Is contemporary "lo-fi" music analogous to jazz and "elevator" music back in Adorno's days? And would Adorno absolutely loathe said "lo-fi" music?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Is contemporary "lo-fi" music analogous to jazz and "elevator" music back in Adorno's days?
probably
ableton-youtube-tutorial-core stuff in general
Lo-Fi Beats to Read the Culture Industry and Dilate To
Muzak and smooth jazz don't really exist anymore in a functional sense because stores just play top 40 radio hits nowadays. Vaporwave was an ironic celebration of it but never went mainstream
yeah, its braindead pre-produced music designed to be inoffensive and marketable.
Adorno probably would only listen to harsh noise
Doubtful. Harsh noise is as chaotic as jazz. I see Sartre and Bataille being more "noise" guys
Adorno would listen to video game OST's
Adorno would loathe anything that isn't the inheritors of Boulez and György Ligeti.
He'd even hate Noise music and artists like Merzbow, because it his view they shirk any notion of 'musical material' and sink back into 'primordial stuff' - matter devoid of any subjective input. Adorno is a Hegelian in this respect: authentic music is a tense interaction between the Subjective and Objective poles of experience.
People should take the time to read not only his musicology but also his philosophy. It unironically changed my life, as in a spiritual awakening. He comes closest, I think, to a true and genuine theory of art. Great guy.
What's wrong about "primoridal stuff"?
Btw, dance music, especially consumed the way it's supposed to be, i.e. by dancing to it in a nighclub while being shitfaced or drugged, is very Dionysian, and so it's an irremovable part of human culture.
For Adorno it's an abdication of what makes us human: reacting and working through the world. Or, in this case, working with musical material, as he termed it. Merzbow would be seen as inauthentic: he gives himself over to the chaotic, unpredictable element of sound. He renounces his own agency and in this regard debases himself to something less than human.
>by dancing to it in a nighclub while being shitfaced or drugged, is very Dionysian.
That's the illusion that people fall for. It appears as an element of escape or freedom from day to day tedium. Adorno, and the Frankfurt School more generally, flip this on its head: it's the 'Dionysian' illusion that allows the system to maintain its grip over you; whoring yourself out everyday like a cagebird singing for shit wages. There's nothing Dionysian about it at all.
Start with this lecture he gave. Walter Benjamin attended it: "The Idea of Natural-History". What's remarkable about this is that the ideas he lays out here form the kernel of his entire philosophical career. It's the germination of his unique brand of dialectics. I also recommend whatever secondary lit you can find - Adorno demands commentary, and people here are pseuds if they try and argue otherwise.
>People should take the time to read not only his musicology but also his philosophy.
Would you suggest everything he wrote or some specific books?
If you have some time, check Alejo Carpentier's writing on music too·
Also, thanks for the rec! Have been meaning to read Carpentier's 'Reasons of State' (I think it's called that) but I'll definitely check out his music writings.
Not him but you should read The Culture Industry to get your feet wet, then Dialectic of Enlightenment, then to cap it off and really address the topics of this thread, his Aesthetic Theory. When you're ready to truly ascend, read Negative Dialectics
I'm a noise musician so I'm gonna have to take his opinion with a grain of salt. If your art doesn't shock or offend in one way or other, its simply not worth listening to. Point blank.
Not that guy but I listen to Noise music and tbh, it shocks for the first 2-3 minutes but quickly fades into background music. Lacking any sort of textural, harmonic, rhythmic variation that sustains interest and yes, can even shock and surprise, Noise music for the most part just ends up being the schizoid version of binaural beats. STill, if you've got some links to your stuff I'd love to have a listen.
> your art doesn't shock or offend in one way or other, its simply not worth listening to.
This is only repeated by moronic “artists” who have created nothing of merit
You clearly haven’t read Adorno
>You're wrong and have never read Adorno.
>Doesn't elaborate or substantiate accusation.
homosexuals like you are the bane of this board. Go larp somewhere else.
It's just how lefties argue - insisting that the other party never read the author in question allows them to disregard everything the other party said and shift the pressure on the other party by implicitly asking them to prove that they in fact read the author in question, which is impossible when the other party is so dishonest. It's just a thought-terminating cliché.
