>this kills the jazzfags
Only listen to Schoenberg.
>>66213053
i've heard a lot on adorno not liking jazz but what really is the argument presented? is it of any substance?
>>66213053
>schoenberg is good
>improvised Schoenberg with drums is bad
This is what Adornofags actually believe
FUCK ADORNO
FUCK FOUCAULT
FUCK LUKACS
FUCK EVERY MARXIST PIECE OF SHIT WHO HAS EVER LIVED I WANNA KILL EM ALL
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH
>>66215051
he didn't like jazz because it was popular and mass produced at his time
nowadays he would love the fuck out of jazz because it's more of a niche thing
basically proto hipster
>>66215118
>Foucault
>Marxist
>>66215051
Well, his criticisms are pretty much reviled by most scholars and musicians, so no, not really. He made claims concerning the "black origins" of jazz, which is pretty gross.In Adorno's analysis, jazz finds itself positioned on the wrong side of that line and, accordingly, is condemned. It is argued that it is Adorno's commitment to a formalist model of art works that has been superseded by modern aesthetic practice in both so-called ‘serious’ art as well as in the works of the culture industries that binds him to a regressive model of aesthetic praxis.
>>66215199
>pretty gross
<<</tumblr/
>What you’re referring to is what’s called "theory". And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential. So many you can tell me why you think there's something significant. I don't see it. But yeah I'm not interested in that kind of theoretical posturing which has no content.
>>66215118
Proto-fascist pls
