Contemporary Philosophical Theories of Popular Music

Introduction

Philosophical reflection on music, especially popular music, inevitably confronts fundamental questions of aesthetics and cultural theory, rooted in antiquity and further developed during the Enlightenment. For German idealists such as E.T.A. Hoffmann, music was a "spiritual absolutism" revealing an "unknown realm" of infinity, separated from the sensory world [Jamieson, 2018, p. 96], whereas contemporary thought must consider its deep embedding in everyday life and social context. This dichotomy between the sublime and the mundane, between pure form and social content, serves as a starting point for understanding how philosophy approaches the study of the phenomenon of popular music.

While classical philosophy of art often focused on "high" art, modern theories recognize that popular music, despite its commercial nature, is a powerful cultural text shaping identities, emotions, and social bonds. It not only reflects but actively constructs social reality, becoming a field for ideological battles, expressions of protest, and the formation of collective memory. The analysis of popular music requires an interdisciplinary approach that goes beyond traditional musicology, integrating sociology, cultural studies, gender studies, and affect theories to reveal its multifaceted influence on contemporary society [Born, 2010].

In this lecture, we will consider key philosophical theories that help to comprehend the phenomenon of contemporary popular music. We will delve into the critique of the culture industry proposed by Theodor Adorno, explore phenomenological aspects of listening, analyze postmodern approaches to intertextuality and hybridization, and also touch upon issues of gender, race, and ethnicity in the musical context. Our goal is to show that popular music is not merely the background of our lives but a complex object requiring deep philosophical reflection capable of revealing its aesthetic value, social function, and ideological content.

Detailed Exposition

Aesthetic Value and the Nature of Popular Music

Can music that sounds from every radio and sells in millions of copies possess genuine aesthetic value, or is it merely fleeting entertainment? This question lies at the heart of many debates about popular music, challenging traditional criteria of artistic merit and questioning established hierarchies. For a long time, academic thought, especially represented by critics like Theodor Adorno, regarded popular music as a product of the "culture industry," devoid of authentic art and serving only to maintain the status quo [Schell, 2008].

Such a view often relies on the notion that classical music, with its complex harmony and developed forms, has incomparably greater potential for expressiveness and psychological depth. James Young, for example, argues that classical music (understood as composition within accepted practice) has greater expressive potential and, consequently, greater potential for psychological penetration and depth [Young, 2016]. He connects this to the richer harmonic resources of classical music, its functional harmony, counterpoint, and modulations, contrasting this with the allegedly limited rhythmic diversity of popular music.

However, this approach risks overlooking the very nature of popular music, which does not aim for the same goals as the classical tradition. If classical music is often perceived as something that reveals to a person an unknown realm, a world entirely separate from the surrounding external sensory world [Jamieson, 2018], then popular music, on the contrary, is deeply rooted in everyday life and social experience. It does not strive for abstract infinity but rather for immediate emotional response and the formation of collective experiences.

This is why serious study of popular music long encountered distrust, as Philip Tagg notes: One of the initial problems for any new field of study is the attitude of distrust it faces. Serious study of popular music is no exception to this rule [Tagg, 1982]. This distrust stemmed from the belief that popular by definition cannot be deep or meaningful, that it is merely superficial and commercially oriented. However, such a view ignores the fact that popular music, like any other art, is a complex cultural text requiring careful analysis.

Contemporary researchers such as Ivana Medić call on musicologists to leave their academic "ivory tower" and actively engage in studying soundscapes formed in various communities [Medić, 2022]. This call for "applied musicology" emphasizes the need to study music in its living social context, not only through the lens of formal analysis. Popular music, by its nature, is part of this living soundscape, and its study requires an interdisciplinary approach that considers not only its aesthetic but also sociological, cultural, and even political dimensions.

The question of authenticity also becomes central in discussions about popular music. If Adorno saw in the standardization of popular music a loss of authenticity, contemporary performers like Lady Gaga actively construct their "authenticity" through interaction with the audience and creating a certain narrative. Simone Varriale analyzes how Lady Gaga rejects the opinion of the "soullessness" of her "dance music," referring to the intensity and sincerity of her fans' feelings: The soul I feel from my damn beautiful fans at my show cannot be a lie, it cannot. I have never in my life seen such intensity on their faces [Varriale, 2012]. Here authenticity shifts from the realm of pure artistic intent to the realm of collective experience and social interaction.

