Retrology: Addicted to the Future

Abstract

The present investigation examines the hypothesis that contemporary pop music has caught ‘retromania’: infected by its own past, it will bring about its own downfall. It identifies this observation as retrology: a specific school of thought within pop history. The article first looks at the major premises on which retrology is founded. It then asks why these assumptions have been so widely accepted. Next, it offers a sociological approach to look at pop music’s increasing interest in the past without recourse to moralistic divisions. Pop is seen as a social system, and not as an opaque accumulation of individual activities. Reproducing itself by a specific form of communication—the concatenation of songs—its main goal is simply to continue; it therefore desires neither ‘advancement’ nor ‘retro-gression’. The conclusion is that retro does not indicate a crisis; rather the opposite—it allows pop to carry on.

Untangling pop: A systems theoretical approach

“…(Williams, 1969) After the disillusionment that followed, pop had to re‐assure itself of its identity. This succeeded by referring back to the original genre of rock'n'roll, which resonated not only in programme form (glam rock, see Heidingsfelder, 2016) but also on the song level (for instance in Get Back by The Beatles). The Rolling Stones summed up their findings on Beggar's Banquet : ‘Dreams of having everything, right now , are gone; the record ends with a song about compromise with what you want, with a celebration of learning to take what you can get, maybe even what you deserve, because time has passed, and the rules have changed’.…”

“…(Williams, 1969) After the disillusionment that followed, pop had to re-assure itself of its identity. This succeeded by referring back to the original genre of rock'n'roll, which resonated not only in programme form (glam rock, see Heidingsfelder, 2016) (Marcus, 1993, p. 13) Fortunately there were enough arguments for continuing to like what turned out to be 'only rock'n'roll.' The system reflects its specific capacity, especially in contrast to politics and art.…”

“…The second strategy was closely related to this idea. Essentially, it postulated a ‘pop essence,’ so that deviations—the late Elvis, the Archies, Phil Collins or sexist Gangsta Rap—could be explained as accidents, aberrations from the true path of subversion (for a more detailed view, see Heidingsfelder, 2012, 372ff., and Heidingsfelder, 2016, p. 15, footnote 34.) Dick Hebdige (1979) applied the idea to his theory of style, creating a temporal model that allowed pop to maintain its subversive essence, echoing Fiske's notions that the pop victories ‘are fleeting or limited’ (Fiske, 1989, p. 2), and at the same time accepting the realities or ‘accidents’ of its industrial exploitation.…”