What did he have against Jazz?

>better
You're such a pleb that I feel bad for you

Mate ya can't be fucking real.
The thing blacks did right is how Tutuola is so much better than every latin american magical realist it hurts.

Magical realism is the laziest and dumbest form of "literary fiction" ever devised. There's a reason why minorities are so drawn to it

Adorno contemplated in the most profound way the absolute best music in our canon. He was a actual scholar and musician, and was fully aware of the sheer greatness of composers such as Beethoven (which is a central point in his point of view: with him Adorno has always identified that part of culture that is needed in every time and in every political and social context; Beethoven is what the culture industry was demolishing), having him studied their scores and their interpretations for decades.

Then, at some point, he listens to some mediocre, generic bop played by generic white kids, and he was disgusted by it. It was formulaic, primitive in its rhythms, generic in its melodic and harmonic choices. This guy was not listening to Coltrane and his trio (which came, alongside the best that jazz has to offer, only when Adorno was in his '60s), rather he was listening to 5 jocks who wanted people to dance on their music. Boring, for someone like Adorno.

Any argument and justification for this statement? Or you just don't like it?

One of Adorno's complaints about the 'culture industry' was that it kept churning out pieces of art/culture that were fundamentally the same, only different in their details. This, he saw, made consumers focus on the details and become insensitive to the thing as a whole. This "elevation of the part over the whole" degenerated peoples' ability to appreciate good art or recognize bad art.

Jazz is a great example of this. Every jazz song is technically 'unique' because of its improvisational nature. But they all end up sounding the fucking same, they come off as standardized. They differ in detail only - they may have different arrangements of notes but if you play five consecutive jazz songs your average man couldn't tell you when one ends and another begins.

>they all end up sounding the fucking same
This is the least intelligent post I have read today. Have a lewd annie may picture as a reward.

Well, he is correct if he's specifically talking about the big-band/bop jazz Adorno saw in the '30s (and keep in mind that even then he did not see the very best musicians in the game, the ones that basically invented it, rather he was seeing their derivatives: random jazz players in random clubs). In that sense he was absolutely correct, even to this day: when you go to see jazz it is more likely that you'll just see 4 guys improvising on the same, stale harmonic progressions, using the same tricks you've heard countless times. As soon as you stop listening to the very best jazz bands in the world, the genre itself becomes extremely formulaic (which is something that is inherent to most popular genres, and was one of the main Adorno's complaints).

I mean, you think that this sentence
>they all end up sounding the fucking same
is funny, but this is basicaly what Adorno said, and after all, I'd say he was right, but only as long as you share your point of view with him (basically you have to be a erudite and deep conoisseur of art music, anything less than that means that Adorno would have seen you as a sheep, and that you can't really coopt his arguments: this includes virtually every /mu/core album that there is)

I'm not the guy you've responded to, by the way.

go back to r/books

I always wonder what he would have said about A Love Supreme.

>they all end up sounding the fucking same, they come off as standardized
The funniest part is that you are probably serious.

If he wanted to say that mediocre jazz from a certain decade sounds the same he should have done exactly that, and in an unambiguous fashion, instead of stating that a stream of music with a plethora of easily identifiable subgenres and movements "all sounds the same". I also shouldn't have to add that even in the '30s greats like Art Tatum and Duke Ellington were recording albums that certainly aren't as radical as classical art music of the time, but definitely don't sound the fucking same. Ignoring nuances that give meaning in a more constrained form makes you a bad listener in my book, and I doubt that guy I replied to could give a justified appraisal of music on the level of Alban Berg's defense of "Traumerei" for example.

why are jazz fans some of the most buttblasted spergs on Veeky Forums?

go back to for your shittier pseud discussion

>I also shouldn't have to add that even in the '30s greats like Art Tatum and Duke Ellington were recording albums that certainly aren't as radical as classical art music of the time

They were both extremely formulaic. They may have been the best ones in using these formulae, but that still would have not surprised Adorno, or at least it would have not surprised him more than seeing the best banjo player or the best Samba complex. He did not really care about that, he wanted the sublime.
That said, I'm pretty sure he has never heard anything out of them, otherwise he would have probably referenced it.

Everyone gets heated about any genre of music, you would see that if you actually went to /mu/, retard.

I just think the greatest mistake Adorno makes is seeing the destruction of form in rhythm and harmony as the only way to compose interesting music. He laments that jazz promised freedom, but instead
> Wie der Reiz der Nonenakkorde, der Septime am Schluß, der Ganztonkleckse im Jazz schäbig und abgebraucht ist und eine verwesende Moderne von vorgestern konserviert, so ist es bei genauerem Zusehen auch um jene seiner Errungenschaften bestellt, in denen man etwas von frischem Beginn und spontaner Regeneration zu entdecken meinte: denen des Rhythmus.
What follows is the lament that superficially free rhythm ends up falling in place in a simple scheme. However, just leafing through his work, I find it a bit strange that a man who credits groups of three notes with some sort of divine inspiration seems so bent on judging jazz music for its formal qualities. By the way, the ending of "Abschied vom Jazz" is hilarious from today's point of view

> Hinterlassen hat der Jazz ein Vakuum. Keine neue Gebrauchsmusik ist da, ihn abzulösen, und keine wird sich bequem lancieren lassen.
Not only did jazz never die as he predicted it, entertainment music became more diverse and influential than he could ever imagine.

