[FRA:] Adorno on Jazz

[Alexei Procyshyn]

Hello all,I'm prompted to write, after all this time, due to a few strange posts by ralph Dumain.   In particular, i would like to address his statement that, "Adorno in particular, the most cultural of the theoreticians of the Frankfurt School,  was keenly aware of the social forces at work behind all cultural manifestations including those he was reared on. Adapting to American society was difficult for him as it was for other emigres, and clearly he lacked the flexibility to properly assess jazz, for instance; nevertheless, in spite of the gloomy picture of totalitarianism he paints of an ostensibly democratic society, he correctly identifies the forces at work, even if he overestimates the degree to which the logic of their operation has worked to its logical conclusion."there's something in this quoted section that i feel to be strongly mistaken, and i would like to take this opportunity to offer a few words to redress the situation. In particular, i would like to say a few words on behalf of Adorno viz. Jazz.  These remarks, i hope, ought to point to a singularly one sided interpretation of Ralph's (in all his posts) with regard to Adorno.  So, without further ado, let me get to the point:1)  Adorno's "point" (if i can use a fuzzy term), with respect to jazz, is quite simple: there is no substantial progression.  everything that we would consider jazz (i.e. by definition) works with respect to a certain formulaic variation on a 'head' -- a motif or refrain -- that is played by the jazz ensemble and then 'riffed' on by the players (in their respective solos).  Given this exceedingly rigorous *formula* of jazz (which is the backbone for albums like _kind of Blue_ and _Giant Steps_ [albums that i nevertheless appreciate a great deal], just to name a few more 'canonical' albums), there is no real tension between 'form' and 'content' (again used in an equally fuzzy way as before).  That is to say, jazz does not effect a kind of separation from mundane, 'empirical' life and its trained conversations (like how is the local sports team doing, with its variations and indefinitely large interpretative possibilities) -- and in failing to adequately separate itself from everyday life, which can only be accomplished by way of a consistent *technical* device (itself progressive by way of a "determinate negation" of traditional technical modes of "composition"), that implies a "fight" and progression from each stage to the next -- a kind of coherence -- and that ultimately produces a transition to something "new," instead of the blatant repetition of the very same beinning point, jazz is not a progressive musical form.  Indeed, pop music is of a kind with jazz on this level of analysis.  The pop song, like jazz, always returns to its "head" or "refrain" -- i.e. a chorus -- and thus dissallows for any (artistic) progress, as Adorno understands it.   The apparent "progressivenenss"  of jazz only belies a certain orthodoxy, which is ultimately part and parcel of the culture industry.  (note also that one of the significant 'categories' is time: even works that Adorno loved, have been broken down into 'movements' or some other 'beautiful fragment' so that it can be easily listened to on the radio while driving to work -- at the expense of the 'whole' it once formed.  one might argue that, though this takes me far afield from my initial tirade, there really is no artistic [read aesthetic] music in  Adorno's sense anymore).2) with respect to Adorno's emigre status, and his "cultural acuity": the whole Frankfurt school (1st generation until now i would say), was immensely acute with respect to culture.  One must, however, bear in mind, that each member's acuity was focused in different directions.  Adorno, for instance, tends to be pretty awful when it comes to literature (as opposed to say Benjamin), and he wrote nothing on economics ( a prime cultural phenomenon).  Horkheimer, to my knowledge, wrote nothing on art.  the point being: critical theory, as it came out of the frankfurt school, was a *collective enterprise* in which the whole was greater than the parts.  none of the members sought to provide an overarching *theory* but were more inclined to work out *local* problems (although, arguably, Marcuse might represent a significnat break here).  What's more, if one looks at the end of the book *Art Since 1900,* you'll find the editors/ authors basically agreeing with Adorno's culture industry argument.  The issue, for Adorno, was never democracy (as if democracy itself was always good-in-itself), but rather what motivates an allegiance to something like *the concept* 'democracy', which has palpable repercussions (as we see today).All these things said, i'm  wary of Ralph's remarks, since they tend to skew matters in a strange way -- one that i'm not always sure is provacative.  In the end, I'm not sure what Ralph is looking for, exactly, but his approach truly does seem to be intstrumental -- i.e. what should one appropriate, and what can one discard in Adorno's thought.  Though this may not be a bad way of approaching matters in the long run, i'm afraid that we all might miss the subtle points by inadvertantly 'garbage picking.'cheers (and pace Ralph),Alexei----- Original Message -----From: Ralph Dumain Date: Saturday, April 29, 2006 5:06 pmSubject: [FRA:] Re: [nycafephilo] Culture Industry ReconsideredTo: nycafephilo at yahoogroups.comCc: washingtonphilosophycircle at yahoogroups.com> "Generosity" is a generous euphemism, but I'm glad you > appreciate my > remarks.  The main point of adducing Adorno (a figure who gets > left out of > Cafe Philo conversations, whether people with philosophical > background have > "analytical" or "continental"--itself a fraudulent > distinction--backgrounds) is to understand the structure of > social > conditioning and the type of discourse associated with it.  > Russell Baker > has nothing to offer but an itemized list of factors manifesting > themselves > in the loss of conversation compared to the times he sat down to > dinner > with his family during the Great Depression and they could > actually hold a > serious conversation.  He is clearly pointing to something > commonly > experienced, but doing this in a context of a review of Miller's > book > allows him to show a little erudition without backing it up with > real > substance itself transcending the canned ideas and fragmentation > endemic to > society as it is structured and the culture industry that shapes > patterns > of thought and behavior.  