This shift in understanding authenticity is closely connected to the idea that musical works, especially popular ones, do not exist in a vacuum but are formed and stabilized over time through technologies, performance practices, and cultural aspects. Trevor Pinch notes that "technologies of sound production, performance practices, and broader cultural aspects (such as naming sounds) are crucial components of sound standardization" [Pinch, 2019]. This means that even what seems "standardized" is actually the result of a complex interaction between technologies, creative decisions, and social conventions.

The aesthetic value of popular music cannot be assessed solely by criteria developed for other musical traditions. It requires a different approach that considers its ability to evoke strong affects, shape identity, and serve as a means of social expression. As Robin James notes, even in the images of "robo-divas" in R&B, such as Beyoncé, one can see not just a commercial product but a complex play with aesthetics and politics that deconstructs traditional notions of authenticity and expressiveness [James, 2008].

Ultimately, the question of the aesthetic value of popular music leads us to a broader understanding of how sound and its perception are shaped not only by artistic intentions but also by the material conditions of its production and consumption. If we want to understand how music becomes meaningful to people, we need to study not only its internal qualities but also how technologies and social practices shape its very sound and perception.

The Influence of Technologies and the Social Constructivism of Sound

If in the previous section we discussed how popular music challenges traditional aesthetic categories, now it is worth asking: what exactly shapes the sound we try to evaluate? After all, music, especially popular music, does not exist in a vacuum; it is deeply rooted in the material world of technologies and social practices. In other words, the aesthetic value discussed by [Young, 2016], or even the very possibility of serious study of popular music as insisted by [Tagg, 1982], are inextricably linked to how sound is produced, distributed, and perceived.

Technologies undoubtedly play a central role in this process, acting not merely as tools but as active participants in shaping the musical landscape. Trevor Pinch, in his work "From Technology Studies to Sound Studies: On the Importance of Materiality" [Pinch, 2019], convincingly demonstrates how sound production technologies, performance practices, and even cultural aspects such as naming sounds are "crucial components of sound standardization." This means that the sound we hear is not some pure, natural entity but rather the product of a complex interaction between human intention, technical possibilities, and social conventions.

Consider, for example, the history of the Moog synthesizer analyzed by Pinch. This instrument did not merely reproduce new sounds; it stabilized them, made them recognizable, and ultimately integrated them into the musical language. Users experimenting with the Moog not only mastered the technology but actively participated in shaping its sound, determining which timbres would become "iconic" and which would remain peripheral. Sound stabilization is not a one-way process where technology dictates terms but a dynamic interaction among producers, instruments, and listeners.

However, it is not only about stabilization. Once created and stabilized, sound begins to function as a sign and symbol whose meaning is largely determined by context. As Jamieson notes [Jamieson, 2018], recorded sound can be an unambiguous sign of its source, but once manipulated, it becomes part of a musical narrative or discourse, becoming a symbol. This is especially relevant for popular music, where sampling, processing, and layering of sound create new meanings that may be far from the original source.

Digital technologies, in particular, have radically changed this dynamic. The Internet, as Cascone notes [Cascone, 2000], has spawned a new movement in digital music where composers are often self-taught, and the aesthetics of "failure" or "glitch" become part of the artistic intent. This undermines traditional notions of mastery and authenticity important for classical music and even early forms of popular music, as Adorno criticized, seeing standardization as a loss of authenticity [Kellner, 1984]. In the digital environment, imperfection itself can become a source of new aesthetic value.

This shift toward digitalization and mediatization, discussed by Negus and Goertzen [Goertzen et al., 1999], also emphasizes that popular music is formed through a complex network of relationships between industry and audience, producers and consumers. Technologies here act not merely as means of production but as mediators actively shaping perception and consumption of music. Lobato [Lobato, 2016], in his analysis of digital intermediaries, shows that these "intermediaries" do not just transmit content but actively participate in its formation, influencing what becomes popular and how it is perceived.

