Music is often divided into a binary, which is then further subdivided into increasingly more specific genres and groups. Theodor Adorno was a German philosopher and social critic of the 20th century. Born in 1903 in Germany, he studied philosophy in university and then along with several other notable figures such as Walter Benjamin and Max Horkheimer, started the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School produced work in social criticism and modern philosophy, with Adorno being one of the most important figures. As many of the members were Jewish, the school was forced to relocate to the United States in wake of the events of the Holocaust, and it was in the United States that Adorno did most of his writing, often still in German. One of Adorno’s arguments regarding cultural analysis was that music should be understood as a dichotomy: that of ‘light’ or ‘popular’ music as opposed to ‘serious’ music.  This separation, while perhaps valuable at the level of casual conversation, has questionable value at the level of serious analysis, especially in light of technological advancements that have allowed artists to escape necessary monetization from, and thus compliance to, record companies and the music industry as a whole. While specific examples of this will be given, it feels valuable to first examine the aspects of each side of the typical separation. 

In Theodor Adorno’s essays “On Popular Music” and “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening” he establishes several characteristics that work to classify each of these two groups. ‘Popular’ music, which is also sometimes referred to as ‘light’, has specific features of which the “best known is the rule that the chorus consists of thirty-two bars and that the range is limited to one octave and one note” and “the harmonic cornerstones of each hit… must beat out the standard scheme” (Storey 57). Along with the strict rules in terms of form, Adorno also classifies it more qualitatively, saying popular music is “dominated by the commodity form” (Adorno 37) and that “the whole is pre-given and pre-accepted” (Storey 58). Overarchingly, and most concerningly for Adorno, is that the fundamental characteristic of popular music is standardization; individual parts are interchangeable in these songs because popular music never has a ‘whole’ meaning.  

‘Serious’ music, unlike ‘popular’ music, can almost perfectly be understood as the converse of what has been discussed above. ‘Serious’ music “derives its music sense from the concrete totality of the piece” (Storey 58) and has no inherent restrictions on its form. In contrast to ‘popular’ music, it does not evoke a conditioned response in the listener and must be listened to actively rather than passively; there is no way to tune out serious music or listen to it in the background of any situation.  In addition, ‘Serious’ music generally avoids commodification or experiences it to a lesser extent.  

An important question underlies the characterization of these two kinds of music: how are they each produced? Or more to Adorno’s worry, how and why does the excessive standardization of popular music arise? While this question is complicated to answer, Adorno seems to think the standardization arises as a result of the “monopolistic production” of music (Adorno 38) by “cartelized agencies” (Storey 61). The music industry, as a part of its progression, has become monopolized and controlled by corporations that then created the standards for popular music. Since these corporations, at least in Adorno’s time, owned the sole methods of production for music, their standards were the bottom line. Adorno states; “It all dates back to the command of publishers, sound film magnates and rulers of radio” (Adorno 36). In other words, standards arise from those who own the methods of production. While seemingly a difficult feat, controlling the methods of production at that time involved far less diversity of production than is seen today; this is exactly why a rigid division of musical types along with the necessary consequences of this standardization are questionable. Technology has created a far greater platform for non-monetized music, lowered the entry barriers into the music industry, and presented alternate pathways into music making.  

The production of music now, as opposed to during the late 1930’s and early 40’s in which Adorno’s two essays were written, is far easier to gain access to or to engage in due to the alternate pathways that now exist. While record companies still exist and have a great deal of influence there are now platforms such as Youtube and SoundCloud that allow musicians to avoid the complete monopolistic control of record companies and the music industry. Anyone is free to upload their content without cost or having to get ‘signed’ as is the case with record companies. Additionally, unless the music gets major exposure, neither platform is directly profitable for the artist. Aspiring or established artists can upload their content to these platforms simply to have it heard and experienced by an audience, completely circumventing record companies and the reaching control of the “cartelized agencies” that Adorno worried so much about.  

