/lit/ - Literature

I'm assuming no one has read Adorno?

>>3391262
Welcome to /lit/. No one reads here.

>>3391289
then what the hell are people doing on this board

I do not believe that there is an endpoint, but I also don't agree with the observations and theory.

>>3391361
Finally a response!! Why is that? Would you consider yourself a supporter of Capitalism? I (op) enjoy my sense of comfort within this structure (I'm American) and do not agree with Adorno that the producers of the culture industry have all the power. They wouldn't produce "trash" (as Adorno labels it) if we as a public did not want to see the trash. I get the feeling that most of his argument is based on supply-side economics and he removes the demand-side of Capitalism.

>>3391317
Arguing over Wikipedia summaries.

>>3391401
I'm just here to worship DFW.

>>3391373
Yes, I consider myself a supporter of capitalism. Adorno is right that they do produce trash, but he goes so far as to label nearly everything produced by the capitalist "culture industry" as trash. I'm not sure that I agree with that, but I'm not that smart.

As for the demand thing: I think he means that by giving a limited amount of "choices", the industry itself shapes the demand of consumers. The problem with that nowadays is that anyone with a computer has access to nearly every film ever created, with regards to that one example of films.

I don't think I'm qualified to discuss this, though, you'd be better suited waiting for someone who is more familiar with the topic.
I might check this thread again tomorrow, hope you find what you're looking for.

>>3391373
>enjoy my sense of comfort within this structure (I'm American) and do not agree with Adorno that the producers of the culture industry have all the power.

LOL. You might be living under a rock, pal

I suggest you to look around yourself. Cultural capitalism grows and flourishes in the US especially

Sheeps gonna sheep.

>>3391401
Well I wish some people would read the wiki for this text so we can discuss it.

>>3391411
DFW would greatly agree with Adorno in the sense that entertainment is a form of distraction which tries to remove our day to day consciousness.

>>3391419
Expand on your point instead of just saging a thread that is not going to go away simply because you disagree with my notion.

Ya OP be patient or repost - there are some pretty knowledgable postmodern theory anons on /lit/ - where are those stuck up dicks when we need them?

>>3391425
Yeah, I'm starting to realize this board is either slow or many flock to threads about writing as oppose to reading. I'll just bump it every hour or so for those that do not use the catalog feature. I've seen DFW threads reach 200+ posts and this thread is not that much different from what DFW promotes so I'll just wait for some postmodernists to show up. Everyone is probably in class/lecture right now.

>Specifically, the choices of film presented to us are mere distraction as a form of entertainment for the lower classes so they willingly return to their jobs the following day as if they truly had a moment of leisure.

How do the authors make a distinction between art and distraction? If he doesn't differentiate the two, why is this a bad thing? Why is a film not 'truly a moment of leisure'? I don't know if I like these ideas OP.

Fuck postmodernists, goddamn.

>>3391504
Your sage will do nothing

>>3391229
>Studios produce mass culture but what is the response to this?
The death of the trickle-down, informational hegemon is the result of the response.
>Is there an endpoint?
Yes. Although I would not phrase it as such.

>>3391573
While that might be the response, Adorno does not actively seek change. He seems to just present his findings as if saying, "Here is what the system is doing. Enjoy!" What is the point of presenting his theory if we do not actively try to change the system?

>>3391487
>Why is a film not 'truly a moment of leisure'?
Because it has negative affect.

>>3391592
Can you expand a bit more on the negative effect? I don't think Adorno says this is a negative effect but more that there is an effect. My main problem with the text is that he does not seek to change anything, it's almost infuriating. It is obvious that there is an underlying angle here in which Adorno would LIKE capitalism to end but he never takes a clear stance.

>>3391591
>What is the point of presenting his theory if we do not actively try to change the system?
There is an old US Department of War method---back from when the US had a Department of War and not a `Department of Defense'---which consists of five steps to solve a problem. The first step is to identify the problem.

