favour of a greater number of individuals. It expands the numbers
who have access to the means of production. It is widespread and commonplace for musicians to have music
recording capabilities at home thanks to the more recent advent of digital audio workstations (Pras, Guastavino
and Lavoie, 2013). This could be looked upon as a more Marxist and less capitalistic emergence, but the reality of
the technology is surely based on and founded in industry, it is simpy the outreach of industry to the individual at a
broad level. With the price of these capabilities being low and the technological complexity and capability
accelerating, as is exemplified by the development of low cost software such as Reaper (Strauss, 2013). Here the
individual is empowered to produce music by the technology industry and by extension the music production
industry, which is branching out to make the means of production of music more accessible. Further, the individual
consumer is subject to the greater diversity of choice accessible thanks to the wider diversity of producers of music
that results. Conversely, just as in the above examples presented on cultural communications, we cannot establish
the true intentionality of industry unto the individual.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 5 of 10
F.
Conclusion
Capitalist ideology taken to the extreme widens the delta between the music production industry and the
music production field. The access culture has to music production is in many ways aided by the drive of industry,
on the other the constriction and legislature of an overbearing struggle for money can obscure the goal of the
appeasement of the individual consumer, or the opportunity via immersion in a wider spectrum of influences, to be
part of a wider discourse
In summary of the main points raised. First discussed was the valuing and appraisal of the worth of music
productions based on appropriations of culture as a whole. This being applied unto the individual is a displacement
of the embedding of the individual in culture, often the appropriations made by industry are recursively selfrepeating and do not develop the field of music production any further. To the individual consumer there is a paled
and homogenised representation of music productions when held in comparison with what there could be in a
freer and more progressive context. The individual producer of music is unable to develop their field in this model
as perpetuated by industry and capitalism.
Another point of discussion was the restriction imposed by the mediation of access to music production by
economics. The individual is restricted in that which they are able to create via the synthesis of ideas due to over
presumptuous in upholding outdated incentives and legislation. The systems that benefit from this are voluntarily
reluctant to adapt to new technologies. These systems block the consumer from free creative pursuits, indeed this
is even a restriction from becoming part of music production as a producer. This is because of the restrictions of a
society that penalizes for the embellishment of existing ideas. The individual music production producer is already
under these restrictions. Western capitalist society allows capitalism to jut into extremes that are preventative to
the individual.
The third main part of this essay attempts to justify the capitalistic approach to music production by
exemplifying instances where the push of industry expands the access and communication of individuals across
culture divides. The process of mainstreaming can break away from the homogeny and recursive nature of
predictive formulaic appraisal. This is possible when industry expands to connect cultures. Both the individual
producers and consumers of music production are empowered here with the chance to engage in important
cultural discourse from both sides of cultures and the consumer/producer divide. Contrarily, industry intentionality
is difficult to prove and it is impossible to extrapolate this to know the true standing of the individual.
Reductions of concepts explored in this essay dictate that the powers of capitalistic extremes have the
capacity to alienate individuals whereas the wide reaches of capitalism can also empowering for individuals.
Without the mechanisms of mainstreaming in music production, much in terms of culture would go undiscussed.
The push of industry expands the field of music production and empowers anyone who wants to engage with
music. However, the weight of the systems that govern can stifle the natural nature of creativity and desire to
engage with creations to which all individuals are prone. This stifling is amplified by polarization into extremes by
interpretation of what the individual is free to create and to experience being created. We can view the standing of
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 6 of 10
the individual in music production under western capitalism by summary that individual is granted access to a
sometimes over restricted industry of music production, but also largely expansive felid. This runs parallel to the
industry and field of music production despite what industry intentions may be in reality. The practice of industry
does not reflect intent- any harm or good done is incidental to the primary goal. Unfortunately, for the individual,
the negative issues aforementioned can tend to arise when field and industry meet.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 7 of 10
G. References
Boer, D. et al., 2011. How Shared Preferences in Music Create Bonds Between People: Values as the Missing Link.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), pp.1159–1171.
Debord, G., 1983. Society of the spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red.
Ferguson, K., 2012. Embrace the Remix. [Video] Available at:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html> [Accessed 5 May 2013].
Horkheimer, M., 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. Cultural memory in the present.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Kant, I., Weigelt, M. and Müller, F.M., 2007. Critique of pure reason. London; New York: Penguin.
Kärjä, A.-V., 2006. A Prescribed Alternative Mainstream: Popular Music and Canon Formation. Popular Music, 25(1),
pp.3–19.
Lange, B. and Bürkner, H.-J., 2013. Value Creation in Scene-based Music Production: The Case of Electronic Club
Music in Germany. Economic Geography, 89(2), pp.149–169.