The psychoanalytic approach, as proposed by Gunn and Hall [Gunn et al., 2008], helps to understand how individual listening experience intertwines with external forces and discourses influencing this experience. They argue that the key theoretical difficulty of any interpretative scheme lies in the tension between the individual's personal experience of the object and the external forces and discourses mediating and influencing that experience. This tension is especially noticeable in the context of technologically mediated music, where the act of listening itself becomes part of a complex psychodynamic play.

Sound in popular music is not merely an acoustic phenomenon but a socially constructed artifact whose materiality is inseparably linked to its cultural meaning. Ivana Medić [Medić, 2022], in her "manifesto" of applied musicology, calls for a broader understanding of music beyond purely academic research and emphasizes that musicology stands at the intersection of science, culture, and art. This confirms the necessity to consider sound not only in terms of its physical properties but also as a product of social, cultural, and technological processes.

Even seemingly abstract concepts such as authenticity, which Varriale [Varriale, 2012] investigates using Lady Gaga as an example, turn out to be deeply connected with technologies and social expectations. What counts as "authentic" in the era of digital manipulations and carefully constructed images? The answer to this question requires not only aesthetic judgment but also understanding of how technologies shape our notion of genuineness.

Ultimately, we conclude that sound itself, its structure and perception, result from a complex interaction of material, technological, and social factors. This leads us to the next step: if sound is so plastic and constructed, how do we organize it into meaningful categories? How do these constantly changing soundscapes shape what we call "genres," and how do these genres, in turn, influence our perception and understanding of popular music?

Definition and Dynamics of Musical Genres

If in the previous section we discussed how technologies and social practices shape the very sound and perception of music, now a natural question arises: how are these sounds, these perceptual experiences, organized into meaningful categories? After all, music rarely exists as a shapeless flow; it almost always appears to us in the form of genres. Genres act not merely as convenient labels for classification but as dynamic social constructs that organize the musical landscape and influence our interaction with it.

Understanding genre goes far beyond purely musical characteristics. Franco Fabbri, as cited by Gracyk, defines a musical genre as a set of musical events (real or possible), the course of which is regulated by a certain set of socially accepted rules [Gracyk, 2016]. The key word here is "socially accepted." This means that genre is not an immanent property of the music itself but rather the result of a collective agreement, constantly revised and refined. These rules, of course, are not carved in stone; they are elastic and change depending on the group applying them and its social position [Gracyk, 2016].

Such elasticity of genre boundaries emphasizes their social nature. For example, what one group of listeners considers "hard rock," another may perceive as "classic rock" or even "metal," depending on their musical experience and cultural context. This is not merely a matter of terminology but reflects how different communities construct their musical worlds. Merlini stresses that defining genre requires considering not only musical style but also other features not directly related to music, necessitating an interdisciplinary approach including sociology [Merlini, 2020].

The psychoanalytic approach, as proposed by Gunn and Hall, can help explain why certain genres attract different listeners even if these reasons are not always conscious [Gunn et al., 2008]. They argue that the appeal of a song or genre lies in the dynamics of two interconnected "economies": the libidinal, related to kinetic rhythms and experiences, and the linguistic or representational, concerning culturally defined meanings of sounds. This helps to understand why a person may unconsciously tap the rhythm of techno even if consciously disliking it. The individual subjective experience of the listener, their unconscious drives, and infantile experiences play no lesser role here than formal musical structures [Gunn et al., 2008].

However, if we focus solely on subjective experience, we risk missing the collective aspect of genre formation. Genres are not just individual preferences but rather shared frameworks within which these preferences are formed and expressed. They create a kind of "soundscapes," as Ivana Medić notes, calling on musicologists to leave the "ivory tower" and actively study sounds emerging in various communities [Medić, 2022]. This applied musicology, in her view, allows seeing how musical practices are embedded in everyday life and how they form cultural hubs.

The question of authenticity is also closely linked to genre definitions. Simone Varriale, analyzing Lady Gaga's image, notes that discourses on authenticity often rely on the "romantic discourse" of music as unmediated self-expression and the "folk discourse" of music as cultural expression of a community [Varriale, 2012]. These discourses, in turn, shape expectations about what "real" music should be within a given genre. When an artist like Lady Gaga plays with these expectations, it sparks debates about her "postmodern subversive activity," although Varriale argues this often overlooks deeper narratives of authenticity she constructs.

