Once upon a time, everyday people made music for themselves. Then along ca e th phonograph, and they topped making music a d started buying it instead. So the story goes of the commodification of music. And it is a story that has continued to be told for quite some time, seldom historicized or deconstructed. Writings in ethnomusicology, musicology, popular music studies, cultural studies, and other fields are replete with as sumptions and assertions of music's commodity status, but there are very few treatments of the subject theoretically; the question has been scarcely tackled in the literature save for some suggestive but fragmentary pronouncements by Theodor Adorno that in my view have been unduly influential among scholars of music; and a few recent writings by less polemical authors such as Cha?an (1994), Dowd (2002), Gramit (2002), Maisonneuve (2001), Straw (1999-2000; 2000), and Toynbee (2000),all of whom offer treatments of the subject, some of which are theoretical. But the literature lacks a thorough going theoretical exploration of the subject, a lacuna that this article hopes to begin to rectify. To be sure, few would deny that music in many cultures is a commod ity?something that can be turned to commercial advantage, bought and sold. Music's commodity status, at least in the realm of popular music, is so common that it seems to be self-evident, even natural, though this is usually thought to be a bad thing; musicians can be accused of selling out. Explicitly or implic itly, writer after writer decries the commodification of music, music made expressly for the purpose of making money, not art, or heartfelt individual expression, or, simply, for a good groove. Many fan groups also recognize the commodification of music, often trying to rescue their particular music from this soulless fate by asserting that it is made for less commercial reasons.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 68 citations exist upstream.