/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17514662]

>JAZZ BAD
>FILM BAD
>STRAVINSKY BAD
>EXPOSED BREASTS BAD
>POPULAR BAD
>FUN BAD
>ANY KIND OF JOY BAD
What the fuck was his problem?

[Anonymous No.17514665]

>>17514662
He was lauded for being a critic,even if i do agree with some points critics are always the maggots that eat away at society.

[Anonymous No.17514669]

>>17514662
Ugly manlet incel jew

[Anonymous No.17514695]

>>17514662
He was a reactionary crypto-conservative that was smart enough to know capitalism isn't reconcilable with conservatism. However he, like all conservatives, was wrong, and his elitist crybaby rants on popular music carefully veiled under a "socialist cause" are rightfully ignored and made fun of today, except for modern reactionaries, mostly right-wing, that had the courage to read one of the deadly "Cultural Marxists" and found something in common with him.

[Anonymous No.17514699]

>>17514662
>laughing after the holocaust is immoral
fucking KEK!

[Anonymous No.17514965]

>>17514699

Laughing BEFORE the holocaust is immoral.

[Anonymous No.17514988]

>>17514662
Dude was a complete fucking intellectually dishonest hack. Like did he even believe himself what he said? Was there ever an element of saying to himself "that's right teddy that's a good point now " or was it just all, "say this bullshit in this way to increase fame and power".

[Anonymous No.17515861]

>>17514669
He routinely cheated on his wife,who was very cute, with many women , and you're projecting(like most antisemites do, read the last chapter of DOE)

[Anonymous No.17515880]

>>17514662
The Holocaust was his problem.

[Anonymous No.17515977]

Stop reading kikes.

The goal of the kike mind virus is to poison your mind and get you to view the world with the same ugly depressing nihilistic view they have. This is why you have so many low self esteem autists on here, because they read this kike shit instead of literally anything else.

[Anonymous No.17516001]

>Adorno's reputation as a musicologist has been in steady decline since his death. His sweeping criticisms of jazz and championing of the Second Viennese School in opposition to Stravinsky have caused him to fall out of favour. The distinguished American scholar Richard Taruskin[73] declared Adorno to be "preposterously over-rated." The eminent pianist and critic Charles Rosen saw Adorno's book The Philosophy of New Music as "largely a fraudulent presentation, a work of polemic that pretends to be an objective study."[74] Even a fellow Marxist such as the historian and jazz critic Eric Hobsbawm saw Adorno's writings as containing "some of the stupidest pages ever written about jazz".[75] The British philosopher Roger Scruton saw Adorno as producing "reams of turgid nonsense devoted to showing that the American people are just as alienated as Marxism requires them to be, and that their cheerful life-affirming music is a 'fetishized' commodity, expressive of their deep spiritual enslavement to the capitalist machine."[69] Irritation with Adorno's tunnel vision started even while he was alive. He may have championed Schoenberg, but the composer notably failed to return the compliment: "I have never been able to bear the fellow [...] It is disgusting, by the way, how he treats Stravinsky."[76]

[Anonymous No.17516002]

>>17514665
composer Jean Sibelius once said “Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic.”

[Anonymous No.17516017]

>>17514662
He was a jew

[Anonymous No.17516038]

No one in this thread has red minimal moralia let alone aesthetic theory, so maybe everyone should shut up

[Anonymous No.17516070]

>>17516038
Cry more Shlomo. Every time you kikes make a thread to shill your disgusting kike books, I will be there, right on cue, to ruin your thread and derail it in under 10 posts. Don't forget that.

[Anonymous No.17516077]

>>17514662
>What the fuck was his problem?
Too based, made populists seethe.

[Anonymous No.17516081]

>>17516002
JEANFAGS BTFO

[Anonymous No.17516090]

>>17515861
>Cheating

Lol it's always the ugliest guys with the ugliest morals and personality.

[Anonymous No.17516096]

>>17516081
That's such a mediocre statue that Sibelius is even more vindicated.

Pic related: what a real statue looks like.

[Anonymous No.17516104]

>>17516096
Better image.

[Anonymous No.17516139]

>>17516096
>>17516104
what a fucking pile of shit

[Anonymous No.17516175]

>>17516001
He should have been hung with piano wire.

[Anonymous No.17516219]

>>17514662

Science didn't exist back then so people just had to guess a bunch of stuff and follow their emotional intuitions

[Anonymous No.17516225]

>>17514988

People are capable of convincing themselves of literally anything. He probably did believe everything he said. All you have to do is get into a mindset wherein you don't allow yourself to disconfirm what you intuitively believe

[Anonymous No.17516302]

>>17514662
Please, OP and only OP:

Since you've thought enough about this, explain in detail why
>Jazz is good
>Film is good
>Stravinsky is good
>Exposed breasts are good
>Popular is good
>Fun is good

Not only in relation to Adorno's critiques, but also with your own original thoughts. Or are you just reiterating memes you've only seen here?

[Anonymous No.17516322]

>>17516302
Oh shut the fuck up you complete poindexter

[Anonymous No.17516331]

>>17516002
Why should we take seriously what the worst of composers has to say about anything?

[Anonymous No.17516630]

>>17516096
>>17516104
Looks like melted shit.

[Anonymous No.17516659]

>>17514662
The best of the proto-Boomers, and yet all of this

[Anonymous No.17517002]

>>17516139
>>17516630
>if it's not a nude Greek man it's shit!

[Anonymous No.17517221]

>>17514662
Terminal basedness

[Anonymous No.17517474]

>>17517002
>coping about his shit taste with projection

[Anonymous No.17517536]

>>17516322
seethe

[Anonymous No.17517575]

>>17514662
Cryptofascist.

[Anonymous No.17518336]

>>17514662
what you're missing is that Adorno was funny as fuck and just banting the shit out of everyone

[Anonymous No.17518403]

>>17514662
He was an elitist academic snob who thought pop culture was a tool to control the masses and brainwash them into consumerists or ideology slaves

[Anonymous No.17518421]

>FUN BAD? GOOD
>MORE TIME TO HAVE FUN

[Anonymous No.17518430]

>>17514662
i'd explain it to you, but you probably still wouldn't get it

[Anonymous No.17518438]

Minima Moralia is a good book desu, it's like reading old man ranting about various things but in a sophisticated gentlemanly scholarly manner

[Anonymous No.17518534]

fun is capitalist decadence

[Anonymous No.17518769]

>>17517575
This
he praised Spengler, so he's fascist

[Anonymous No.17519538]

>>17514695
There is literally nothing reactionary about anything post-Descartes

[Anonymous No.17519614]

>>17514662
He was unironically right about all those things. Okay, maybe not jazz, but he wrote that essay in the '30s while listening to a white German jazz party band, it's not like he started ranting after having listened to A Love Supreme
>>17514695
Yes, the champion of Schoenberg, Benjamin and Klee was a crypto-conservative. Lmao.

