No...I don't think so.
It's actually a quick read (took about 2 minutes)...and it talks about how "popular culture" is the tool of capitalism to keep the sheep in line.
I agree somewhat that "pop culture" is a mass-driven thing...but I don't agree with the notion that true expression and originality in art can only come from some extreme deviation and abandonment of with is considered popular in any culture.
Most things that become "pop culture" start out as something new/weird/original. The problem is that once it gets to a point of pure "fashion" for a culture to choose to embrace that art, that's when it can turn into a slippery slope.
Also...the notion that only capitalism drives pop culture, as some "conspiracy" to control us...I'm not buying. Yeah, capitalism will certainly try and profit off of it, but it's also up to individuals to look/learn/find new things...though it is true that many are just lemmings looking for "fashion".
lol, yeah like most philosophers/theorists some of the points he makes are bang on, but he got slated a lot for the reasons you suggested (well, that, and it was the 1930's and left wing idealism was frowned upon in the west). he was unbelievably elitist but the idea of things being mass produced and, in turn, watered down seems truer today than ever. one of the best examples i can think of of this, and one i often use, is the band "Franz Ferdinand";
in the early 2000's (i
think 2004) "take me out" got to number one in the charts. that summer, franz ferdinand toured europe, played high up the bill at some very big festivals, and everywhere you turned it was "franz ferdinand this" and "franz ferdinand that". at the height of their fame, NME ran on their front page the headline "Franz Ferdinand; the biggest band in the world". now, this was at a time when Michael Jackson, U2, Madonna, AC/DC, etc etc were still selling out world tours in and hand more hit singles and albums under their belts than franz ferdinand had had hot dinners. nearly 10 years later, the band have basically disappeared off the face of the world. they realised
four albums, although i've yet to meet anyone who has even heard of this, let alone bought any of them! infact, when i explain this story to 100 16 year olds every year, i start by asking "how many of you have heard of the band Franz Ferdinand?" 6 years ago most did, this year no one in the whole group did! even when i played them "take me out" only two said that it sounded familiar. so, my question is always "why did they disappear?". were the songs bad? were their haircuts wrong? or was it because when franz ferdinand rose to success nearly every record label in the uk found their own version of franz ferdinand. within weeks the charts was full of identical sounding songs by bands with the same hair cuts, fashion sense, and attitude. the record labels mass produced a product that had been proven to sell in the
short term. looking back over the short history of popular music, these trends and fads in music are fairly obvious, but the past 15 years has seen these trends change on an almost year basis rather than decade by decade. thinking about what adorno says, i do agree that the idea of the government playing a leading role in manufacturing popular culture to sedate the masses seems ridiculous, but the record companies (who, let's face it, are the top of the music industry)
do seem to do exactly this, although not for the same sinister reasons adorno suggests, but purely for monitory gain! it is an industry after all
one of the dangers of the internet, imo, is that now it's not only record labels who are doing this; young bands are doing the same. they hear something they like that is popular and imitate it perfectly, rather than using it as a starting point and evolving it. don't get me wrong, there are alot of bands and artists who do take their chosen genre and evolve it, but for every one of these there are 1,000 bands who do the opposite and just work on what is popular right now.
now, there are others out there who see these trends but rather than evolve music from where music is, they look back into the past and reinvent music from a time gone by. however, often these bands don't evolve the genre, they just continue to imitate. This seems to work on the premise that there enough people who are young enough to not remember it the first time around, and seeing as it's this market that have the most buying power in the music industry, this tactic seems to work very well in the short term, until grumpy old men like me go "oh, so you're new band sounds exactly like The Smiths, remind me how original you are!?".
sorry for my cynical grump, and this is all just my opinion, but it just frustrates me so much when musicians take their talent, skill, and personal expression and put all of their energy in to imitating someone else's talent, skill, and personal expression.