>>3391599
It appeals to the base drives shared among the largest numbers.

>>3391615
Would that not imply that the largest numbers demand the production of mass culture, which would contradict Adorno's point that the consumer does not, in reality, demand this production but is provided to him/her in order to pacify them within the system? Options A, B, and C, are mere illusions of choice for the consumer since the producer is the one actually presenting him with these limited choices.

>>3391615
But not all "mass culture" does that. There's plenty of middlebrow "culture" out there.

So is this guy right or what? I'm incapable of thinking for myself.

>>3391628
Man is multifaceted. Some facets are shared. Others are progressively more distinct. The capitialistic controller of information will ALWAYS bet on the shared and never on the distinct.

>>3391641
Yeah but what I think >>3391615 is saying is that even middlebrow culture, or any culture for that matter, is part of the greater system. The only reason middlebrow culture exists is in order to appeal to those that want middlebrow culture as opposed to mass culture. No one can escape. It is not the consumer who chose middlebrow culture but the producer who decided to exploit that consumer market.

>>3391641
But that's not mass culture.

>>3391655
It isn't? What numbers are necessary to classify something as "mass" culture? HBO reaches millions of people, and that is considered middlebrow.

>>3391652
What's there to escape? It doesn't seem all that bad to me.

>>3391667
That is the problem! HBO, while passing itself off as middlebrow, is actually owned by Time Warner, a giant conglomerate, so who knows what their ulterior agenda is. For example, The Newsroom tries to model itself after an actual news show, and many critics have said it resembles CNN. CNN and HBO are both owned by Time Warner. Now, I don't know what the implications are, but is this problematic? Adorno would think so, but I'm not sure why. That is why I started this thread. What exactly is the negative aspect to this.

>>3391671
I agree. Even this "illusion" of leisure that allows us to watch films and television is not horrible. I do not feel absolutely alienated.

>>3391592
>Moments of leisure cannot have negative effects
Ever get wasted b4 m8?

>>3391676
I don't know how it is an illusion.

>>3391676
To expand on my post about HBO, many viewers might turn to HBO for more "intellectual" television but remembering that HBO is owned by Time Warner, are the producers consciously giving you the illusion that you are autonomously CHOOSING to watch "intellectual" television in order so they make a profit? Is it you that chooses to watch HBO or are the producers the ones allowing you to choose HBO.

>>3391697
Nor do I, I just think (and really, think, because their arguments are so compounded that it becomes hard to follow) this is what Adorno is saying. There is an illusion of choice

>>3391699
It's both. It wouldn't matter if capitalism was involved or not.

>>3391667
>It isn't?
No, it isn't. What defines "middlebrow" is simply that it is not mass culture.
>HBO reaches millions of people, and that is considered middlebrow.
The other poster used The Newsroom as an example. I'll use Girls. HBO execs know that a show about young women having sex in NYC sells. It appeals to the lowest common denominator of a certain demographic which they want to hit. They take the mass-culture Sex In The City and now market it as the middlebrow Girls. Literally the only difference is superficial in the fact that the main character of the latter is traditionally unattractive. The genius of this is that this "middlebrow" show (remember, because it's defined as being NOT something else) actually has the potential to appeal to even more people as they can potentially relate better to this new, homely protagonist.

>>3391726
I think this is clearly how it works. HBO would not produce shows unless a consumer base was choosing to view the show. We see companies go bankrupt everyday because they lose consumers. It's not as if consumers are forced to intake what is being produced.

>>3391731
Give me an example of each "brow", anon.

>>3391739
I think getting lost in what is lowbrow, middlebrow, highbrow is not important. For Adorno, all of these brows are being industrialized and we perceive the culture presented to us as being our choice. We think we are choosing to watch low, mid, or highbrow television when, what it comes down to, it is studio executives telling us this is what you can watch, show A or show B.