[Anonymous No.17519646]

>>17519614
Schoenberg was definitely a bit of a crypto himself.

[Anonymous No.17519664]

adorno is like zizek. they both get shit on by pseuds who will never understand them and they're both unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.17519666]

>>17516001
Why would you ever read Adorno as a musicologist? The Philosophy of Modern Music is, guess what, not a musicological work, but a philosophical one. It is clear that in it he doesn't attack Stravinsky's technique, orchestration, theory, etc., rather he attacks the spirit of his work, and this critique can only be a philosophical one.
I'll add, since it is a philosophical work, opinions of non-philosophers (or at least people who have not dabbled with philosophy) should not be taken seriously. Who gives a shit about what Charles Rosen has to say about the book? Has he understood Kang's and Hegel's Aesthetic theories? If not, then he is nit even equipped to understand the individual words contained in thst book.

[Anonymous No.17519695]

>>17519538
Perhaps you're forgetting that reactionaries are reacting to all the utter shit post descartes being utter shit

When Evola speaks to you from 3000BC literally none of that is Post Descartes.

[Anonymous No.17519698]

>>17519646
Again, what is conservative in championing Schoenberg, Benjamin and Klee? I think that people who say that he was a crypto-conservative just cannot imagine a non-conservative critique of popular music.

[Anonymous No.17519739]

>>17516002
>Memelius

[Anonymous No.17519749]

adorno's most enduring ideas are his analysis of how art is commodified and turned into an industry where economic value and standardization reign supreme (see pop music and the rock "album" format)

[Anonymous No.17519756]

>>17514662
He was a Marxist. The same autism can be seen here when people say shit like Hollywood BAD or videogames BAD

[Anonymous No.17519812]

>>17519749
Standardization in art paves the way for more compelling experimentation.

[Anonymous No.17519846]

>>17519812
Yeah, I'm totally enjoying all the Beethovens that this century has produced!

[Anonymous No.17519903]

>>17519846
Your problem is that you're still looking for Beethovens. You ignore everything new that has been done because you refuse to change how you think about art.

[Anonymous No.17520265]

>>17514662
Theodor “poor people should be miserable so they’ll be forced to fight and die to create what I believe would be their ideal ‘utopia’” Adorno

[Anonymous No.17520522]

>>17519903
What if I told you that I actually tried doing so, and I still found contemporary music to be artistically lacking? Could you name a composition composed in the last 100 years that is as sublime as Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Mozart's Kirye from the Mass in C minor? A piece as profound as Contrapunctus 11 from Bach's Art of Fugue?
Ravel was the last great composer we have known as a public*. Since then music has been merely interesting, never sublime.
*I'm not disputing that music of that height has not been composed ever since, only that if it has, it has never entered the public sphere. I've looked for it obsessively in critical/musicological journals/books and in underground internet/RL communities for more than a decade with no success. If such a music has been composed, it has also been hidden to such an extent that it is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to know about its existence.

[Anonymous No.17520527]

>>17520522
post your favorite music. I want to get into the real stuff. don't hold back. you're right about everything

[Anonymous No.17520530]

>>17520522
>Could you name a composition composed in the last 100 years that is as sublime as Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Mozart's Kirye from the Mass in C minor? A piece as profound as Contrapunctus 11 from Bach's Art of Fugue?
>Ravel was the last great composer we have known as a public*. Since then music has been merely interesting, never sublime.
sometimes you see these literal human caricatures on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.17520540]

>>17517002
>WOW DUDE IT DOESNT HAVE A PEDESTAL SO ITS GOOD MODERN SCULPTURE
read theory

[Anonymous No.17520555]

>>17514662
too smart for this gay earth honestly.

[Anonymous No.17520561]

>>17514662
Based Marxist boo.

[Anonymous No.17520567]

>>17520527
What classical music have you listened so far?
>>17520530
You're free to tell me how am I wrong

[Anonymous No.17520571]

>>17520522
>I still found contemporary music to be artistically lacking
That's because, since Wagner's time, pure music has been dying. The best music was made in the past, but lots of things that couldn't be made in the past are made today. These are the new things you're ignoring.

[Anonymous No.17520590]

>>17520571
How am I ignoring it? By the way, that would only strenghten my point. I would only contest the fatalism of your post: I don't think it is the case that certain types of music "cannot" be made (or made public, in the case it has already been composed) today. There are many obstacles, but overcoming them is not a metsphysical impossibility: it's just really hard.

[Anonymous No.17520604]

>>17520567
>What classical music have you listened so far?
not enough to have any real taste or know where to begin

[Anonymous No.17520642]

>>17514662
Why does he hate Stravinsky? He's the last truly great composer before the death of the classical tradition (IMO at least)

[Anonymous No.17520756]

