Thread replies: 50
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: ado_1474888889.jpg (48KB, 542x441px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 542x441px
>>9611265
>But what Adorno saw in Schönberg's twelve-tone serialism was exactly a strictly ordered way of advancing contemporary music as a guard against the new free form improvisatory styles of jazz. These new improvisatory styles, especially in their radical free forms, was in general embraced by the European art vanguards from the surrealists onwards.
>Adorno hated this 'degeneracy' and wanted to save classical composition, a semi-reactionary position. He is very much contrary to the general avant-garde movements.
Whoever you are, you're so completely wrong that I can't let it stand. Adorno endorsed and fraternized with Schönberg well before the twelve-tone system was designed; at the time of the Vienna avant-garde Schönberg's compositions were simply atonal, although Adorno would later acknowledge that within atonal composition, twelve-tone systems act as a "gravitational pull" toward systematization of what is essentially an improvisational form, even if the improv doesn't unfold in real time as with jazz.
As to jazz, you're also completely wrong about that. The jazz Adorno was going after was Tin-Pan alley mass produced gunk, not the kind of music we associate with miles davis or ornette coleman; that was largely unavailable to him. Adorno went after what we would call Muzak today, and it was dominated by rigid 1-5-4-1 chord progressions, and what you call improv scarcely had more variation than a child's first keyboard solo. In short Adorno saw "jazz" (it needs scare quotes now because his target is also closer to what we call pop) as stultifying, demanding rigid, formalistic conformity, while at the same time through the solo perpetuating the myth of its free-formedness. Not to mention the focus on the individual performer at the expense of the band or orchestra was perfectly instrumental for capitalist-consumerist ideology.
You're historically ignorant. Read up, reactionary bitch.
>>
>taking music seriously
>>
Ok. I don't wanna talk about Adorno anymore than that, i wanna talk about Schoenberg, why is he so underrated?
>>
>>9645490
He lived to witness later jazz and it didn't make him change his mind.
>>9645871
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc
>worthless garbage
yore the carbatch
>>
>>9645884
FUCK OFF Nabokov. THIS LIT ENOUGH FOR YOUR DEAD ASS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTyyzV0a5Vc
>>
>>9646293
I haven't studied it and I like it.
>>
This is now a Schoenberg thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTAjosr1gSE
>>
>>9646122
>He lived to witness later jazz and it didn't make him change his mind.
fair but at some point you have to toss out personal opinion and get to the philosophy behind the music. critically and aesthetically, he's right about pop and radio jazz; but because he doesn't understand modern free jazz, he becomes wrong about it when he cant see its merits.
>>
>>9646922
>falling for the free jazz meme
Honestly if you can't appreciate the artistry of people like Jelly Roll Morton and Louis Armstrong you won't ever like jazz.
>>
>>9646943
i do; adorno was wrong about a lot of things, but you have to get what he said right before you can say he's wrong about it lol
>>
>>9645490
talking about music is fucking retarded shit for cunts who have lost all feeling in their hearts, brains and balls
>>
>>9646971
projection of a washed out /mu/tant
>>
>>9646983
>muh projection
You're the kind of loser who functions as a conduit for greater men as you regurgitate shit you hear thinking you came up with it yourself and will never be able to carry out anything that requires the slightest degree of originality because you're a mediocre limp-dicked autist.
>>
>>9647018
>accused of projection
>>projects harder
>>
>>9647037
Thanks for proving my point
>>
>>9647041
quit this little temper tantrum while you still have your dignity
>>
>>9646947
This is the dumbest shit I've ever read in my life, how do you think musicians are taught theory you retard?
>>
>>9647047
non-sequitur
>>
>>9647046
>you're projecting
>u mad?
Kill yourself.
>>
>>9647062
>still replying
>>
>>9647058
A musician aspiring to make avant-garde music will certainty need to learn theory.
>>
>>9647064
that's still non-sequiturial. have you tried reading my post?
>>
>>
>>9647080
no problem, he's a retard.
>>
>>9647063
Do you even read what you post? You're a non-entity, a video game NPC and your only function seems to be taking up air as you slug along in whatever nothing life you lead as you affect nothing and nobody. Your non-existence just supports my original point.