Lessig, L., 2007. Laws that Choke Creativity. [online] Available at:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html> [Accessed 12 May 2013].
Lessig, L., 2008. Remix - Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. [online] London: Bloomsbury
Academic. Available at: <http://ia600204.us.archive.org/13/items/LawrenceLessigRemix/Remix-o.pdf> [Accessed
10 May 2013].
Marx, K., 1973. Marx’s Grundrisse. Herts [England]: Paladin.
Pras, A., Guastavino, C. and Lavoie, M., 2013. The impact of technological advances on recording studio practices.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), pp.612–626.
Saha, A., 2012. Locating MIA: ‘Race’, commodification and the politics of production. European Journal of Cultural
Studies, 15(6), pp.736–752.
Siebert, S. and Wilson, F., 2013. All work and no pay: consequences of unpaid work in the creative industries. Work,
Employment & Society. [online] Available at:
<http://wes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/20/0950017012474708.abstract>.
Stanyek, J. and Piekut, B., 2010. Deadness: Technologies of the Intermundane. TDR/The Drama Review, 54(1),
pp.14–38.
Strauss, K., 2013. A Disruptor’s Disruptor Brings Pro Music Recording To The Masses. Forbes.com, pp.3–3.
Taylor, T.D., 2007. The Commodification of Music at the Dawn of the Era of ‘Mechanical Music’. Ethnomusicology,
51(2), pp.281–305.
Thomas, G.V., 2002. The Canonization of Jazz and Afro-American Literature. Callaloo, 25(1), pp.288–308.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 8 of 10
H. Bibliography
Adorno, T.W., 2002. Adorno: the stars down to earth and other essays on the irrational in culture. Routledge
classics. London ; New York: Routledge.
Boer, D. et al., 2011. How Shared Preferences in Music Create Bonds Between People: Values as the Missing Link.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), pp.1159–1171.
Debord, G., 1983. Society of the spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red.
Ferguson, K., 2012. Embrace the Remix. [Video] Available at:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html> [Accessed 5 May 2013].
Fournier, K., 2011. Theorizing Conceptual Change in Music Scholarship. Available at:
<http://www.musicandmeaning.net/articles/JMM10/KarenFournierJMM10.pdf> [Accessed 18 Feb. 2013].
Grout, D.J., 1973. A history of Western music. London: Dent.
Horkheimer, M., 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments. Cultural memory in the present.
Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Kant, I., Weigelt, M. and Müller, F.M., 2007. Critique of pure reason. London; New York: Penguin.
Kärjä, A.-V., 2006. A Prescribed Alternative Mainstream: Popular Music and Canon Formation. Popular Music, 25(1),
pp.3–19.
Lange, B. and Bürkner, H.-J., 2013. Value Creation in Scene-based Music Production: The Case of Electronic Club
Music in Germany. Economic Geography, 89(2), pp.149–169.
Lessig, L., 2007. Laws that Choke Creativity. [online] Available at:
<http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html> [Accessed 12 May 2013].
Lessig, L., 2008. Remix - Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. [online] London: Bloomsbury
Academic. Available at: <http://ia600204.us.archive.org/13/items/LawrenceLessigRemix/Remix-o.pdf> [Accessed
10 May 2013].
Marx, K., 1973. Marx’s Grundrisse. Herts [England]: Paladin.
Pras, A., Guastavino, C. and Lavoie, M., 2013. The impact of technological advances on recording studio practices.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), pp.612–626.
Saha, A., 2012. Locating MIA: ‘Race’, commodification and the politics of production. European Journal of Cultural
Studies, 15(6), pp.736–752.
Siebert, S. and Wilson, F., 2013. All work and no pay: consequences of unpaid work in the creative industries. Work,
Employment & Society. [online] Available at:
<http://wes.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/20/0950017012474708.abstract>.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 9 of 10
Simon, J., n.d. Punk rock brings out a new wave. The Free Lance-Star.
Stanyek, J. and Piekut, B., 2010. Deadness: Technologies of the Intermundane. TDR/The Drama Review, 54(1),
pp.14–38.
Strauss, K., 2013. A Disruptor’s Disruptor Brings Pro Music Recording To The Masses. Forbes.com, pp.3–3.
Taylor, T.D., 2007. The Commodification of Music at the Dawn of the Era of ‘Mechanical Music’. Ethnomusicology,
51(2), pp.281–305.
Thomas, G.V., 2002. The Canonization of Jazz and Afro-American Literature. Callaloo, 25(1), pp.288–308.
In what standing is the individual to music production under western capitalism?
Page 10 of 10