Jazz is dead though

no, it was institutionalized

>entertainment music became more diverse and influential than he could ever imagine.

He actually imagined it and talked about it extensively. I'd say it's basically 60% of his lifetime work.

>tfw in the '20s this classical music buff knew for a fact that Miley Cyrus was what it was coming in the West

go back to your containment board

Not all Gebrauchsmusik is destined for Massenkonsum. I doubt he could imagine the possibilities that going electric and synthesizers or digital methods brought with them. I'm talking about sound here, not conventional compositional tools, but still an important aspect of music, in particular entertainment music.

>jazz
>culture

Adorno didn't shit on jazz because it was formulaic, he shat on it because it wasn't "complete". He said that classical music is high art because every piece of it is unique and specific to its purpose and can't be modified. Where jazz can be changed every night on the spot due to its very nature of being popular music.

No shame in being pop, only an idiot would get mad by it.

back to /pol/, pseud

You're still seeing this whole situation from your perspective. Duke Ellington hadn't reached the mythic status he had by then and this was very clearly a situation of first impressions. Adorno already "had the music" he wanted and when he came across some shit german jazz he decided he didn't liked it and went on to write his VERY vast oeuvre in which probably 1/10 is dedicated to music, if that much - despite memesters who focus on him due to his fucking infamous jazz text.

youtube.com/watch?v=q0QD558TWSQ

How do we know what kind of jazz he was specifically talking about? How do you know he was referencing "generic white kids?"

are u aware that uve never read the fraankfurt school before.

There's plenty of great Jazz albums still coming out lad.

To think he was nearly blind too, fantastic!

Also this guys:
youtube.com/watch?v=xpzLTJ_9twc

youtube.com/watch?v=pMqGNJMKt7w

Would he die of terror and digust if he were to encounter the formulaic tripe that is romantic comedy anime?

I didn't know Adorno talked about in terms of part-whole relations like that. That's really interesting. Do you know where he said this stuff specifically?

Yeah. Tutuola is a treat.

Diverse? Lol. See what user said about detail, and the elevation of the part over the whole to see Adorno's legitimate beef with mass fever music. He was as vitriolic about Toscanini ("light" classical) as he was about swing.

Re: diversity. Name one pop song in a time signature that isn't a factor of four. You can't because there isn't. It's not diverse at all.

what would Adorno have made of techno music?

Not him, but he tackles the subject in the Dialectics of Enlightment in the Cultural Industry chapter. Which, If I remember correctly, It's the third chapter.

Adorno would have, without exception, hated all varieties of EDM. Really any electronic that isn't of the EAI or minimal variety, and even then probably.

But he is right, user. I don't agree with Adorno's view of Jazz-specially because he analysed a more primitive for of Jazz- but what the first guy is a good resume of Adorno's position.

And I love MVO btw, esp. Maurizio, Round Four, and BC.

Peter Gabriel’s Solsbury Hill is in 7/4

Hmmm. There's still a four in there, but I know of one other that isn't but I'm not telling. A couple of exceptions do not disprove a point. This isn't science, and even there, well, muons.

lol you sound like one of the most massive faggot likes of wich haven't been by far

Not an argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=AyRDDOpKaLM

>tfw in the '20s this classical music buff knew for a fact that Miley Cyrus was what it was coming in the West
Can you talk more about this?

You're the one who sounds buttmad, user.

Who cares, music is not art.

2 deep 4 me

>who is chet baker
>who is bix biederbecke
>who is bill evans
>who is django reinhardt
>who is john mclaughlin, the only musician that the eternally conceited miles davis admitted was better than himself
i'm not saying black jazz musicians aren't good, but to think that only they can "do it better" is ludicrous

He had bad taste. Compare his own musical compositions themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=v5Tc4mXodrI

Some anons will chomp at the bit to defend the above music. However, a large part of what is going on here is that they, we, are cultured (heh) to hear such string timbres, no matter the music going on, and to automatically ascribe "patrician" to the sound. But in fact Adorno is just dicking around, going from place to place... which is exactly what jazz often does.

So then how is it that I dismiss Adorno? Because jazz is usually more fun to listen to. "Oh this is plebian", comes the complaint, forever and ever missing the point.

Let's trigger Adorno and his supporters with some /pure/ boogie-woogie, in a German broadcast shortly after he kicked it no less! I choose this one specifically because most everyone will recognize that it's genuinely good despite themselves, and because it's presumably close to the type of music that Adorno actually heard and most hated, and based his opinions on.

youtube.com/watch?v=OFclKdniaDk

[rolls the credits on Adorno's life]

chet baker kinda sucks and was a scumbag but ill give you the others
dont forget dodo marmarosa