"Marcin Gokieli" <marcingokieli@go2.pl> wrote:
This book is, along with Adorno's 'Philosophy of new music' and 'Dialectic of Enlightenment', my main ennemy among written things ('three tenors' are the target among musical objects). Parts of the critique are interesting, but his agressive self confidence and hate towards what he sees as popular culture make it a monster. Yet another opinion form mr. academic teacher on the eternal topic of "now wouldn't this world been much better had everyone ACTED JUST LIKE ME AND AMDMIRED THOSE NICE THINGS I DO, but they are just to silly to to that". As for his view of rock, he treats it as something that makes life 'a comercially confected masturabational fantasy' (my retranslation from polish edition), no mer, no less. Needless to say, there's no single musical argument in the chapter devoted to it, just plain 'what's that horrible violinless thing' atittude.
and
The problem is, however, that he does not say anything more interesting about music then 'rock sucks, mozart is OK' (maybe besides his reducing music to a kind of educational tool, which i find deeply mistaken), and it makes the discussion with him pretty useless. And as a person who has spent much of time on listening and creating music at times close to rock, I feel very offended by such treatment of this kind of music.
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. All of us who've been on this list for a while have seen some interesting and complex discussions that make it clear that, though we may share a general interest in one (very amorphous) area of music, we don't all agree on the details of what we do & don't like. The fact that there aren't many more such discussions is due more to restraint on the part of various list members than it is to any actual consensus of taste. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com
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
Just about everything Marcin writes about Bloom being an elitist is pretty clear and right on. But ANY & ALL issues related to what Bloom says about specific music, pro and con, are irrelevant to the problems with his argument. Bloom's argument would be just as false, for exactly the same reasons, if he was entirely supportive of the same music that Marcin is. Marcin claims to agree with this in several parts of his post:
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.
& "Marcin Gokieli" <marcingokieli@go2.pl> wrote:
Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
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.
But once Marcin's gotten himself worked up a little bit, he goes right back to arguing against Bloom's statements of taste. "Marcin Gokieli" <marcingokieli@go2.pl> wrote:
Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
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.
Basing any part of one's argument with Bloom's ideas on the fact that he dissed your taste in music is as pointless as starting a fist fight because somebody doesn't like your shoes. These details may pull your chain, but they aren't an important part of what's screwed up about Bloom's book. To repeat what I wrote earlier,
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.
In other words, to answer your question ("don't you agree with me here? "). No, I don't. Bests, Herb -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com
Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
Basing any part of one's argument with Bloom's ideas on the fact that he dissed your taste in music is as pointless as starting a fist fight because somebody doesn't like your shoes. These details may pull your chain, but they aren't an important part of what's screwed up about Bloom's book. To repeat what I wrote earlier,
I see I did not menage to make myself more clear. I'll try again then. The facs that he 'dissed' rock is not a problem for me (he somehows equals rock and the work of the frakfurt school, having Marcuse as an example). But he goes far beyond dissing. He does not say that rock is not good music, he says that it's something that is an effect of immature sexual disires. Such opinions are the problem - and they are stated without use of ANY musical or psychological analysis! Had he said the same things about hip-hop, that I do not listen to, I'd be equally disgusted. Saying that one does not like some kind of music, or that it's plain bad, is not a problem. Explaining that it's morally harmful is offense. (again) Don't you think so? If I say that some kind of sexual activity are uninteresting, it's OK. If I go on to say they are not real sex, one would want me to exlain what I mean and to have some really good arguments. If I write a book where I explain that it's morally harmful and disgusting, without use of any kind of psychological (or else) research, I'm a self confident and offensive. Marcin
Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com> wrote:
Basing any part of one's argument with Bloom's ideas on the fact that he dissed your taste in music is as pointless as starting a fist fight because somebody doesn't like your shoes. These details may pull your chain, but they aren't an important part of what's screwed up about Bloom's book. To repeat what I wrote earlier,
I see I did not menage to make myself more clear. I'll try again then. The facs that he 'dissed' rock is not a problem for me (he somehows equals rock and the work of the frakfurt school, having Marcuse as an example). But he goes far beyond dissing. He does not say that rock is not good music, he says that it's something that is an effect of immature sexual disires. Such opinions are the problem - and they are stated without use of ANY musical or psychological analysis! Had he said the same things about hip-hop, that I do not listen to, I'd be equally disgusted. Saying that one does not like some kind of music, or that it's plain bad, is not a problem. Explaining that it's morally harmful is offense. (again) Don't you think so? If I say that some kind of sexual activity are uninteresting, it's OK. If I go on to say they are not real sex, one would want me to exlain what I mean and to have some really good arguments. If I write a book where I explain that it's morally harmful and disgusting, without use of any kind of psychological (or else) research, I'm a self confident and offensive.
Bloom's whole book is about what he thinks is morally harmful in recent Western culture overall. I'm not PARTICULARLY offended by his characterization of particular musical forms compared to how he characterizes, say, aspects of contemporary literature, media or other behavior. If you're not simply over-reacting to his writings about music, you're certainly under-reacting to the rest of his book. -- Herb Levy P O Box 9369 Fort Worth, TX 76147 herb@eskimo.com
Apologies for the delay, my reponse will be short anyhow, as there's some film music to make urgently. You are right that I overreact to the part about music - in fact i was very touched by it. I read it by the time when i was playing in a rock band. It was a great band - we worked very hard, and learned to play together, to communicate ideas, etc. (it was not that much 'rock', actually somewhere between King Crimson and Lounge Lizards, with lot of improvs). I learned a lot thanks to that experience - not only as musician, I understood much of what colective work is about, etc. When I read Bloom's comments I really felt that he did not know what he was talking about - he was reducing some rich sphere of living and creating to some educational problems he was thinking about. No need to repeat what I wrote earlier in this exchange anyhow. Of course, think, I disagree with his general atittude towards society and his role within it, as with a lot of his prefernces, but what struck me first was what he wrote about music. It's a good example of his ideas, and not an acciedental one. To sum up: the worst thing about this text is that it touhes a real problem, but it offers a simplistic solution. I do think there's a problem about the way people are educated. But Bloom's solutions won't be of much help. Thanks, Marcin From: Herb Levy <herb@eskimo.com>
Bloom's whole book is about what he thinks is morally harmful in recent Western culture overall. I'm not PARTICULARLY offended by his characterization of particular musical forms compared to how he characterizes, say, aspects of contemporary literature, media or other behavior.
If you're not simply over-reacting to his writings about music, you're certainly under-reacting to the rest of his book.
participants (2)
-
Herb Levy -
Marcin Gokieli