>>3391699
Why can't we have both.jpg

>>3391735
This seems self evident. Does Adorno argue against this?

>>3391752
Yes, that is why I need help better understanding the text. I have the piece in front of me so I'll quote a passage:

"All mass culture under monopoly is identical, and the contours of its skeleton, the conceptual armature fabricated by monopoly, are beginning to stand out. Those in charge no longer take much trouble to conceal the structure, the power of which increases the more bluntly its existence is admitted. Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce. They call themselves industries, and the published figures for their directors' incomes quell any doubts about the social necessity of their finished products." (95)

My argument against this is that the "trash" he speaks of is "trash" that is demanded by a certain consumer base. It is not like the studios are just perpetuating trash while saying, Watch this!! I think it is obvious that some people are demanding the "trash."

>>3391746

So, we should produce our own art and distribute it for free?

>>3391772
Or, another path, could be that art stops being produced altogether. What you state and this one I present I staunchly disagree with. I do not find a huge fault with how the system currently works but that is how Adorno sees it, I think. Like I said earlier and in the OP, Adorno never states what we SHOULD do instead

>>3391770
>It is not like the studios are just perpetuating trash while saying, Watch this!!
LOOK AT THIS SEXY WOMAN SMOKING CIGARETTES! DON'T YOU WANT TO SMOKE CIGARETTES TOO?

>>3391591
Just because it's theoretical, doesn't mean it can't simply be informative.
Perhaps they thought that, because there are many different things we can do to combat the issue, some would be turned off to offering examples/choosing the best option.
I know nothing of the text, though, so this is just in general.

>>3391791
Adorno makes this argument as well:

"According to this tendency, life is to be made indistinguishable from the sound film. Far more strongly than the theatre of illusion, filim denies its audience any dimension in which they might roam freely in imagination... thus it trains those exposed to it to identify film directly with reality," (100)

Yes, that is how boards of execs would want you to interpret the commercial. This woman is hot, don't you want to look hot just like her. But is this an outdated concept? Are we still living in the age of Mad Men? Don't we realize this to be untrue now?

>frankfurt school

It propaganda aimed at reducing our society to a bunch of degenerate hedonistic hippies.

>>3391814
Yes, they're all Jewish and Adorno, writing in Post-WW2, constantly wrote about how the American film industry is much like that of Fascist Nazi Germany.

>>3391804
It's been outdated since Bernays and the marketing of cigarettes as Torches Of Freedom.

Marketing and/or advertising has become much more powerful since then. Even knowing this, it is nearly impossible to escape its influence on your actions.

>>3391818

Well much has changed since then. The Jews absolutely control hollywood. Thats probably part of why we get things like this shoved upon our youth.

>straight white men are privileged and responsible for everyones struggles.

>>3391829
I think so, too. Even if we consciously tell ourselves that commercials and the media in general is trying to manipulate us, it is hard to absolutely shut them out. DFW says something along the same lines in "This is Water"

>>3391839
>The Jews absolutely control hollywood
So ignorant, you sound like Mel Gibson.

>>3391844

Isnt it weird how after saying derogatory things about jews he was never able to make another movie again. hmmm

>>3391416
>As for the demand thing: I think he means that by giving a limited amount of "choices", the industry itself shapes the demand of consumers.

As mass communication was simply the emission of "art" and information in their age there were limited choices. A complete freedom of choice regarding these media was, more then than now, impossible. It's not that it was a scheme to control population. It was just business. They worked on what most people responded. The lack of autonomy from people and all that came as a bonus.

Adorno just looked at the results of this model. What it was and what it could become. The way mass communication business evolved actually made way for a culturally alienated population and a controlling, hegemonic, media. In the end it was no one's fault. People shaped media based on what it presented. Now media shapes people. It was a process of centuries.

Ok posters, before this turns into a jews in the media hate thread, I would like to turn this back to The Culture Industry text.