>>17520604
Beethoven and romantics like Schumann are usually a good starting point. Unfortunately, I think that for most people classical music is an acquired taste (usually because one does not even know what to listen for, ending up being completely unaware of the composers' intentions). As such my advise is to stick at first to compositions that could be catchy to a modern ear, played in the most approachable style: basically, don't be a purist, and if you don't like organs and harpsichords, listen to Bach played on piano (this is just a random example). Also if you cannot focus on music for more thsn one movement, don't feel bad for listening them in isolation (i.e. listening only to the seventh movement of Beethoven's 14th quarter and ignoring the other 6). Furthermore, I think that for some reason modern listeners tend to prefer compositions in minor keys, and the edgier they are, the more they like it (e.g. the Moonlight Sonata). It's not bad to stick to these pieces when one starts to listen to classical music, since they can be used to get familiar with classical forms (for example, the sonata form).
Lastly, knowing about historical and musical context helps a lot. Knowing what a sonata is and how it is subdivided helps IMMENSELY, since you'll have an intuitive understsnding of ehat to focus on (you'll recognize themes, counterthemes, repetitions, developements, etc). The same can be said about historical and biographical context (always read on the composers you're listening to!)
Here's some pieces that I deem accessible to most listeners (although I might be wrong):
-Beethoven's Sonatas 8, 14, 17, 23, 32, played by Pollini
-Beethoven's Symphonies 5, 9 (I would have said 3 too, but I have been told by some new listeners that it sounded childish to them, sommaybe it's not good for first impressions), played by Karajan or Abbado.
-Beethoven's Quartet 14 Mvt 6-7, and, if you're not bothered by dissonances, his Grosse Fugue, played by the Alban Berg Quartet
-Schumann's Sonata 3, played by Pollini
-Schumann's Allegro in B Minor, played by Pollini
-Schumann's Fantasia, played by Pollini
-Bach's Art of Fugue, played by Glenn Gould (it is not a faithful rendition, but it usually makes an effect on new listeners of classical music)
-Ravel, pretty much everything, played by either Perlemuter or
-Scriabin, Sonata 4 played by Sofronitzky, Sonata 5 played by Richter in Warsaw
-this is a odd one: Agosti's trascription of Stravinsky's Firebird, played by Piemontesi

These are not all the best pieces I know, but they are all masterpieces, and I assume that most people can appreciate them without much background.

[Anonymous No.17520776]

>>17520756
Thank you, saving this.

[Anonymous No.17520797]

>>17520522
Go listen to Bull of Heaven.

[Anonymous No.17520815]

>>17516070
This is the white man everyone, in all his glory.

[Anonymous No.17520833]

>>17518403
>He was an elitist academic snob who thought pop culture was a tool to control the masses and brainwash them into consumerists or ideology slaves
So he was right?

[Anonymous No.17520842]

>>17519664
Based

[Anonymous No.17520852]

>>17519903
Cardi B was accused of making her songs fit the Tiktok format.
If you think contemporary music is heading in the right direction you're blind, popular culture is definitely degenerating into pure commodity form.

[Anonymous No.17520874]

>>17519614
this always struck me as cope. The assumption that someone who grew up with European musical tradition and disliked jazz MUST have not been exposed to "real" jazz, since obviously if they were they were exposed to "real" jazz they would love it. cope, cope, cope.

[Anonymous No.17520894]

>>17520874
I mean, I honestly don't know how he would have reacted to something like A Love Supreme

[Anonymous No.17520912]

>>17519812
Not really, it only opens the door for the commercialization of experimental ideas. It's where you get people like Ornette Coleman and Frank Zappa rather than Schoenberg.
>>17519614
>Yes, the champion of Schoenberg, Benjamin and Klee was a crypto-conservative. Lmao.
Schoenberg himself was a reactionary monarchist if that counts. That being said, there isn a big difference between elitist modernism and conservatism.

[Anonymous No.17520939]

>>17520894
From what I understand he never changed his views even after hearing later developments in jazz and he was bashing Gershwin into the 60s. I don't think why he would have seen A Love supreme as anything other than a commercial piece of hokey new age spiritualism.
I ultimately think this criticism of jazz fit the jazz of the 50s and 60s better than it does that of the 30s.

[Anonymous No.17521014]

>>17519903
Only good post ITT. Hate reactionaries with limited taste that don't even make music. Your 19th century larping will get old by the time you hit 30 and have no friends.

[Anonymous No.17521226]

>>17520939
Even then, that would be a different critique (and not the one contained in the essay against jazz).

[Anonymous No.17521260]

>>17514662
He was bald, that explains it all

[Anonymous No.17521411]

>>17519666
this. all of the criticisms of him in the quote miss this and offer nothing of substance. literally just HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE THIS

[Anonymous No.17521426]

>>17520522
>Could you name a composition composed in the last 100 years that is as sublime as Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Mozart's Kirye from the Mass in C minor?
100 Gecs' Money Machine

[Anonymous No.17521432]

>>17514662
all of these are true.

[Anonymous No.17521465]

>>17521426
This but unironically
also Bladee - Deletee (Intro)

[Anonymous No.17521487]

>>17514662
He was not a fun man.

[Anonymous No.17521510]

>>17519666
>kangs aesthetic theory

[Anonymous No.17521516]

>>17521465
Gluee has a lot of Renaissance-like polyphony worthy of Des Prez, Richafort, De Lasso, etc. but updated to the digital age. Even Scaruffi realized this

[Anonymous No.17521524]

>>17520756
>I think that for most people classical music is an acquired taste
it is because the music most people like is the music they listen to as children. And most contemporary children don't listen to classical music since they have no exposure to it.

[Anonymous No.17522156]

>>17516070
your race is as good as dead, get over it

[Anonymous No.17522164]

>>17516096
that's a really cool statue

[Anonymous No.17522179]

>>17520530
ayeeeeee >>17520522 btfo

[Anonymous No.17522267]

The reason why there were great masters in the past is because in the past most people were clueless and the artists were few. Meaning in any epoch there lay the opportunity for a "great artist" to say something that needed to be said and was never said before. In 21st century this is simply not possible anymore because everything has already been said, plus there are millions of more artists and niches than there were in the past, so at best all you can hope for is some interesting curiosity in some subset. But there doesn't really exist an opportunity for something major to be said. You'd have to be an idiot to think that we suddenly lost all talent in our era, it must be the case rather that something in the conditions themselves is now such that "great works" or "great artists" aren't possible anymore.

[Anonymous No.17522295]

>>17522267
N-NOOOOO ITS ACTUALLY BECAUSE MUH TRADITION AND GOD AND UH UHH CAPITALISM AND UHHHH POSTMODERNISM BRO!!!