The technology, residential patterns, > lifestyle, > etc. now in place are not the same as what the culture industry > was like in > Baker's childhood--the movies, the radio, and the press--and so > it is > necessary to understand the structural changes as well as the > continuities > between then and now.> > It is also necessary to examine Adorno's limitations, as I've > done > elsewhere at greater length though not in this series of posts, > and to > tweak its assumptions based on the context in which it was > generated to > take into account what it is or should be much easier to see > now, both > retrospectively and contemporarily.  The intensification of > media > saturation is one factor, along with greater geographical > mobility, the > rapidity of social and hence generational change, the rising > demands of the > populace since World War II and the necessity to coopt and tame > them, the > management of declining expectations, the changing needs of > social control > as well as holding up the media marketplace as either an > idealized or > cynical image of society or both.> > Adorno has been criticized as a European high culture snob, > which may well > be the case, but he and his colleagues also began to dissect the > anatomy of > a civilization in crisis--the death throes of the Weimar > Republic--and had > to lay bare all of the social and cultural assumptions of a > dying > culture.  Hence they could not take Culture for granted.  Adorno > in > particular, the most cultural of the theoreticians of the > Frankfurt > School,  was keenly aware of the social forces at work behind > all cultural > manifestations including those he was reared on. Adapting to > American > society was difficult for him as it was for other emigres, and > clearly he > lacked the flexibility to properly assess jazz, for instance; > nevertheless, > in spite of the gloomy picture of totalitarianism he paints of > an > ostensibly democratic society, he correctly identifies the > forces at work, > even if he overestimates the degree to which the logic of their > operation > has worked to its logical conclusion.> > And yet how much more media-saturated has the social environment > and > conditioning from the very cradle become since then.  Even those > of us who > are baby boomers growing up in the postwar period on television, > along with > other media to be sure, though products of different social > assumptions > from the Depression generation, still belong to the horse-and-> buggy days > compared to kids growing up in the 1980s and after.  This > doesn't mean that > things were once okey-dokey and they have unilinearly declined, > but rather > the cultural order has become altered, also in some very > perverse ways, > beyond what could only be glimpsed, dimly, a half century ago.  > And > technology and bare economics accounted for, the change cannot > be > understood--not at all--without grasping both the achievements > and > pulverization of liberalism at the end of the 1970s--the growing > acceptance > and cooptation of new cultural forces and excluded social groups > into the > mainstream and then into the limelight, coupled with the brutal > suppression > of the have-nots and the squelching of their collective > opportunities even > as individual opportunities open up, meaning that many advance > beyond their > parent's situations, while many more seek deeper and deeper, and > the > prison-industrial complex eagerly gobbles up as many of the > latter as possible.> > Furthermore, one must look at what has become of the literate > class, from > the yuppification of the New Left to the consequences of liberal > professionals being reduced to whoring for the Democratic Party, > to the > simultaneous expansion and contraction (multicultural but not > class-based > liberalism) of social vision, to the paralysis of mind as an > inevitable > correlate of the paralysis of political culture to the > middlebrow spectrum > of the culture industry--from NPR to PBS to the New York Times > and all the > rest of this self-deluding mediocre trash that passes for > literacy and > sophistication.  All of the philosophy cafes, popular philosophy > and > science books, all of the highfalutin bookstores and C-SPAN > broadcasts--all > of it, all of it--are subject to these powerful social forces.  > It takes an > exceptionally perspicacious and dedicated person to transcend > the limits of > conceptual discourse this society makes available.  For lack of > a social > infrastructure enabling meaningful discourse, those who hunger > for it exude > excessive gratitude for the intellectual table scraps they are > thrown, > unable to rise imaginatively above the general banality and view > society > and the ideas circulating in it from a perspective not bound to > its > limitations.> > (A sad example of a failed attempt is Curtis White's THE MIDDLE > MIND, which > is even more mediocre than the middlebrow culture it criticizes. > As his > subsequent article appear in publications like HARPER'S, the > man's > confusion and mediocrity  become more and more manifest.  > Deprived of > stimulation, the brain grinds slowly to a halt, unaware that it > is doing so.)> > What can be advocated concerning conversation under > circumstances like > these?  Baker's conception of conversation, almost as much as > Miller's, > fails to address a solution because it fails to attain a > systematic grasp > of the problem.  But then what is the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS > and what is > the tacit basis of its appeal? Or, if you're interested in > philosophy > proper for the masses, what do gloosy mags like PHILOSOPHY NOW > or THE > PHILOSOPHER'S MAGAZINE have to offer.  They can only reproduce > bits and > scraps of the limited fare generally offered, to a niche market, > more > intelligent than the average, more complex perhaps, but not > really > insightful, not profound, not going the extra mile.> > You know, maybe "generosity" is not such a bad way to put it > after all.  It > is generosity in a way to give profusely and energetically what > is almost > guaranteed not to be appreciated.> > At 06:11 PM 4/28/2006 -0400, ron at ronaldgross.com wrote:> >I am profiting from your comments and leads re: Conversation.  > THANKS for> >your generosity,   Ralph.> >> >RON> > > _______________________________________________> theory-frankfurt-school mailing list> theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school>