Contemporary Theory 2010 Reading Summary#3 – ‘Making Popular Music’ by Jason Toynbee

‘ Making up and Showing off: What Musicians do.’

Zanskar Ianusi

In this text the writer, Jason Toynbee, makes examples of the works of music practitioners James Last and Ian Curtis and groups the pair as ‘white-collar’ creators despite their differences in music genres. He suggests that producing popular music is not ‘an intuitive expression’, but rather is made with careful research and planning and constant monitoring and decision-making. Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ try to explain the popularity of popular music and how various music forms have been seen as representations of ethnicities, social classes and various sub-cultures. Habitus is the term Bourdieu uses to describe the clusters of individuals dispositions that are acquired in the early stages of life. These are based on class, gender, race, education, practices and thoughts. These in turn create one’s subjectivity, which effects their actions. For example Rock and Roll music had a broad appeal to youth in the 1950’s for different reasons. Rock was a mongrel genre- incorporating aspects of Blues and Country music- and had the effect of appealing to the dispositions (habitus) of seemingly bi-polar demographics. The music became a mediator for the Country (predominantly white) and Blues (predominantly African-American) audiences. This appeal then effected the actions of the listeners with the apparent ‘teen-rebellion’ caused by this music genre becoming a defining aspect of 1950’s history and culture- which of course effects the actions of those in the present. Bourdieu suggests that musicians employ a strategy, which is sometimes a semi-concious way of practice from the artists own habitus, to their chosen field. The term 'field' refers in this example to a 'space of positions' governed by rules which are proper to it'. Within the various fields (e.g. Modern Art, Hip-Hop etc.) there is another term 'likelihood' that relates to possibilities of a creator and how some practices are more likely to be selected than others. Toynbee uses the example of a rock guitarist to explain this theory of 'likelihood' -my understanding of which is that by defining yourself as a practitioner in a field- you are

then confined to the structures of it and the 'possibles' are therefore limited. However your own habitus ( gender, race, age) may not be a likelihood in your chosen field and this gives you a different perspective, and thus opens up the possibilities of creativity in a field. Toynbee's model- 'the radius of creativity' attempts to apply this ideas on habitus, field and likelihood to aspects of the creation of popular music and other forms of culture. For me, the model's centre represents the many possibles of creating popular music- i.e. that if you want to appeal to the majority you need to find the common threads of their habitus' and keep towards the centre of the circle. Past musicians have reinforced this formula of reaching the largest audience by integration of aspects from many differing popular music genres and appealing to the commonalities of the collective's habitus'. I see this model as one showing the limits of true originality because that which was yesterday's groundbreaking sound is quickly incorporated into today's popular culture due to media, internet, accessibility etc. I believe there must be a compromise for the modern musician- you can aim for the circumference (originality) and risk alienating your audience, or target the centre ( popularity) and limit your creative potential.