>>
>>9647047
>>9647064
Unsurprisingly you're completely deficient of intuition and instinct. You're just another annoying nerd who uses your brain to listen and gets your emotion fed by the technical aspect of a piece of music. You'd genuinely be better off doing accounting or stabbing yourself with a kitchen utensil.
>>
>>9646300
Based Jimmy Page sweating his life essence out into every note like a hard rock lead guitarist should. Well, probably also was half-dead from heroin abuse.
>>
>>9647089
solipsism and objectification from a chronic projector? really no surprise there folks
>>
>>9647105
>You're just another annoying nerd who uses your brain to listen and gets your emotion fed by the technical aspect of a piece of music.
I'm pretty sure i can appreciate music for both it's aural and technical properties. Try being a composer saying "i don't talk or read about music with anybody"and see how far that takes you.
>>
>>9647105
yikes! this is getting embarrassing for you. knock it off already.
>>
>>9647113
It's sad to see how you injected buzzwords incorrectly to beef up your "YOU'RE PROJECTING". You tried though.
>>
>>
>>9647126
>Let me guess you don't play an instrument.
I play piano. This is just bait at this point, you have not even remotely tried at a counter-argument. Either way i would like to see you play something for us if you're so high and mighty.
>>
>>9647126
>anybody who engages in discussions about music intellectually is cancer.
>>stop talking in ways i cant understand because of >>muh intuitions
>>
>>9647135
You're probably shit 2bh.
How was that not an argument? Talking about it for any reason other than functionally is stupid and pointless. It's more like you didn't even try to counter how talking about music intellectually isn't fucking cancer.
>>9647136
>I'm smarter than you
Shit you're sad.
>>
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65481.0
>>
>>9647155
This is one of my favorite conspiracy theories.
>>
Daily reminder that at the end of the day Taylor and Stockhausen are more important than Adorno.
>>
>>9645490
>it was dominated by rigid 1-5-4-1 chord progressions
Adorno's objection wasn't that jazz was too simple.
>The previous discussion shows that the difference between popular and serious music can be grasped in more precise terms than those referring to musical levels such as "lowbrow and highbrow", "simple and complex", "naive and sophisticated". For example, the difference between the spheres cannot be adequately expressed in terms of complexity and simplicity. All works of the earlier Viennese classicism are, without exception, rhythmically simpler than stock arrangements of jazz. Melodically, the wide intervals of a good many hits such as "Deep Purple" or "Sunrise Serenade" are more difficult to follow per se than most melodies of, for example, Haydn, which consist mainly of circumscriptions of tonic triads and second steps. Harmonically, the supply of chords of the so-called classics is invariably more limited than that of any current Tin Pan Alley composer who draws from Debussy, Ravel, and even later sources.
>>
Schönberg and Bach the same composer. Each at opposite ends of a Formalist parameter.
>>
>>9645490
Anyone got some youtube videos of the examples of jazz Adorno hated so much?
>>
>>9647150
>It's more like you didn't even try to counter how talking about music intellectually isn't fucking cancer.
Can you even explain to ME how it's cancer? And you probably don't even play an instrument.
>>
>>9647150
>Talking about it for any reason other than functionally is stupid and pointless. It's more like you didn't even try to counter how talking about music intellectually isn't fucking cancer.
burden of proof is on you boyo
>>
>>9646101
Because ear strives for tonality. I'd like to play some late Debussy to my pleb friends who claim to love him
>>
>>9648950
>Because ear strives for tonality
I don't agree, the ear doesn't really strive for anything in particular until you figure out what you like in music. The real and obvious reason why Schoenberg is underrated is because of all the controversy surrounding him, not his actual music.
>>
>>9648980
How would you explain that many unconnected cultures around the world developed a pentatonic scale which implies tonality?
>>
>>9649003
How would you explain my love for Schoenberg's music?
>>
>>9648950
>Because ear strives for tonality
confirmed for not knowing what tonality is
>>
>>9649025
maybe your sophisticated ear finds tonal patterns? Also, what is your favourite piece by him?
Thread posts: 50
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1