[Anonymous No.17522838]

>>17520756
>Schumann
>no mention of his Kreisleriana
>Scriabin
>no mention of his Mazurkas, Preludes or Etudes

[Anonymous No.17523041]

>>17514662
enjoying anything is aesthetic bougie bullshit and capitalism
there is only work

[Anonymous No.17523063]

>>17516002
plato once said "mfs who use other quotes to prove their point are cunts"

[Anonymous No.17523149]

>>17514662
Imagine being an elite intellectual in pre-war Germany, one of the oldest European cultures, and then being forced out of your country and into Los Angeles. A city constructed by real estate speculators in the middle of a desert to sell cheap housing with the dream of Hollywood. If you can get into this mindset it’s easy to start to understand Adorno’s opinions on culture and also capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17523169]

Adorno on casual sex

>Inter pares. – In the realm of erotic qualities, a revaluation seems to be occurring. Under liberalism, well into our day, married men from high society who were unsatisfied with their strictly brought up and correct spouses absolved themselves in the company of female artists, bohemians, sugar babies and cocottes. With the rationalization of society this possibility of unregimented happiness has disappeared. The cocottes are extinct, the sugar babies probably never existed in Anglo-Saxon countries and other lands of technical civilization, while the female artists and those bohemians who exist parasitically in the mass culture are so thoroughly permeated with the latter’s reason, that those who flee in longing to their anarchy, to the free accessibility of their own use-value, are in danger of waking up to the obligation of engaging them as assistants, if not at least recommending them to a film-executive or scriptwriter they know.

>The only ones who are still capable of something like irrational love are precisely those ladies who the spouses once fled on excursions to Maxim’s (famous restaurant in Paris). While they are as tiresome to their own husbands, due to the latter’s fault, as their own mothers, they are at least capable of granting to others, what all others have withheld from them. The long since frigid libertine represents business, while the proper and well brought up lady represents yearning and unromantic sexuality. In the end, the ladies of society garner the honor of their dishonor, in the moment when there is no more society and no more ladies.

[Anonymous No.17523310]

>>17523169
adorno was based

[Anonymous No.17523396]

>>17514662
Based.

[Anonymous No.17523401]

>>17515861
>adulterous Jew
Why are you implying this is a good thing?

[Anonymous No.17523408]

>>17516001
If I think Scruton was wrong here and the Jewish neomarxist had some good points, does that make more or less of a stormweenie?

[Anonymous No.17523790]

>>17514988
You've never read anything by adorno

[Anonymous No.17524081]

>>17520522
>Could you name a composition composed in the last 100 years that is as sublime as Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, or Mozart's Kirye from the Mass in C minor? A piece as profound as Contrapunctus 11 from Bach's Art of Fugue?
booooring

[Anonymous No.17524235]

>>17514695
>mostly right-wing, that had the courage to read one of the deadly "Cultural Marxists" and found something in common with him.
Whats your opinion on this? How is it possible to completly reverse the arguments of a person?

[Anonymous No.17524624]

>>17514662
>>POPULAR BAD
>>FUN BAD
>>ANY KIND OF JOY BAD
never read adorno

[Anonymous No.17524667]

>>17520522
>and I still found contemporary music to be artistically lacking?
Artistically lacking in what? I find classical fags view of music woefully constrained. They are often stuck in their sense of aesthetics that got drilled into them as children. No different than a pop music listener who immediately discards anything slightly off the beaten path.

[Anonymous No.17525118]

>>17514662

[Anonymous No.17525134]

>>17514662
Adorno is Walter Benjamin lite.

[Anonymous No.17525186]

>>17516081
Not erected.

[Anonymous No.17525406]

pay no heed to "meme" criticism

[Anonymous No.17525833]

>>17516002

[Anonymous No.17526027]

>>17524667
I have qualified it by saying "since then music has been merely interesting, never sublime". Also I was not exposed to classical music as a child.
>>17522838
None of those pieces are accessible to a newcomer as the ones I've mentioned. I suspect you're mentioning them just because these are the only pieces by Scriabin and Schumann you know of.

[Anonymous No.17526597]

>>17520522
People like you make me feel embarrassed of being a classical fan. No one likes you

[Anonymous No.17526606]

>>17516002
I will personally erect a statue of pic related

[Anonymous No.17528251]

>>17526597
I usually hide my power level IRL because of cowards like you, who are too scared of social ripercussions to say that there are good reasons to believe that certain pieces of art are better than others. Or even worse, maybe you're an idiot rather than a coward, who truly believes that rock music (for example) has achieved anything that is even remotely comparable to the masterpieces I've mentioned.
Maybe no one likes me, but in your case I could safely say that no one SHOULD like you: not liking people like you is a matter of intellectual hygiene.

[Anonymous No.17529035]

>/pol/ told me the Frankfurt School was pozzed Jewish Marxism that originated political correctness
>Actually read some of their work
>Realize that it’s about how capitalism creates a degenerate and pozzed society

Anyone else got lied to by /pol/?

[Anonymous No.17529085]

>>17528251
based

>>17526597
you have to go back retard

[Anonymous No.17529123]

>>17529035
Read this

[Anonymous No.17529163]

>>17529035
Adorno wasn't trying to destroy the West or the white man like they would have you believe. He was concerned with the degradation of art, of standards, of high culture. He saw the masses being inundated with pop culture that tries to mold them into ideal consumers and commodify everything.

[Anonymous No.17529172]

>>17529035
they didn't lie, the Frankfurt school simply uses the usual leftist trick of projecting their evil deeds into their political opponents.

[Anonymous No.17529189]

>>17529163
hmmm no that's exactly what he was trying to do.

[Anonymous No.17529227]

>>17529189
>>17529172
I guarantee you've never read any of Adorno's books.

[Anonymous No.17529233]

>>17528251
Cringe
>>17529085
Samefag

[Anonymous No.17529276]

The second you arrive on this planet you’re bombarded with pop culture that shapes your behavior and influences you with the prevailing ideology it perpetuates. Some of children's first words are directly related to corporations (such as wanting McDonalds happy meal or toys they saw in ads or to watch certain tv programs).

You are immersed in pop culture before you are even capable of having an intellectual opinion of it. So we wind up having an unthinking acceptance of it as we grow up, and it influences us in our most impressionable and vulnerable years, thus reinforcing capital's desired narrative and mode of life. Our lives have essentially become one big commercial, or an eternal shopping mall. They flood us with propaganda so we become subjects.

[Anonymous No.17529280]

Test

[Anonymous No.17529297]

the more i read about this man the more i like him. i'm going to pick up his books

[Anonymous No.17529315]

If you're interested in Adorno I would also recommend people like Jean Baudrillard, Susan Sontag, Georg Lukacs, Guy Debord or Walter Benjamin.

[Anonymous No.17529503]

>>17520522
Massive cope for getting filtered by non-standard music.

[Anonymous No.17529597]

>>17529233
Pic related, keep coping
>>17529503
The invitation is still open: show me a piece (that has been a product of the culture of the last 60 years) as sublime as the ones I've mentioned.

