How Do Philosophers Like Adorno Relate to Music in the Modern Era?

[haydnguy]

For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure it out. Especially, when it comes to instrumental music.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by haydnguy

For the life of me, I haven't been able to figure it out. Especially, when it comes to instrumental music.

Which composers and works do you mean by "Modern era"? What is it about them you can't "relate to" or "figure out"?

[Baroque Mongoose]

This question isn't making a lot of sense to me either, I'm afraid. For the benefit of those of us who have never heard of Adorno or why s/he might be particularly interested in relating to music (of any sort, modern or otherwise), could you possibly fill us in with a bit of background? Many thanks!

[haydnguy]

I found this quote in wikipedia but I thought that there was more to it than this.

Among Schoenberg's teaching was the idea that the unity of a musical composition depends upon all its aspects being derived from a single basic idea; this idea was later known as developing variation. Berg passed this on to his students, one of whom, Theodor Adorno, stated: "The main principle he conveyed was that of variation: everything was supposed to develop out of something else and yet be intrinsically different".[3] The Piano Sonata is an example—the whole composition is derived from the work's opening quartal gesture and its opening phrase.

[Balthazar]

And what is your point? Do you not understand the concept of developing variation, or do you wonder how it applies to music in the 21st century?

You're going to have to explain the question a little better.

[haydnguy]

Schoenberg's revolutionary atonality particularly inspired the 22-year-old to pen philosophical observations on the new music, though they were not well received by its proponents. The disappointment over this caused him to cut back on his music critiques to enable his career as academic teacher and social researcher to flourish.[citation needed] He did however remain editor-in-chief of the avant-garde magazine Anbruch. His musicological writing already displayed his philosophical ambitions.

Adorno was a musicologist as well as a philosopher. As I understand it, he frequently wrote papers interspersing the two. Give me a day or so and I'll find something more on this. (The "22-year old" above, is referring to Adorno.)

[Despina41]

Balthazar seems vaguely annoyed at the mention of Adorno. Perhaps he has suffered through too many academic discussions involving A? It's kind of a hot button topic, isn't it? even though many hope the heyday of Adorno is over.


here's a resource you might look up, haydnguy:
http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Music-T.../dp/0520231597

[Balthazar]

I've never read any Adorno, but the subject of academic music criticism doesn't bother me.

I'm more bothered by haydnguy's refusal to clarify what he means: is he wondering how Adorno related to music he can't relate to? Or how academic critics relate to music of the 21st century?

Is this thread about early Modernism? Adorno? Contemporary music?

[haydnguy]

I would say I'm asking more about Adorno and his philosophy as it related to music.

[Octandres]

I think Adorno is unique in having trained as a philosopher, studied composition and been close to the second Viennese School during the heyday of early 20th century modernism. That vantage point and his advocacy of Schoenberg and the "new" music contra the neo-classicism of Stravinsky are what made his reputation. He is also a very good writer (as far as I can tell in English translation), although much of the early writing is laden with philosophical jargon, no sentence complete without at least one "reified". I think the later essays are the best, those in the "Finale" section of "Quasi una fantasia" written in the last decade of his life. The style is much clearer and he has the benefit of 30 years hindsight to revise. For example the essay "Berg's Discoveries in Compositional Technique" asserts the end of the dominance of Webern and formalist serialism and a return to more free-form atonal composition exemplified by Berg. At the time he might have had in mind Berio, Carter, Henze, Ligeti, Xenakis all doing their own thing outside the Darmstadt school. From the benefit of our 50 year hindsight it all seems rather obvious, but in 1961 it was quite insightful. The essay also incorporates some analysis of Berg's Three Orchestral Pieces, discussion on athematic large-scale form, references to Mann's Dr Faustus (yawn) - a typical mix of specific music content and general aesthetic chat. Does Adorno's writing tell us much about the music of our time ? I think he has been largely superceded in the last 50 years, but remains impressive if considerd in historical context.

As for Philosophy of Music in general - does it say anything of value ? I am an empiricist and go back to Ayer in thinking that the scope of philosophy per se should be narrowly defined and give way to all the specific disciplines it tries to encompass. Most academic "philosphers" are synthesisers of ideas from multiple subjects, in most of which they are amateur speculators. Take the tendentious rubbish on music spouted by Roger Scruton for example. So I say forget the self-styled philosophers of music and read concrete writing by and on composers, their scores (if you can get them), good modern analysts/musicologists/critics (Griffiths, Taruskin, Whittall) and then the wider fields of acoustics, aural perception, physiology, technology. Apart of course from listening and composing, I think reading that material gives the best insight into music in the modern era.