Adorno treated en canaille

Meanwhile, the Choc is off, and the high­brow has estab­lished its­elf in many places as an unad­ven­tur­ous low­brows‘ cul­tu­ral advo­ca­te.

Theodor W. Adorno, ans­wer to Horst Koegler, Collected wri­tin­gs Bd. 18, p 804

 

By Thomas Ziegner

 

Surely Kurt Weill, who lik­ed to use colourful swear­words, had every right to a jui­cy exple­ti­ve against Theodor W. Adorno; in a let­ter 1942 the com­po­ser com­plai­ned more poli­te­ly about the philosopher‘s arro­gan­ce and igno­rance — wher­eby Weill still paid tri­bu­te to the thoughtful­ness and inte­gri­ty of Adorno.

So if Weill had every right, post-born musi­co­lo­gists and musi­ci­ans should think a litt­le more befo­re ven­ting their resent­ment against the phi­lo­so­pher, who is some­ti­mes too much in favor of their thin­king power, by (not only) the vir­tue of his arti­fi­ci­al style. Yes, it is some­ti­mes exhaus­ting to read Adorno, yes, he spurns a brisk jour­na­li­stic wri­ting. Yes, his wri­tin­gs suc­cessful­ly resist their clear pre­sen­ta­ti­on by means of deci­mal struc­tu­re, with good reasons. Yes, he is deman­ding and some­ti­mes you feel over­whel­med. And his thoughts on jazz and on the cul­tu­ral indus­try in gene­ral have often led to intellectual-pietist-minded rea­ders having a bad con­sci­ence as soon as they enjoy a record by Louis Armstrong or a movie star­ring Humphrey Bogart. Just „Viva Maria“ with the Bardot and the Moreau went through wit­hout conscience-pain, becau­se it also told some­thing of a revo­lu­ti­on … Adorno so was ima­gi­ned as the sinis­ter, animal-serious spoilsport.

Of cour­se he was not real­ly that; it is cer­tain that he lik­ed to play hits and ope­ret­ta on the grand pia­no. He repor­ted­ly hel­ped the jazz vibra­pho­nist Karl Berger to a New York stay, kno­wing that he hoped to bring his jazz musi­cal skills up to date there.

It goes wit­hout say­ing that his note, which he published in 1956 on the occa­si­on of the per­for­mance of Weill’s „Street Scene“ in the pro­gram of the Düsseldorfer Theater, was not real­ly hel­pful. But it is hard to pro­ve that this note „sabo­ta­ged the recep­ti­on“, as was said. Naturally, Adorno for­mu­la­ted with some jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on that Weill was less a com­po­ser than a „music direc­tor“. Broadway’s prac­ti­ce of „try­outs“ pro­ving in the pro­vin­ces (for New Yorkers, pro­vin­ce it’s all out­side of their city, even Boston), and sort­ing out num­bers with sup­po­sedly litt­le attrac­tion, means that the empha­tic term of „Werk“ (work), Adorno drew of Beethoven’s Oeuvre, can­not be used for this Broadway team work.

Welcome ver­dicts par­ro­ted by journalists

Theodor W. Adorno
Foto Jeremy J. Shapiro, wikicommons

People like to for­get (or do not know or even do not give a damn like the jour­na­lists who par­rot the most wel­co­me ver­dicts of the musi­co­lo­gists; whoe­ver does it again will be spanked) that Adorno, a pupil of Alban Berg, com­po­sed hims­elf. Anyone who is pro­fi­ci­ent in music rea­ding and can play a litt­le pia­no should try the „Sept Chansons Populaires Francaises“ of the phi­lo­so­pher. After his reti­re­ment, he wan­ted to sett­le in Vienna and estab­lish the­re as a com­po­ser. Weill work­ed in his year of death on an ope­ra on Twain’s „Huckleberry Finn“, Adorno left frag­ments just to that sub­s­tance (Walter Benjamin had advi­sed him against).

