Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
Dismissing Bloom, & Adorno, simply because they badmouth music that you like isn't too different from their dismissal of that music; you're dealing with symptoms and not causes.
Adorno's or Bloom's disliking rock or jazz is not a problem for me. I can read books or discuss with people who like Schoenberg better then Stravinsky, Ornette Coleman then Miles Davis, Slayer then Anthrax. Very few of my friends share my musical, literary or philosophical tastes, I even know a guy who thinks German football (what most of you call 'soccer') league is great, however suprising it might be ;-). It's not a problem for me. True, their dismiss of 'pop music' is a syptom, not a cause. But not an accidental one. If we go deeper, we find that those authors think they can split in someone's face because they are university professors (what's most suprising is that they find that a proof of great cultural attitude). And if we continue, we find a view of culture and its artifacts (music, literature, etc.) understood as a kind of tool for social selection, delimiting those who are OK and the rest. There's a limited (and limiting) conception of rationality in the background. As there's a user-independent truth about the world of social, artistic, and ethical value, there are a those who know what they are, and they should teach those who do not know. Those who do not know those are just plain stupid women or man, the very way those who dot know physics or mathematics well are just incompetent scientists or mathematicians. Another aspect of this limited view is the conviction that all that matters is overtly observable behaviour - the interaction with the selected cultural goods in this case - not the mental prcesses that are linked with it (my bet is on behviourism playing an important role here).
Both Bloom and Adorno's writings about pop music are instances or examples of a much more nuanced discussion about how culture and history operate.
Exactly. They DO KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, so they can teach the stupid majority what to do. They are self - proclaimed experts in cultural, ethical, and esthetical subjects (on afterthought not very much self proclaimed - the whole society accepts there being people who take this role). The entire idea of 'value expert' is, for me, disgusting and harful.
In Bloom's case this is set out in earlier chapters of his book, in the case of Adorno, it pervades a large body of work written over many years. Trying to refute specific comments they've made about specific music, without dealing with these larger arguments, is pointless, no matter how frustrating you may find their musical opinions, because you haven't dealt with their main arguments.
I'm trying, as you see. ;-).
There is a LOT to criticize in Bloom and Adorno; I agree with very little that I've read by Bloom and somewhat more of what I've read by Adorno. But a critique of their work that is limited to discussing their responses to electric guitars or pop crooners, doesn't come close to addressing their overall approach. These details are matters of personal taste that have little to do with the actual shape of their arguments.
I'll try to give some account of the role of theories in the ethics, social philosophy, and esthetics some day, now some work in the philosophy of mind needs to be done ;-). That's my long-term project.
Marcin's comment about "three tenors" may make this a bit more clear. Based on Bloom's and Adorno's writings, one can very safely say that they would have found this kind of marketing of "classical" music to be even more despicable than Marcin does.
Adorno's remarks on simplfied renditions of classical music are among few points he makes that I find interesting. On the other hand, his simplified veiw of culture makes room for such phenomenas: if the pros of culture say that rock is shit and classical is great, we need something that would be classical and listenable.
If you just have a knee-jerk dismissal of Bloom based on his comments about pop music, there's no clear understanding of why you may agree on other issues.
I dimiss him because I find his comments extremly offensive. One point: don't you agree with me here? Being a person who spent a large part of his life listening and playing rock, I do feel offended. And one may wonder what can make Bloom think that it's correct to write such things.
It's easy for me to imagine someone agreeing with Bloom's overall argument, and differing only on details like their response to rock, TV sitcoms, or other cultural manifestations. There are people who make the same kind of arguments based on valuing a particular creative period of the past but draw their aesthetic lines at different points because of their own tastes in art. I've seen very similar arguments from people who like jazz more than Adorno did or who like rock more than Bloom did. The arguments are no more or less flawed simply because I may share more musical tastes with the author.
I agree complety with you on this point, I hope my position is more clear now. I do think that there's something wrong with our society, and the way music, art, science, philosophy, etc., are treated within it. But writing self - confident and agressive books filled with anger and conviction that people around are stupid or just even plain bad doesn't help. Marcin