[Anonymous No.17529617]

>>17529597
>show me a piece (that has been a product of the culture of the last 60 years) as sublime as the ones I've mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQWhFysPKY

[Anonymous No.17529643]

>>17529617
I know this is an ironic answer, but I just wanted to point out that unlike Adorno (although I was defending him) I am not radically opposed to art as entertainment. I'm not mad because people are making pop music: what irks me is the complete absence of sublime music from the public sphere, insofar as it is virtuslly impossible to find it, even if one puts lots of effort into this pursuit.

[Anonymous No.17529716]

Why do /pol/ types think Adorno subverted the west with cultural marxism???

[Anonymous No.17529837]

>>17529716
Because he was Jewish and because he was sympathetic to Marx. This cross all their checkboxes, so regardless of what he said, he must have been part of some cabal devoted to the destruction of the west
Basically: they're retarded

[Anonymous No.17529870]

>>17529617
Holy based

[Anonymous No.17529874]

>>17529837
>>17529716
>The Frankfurt School didn't influence the New Left or 68'
ok

[Anonymous No.17529887]

>>17529597
>show me a piece (that has been a product of the culture of the last 60 years) as sublime as the ones I've mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN0IuqgC3N8

[Anonymous No.17529930]

>>17529874
Adorno was literally opposed to the '68 student protests, and spoke publicly against them asnthey were happening (which led to costant disruption of his lectures). He also broke his friendship with Marcuse over it

[Anonymous No.17529935]

>>17529874
it was literally just marcuse, students hated adorno and had never heard of horkheimer, much less someone like sohn-rethel

[Anonymous No.17529947]

>>17529930
>>17529935
>uuugh but Adorno didn't like them
holy cope

[Anonymous No.17529948]

>>17529716
Because they associate the Frankfurt school with the decadence of Weimar Germany. After Hitler got into power of course most of them went to America. A lot ended up working for the American government at that point in one way or another and some served in the the OSS (predecessor to the CIA). Of course McCarty era investigations really played up foreign Marxists working for the government. Eventually you get kooky fringe conservative conspiracy theorists coming up with ideas like Adorno was writing the Beatles music to destroy the minds of Americas youth.

Most of the "Cultural Marxist" narrative today was actually created by the Larouche cult although conservatives would never admit their just stealing stuff from them:

https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html
That's from the early 90s

>>17529874
Obviously (although more Marcuse than Adorno) but the weird claims go deeper

[Anonymous No.17529955]

>ITT retards arguing about music
JUST FUCKING STOP! GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY BOARD! YOU'VE GOT /MU/! MUSIC IS NOT /LIT/, LISTENING TO MUSIC IS A DEGENERATE ACTIVITY THAT'S NOT DIFFERENT FROM COOMING ON A NEURAL LEVEL! THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "GARBAGE" AND "SUBLIME" MUSIC IS ONE OF DEGREE NOT OF KIND
>Young people know that rock has the beat of sexual intercourse. That is why Ravel's Bolero is the one piece of classical music that is commonly known and liked by them. In alliance with some real art and a lot of pseudo-art, an enormous industry cultivates the taste for the orgiastic state of feeling connected with sex, providing a constant flood of fresh material for voracious appetites. Never was there an art form directed so exclusively to children.
>Picture a thirteen-year-old boy sitting in the living room of his family home doing his math assignment while wearing his Walkman headphones or watching MTV. He enjoys the liberties hard won over centuries by the alliance of philosophic genius and political heroism, consecrated by the blood of martyrs; he is provided with comfort and leisure by the most productive economy ever known to mankind; science has penetrated the secrets of nature in order to provide him with the marvelous, lifelike electronic sound and image reproduction he is enjoying. And in what does progress culminate? A pubescent child whose body throbs with orgasmic rhythms; whose feelings are made articulate in hymns to the joys of onanism or the killing of parents; whose ambition is to win fame and wealth in imitating the drag-queen who makes the music. In short, life is made into a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy.

[Anonymous No.17529964]

>>17523041
What a bougie take.

[Anonymous No.17529969]

>>17529955
Said the pederast

[Anonymous No.17530032]

>>17529643
Pop music is that. Pop isn't just entertainment anymore, it's a different way of making music. You simply don't like or understand how music is now. Every single great composer would be making pop music nowadays, because it's the way they've seen music made since they were born. This is how pop music goes from novelty and commodity (like in Adorno's time, and even then that was just the literal radio hits) to genuine expression. People simply don't relate to music in the style of Bach, Beethoven, etc. because that is not the music they were raised with, and thus they won't relate to it. Most people today don't want to listen to a 3 hour long oratorio because they're probably not even religious, and music that long is rare, not to mention a completely different way of listening to it as well. If you showed Bach some pop song from the 60s he'd be confused as well, this doesn't make it less genuine or worse. You don't judge a pop artist by their lack of contrapuntal ability or whatever other thing you'd expect from a classical composer because they're simply not trying to do that. Hell even comparing between genres at all is already problematic, like calling a techno track too repetitive when that's exactly what it'd trying to do, comparing it to a prog. Rock song. Or comparing the lyrics of a dumb electropop song to Bob Dylan. Or complaining that jazz "doesn't even have lyrics" or that you can't dance to a math rock song. Now all of this happens under the popular music umbrella. Comparing popular music and classical music makes no sense because they're completely different and usually comes with vain elitism and posturing, some classism and even weird /pol/ shit as well. You have to realize we're not in the 19th century anymore. Some zoomer can find a rap song sublime, some people go crazy over pop stars, some people think The Beatles are the best thing to ever happen to music... I used to struggle with this as well when I got into classical years ago but I eventually realized that if Bach were making music today, it would be completely different. He had talent for sure, but a lot of what his music sounds like has to do with the culture he was born in, the music being made at the time, his religion, etc... And besides that, who am I to claim someone else's experience with music is different than mine? Who am I to tell what artists (the people actually making music) should be doing for me, the exquisite taste elitist that's stuck in the past? Being elitist is fun and all but it gets old the more you grow up. This doesn't mean forget Bach, Schubert, Schumann, etc. By all means keep their music alive, but don't put unrealistic standards on artists (Bach or Mozart are already stupidly high just for composers, let alone for fucking pop artists who were never trying to sound like them in the first place). You either learn that people see art differently than you or you'll stay an old man shouting at clouds until you die.