This principle is demonstrated through examples of music that likely would not have existed otherwise and defy the two spheres of music classification. The song DEV.NFO by MASTER BOOT RECORD showcases exactly this phenomenon. MASTER BOOT RECORD is an independent music producer who gives no more information about themselves other than they are located in Rome, and who uses a mysterious image to complement their unique musical sound. DEV.NFO seems to defy the conventions of both popular and serious music. DEV.NFO is anything but standard; it was composed completely on a computer, has an irregular (not 4/4) time signature, has no lyrics (and thus no chorus), and is no easy listen. Its shifting time signatures require constant attention to track. The song refuses to be relegated to the background— it demands active listening. Additionally, the computerized sound, a sort of synthwave mixed with industrial metal, is far from the typical sound that would be experienced in ‘popular music’. As a whole, the structure also greatly deviates from what would be found in a pop song. As the song progresses, the sound never gives any indication of where it is going next; right as complacency or comfort of listening is almost achieved, the song abruptly shifts again to a whole new sound pattern. DEV.NFO changes its tempo frequently, seemingly never returns to the same sounds, and alternates between a more aggressive and intense sound to a more relaxed one. 

Despite lacking most, or all, of the characteristics of popular music, I am reluctant to identify this piece as one Adorno would have called ‘serious’. It seems to be lacking the sort of thematic completeness that Adorno would attribute to serious music. In no way does DEV.NFO or any song by MASTER BOOT RECORD match the sort of tonal brilliance or compositional whole that Adorno attributes to composers such as Schoenberg and Webern. No defender of serious music would equate the two, and yet the song clearly does not belong to the realm of popular music. It completely evades the reductive standardization that plagues popular music and yet still seems so drastically different than all serious music. This difficulty of classification thus seems to present complications for Adorno’s binary of music types. DEV.NFO has managed to be produced but is not enjoyed widely by the masses and is certainly not standardized or created by the rigidly-controlled music industry; yet, there is still something lacking that prevents its clear classification as true serious music. 

What this seems to suggest is that the classification of music, even superficially, cannot be broken down into a binary. At the very least, there should be a third category for the types of music that evade categorization as either popular or serious music. This new schema for music is only able to exist today due to the alternate pathways of music production. Artists can find ways of reaching audiences directly through platforms that circumnavigate record companies and can connect them directly with their audiences, a phenomenon which was more or less impossible in Adorno’s time. With the freedom of production comes the freedom of both expression and style, thus enabling musicians to avoid the rigidly imposed forms and styles of standardization that have such a detrimental effect on the taste and individuality of the average listener. While Adorno worries that asking about taste might be the wrong question because the listeners of popular music “can neither escape impotence nor decide between the offerings where everything is so completely identical that preference in fact depends merely on biographical details or on the situation”, (Adorno 30) that worry may now be put aside as music again has a broad enough range of expression to warrant asking about taste.  

All of this complicates and should provide hope in the face of Adorno’s rather negative characterization of popular music and its effects. Even Adorno admits the whole trend of standardization and the dangers of popular music could eventually be done away with; he says, “it could suddenly turn around if art, in unity with society, should ever leave the road of the always-identical” (Adorno 59). Escaping the music industry’s tight hold on the means of production is exactly the step that needed to be taken to move away from the always-identical. Just the sheer fact that any song by MASTER BOOT RECORD has been produced, defying the basic binary of music and requiring a reconsideration of musical classification, shows that steps have already been taken. Each step taken is a step away from rigid standardization and the negative effects associated with it. With free creation of music, people are again able to have tastes and express them without doubt because not everything produced is identical; instead, every piece of musical media no longer strictly adheres to the antiquated requirements imposed by the music industry. Those who seek different music now have the platforms to find it, and Adorno can rest easy.

Works Cited 

Adorno, Theodor W. Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. Routledge, 2015. 

Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. 5th ed., Routledge, 2019.