Capitalisation of Jazz - Essay Example

CAPITALISATION OF JAZZ That’s what capitalism does, doesn’t it? The “golden rule” of capitalism is that a capital should work for profit. A few ones who have a capital should hire a labor for their capital to make a profit. Those employees of whom labor generally consists have to “sell” their work force and skills, because they themselves have no enough capital to live on. But employees can live a free life in their non-working hours, can’t they? On their non-working time workers are free to do whatever they want, including Goethe reading, or listening to Beethoven music, or discussing Theodor W. Adorno’s theories about jazz. But they usually don’t. When turning to culture workers prefer a mass culture: a pop music, mass media and “light” literature. Is there a connection between employees’ “easy” tastes and particularly, their employment? Theodor W. Adorno thinks there definitely is. An employment of art Since the end of the 18th century the role of masses began to grow. During the 19th century this role was widely discussed, and at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries the key role of masses had become undeniable. Those masses of people had their specific mass needs which should be somehow satisfied. Therefore, new social structures were building and old political regimes were falling, and new ones (more modern) arising. Basically, two social (thus, and political, and economical) systems were practiced by Western world in 20th century: totalitarianism and capitalism. Because of its specific nature, art has a great power of influence. For this reason both of these modern systems had “employed” art to serve their needs. “Nazi regime has put every cultural activity into the service of the totalitarian setup”, Adorno observes (2002, 373). The same would be fair to say about Italian and Russian totalitarian systems as well. For the sake of ideological propaganda a new mass cultural production was created, and old great names were replicated – “names, to which the Nazi paid only lip service, such as Goethe and Beethoven” (Adorno 2002, 374). To spread a new mass cultural production a progress in science and technology came in useful. Adorno says, for this reason the line between science and art has almost gone, and mass culture couldn’t help being machine (2002, 377). Mass were mechanically taught the issues of the class, or issues of the nation in Fascism case. Individuality was not appreciated in totalitarian regimes. In its turn, capitalism is all about individual interests therefore capitalism is antagonism of totalitarian system. But individual interests of whom are appreciated? Capitalists always want their employees work to be cheap and maximally exploited for the profit’s sake. And also, capitalists want mass demand on the output of their companies. So they are capitalists whose interests matter. Masses have become the main consumer of the production and those production makers at the same time. Art has become a production as well, and also came on service in capital increasing process. “Consumption of the art became a mere appendage to the business interests of those were in command of the market” (Adorno 2002, 378). Though reasons are different, outcomes from both systems are similar: art has acquired new functions. Generally, Adorno observes “a standardization and manipulation of European culture” (Adorno 2002, 386). Standardization of music There’s a split-off music in capitalistic society (it is fair as well as for other arts). There’s a “light” one which accepts own marketability and therefore “takes its place on the side of society”, and a “serious” one which denies a market and therefore is “on the side of music” itself; a “light” one is trying to please a potential customer and therefore has mass demand, a “serious” one is destined for alienation (Adorno 2002, 395). Adorno stresses on standardization of a “light”, popular music. It means the way it’s formed (scheme of melody, rhythm and etc.) is always determined and expectable. “A system of response mechanisms is wholly antagonistic to the idea of individuality in a free, liberal society” which capitalism itself out opposite to totalitarianism (Adorno 2002, 439). Yet popular music always elicits a particular and common response. Capitalism which stands for individuality form the one side, sells a very stereotyped music to mass consumer from the other side. The reason of the paradox is in underpinning the market. A determined music causes a determined reaction and therefore a limited reflection. Seeking for a profit firstly, capitalism creates new music according to already exiting and successful schemes. “The music standards of popular music were originally developed by a competitive process” (Adorno 2002, 441). Capitalism has also found a formula of success for a music production: individualism plus standardization. New music to be bought should have both of these elements. It must be individual just enough to be sold to mass consumer as a new production, and yet it should be understandable enough for a mass consumer to “feel on safe ground”. Such a production has a demand on a market. When capitalists are blamed for this “lightness” of