Technologies discussed in the previous section also actively participate in the formation and reformatting of genres. Digital platforms, streaming services, and even non-fungible tokens (NFTs), as Chalmers and colleagues note, create new ways of distributing and monetizing music, inevitably influencing how genres are perceived and evolve [Chalmers et al., 2022]. Whereas genres were often tied to physical media or specific radio stations, they now exist in a more decentralized and globalized space where boundaries become even more permeable.

Genres act as dynamic social constructs constantly redefined through interactions among musicians, listeners, technologies, and cultural institutions. They are not static categories but rather living, breathing entities reflecting and shaping our conceptions of music and the world. Understanding this dynamics requires not only analysis of musical structures but deep immersion into social, psychological, and technological aspects. Ultimately, studying genres leads us to a broader question of how music as a whole participates in identity formation, critique of social norms, and expression of various groups, which will be the subject of our further consideration.

Sociocultural and Political Significance of Popular Music

If in the previous section we considered how genres are formed through social agreements and cultural contexts, it is now logical to move to a broader question: how does popular music itself, organized into these genres, function in society, reflecting and shaping it? Music, like any cultural artifact, does not exist in a vacuum; it is deeply woven into the fabric of society, becoming a field for expressing identity, critique, and even political struggle.

Popular music, contrary to early aesthetic judgments of its superficiality discussed in §1, turns out to be a powerful tool for self-knowledge and critical reflection on the world. Ivana Medić, for example, in her "manifesto" of applied musicology, emphasizes that music education can become an ideal platform for analyzing one's own traditions and practices, fostering independent, reflective, and critical thinking [Medić, 2022]. This means music not only entertains but provides an opportunity for deep introspection and social analysis.

Popular music often serves as a mirror reflecting social problems and tensions. It gives voice to those on the margins and allows artists and listeners to comprehend complex aspects of human experience. For example, reggae music, as White notes, became a means of expression for "outsiders" and "others," enabling them to articulate their experiences and challenge dominant narratives [White, 2015]. Here music becomes not just a soundscape but an active participant in social dialogue.

The question of authenticity, often raised in the context of popular music, especially in its opposition to "high" art, acquires new dimensions. If Adorno criticized popular music for standardization and loss of authenticity, contemporary researchers see it as a field for complex play with identity and artistic value. Simone Varriale analyzes Lady Gaga's image, arguing that her "flamboyant polysemy" does not negate but rather strengthens discourses emphasizing the authenticity of her music and personal identity [Varriale, 2012]. This shows that authenticity in popular music may not be an innate quality but the result of complex performative work and interaction with the audience.

Music also becomes a field for expressing identity and critique, especially for marginalized groups. The question of what it means for Black women to represent themselves as robots, as James notes, goes beyond simple rejection of stereotypes [James, 2008]. Here we see how popular music is used to rethink and redefine identity, challenging established notions and creating new forms of self-expression. This resonates with Deleuze and Guattari's ideas about the rhizomatic nature of identity, which is constantly formed and reformed.

Contemporary philosophical approaches to aesthetics in education, as David Lines notes, call for a broader and more critical view of music that goes beyond traditional conceptions [Lines, 2022]. He argues that aesthetics, understood as a changing and contemporary movement of thought, can open new and important spaces for learning and experience. This is especially relevant for popular music, which constantly evolves and requires a flexible analytical apparatus.

Psychoanalytic approaches also offer interesting perspectives for understanding popular music. Freud, although not placing music centrally in his works, nonetheless, his ideas about the unconscious, desire, and affect can be applied to analyzing how music affects the listener [Barale et al., 2008]. Joshua Gunn and Mirko Hall, for example, explore the psychodynamics of iPod enjoyment, arguing that the device is a synecdoche of structural relations between the libidinal and representational economies of musical enjoyment [Gunn et al., 2008]. This emphasizes that music consumption is not only an aesthetic but also a deeply psychological process.