Based. Adorno gets a bad rap but it isn't deserved. His criticisms are valid. People just don't like them. The only thing he was wrong about was applying the Authoritarian Personality on Hitler, I don't think the guy matches it based on his physiogonomy but it is true of a lot of people, and this is by no means an endorsement of the mustache man.
>Authoritarian Personality is good because it confirms my preconceived ideas about people who disagree with me politically
Adorno is clinging to this very 19th century idea that beauty is objective, or, even more generally, that there are objective criteria of "more human" or "less human". While, in fact, it's just a way of saying "more like what Adorno and high-brow buttholes similar to him approve" and "less like what Adorno and high-brow buttholes similar to him approve".
cope
>that there are objective criteria of "more human" or "less human".
Anon, just say "israeli" and "goy". You know in your heart that that's what their criteria ultimately came down to.
Stop tempting me, Adolf. It is not time yet.
This isn't what Adorno argues. I advise you to at least read a commentary on his aesthetic theory. It's notoriously complex and intricate and a far cry away from your staggeringly incorrect 'assessment'.
Any humanities theory that cannot be summarized in a paragraph or so is horseshit. The aim of long and obscure texts is not to inform, it's to brainwash the reader.
What a mess...
You understand that you're speaking like a cult member, do you?
>Any humanities theory that cannot be summarized in a paragraph or so is horseshit.
You realize this is the most 50iq take you could have? Can you not fathom that some theories and projects address issues with their own complex and intricate histories and considerations? Are you also aware that demanding a paragraph-long summary will probably give you the most inaccurate picture? Can you summarise Kant and Hegel in a paragraph that does justice to their entire project? In short,
You understand that you're speaking like an irredeemable moron, do you?
>You understand that you're speaking like an irredeemable moron, do you?
Sigh.
>Are you also aware that demanding a paragraph-long summary will probably give you the most inaccurate picture?
Not true. Simplified, yes, without any argumentation or nuances, but not inaccurate. That's how human mind operates and that's what is meant by the word "theory". Wordiness always hides either lack of understanding, or lack of meaning, or ill will.
You're that guy who keeps getting C- for his college essays while thinking that he's a genius, aren't you?
You conflating 'wordiness' with intricacy tells me you're that guy who can't help but project. Sigh.
>Aesthetic Theory (Ästhetische Theorie) is a book by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno, which was culled from drafts written between 1956 and 1969 and ultimately published posthumously in 1970. Although anchored by the philosophical study of art, the book is interdisciplinary and incorporates elements of political philosophy, sociology, metaphysics and other philosophical pursuits in keeping with Adorno's boundary-shunning methodology.
Adorno retraces the historical evolution of art into its paradoxical state of "semi-autonomy" within capitalist modernity, considering the socio-political implications of this progression. >Some critics have described the work as Adorno's magnum opus and ranked it among the most important pieces on aesthetics published in the 20th century.
There you go, you lazy homosexual. Now go do some reading and stop being worthless and misinterpreting a man you've never bothered to read.
>historical evolution of art into its paradoxical state of "semi-autonomy" within capitalist modernity
Art that is not aesthetic autofellation meant for prestigeous consumption by the intellectual class is not art, I got you.
Terrible bait anon.
He was a genius, yes.
i unironically listen to lofi hiphop all the time
He thought that fascists would appropriate jazz music and use it as marching music, so I don't think so.
nothing so boomeresque and out of touch as the frankfurt school's ridiculous obsession with fascism as some imminent/looming/relevant threat
in the 50s there very much was a risk of it returning in places like france or the US, but it subsided by the 60s and 70s
...the frick are you talking about?
Always throwing the big boogeyman of fascism around was all a part of their rhetoric (and therefore their narrative). If there was no fascism, what would they call the people who disagree with them, or on what basis would they have justified their existence, if there was no fascism to defend society from?
He tried to convince his readers that reading astrology columns is irrational authoritarianism because Nazis believed in occult shit.
Adorno’s own music is just as repulsive as you’d think
You should listen to Nietzsche's music. No wonder he took up philosophy instead....
The latterday jazz...?
...or something worse?...