Horst Koegler, also working for the Stuttgarter Zeitung, cle­ar­ly con­tra­dic­ted the aris­to­cra­tic arbi­ter ele­gan­tiae Adorno in 1956. Anyone who con­founds his cri­ti­cal theo­rems on popu­lar music and its sphe­re with the snoo­ty atti­tu­de of the anti-Americans, who damn pop music, hits, rock music and comics during the 1950s, has unders­tood not­hing of Adorno. Koegler did not real­ly dis­pro­ve him; this is still pen­ding and should only suc­ceed if one con­siders the reflec­tions on the term  of the „Werk“ con­tai­ned in „Aesthetic Theory“, the „Negative Dialectic“ and else­whe­re. The ide­as of the musi­co­lo­gist Peter Sühring, who con­side­red that Adorno had lon­ged for „the trans­for­ma­ti­on of music into phi­lo­so­phy“ (con­ti­nui­ty pro­blems in German musi­co­lo­gy, p. 141 ff), are hel­pful in sub­stan­tia­ting a cri­ti­ci­cal dis­cus­sion of Adorno’s aesthetics.*

Certainly not hel­pful, rather negli­gent is the unde­ser­ved accu­sa­ti­on that Friederike Wißmann Review of „Deutsche Musik“ in the man­ner of half-informed left green-alternative social edu­ca­tors in her other­wi­se almost con­sis­t­ent­ly rea­da­ble book „German Music“, that we have pre­sen­ted here yes­ter­day, rai­ses: The philosopher’s „gene­ral refu­sal of con­sump­ti­on of (pop)-music is pro­ble­ma­tic becau­se Adorno makes tho­se peo­p­le small, who like the hits“(p.134). This is a tough, let’s say, Convenu, which meets less Adorno than the vicious pro­du­cers of the now almost factory-like, from all the best-selling items tog­e­ther sme­ared Schmarren. Wissmann’s state­ment would have to be refu­ted with a hundred quo­tes. Here is one: „Culture which, in its own sen­se, was not mere­ly for the sake of man, but always objec­ted to the har­den­ed con­di­ti­ons in which they live, and ther­eby hono­red men, beco­mes in by adjus­ting them com­ple­te­ly to the har­den­ed con­di­ti­ons, reinte­gra­te and humi­lia­te peo­p­le once more“ (Adorno, Ohne Leitbild, 1967, p. 62).**

Hysterically, final­ly, appears the furious text that a few years ago (2015) a cer­tain Dr. Kevin Clarke wro­te, almost whi­ning at the „grim over-father“ Adorno. who, the enra­ged scho­lar con­tin­ued, had „brain­wa­shed“ the German Kulturwortler* (not Clarke, but me, th.z.; some­thing like wri­ters, junk­dea­lers) so that they did not suf­fi­ci­ent­ly app­re­cia­te Clarke’s bel­oved ope­ret­ta. Gisela von Wysocki has cle­ar­ly ans­we­red Dr. Clarke with mate­r­nal for­be­arance. Gisela v. Wysocki calms Dr. Clarke 

And she gives valuable hints: „A hymn to the ope­ret­ta be given by Th.W. Adorno you should not expect. As an essay of him might have loo­ked like, you can still guess. In this con­text, the text on Franz Schubert (1923) is ins­truc­ti­ve, which puts the „pot­pour­ri“ in the cen­ter. A tre­asu­re tro­ve is the work on Franz Schreker (1959), who­se music in its „unbrid­led desi­re for for­tu­ne,“ it is said, beats the „gre­at“ art music of the field. The who­le thing ends with the sen­tence, „The pro­fes­si­on of Schreker’s father would be the true title of the ope­ra he never wro­te: the pho­to­grapher of Monte Carlo.“ That could have been the title of an operetta.

*Peter Sühring: Kontinuitätsprobleme in der deut­schen Musikwissenschaft.Ein Abgesang

**Now in Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften Bd. 10.1, p 338

***„Kulturwortler“ are dra­ma­tur­ges, jour­na­lists, publi­cists, in short, the who­le Gschwerl, inclu­ding us, Brouillon.

Cf.: Adorno on Kurt Weill

A very amusing com­pen­di­um of „nasty comm­ents“ about Adorno gives James Schmidt, Professor of History, Boston University, in his Blog

Persistent Enlightenment:Hating Adorno‑A Brief Compendium of Nasty Comments

(revi­sed 21.5.18)