>>3391848
Would you say that Adorno's theory has become outdated? You say that now the media is what shapes us, but is that true in context of modernity? The internet allows us to provide information rather than just absorb it. You can go to youtube and find a video/film of almost anything rather than having to rely on your local theater to provide with you X amount of choices.

>>3391841
I think the only option is being very selective of the information you take in.

Funny how this also applies to the other retards who have hi-jacked the thread and are arguing with each other.

>>3391844
That was a misquote and you know it.

>>3391854
Which comes back to choice! Excellent. Is choice truly autonomous? I would like to think so. I choose to watch and not watch films. I get the impression that Adorno argues as if we are bombarded with so much film and media that we cannot choose to disregard it.

>>3391853
It's still relevant but I believe it is becoming less so with time.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that it isn't the consumer's choice.
Let's say it were the consumer's choice. What would be different in that situation?

>>3391861
But Adorno argues from the 20th Century. What was applicable to him may not be to you and me.

>>3391872
He didn't have access to the internet, for one. With the internet anyone can choose any media they want at no cost.

>>3391872
Of course. Which is why I ask, is this theory outdated?

>>3391871
Creating and consuming could be interchangeable.

>>3391879
I'd say it is to an extent, like that other guy earlier. It may not have been 100% true then either.

>>3391853
Sorry I said now. I meant to write "in his time".

Yeah I think it's a bit outdated, but there is a point. It's still interesting to see that, all over the internet even on youtube, most shows and videos(the really popular ones) are just pure pretentionless entertainment. Things we grew to believe it is good fun. That doesn't mean times are not changing. Maybe one day culture industry won't exist, who knows?

>>3391804
Unlike the people replying to you, I'm gonna come in and say this is more true than ever. The paradigm for a long time now is that the true lens of reality is not being in reality itself, but the cultural references we have to piece everything together, and so we find more and more reality becomes truly indistinguishable to media: Everything is now truly just like that thing in that show. And this is very much embodied in the culture of the imageboard you're on now, pic related.

>>3391901
Very fucking nice. I can understand your point in terms I comprehend. Now, is this bad? Should we try to change this? Should we simply acknowledge it?

>>3391901
But the imageboard is not reality. Because it is an escape from reality is why it's addictive.

>>3391907
I'm not the person who you're quoting but isn't the fact that this imageboard acts as a sense of escapism mean that we are alienating ourselves from reality? This becomes compounded when we start dishing out cultural references. This thread is getting good

>>3391913
Yes. Imageboards cause schizophrenia.

>>3391924
Is that a joke or...?

>>3391901
I'll accept that readily, but is it a bad thing?

>>3391904
I can't think of a way to respond that's too clear, but I would say the important thing is to try and remain "awake", in a sense to keep your critical faculties running. In the early 90s (I'm pretty sure) the ads run for the antidepressant prozac in medical journals sold the idea of helping women get over depression and get back to being mothers and housewives. Having it written down plainly has more than likely alerted you to a few issues, but because the main thrust of the advertising was about helping people with depression, and helping people get back "to normal", it was much easier to uncritically swallow the message they were giving out on how a woman's life should be. And I think a big part of keeping people awake is to have a plurality in media (not every woman should be or want to be a housewife with kids and a husband) and to have people actively explore and create their own things (so they're now creating and informing their own cultural references).

>>3391932
No, not a joke. Just throwing an idea out there. How about this one: Perhaps imageboards are attractive because you get condensed mass media in a easily digestible pill?

The abundance of trolling has made imageboards build a natural, effective shill defence.

>>3391229
>what these men mean by 'truth,' 'style,' and 'autonomy' of art?

Adorno Vocab 101
truth = factoid. Any canonical or obligatory assumed idea, for example think of how the term common sense is prescribed to others.
style = conviently ways of explaining. Common methods of interpretation for asserting 'truth' (refer to semantics)
autonomy = ironic self actualization. The paradox of only being able to make the choice with what's given, but to believe the choice were really invented by the chooser.
Capitalism = Western culture's euphemism for modernization

>Studios produce mass culture but what is the response to this?...
You're missing the point about it all being a dialectic.

