>if you are a fascist who like jazz you are mentally ill >capitalism

Is he?

>>9107975
Teddy: Hello. Sally, do you love your mummy?
Sally: Why yes Teddy. You could say I Adorno her *TeHe*
Teddy: . . . (shots Sally)
Bystander: WHY DID YOU KILL THAT LITTLE GIRL?
Teddy: The nuclear family is an agent of Fascism. . .

>>9107975
He didn't think the Enlightenment was 'great'

"Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm composing poetry after the Holocaust
Take that, you fat smelly jew"

>capitalism also sucks because people have different taste in art then me
how is this wrong? markets for art controlled by popular opinion is cancer and creates stagnation.

>>9107975
>why was humanity so much more fulfilled before civilization
>but the enlightenment is great guys

you missed the whole fucking point! he says that civilization is shit because it started with the enlightment which is shit.

>>9107975
>tfw all those things are actually true

Jazz included, but you have to remember that he only listened to it in the '20s, when it still was pure entertainment and the canon didn't count yet giants such as Ellington, Davis and Coltrane. As far as we know he never listened to jazz after the '30s, and from the '40s atonal music was the only thing that made sense to him (wich is reasonable, since he got completely traumatized by the Holocaust).

I mean, would you really argue that free markets has benefited arts in the slightest? He was 100% right about culture industry, to the point where /pol/hacks actually believe that he orchestrated this decadence with 10 other Jews. That's how right he was.

>>9108346
>markets for art

>>9108580
take the redpill he destroyed the West through propagating interracial breeding.

There's a whole chapter on it in 'Dialectics of Enlightenment'

>>9108580

his argument about jazz doesn't falter even with the "greats", face it bruv, if your music facilitates improvisation you're pop

File: 9c7.png (274KB, 600x563px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 600x563px

>>9108590

>>9108595
I'm pretty sire that he would have liked at the very least the classics of free jazz.

File: Johann_Sebastian_Bach.jpg (130KB, 480x591px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 480x591px

>>9108604

take the classical pill, stay woke

>>9108580
>>9108595

Guys, relax. I'm pretty sure now we are old enough as a people to get over the "muh high brow!" hump that prevents people from listening to good music.

The point that he was trying to make seems to be that music is changing to fit the new social conditions under capitalism, namely our commercialised needs. Cheap music plays in bars that people go to to relax to get away from their alienating work. It needs to be pumped out quickly to capitalise on popular trends and technology (record players).

It seems like every black writer I've read (all two of them) touches upon a similar point.

>>9108606
Already swallowed it, but I don't see how Adorno could have hated John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman, especially considering the music he was promoting and producing in his lifetime.

for "jazz" just read "swing" or "pop", that's closer to what he meant.

he was still wrong but w/e

>>9108641
>he was still wrong but w/e

On what was he wrong?

>>9108590
>destroyed the West through propagating interracial breeding
South America is not the west. Europe has tons of foreigners.

>>9108580
He hated Louis Armstrong. Poor black people who have nothing to do with Nazi Germany, or Europe at all, who write music about their own social conditioned are considered are fascist according to Adorno. He even goes out of his way to claim that Jazz was invented by whites. Adorno was a closeted racist.

Louis Armstrongs' "What Did I Do to Be So Black and Blue?" = fascist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vDm1lomVHU

>>9108615
Read Adorno's essays he again. He simply hated black people.

Like this guy said
>>9108595
If you can re-interpreet and re-play a song, it's fascist. That's the logic of the same at work, which doesn't tolerate difference.

File: monk.jpg (203KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 600x600px

> The specification of the individual in jazz never was and never will be that of a thriving productive power, but always that of a neurotic weakness, just as the basic models of the “excessive” hot subject remain musically completely banal and conventional. For this reason, perhaps, oppressed peoples could be said to be especially well-prepared for jazz. To some extent, they demonstrate for the not yet adequately mutilated liberals the mechanism of identification with their own oppression.

What the fuck did I just read? Adornians will defend this?