Popular music, especially mainstream, is often regarded as a product lacking stylistic integrity, oriented toward the widest possible audience. Mattia Merlini notes that the mainstream is closer to a mode of production than a genre, aiming to become "universal music" that "nobody in particular" can enjoy [Merlini, 2020]. However, even in this context, hybridization and crossovers occur when niche genres penetrate the mainstream, indicating constant dynamics and negotiation between industry and communities.

The influence of technologies discussed in §2 continues to transform the sociocultural significance of music. The emergence of NFTs, for example, changes notions of ownership and value in creative industries, allowing artists to interact directly with audiences and earn income [Chalmers et al., 2022]. This opens new opportunities for independent musicians and questions traditional models of music distribution and consumption, which in turn affects its sociocultural role.

Popular music is not just a set of sounds but a complex sociocultural phenomenon actively participating in identity formation, expression of critique, and understanding of social processes. It is a field for ongoing struggles over meanings where authenticity is reinterpreted and technologies open new horizons. However, despite all these possibilities, the question remains open as to how truly capable popular music is of radical critique and liberation or whether, as Adorno claimed, it remains an instrument of the culture industry merely simulating resistance.

Criticism and Limitations

Despite the richness and diversity of philosophical approaches to popular music, many face certain limitations that question their universality and applicability. For example, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, particularly Adorno's works, is often criticized for its elitist character and inability to adequately assess the dynamics of popular culture. Adorno, seeing popular music only as a product of the "culture industry," standardized and commercialized, overlooked its potential for resistance, identity formation, and expression of genuine emotions, as noted by many researchers [Kellner, 1984]. His approach essentially ignored the active role of the audience in interpreting and appropriating musical meanings, reducing it to a passive consumer.

Another significant limitation relates to methodology. Many philosophical theories, especially those relying on abstract concepts, may be detached from the empirical reality of musical practice. For example, phenomenological approaches, while valuable for studying the subjective experience of listening, often struggle with generalizing and systematizing these individual experiences. How can one objectively measure or compare the "depth" of emotional response to music if it depends so heavily on the personal context and cultural background of the listener? Jamieson, speaking of "hollow sounds" that "open the mind to the unexpected," acknowledges that their interpretation largely depends on context [Jamieson, 2018]. This creates a problem for building universal aesthetic theories since each listener may perceive music differently.

Finally, the rapid development of technologies and globalization of the music industry constantly challenge the relevance of existing theories. Digital platforms, streaming, social networks, and NFTs have radically changed the production, distribution, and consumption of music, generating new forms of interaction between artists and audiences [Chalmers et al., 2022]. Theories developed in the era of analog media or dominance of traditional media may be unable to adequately explain phenomena emerging in the post-digital age. For example, the concept of authenticity, central to many discussions about popular music, becomes increasingly blurred in a world where musical images and identities can be easily constructed and manipulated [Varriale, 2012]. How can philosophical thought keep pace with these changes without losing its critical sharpness and depth?

Conclusions

• Popular music, despite its commercial nature, is a complex object of philosophical analysis that goes beyond mere entertainment and touches on issues of identity, social construction, and cultural politics.
• The critique of the culture industry by Theodor Adorno, although formulated in the mid-20th century, remains relevant for understanding the standardization and commercialization of popular music but requires rethinking in the context of modern media and technologies.
• Phenomenological approaches and affect theories allow exploring the subjective experience of listening to popular music, its influence on emotions and corporeality, as well as its capacity to shape collective moods and serve as a form of social action.
• Postmodern theories view popular music as a field for playing with meanings, citations, and genre hybridization, emphasizing its intertextuality and rejecting rigid hierarchies characteristic of traditional aesthetics.
• Gender, racial, and ethnic studies in popular music reveal dynamics of power, appropriation, and resistance, demonstrating how music constructs and reflects social roles and identities and can serve as a tool for their deconstruction.
• Digital technologies and streaming have radically transformed the production, distribution, and consumption of popular music, raising new philosophical questions about authenticity, authorship, value, and the role of the listener in shaping the musical landscape.
• As a product of the culture industry, popular music can simultaneously serve as a tool for critical reflection and liberation without succumbing to complete assimilation by dominant ideologies.