>>3391229
epub request

>>3392000
Finally! Someone who has read the text and actually understands it, thank you. What am I missing? A little more explanation, please?

>>3392007
>What am I missing?

That depends...
What's your supplement sources? (other than /lit/)
How familiar are you with Marx, Lyotard, Marcuse? (they talk about the same things-- meta-narratives)
Did you read the rest of the book? That's chapter one.

The basic idea, or the over arching idea is: Art fits the political paradigm.

>>3392058
What am I missing in this text? I do not care for anything else he wrote but trying to comprehend this chapter alone. In this chapter, he discusses Beethoven as being different from modern industrialized art but in what way? He entertained and composed for money. How is his art different from the art produced in studios? Their styles are different, sure, but your definition of style does not reconcile how they are different

>>3392058
And this is supposed to be a bad thing? Who cares if art propagates a political stance?

>>3392152
>muh homework

Why is it that Jews believe in Marxism and were Soviet apologists? Was it because Nazi Germany killed off their people and their butthurtness led them to be Commies?

>>3392156
if the politics are evil, then yes you should care

just read one-dimensional man
easily the best frankfurt work to start with

>>3392152
>I do not care for anything else...
And that is why you're 'missing' things.

>...but your definition of style does not reconcile how they are different.

1. Adorno's argument is from analysing the dialectic between art-making and Art-appreciating.

2. Meta-narratives, or Grand narratives, play a big part with how this analysis works. This is a social critique looking at how art emerges to be defined as Art in the changing world it's found in.

3. And it's only a introduction to a much larger critique.

>>3392181
>because russians didn't kill jews

k

>>3391735
Who asked for ipad? That is what Marxism is all about : ideology. Why do you ask for a new game, a need movie, a new thing (like ipad), because you are surrounded by publicity everywhere that makes you want the ipad (by convince you you'd be more free, more happy, more etc). Nobody asked for Ipad, nobody asked for ps3, Avenger movie, Avatar. Nobody says : Hey please mr producer, please make a movie about some blue alien shit, and the producer : oh yeah, i'll do it cause i want to make you happy. They made you want something, they sell you the shit, you are poor, he is rich, you think you are happy, you die, no revolution.

>>3392634
(continu)

And all your life you think : ah! I'm so free, i can choose which film i buy, which things i like or dont. Like if Liberty = choice. Oh, i'm so free, i bought coldgates instead of Krest, thats what liberty is all about.

But can you study in what you want? No (art lead to no job because of capitalism need of technics). Can you do whatever you want? No, dont have enough money. Can you be what you want to be? No, etc.

BUT AT LEAST, you are free to choose between coldgate and Krest. Ah america, i love you!

>>3392634
But not everyone is flocking to buy the ipad or watch the movie with the blue alien. This appeals to the majority of a base, yes, but not all of us have an ipad. Are those of us without an ipad better than those with one? I hope so, because I would like to believe I'm better. And there is the ipad, the samsung tablet, the google nexus. The limited choices still provide a choice. Like you said, we die, so who cares about our false sense of happiness if it provides happiness for a small amount of time? We can willingly indulge in ignorance to pacify us until death. Why is the revolution something we should strive for?

>>3392661
Is this assuming that once the revolution happens, we WILL be able to do whatever we want? We are going to be able to study what we want? Be what we want?

>>3392672
I would answer that its a false question. The question is not : will revolution will permit me to study in art, etc.

The right question is : what kind of society can let me study in the program i want? It is clearly not Capitalism.