the mass production they used to answer, that they just give masses what they want. It’s true, but it appears to be that capitalistic system itself is responsible for masses’ needs. When employees during their work-time are maximally exploited, in their free time they naturally seek for a rest and not for a more practice. “Music, art and literature tend to become recreational activities, the mean to help the tired masses to gain new strength and to get away from the drudgery of their practical existence” (Adorno 2002, 385). In this way masses are maintained on that level of culture which fits best for capitalists: workers should be enough entertained to have a rest from their work, but not too much distracted form their work at the same time to keep pushing the capital. Why jazz? The described situation is general and thus as well fair for the capitalistic society of 20th century as for the beginning of 21th one. And also all other arts, not only music can serve capital in repressing of freedom and establishing conformism. So why particularly jazz was the subject-matter of Adorno’s concerns? I think the reason is that jazz simply fits great for such a discussion. Jazz origin is in dance music, and therefore rhythm and beat matters very much. It doesn’t imply jazz to have a rhythmic wealth though. “One of the best-known virtuoso pieces for jazz, the “Tiger Rag” is extremely simple in terms of composition” (Adorno 2002, 480). Rhythm can be quite primitive and stable during a piece of jazz music, thus basically jazz rhythm sounds mechanical. Adorno points that there’re a lot of instruments commonly used by jazz which have come from a military orchestra, such as horns and drums, and a saxophone itself – the symbol of jazz music (2002, 485). For this reason rhythmically jazz may sound pretty much similar to march music. The melody in jazz is also quite simple and catchy. The main trademark of jazz is improvisation which is going on during a performance. Jazz band individualizes the tune and can play famous jazz “false” notes, but what’s remarkable, is that individualization always walks the line of an original standardized scheme. For this reason, despite the individual element of improvisation, listener always “feel himself on safe ground”, because improvisation has its determined limits. Adorno also points that improvisation in jazz is a well-known and expectable thing, therefore improvisation is pseudo-individual. The proportions of standardized elements and new ones are maintained, and that’s what makes jazz music a marketable production (2002, 479). Adorno doubts freedom of jazz also for another reason. Modernism was tied of Western reasonable culture and was looking for an inspiration and new origins in other, more emotional cultures, and first of all among cultures of colonies and dominions. Jazz was usually played by black musicians and therefore jazz was considered by masses to be a new exiting foreign music. Yet jazz had less in common with African folk. Adorno says if rhythm in jazz has come from military music, melodically jazz has much in common with a resent art style, impressionism, and generally, with a salon music (2002, 485). The reason why it was played mostly by black musicians is far more capitalistic then artistic: they were the cheapest work force and European-American entertainment business had hired them as employees particularly with in the light of mass demands (Adorno 2002, 477). In support of this, jazz bands mostly were consisted of amateurs, whose labor was poorly paid, and only because of mystification of musicians’ blackness a primitivism of their skills was viewed as an origin. However, at the same time jazz was considered to be individual and understandable. Adorno says it caused jazz success among different economical classes (2002, 474). Upper class was excited by this new vulgar music, but needed a good reason to consume jazz music. Thus, jazz pseudo-individuality had come in useful and served as an excuse for people with “taste” to love a vulgar music. In their turn, lower classes loved jazz because it gave them an illusion that they could afford the same entertainment which upper classes enjoyed. “The dependent lower classes identify themselves with the upper class through their reception of jazz” (Adorno 2002, 474). A lack of understanding that jazz improvisation is a quite banal thing has only encouraged listeners. If taking view of a subject through Theodor W. Adorno’s theories, jazz music fairly can be considered a tool for conformism producing and increasing repression of freedom under capital. But however primitive and suppressing it may be, jazz music has inspired a lot of great thinkers and artists since the beginning of 20th century (among whom are Scott Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, writers from The Beat Generation) to create valuable works of art. I suppose for them too, jazz served firstly as a subject to study modern world around, because modernity of jazz couldn’t be argued. Stable military rhythms and pseudo-individuality for masses – what does sound more like 20th century then jazz? Reference Adorno, Theodor W. Essays on Music. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Read More