Re: [microsound] Adorno redux

[Bill Ashline <ashline@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:47:1 -0500, Matthew Mitchell <matmi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I guess I should have made clear in my
> 'unbelievably dumb' reading of that Adorno quote that I was really responding to
> that quote in particular and have not much of an opinion yet regarding Adorno on
> the whole, having read only bits and pieces scattered over the years.  

>What
> it set off in me was a general revulsion for music criticism that deals little
> with the actual music and instead speaks in sweeping generalities.  

> At any rate, my real, only semi-related complaint that always stews in my
> brain is that 98% of music critics seem to actually know nothing about
> music.  

Rather odd here, don't you think, to indict music critics for making
sweeping generalizations and knowing not of which they speak and yet
making a sweeping indictment of Adorno with having read only "bits and
pieces?"

Music critics are primarily journalists.  If there are faults in the
profession of music criticism (I'd say there are quite a few-- and so
we agree for once, Matt), I'd say they have more to do with the field
of journalism itself, which is prone to be highly superficial and not
very critical at all.  Adorno doesn't come from such a background.  He
was a philosopher--one who also studied music, though contrary to your
assumption, this doesn't necessarily provide one with any special
privileges or advantages.  If you have deft ears, you can be a music
"critic," and anyone who listens to music seriously basically is
whether they get paid for it or not.  Outsiders to musical production
can often be very perceptive.

> However, for
> anyone who owns a computer to take someone to task for a position they see
> as bourgeois is beyond rich, in my opinion.

Come on, Matt.  The sign of being bourgeois is not the ownership of a
personal computer in late capitalist consumer society.  That's just a
tad bit simple.  The sign of being bourgeois is being able to have an
opinion about something before taking the time to think it through and
do your homework, don't you think?  Kim was talking about misreadings
and implying facile reductions.  There was a time, not that long ago,
when people would be embarrassed to post their uninformed opinions
publicly.  But in these times of faith-based politics, ignorance is
triumphant--and rewarded--that's what we call "bourgeois."
 
>  Even the 'best' critics with whom I often agree and
> to whom I look for opinions regarding recordings I haven't yet heard will make a
> statement or two occasionally that reveals shocking ignorance towards the most
> basic building blocks of the music they're reviewing.  The literary
> community probably wouldn't take too kindly to critics who didn't understand
> basic sentence structure, just as I'm sure art critics are probably expected to
> know how to recognize the color blue.

The same holds true about critics of philosophers, I'd say.

> 
> One last thing:  I didn't know that calling people (or statements
> made by people, whatever) 'unbelievably dumb' recently became acceptable
> discourse on this list.  I guessed I missed that memo.

Try to read a bit more subtly, Matt.  I talked about what "would" be
dumb readings of Adorno.  If that offends, just think of how offensive
the readings are to people like Kim, Peter, and me.  Prideful displays
of ignorance--followed by the inevitable resentment when called on it.
 Here's what I wrote, as a reminder:  "Adorno was far too subtle to
simply look for a justification for his own tastes.  that would be an
unbelievably dumb reading of Adorno."


On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:51:34 -0800, Kim Cascone <kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>And while some
> people dismiss Adorno as a old school Marxist cultural curmudgeon (who
> couldn't dance) I see most current (mis)readings of his work as simply
> privileged and bourgeois. I think Adorno is very much needed in these
> times.

I couldn't agree more.  Adorno was written for times like these.


-- 
"Artists tear percepts out of their perceptions, in the same way that
Impressionist painters twist our perception of light by showing us
their impression of it with colour instead of line, creating a percept
called Impressionism.  Deleuze states that this creates a completely
new habit of thought, one that twists our nerves and creates "a crack
in the skull" (Parnet  1996). "

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org