I saw Op (i think its him) said : why Adorno only criticize, and dont come up with a plan. Because Adorno dont know a shit about what kind of socity after revolution will look like. Who have any idea what will be after revolution. But can we really continu in capitalism? Lets be frank, you, me, and all anon are whitish occidental, probably studying in art, philo, etc. But how many Billions of people are dying because we are exploiting them? I'm not doing a kind of moralistic point, but capitalism is an expend system, which implies that some will work for other (as you and me will work for a boss).

The real question is what kind of society let me be free? Capitlism? No, check Adorno points with Ideology and all that stuff. Do i know what is revolution, when it will come? No.
Looks like Becketts godo imo.

>>3392701
I am still the OP you are talking to and yes I was the one asking what is Adorno's endpoint. So you're saying that we simply acknowledge what Capitalism is doing? We aren't supposed to grab rifles and overthrow the government? If there is no plan for action, we will always be waiting for godot.

>>3392666
That is precisely the false conception of Liberty, as a choice : i am free cause i can choose.
Can you do what you want? Are you really the master of yourself? Can you take your own decision (in absolute terms)? No. You can choose what movie you'll buy, what you wont, but if you choose to stop buying, if you choose that you are not happy with capitlism, you wont be able to get food, house etc, so you basicly die. You cant refuse capitalism, you are forced to buy, to consum.

Lets be honest, can you really live with false happiness? Human seeks truth before anything else. Your sister died in a car crash, what is the first thing you ask : did she suffer? Even if your happiness is about to vanish, you'll seek truth first.

And the truth is : are you really free in capitalism?

>>3392709
Look to our era, can we really do something? Check what the last revolution did. Still today, some people suffer one of the biggest mistake of humanity : communism.

Adorno is an Hegelian, he is doing ( how can i say it in english) a negative-dialectic. That means that mistake after mistake, we will get to the truth (to say it way to fast).
Marx tried and proposed to get rifles and shit, and look what happen. Lets take our time, lets think, lets prepare the field to those who will have to fight (1. that might never happen. 2. Preparation is essential for a good revolution. 3. and that consist of critical theory for now).

>>3392749
In "The Culture Industry," Adorno constantly says that Capitalism employs formulas, observations, empiricism, to standardize the production of art for consumers and that this should not be. He seems to take on an antipositivist role. Does this mean science is the enemy? What is the role of science within the negative-dialectic?

>>3392728
the problem with all these arguments is how grounded they are in emotion, and without logic "are you truly free" yeah fuck off m8 more free than I would be in a communal society, where magic bureaucracy runs my fucking life subconsciously

>>3392753
To be honest, i dont know a lot about Adorno. I know more about Hegel, a bit of Marx, and some structuralism and post-structuralism like Foucault, Barthes, those who deal with ideology and stuff.
I know that critical theory ofter criticize science. Scientist think they are objective, that they are dealing with objective, supra-termporal truth. The thing is, everyt truth is subjective (it doesnt mean everything is relative), it only means that truth is always experimented by a subject, in a social context, etc. There is no such thing as objectivity (and to be honest, objective truth as an idea is a bit dead since Kant (exept in anglo-saxon philosophy, like analytical).
Dont take a scientist seriously when he says that he is objective, then why his theories will be false in 10 years? Because truth is always accessible in terms of history dialectic.
That may not be precisely Adorno conception of truth, but i know Horkeimer is really close to this.

>>3392768
Got to say that i cant express myself in my full capacity in english, so it sound like a 8 years old child that keep repeating : are you free? bla bla bla.

If you are interested, check out Ideology by Marx, and marxist philosophers. You are determined to like some stuff, by society. Like Zizek says, even the fucking conception of your toilette determine you in some way (but its way too much complicated to be explained in a kind of 200 caracters text, and my disability to speak proper english).

>>3392768
>yeah fuck off m8 more free than I would be in a communal society, where magic bureaucracy runs my fucking life subconsciously

Bro, as we say in french, that is "de mauvaise foi". Like i said before, Adorno is not saying that we should go to the communism of XIXe century. I'm pretty sure he would be against those bureaucracy things and stuff. Like i said before, we dont have any idea about the structure of society of "communism" (not the XIXe century one).