[Anonymous No.17530051]

>>17530032
>And besides that, who am I to claim someone else's experience with music is different than mine?
Excuse me, I meant inferior to mine.

[Anonymous No.17530072]

>>17529948
>frankfurt school was based and tradpilled because uhm you're being a nasty rightwinger and here uhm here's a schizo who says the frankfurt school were aliens you don't want to be like him do you??
>j-just shut and stop criticizing muh marxist intellectuals OKAY?!

[Anonymous No.17530076]

>>17530032
I'm not the guy you're replying to, just a random Anon. You are completely right. It's crazy to me some people can't work this out for themselves, instead sticking with their obviously distorted, poorly reasoned understanding of what art is and how it works. But then I guess its reassuring to remind myself of the bathetic twist underlying all of these debates: what you're arguing is incredibly obvious to even the most casual, imperceptive patron of the arts, and it's really only a certain type of obscure intellectual who thinks otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17530162]

>>17530072
I never said that. I'm responding to:
>Why do /pol/ types think Adorno subverted the west with cultural marxism???
That meme existed in the 50s-60s in different forms but Larouche started the modern more sophisticated variation of the meme

[Anonymous No.17530346]

>>17530076
Glad you agree and sorry you had to read that word salad, since I now realize I could have explained myself better in less words, I can only post from my phone currently so my post quality is significantly worse lol.
Anyways, what I meant in short was that pop music isn't no longer just entertainment now, it is the primary form of musical expression today. And just like classical could have dance, entertainment pieces or even pieces to be played in the background, today it's exactly the same; except made in a completely different way (recording, musical notation or education no longer necessary, etc). Pop is absolutely taken seriously by pretty much everyone except for people that just discovered classical music or old grumpy boomers like Boulez (RIP), maybe not a good example because of just how he was lol but still, he carried that modernist edgy spirit to his grave.
Even pop, as in the genre, is taken seriously, like people who were raised with Britney Spears or other pop music they heard growing up and wanted to make more of that, expressing themselves with music that was for long thought devoid of expression and commercial. Bjork already was making "serious" pop music before that as well...
I was responding to anon because I know where he's coming from but I eventually started to appreciate pop music as well, and realize that people take it very seriously despite not being the traditional "serious" way of making music. Telling someone that their music is inferior, or not genuine, or shit just because it isn't fucking Bach is just so pretentious and it turns people away from the music you love. Imagine telling some black kid making beats that his music is shit and he'll never be Bach because [insert some Adornian rant about muh popular music is doomed from the start] or some shit like that. Well you ruined any chances of that kid even listening to Bach, any other composer you used to posture with from checking them out and being inspired by them. I hate that classical is associated with pretentiousness because of some of its fans. This is no different from what happens with prog as well, or even rock (is anyone surprised that "poptimism" became a thing when something like fucking Disco Night happened?).
Elitism is essentially a way of keeping the "plebs" away from your music, making yourself as insufferable as possible so they never check it out and you're able to feel unique and different for liking it (it very rarely has anything to do with the music itself, sadly). Which is fine, I guess, you do you, but don't complain afterwards that people aren't making music like the one from 2 fucking centuries ago when you're calling all music that isn't like that "not serious" or "just entertainment".
Besides that I feel artists will find inspiration in classical in future years once they inevitably rediscover it thanks to the internet. Do your part and stop keeping people away from it if you want your next Bach.

[Anonymous No.17530383]

>>17516002
According to legend, Adorno bashed Sibelius so effectively that he destroyed his eighth symphony.

[Anonymous No.17530402]

>>17530076
Glad you agree and sorry you had to read that word salad, since I now realize I could have explained myself better in less words, I can only post from my phone currently so my post quality is significantly worse lol.
Anyways, what I meant in short was that pop music isn't no longer just entertainment now, it's the primary form of musical expression today. And just like classical could have dance, entertainment pieces or even pieces to be played in the background, today it's exactly the same; except made in a completely different way (recording, musical notation or education no longer necessary, etc). Pop is absolutely taken seriously by pretty much everyone except for people that just discovered classical music or old grumpy boomers like Boulez (RIP), maybe not a good example because of just how he was lol but still, he carried that modernist edgy spirit to his grave.
Even pop, as in the genre, is taken seriously, like people who were raised with Britney Spears and wanted to make more of that, taking it seriously, expressing themselves with music that was for long thought devoid of expression and commercial. Bjork already was making "serious" pop music before that as well...
I was responding to anon because I know where he's coming from but I eventually started to appreciate pop music as well, and realize that people take it very seriously despite not being the traditional "serious" way of making music. Telling someone that their music is inferior, or not genuine, or shit just because it isn't fucking Bach is just extremely pretentious and ignorant, and it turns people away from the music you love.
I hate that classical is associated with pretentiousness and elitism because of some of its fans. This is no different from what happens with prog too, or even rock (is anyone surprised that "poptimism" became a thing when something like fucking Disco Demoliton Night happened? Rockism became a thing, and associated with homophobia and racism because of some tards).
Elitism is essentially a way of keeping the "plebs" away from your music, making yourself "more unique" for being one of the few that likes it (it very rarely has anything to do with the music itself, sadly). Which is fine, I guess, you do you, but don't complain afterwards that people aren't making music like the one from 2 fucking centuries ago when you're calling all music that isn't like that "not serious" or "just entertainment".
Besides that I feel artists will find inspiration in classical in future years once they inevitably rediscover it thanks to the internet. Do your part and stop keeping people away from it if you want your next Bach.

[Anonymous No.17530424]

>>17529597
>as sublime as the ones I've mentioned.
Anything anyone posts will be dismissed it as "not sublime". Sublime is a highly subjective word and you have a specific taste in mind. This argument is pointless.

[Anonymous No.17530728]

>>17530424
I simply disagree with your relativistic view of aesthetics. Also you're wrong in thinking that I would have dismissed anything, I'm actually extremely interested in getting refuted (and I have very little interest in propping up classical composers: if there's something better, I truly want to hear it)

[Anonymous No.17530774]

>>17514662
Adorno was based
Pretentious booj and niggos that act like doot-doot music and the talkies are the height of culture are a disease. Nope, that shit is boring and would have died in the 20s if it wasn't for opium addicts and self-loathing white people hyping it into space.

