9 of 18 people found the following review helpful
on July 4, 2006
It's OK to concede this.
And he was an armchair academic who eschewed every opportunity for real-life praxis.
He was human, fallible, prone to snap judgments on subjects he didn't understand.
And YET...despite his snobbery (why wasn't he frequenting the great jazz clubs of South L.A. if he was so interested in essaying the subject?), and despite his vulnerability to any number of Sloterdijkian critiques...there are enough moments of tough, bristling intelligence to make it all so very worthwhile.
BUT DON'T START HERE. Go straight to the fount; with Adorno context is EVERYTHING. Pick up Aesthetic Theory (Hullot-Kentor translation) and Minima Moralia. Appetite whetted? Try Negative Dialectics next. And then come back here and write your own review. :)
3 of 27 people found the following review helpful
on December 17, 2003
Do not be put off by Adorno's so-called "critique" of jazz music.
Adorno's critique, all critiques are embodied in jazz. His use of the essay-form itself shows his desire to put constraints on his art to free himself, from those boundaries he denounces, or boundaries which he feels will co-opt him. Besides, many who call him a "snob" for this are forgetting that jazz improvisation is a transgression of the idiom, which is what Adorno speaks of when he labels it a fashion. He speaks of the idiom, and the lack of possibilities on divers ONTOLOGICAL levels. No matter what he thought, he's still a super-cronopio.