>>3392787
>>3392798
I was a bit brash in my defense, I probably shouldn't have commented so crudely

considering I haven't read Adorno's works, after reading this thread I'm definitely interested in the frankfurt school

>>3392982
Don't sage the tread my good man. Let it live. This fueled interesting discussion

The idea that we only have access to mass media that an elite produces seems to have died with the internet.
I also dislike the way that Adorno seems to be dismissing low art or mid-art as rubbish. What are your thoughts after listening to anons OP?

>>3392982
Being brash=why we're all here. Have at it anon.

>>3392753
The basic idea of Adornos thought is that whenever you represent an object (be it abstract, social or material) you will always "leave something out". This is not an intentional act, but simply the way it is and can be done. So it is with the notion of science, and the direction of society as a whole.
As most critical theorists will tell you, they see modernity as an unfinished project, which of course is the same as saying that such a thing as post-modernism is an illusion (not it's practices, so frequently analyzed, but just the notion that we should be post-). What we usually call postmodernism is, instead, the one side of the coin, that is the mistakes that will (so says the negative-hegelian) someday lead to a new paradigm of enlightenment called modernism.
Again, this is not the end of anything, only is it slightly better than the irrational myths and false belief of the past, and the over-rational industrilization, capitalism and escapism that is todays world.
As some anon said earlier, the critique presentet by H&A is no less relevant today, on the contrary, it's much more relevant. What they made so blatantly clear though, is that you can't rely on the economic forces to bring themselves down as Marx did, but that you have to look at the system of belief itself, that is; the dominant culture, including the art that it allows to be produced.

>>3392152
>he discusses Beethoven as being different from modern industrialized art but in what way?

you might be a brainwashed pup after all, OP. if you can't distinguish Beethoven's genius from Madonna, Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga you're a fucking idiot and need some eye-opening. relativism regarding aesthetics is just as bad as moral relativism

Oh, I ordered a copy of this a few years ago. I remember it seeming to align with some half formed views. I never read it. I don't know where it is.

Sounds like "Adorno" doesn't "get" post-ironic "appreciation". I accept and enjoy corporate culture.

>>3393360
One of the worst parts about arguing with you musical puritan types is how little knowledge of the contemporary culture you're arguing against you have. In the past there were hundreds and hundreds of composers and musicians who entertained the people, and played at royal courts, and were far more famous and successful in their lifetimes than people such as Beethoven ever were; yet the ones who are remembered are the ones who had something a little different, who had some sort of lasting legacy. This same principle applies to every single art form.

Do I think Lady Gaga is as talented as Beethoven? Not a chance. Do I think that brilliant modern musicians like Brian Eno are as talented as Beethoven? I see absolutely no reason why not. Classical music is by no means on a pedestal over contemporary music.

>>3393413
mah nignig
also you were sounding a bit like scaruffi there for a moment

>>3393413

>>3393413
>brian eno
>not william onyeabor

pleb pls go

>>3393360
>If you don't agree with me you're obviously wrong.

Yes, but fuck you.

Thank you for a good, informative thread. Please let us have more of these.

>>3393421
He's hardly original in saying that, even if he's right about it. Its just the truth.

Adorno is shit.

He was a racis

>>3393413
>brian eno
>Implying that he doesn't steal everything from krautrock musicians
>Implying that they don't steal everything from academ avant garde composers
>talking about knowledge
plebe soo plebe

>>3393413
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

iktf, modern pop music sucks, i was born in the wrong time period.

>>3394119
Most of those facts boil down to: "There are more people available to consume stuff now."

Though the amount of number one singles being produced by the same people every album does kind of point to the obvious fact that it's the same old stuff being consumed on a regular basis.

>>3394118

>steal

Given that he was a large part of krautrock even in it's infancy, I don't know that you can say he "stole" it.