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.