[Anonymous No.17530832]

>>17530032
>>17530076
>It's crazy to me some people can't work this out for themselves
Working out what? This bland relativistic nonsense about aesthetics? As if there was not a single shred of intelligibility and normativity in the arts? You both say "who am I to deem someone else's taste as inferior": well, maybe you say this because your taste is in fact inferior, and because, as such, you are actually not in any position to pass any judgement on art (in this sense, you would both be right in this claim of yours, but not for the reasons you thought). All this talk about blind tolerance seems to be a sign of a mediocre spirit more than anything. A spirit so mediocre that it cannot even concieve of a possible objective aesthetic superiority (as if me burping could be a piece of art as valid as your favourite song).
Concerning this post in particular >>17530032, I'm almost shocked by your completely naive view on aesthetic habits and your willingness to accomodate whatever popular culture will want to regurgitate (and let's not even mentioned that this culture you're talking about is an industry!). You say, people simply do not relate anymore to Bach because they listen to pop music as children: so? First of all, tastes of this sort are not immutable (and I can take myself as a concrete example of this sort), and secondly: why the hell would that matter in the evaluation of a piece of art? This mentality can only lead to the irreflexive costant tolerance of whatever the status quo and the common sense of one's own time will throw at you, which is evidently another sign of spiritual mediocrity: a spirit that is so mediocre that it cannot even concieve that a particular historical/cultural context could produce something that is to be deemed "bad". A spirit so mediocre that, not being able to concieve all these things, does not even ever try to reflect on wether there are aesthetic criteria, aesthetic perfections, and so on: the thought does not even cross its mind.

[Anonymous No.17530945]

>>17530832
Dude you really need to get that stick out of your ass and stop LARPing as if it was still the 19th century. I almost feel like a time traveller explaining to some snobby aesthete how art is completely different in my time, and thus as I find it would happen with this hypothetical case, the same seems to be the case with you; your opinion is not gonna change no matter what, because you are mentally of another time. I'm not gonna explain to you everything that happened in 2 centuries that changed art completely, you probably know already and decide to ignore it.
>You say, people simply do not relate anymore to Bach because they listen to pop music as children: so? First of all, tastes of this sort are not immutable (and I can take myself as a concrete example of this sort)
This already such a self-centered, solipsistic take, Jesus. Okay, what is your solution, brainwashing every kid into liking Bach? Hacking into Spotify and replacing every popular pop and rap album with a Die Kunst der Fuge recording? Please, let's be realistic. What you're saying is nonsense. I never implied taste isn't malleable, that had nothing to do with what I'm saying.
>This mentality can only lead to the irreflexive costant tolerance of whatever the status quo and the common sense of one's own time will throw at you, which is evidently another sign of spiritual mediocrity
I never said you had to like everything that's thrown at you, I never even said you have to like any popular music at all. All I said is that pop music is no longer just entertainment, YOU don't decide what isn't serious or not, the artists do. And what the fuck is this "mediocre spirit" bullshit? You see how you're literally, mentally stuck in the past?
>does not even ever try to reflect on wether there are aesthetic criteria, aesthetic perfections
I never said there wasn't aesthetic criteria either, music simply isn't the same as it was during the common practice period and whatever aesthetic criteria was used then no longer applies. Again, I don't care if you don't like pop music or still wish to regurgitate Adorno's bullshit on a music that changed almost completely right before he died. You got your answer already: the reason people aren't making "sublime" music is because the music that is sublime for them isn't for you, it's as simple as that. Like it or not, music isn't changing just for you; the world doesn't revolve around you, your aesthetics, or your spiritual nonsense. I'm sorry. Be grateful that you have access to the music and art you worship so much and stop complaining that people aren't making art for someone still living in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.17530986]

>>17526027
>suspect you're mentioning them just because these are the only pieces by Scriabin and Schumann you know of.
You suspect wrongly. Why would I listen to Scriabin without knowing his sonatas? His Mazurkas and Etudes are better.

[Anonymous No.17531087]

>>17530945
>This already such a self-centered, solipsistic take, Jesus.
No it isn't, it is a direct refutation of your ludicrous claim regarding the relationship between taste and culture. It has nothing to do with me being better or anything of that sort.
>Okay, what is your solution, brainwashing every kid into liking Bach? Hacking into Spotify and replacing every popular pop and rap album with a Die Kunst der Fuge recording? Please, let's be realistic.
Have I ever suggested that? In the post you were responding to ( >>17529643) I made it explicit that I'm not interested in any reshaping of culture as a whole, nor I am interested in the erasure of popular music.
>I never said you had to like everything that's thrown at you, I never even said you have to like any popular music at all. All I said is that pop music is no longer just entertainment, YOU don't decide what isn't serious or not, the artists do.
The artists do? You mean the corporations backing them, which are the true authors of the shaping of the general public's taste? See? As I said, irreflexivity, mediocrity, blind tolerance: whatever is regurgitated is to be accepted not because of its virtues (you don't actually believe that such an evaluation could be possible in the first place), but due to completely arbitrary standards (i.e. wether the marketing department of this or that record company has invested enough money to convince enough people that one of their employees is an artist, after having produced his songs for him, while utilizing paint-by-numbers techniques developed by teams of psychologists).
>And what the fuck is this "mediocre spirit" bullshit? You see how you're literally, mentally stuck in the past?
I guess I was being too generous when i called you a mediocre spirit. Now even the notion of spirit, personality, etc are outdated. No wonder there is no aesthetic evaluation in your world: your world does not even contain subjects that could entertain such a thought (in fact there is no active subject at all, only passive consumers).
>I never said there wasn't aesthetic criteria either, music simply isn't the same as it was during the common practice period and whatever aesthetic criteria was used then no longer applies
Notice that at no point I proposed to revert to common practice standards, so this point is moot.
>You got your answer already: the reason people aren't making "sublime" music is because the music that is sublime for them isn't for you, it's as simple as that.
Again with the relativism. As if sublimity was subject-dependent (and as if that would not be a contradiction in term). This whole last paragraph of yours can be read like this: "I never said there wasn't aesthetic criteria either, I'm just denying everything that could possibly classify as an aesthetic criterion, apart from irreflexive appreciation grounded on a consensus created by cultural industries".

[Anonymous No.17531156]

>>17531087
>The artists do? You mean the corporations backing them, which are the true authors of the shaping of the general public's taste?
You jumped to "the corporations decide the taste of everyone bro" real quick, good to know you were being disingenuous all this time and you didn't even want modern music in the first place. So if corporations back everything according to you, and make the music of every pop artist (you realize how ridiculous this is btw? Who's writing for the artists on bandcamp? SoundCloud?) why did you even ask for the next fucking Mozart in the first place?
>after having produced his songs for him, while utilizing paint-by-numbers techniques developed by teams of psychologists
Yeah this strawman artist you made up must suck, but I wasn't talking about the top 40 mainstream artists with billions of Spotify streams. Music, as an actual hobby, is way more niche than you think. An artist having a healthy relationship with the market doesn't automatically make them generated by some Illuminati gang of capitalists to control society. This is borderline schizo conspiracy tier. And this is only talking about mainstream music, what about underground music?
>Now even the notion of spirit, personality, etc are outdated.
Yes, good, you're starting to get it.

[Anonymous No.17531270]

>>17514662
Fuck this guy. He hates rock.

[Anonymous No.17531392]

>>17531156
>You jumped to "the corporations decide the taste of everyone bro" real quick, good to know you were being disingenuous all this time and you didn't even want modern music in the first place.
It's not a jump, since we were talking about pop and rock music.
>So if corporations back everything according to you, and make the music of every pop artist (you realize how ridiculous this is btw? Who's writing for the artists on bandcamp? SoundCloud?) why did you even ask for the next fucking Mozart in the first place?
Regarding artists on Soundcloud and Bandcamp, they are for the most part trying to adeguate themselves (unconsciously, for the most part) to those same corporate-backed standards (which they have irriflexively adopted), maybe by adding a little twist here and there - and even these little twists are more often than not a mere quirk rather than a sign of actual originality. Of the few who managed to do something original, I haven't found any example of sublimitiy, and I have looked for it thoroughly. Nothing that gets anything closer to the depth of a great spirit like the one of Bach: when compared to them, they look like children, or more in general, people who ought not to be taken too seriously.
Regarding the second point, I do not expect any 21st century Mozart to come out from such enterprises. I do not see why would that concern my expectation. I'm not a fatalist: there are certainly great obstscles ahead, but the production of sublime music in this century is still not a metaphysical impossibility. I also pointed out in a previous thread that I don't dismiss the idea that such music has not been already produced, only that if it has, it is at the moment unreasonable to expect anyone to know about its existence.
>And this is only talking about mainstream music, what about underground music?
As above.
>Yes, good, you're starting to get it.
Maybe you just lack these qualities, and that's why they feel so foreign to you. You can make up for that with a whole lot of reflection: try it sometimes!

[Anonymous No.17531470]

>>17519846
Feldman, Norgard, Haas, Saariaho...

[Anonymous No.17531545]

I think Adorno would be able to recognize the basedness of old-school death metal though.

[Anonymous No.17531555]

>>17531392
>they are for the most part trying to adeguate themselves (unconsciously, for the most part) to those same corporate-backed standards (which they have irriflexively adopted)
This is just straight up false, what corporate standards? There aren't even any "standards" anymore except maybe top 40 pop. What corporate standards does something like Everywhere At The End of Time stick to for example?
>I haven't found any example of sublimitiy, and I have looked for it thoroughly
Again, you'll never find it. Just give up.
>Nothing that gets anything closer to the depth of a great spirit like the one of Bach: when compared to them, they look like children, or more in general, people who ought not to be taken too seriously.
Hardly any composers do, and again, there's no comparison to be made. No one is trying to make Baroque music (I mean there's probably some people doing it, I guess, but I haven't looked. Maybe look for modern baroque music being made? But what would even be the point?)
>I'm not a fatalist: there are certainly great obstscles ahead, but the production of sublime music in this century is still not a metaphysical impossibility.
You've certainly made it sound like it. At least your idea depends on not only capitalism collapsing completely worldwide but also people still surviving and willing to make music after that, not only that but with musical education as well.
> also pointed out in a previous thread that I don't dismiss the idea that such music has not been already produced, only that if it has, it is at the moment unreasonable to expect anyone to know about its existence.
So you're complaining there's this otherworldly music you dreamed up that exists and you'll never hear? You can dream up many other things and they'll still be just as pointless. I'm surely sad that I don't know about the time traveller visiting us right now who we'll only know about 500 years into the future and we can't possibly know about now. See how dumb that sounds?
>Maybe you just lack these qualities
Maybe you also lack this quality that I just made up where you're able to see the thing-in-itself thay no one else has and that's why I'm an objective authority on everything. Wow. Yeah sorry I lack your "spirit" I guess. Well you don't have the quality I just made up!
>>17531470
I really doubt he'd enjoy any of these composers. Gubaidulina is great as well and she's still alive.

[Anonymous No.17532071]

>There is no poetry after the Holocaust
Then explain Philip Larkin

[Anonymous No.17532564]

>>17514662
why so many replies?

[Anonymous No.17532572]

>>17532564
Aristocrat LARPer sperging out about classical music because he has no friends to rant to

[Anonymous No.17533308]

>>17520522
Arvo Part was a very big composer not too long ago, he is no Bach, but he is actually good.

[Anonymous No.17534596]

>>17514662
This guy seems to be pretty much up my alley. Is also a miserable misanthrope?

[Anonymous No.17534669]

>>17530832
I imagine everything you say in a Nathan J Robinson style fake British accent.

[Anonymous No.17534704]

>>17531392
Yeah, but what is "spirit"?

[Anonymous No.17534715]

>>17516002
Meanwhile

[Anonymous No.17534719]

>>17534715
?

[Anonymous No.17534734]

>>17520522
Trout Mask Replica

[Anonymous No.17534761]

>>17534719
I think he was trying to say that Marx was critic of capitalism and got many statues.

[Anonymous No.17534765]

>>17534761
That's not what he meant by 'critic'.

[Anonymous No.17534781]

>>17534765
I am aware.

[Anonymous No.17534786]

>>17514662
The feedback goes like OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EEEEEEEEE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE OO EE-AAA-EEEE OO EE

[Anonymous No.17535043]

>>17534734
>pop music for people with "advanced" tastes
No.

[Anonymous No.17535098]

>>17528251
>rock music (for example) has achieved anything that is even remotely comparable to the masterpieces I've mentioned.
Pink Floyd's Echoes blows out of the water whatever faggot "masterpieces" you're listening to, faggot.