Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#21

Post by Almondsetat »

LiquidSky wrote: post #16
coldtea wrote: post #8

For his cultural goals he wasn't wrong. His aim wasn't to just give more people access to classical music with whatever means (a la "worse is better"), but to give more people the appreciation of classical music that refined educated listeners had. To treat them as capable for that, as opposed to needing "dumbing down". Part of that was maintaining the primacy of music over unrelated attached things, like the televis…

Except in the opening question Adorno also dismisses radio music. This is just snobbish idiocy. Clearly the only REAL way to experience music is in your private box at a grand symphony hall dressed in full evening wear.

>clearly

You are being disingenuous and setting up a false dichotomy

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#22

Post by cafard »

rpdillon wrote: post #19
coldtea wrote: post #8

For his cultural goals he wasn't wrong. His aim wasn't to just give more people access to classical music with whatever means (a la "worse is better"), but to give more people the appreciation of classical music that refined educated listeners had. To treat them as capable for that, as opposed to needing "dumbing down". Part of that was maintaining the primacy of music over unrelated attached things, like the televis…

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. Regardless, h…

A quibble:

A 1983 Webster's Collegiate gives the definition of problematic as "1: a. difficult to settle or decide b. not definite or settled c. open to question or debate 2: expressing or supporting a possibility".

(Bold type, proffered synonyms, and examples omitted.)

The sense of "problematic" as in "you've got a problem" developed after 1968, perhaps after 1990.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#23

Post by rpdillon »

cafard wrote: post #22
rpdillon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. Regardless, h…

A quibble: A 1983 Webster's Collegiate gives the definition of problematic as "1: a. difficult to settle or decide b. not definite or settled c. open to question or debate 2: expressing or supporting a possibility". (Bold type, proffered synonyms, and examples omitted.) The sense of "problematic" as in "you've got a problem" developed after 1968, perhaps after 1990.

I had no idea, thanks for pointing this out! I'm mostly frustrated with the modern usage, usually when used in reference to someone or some entity's behavior. Every time I hear it I want to understand what exactly the issue is.

So if I go back and reread the quote that I had posted, is the critique that the public's tastes are not fixed, and change across geography and time? I'm still not sure what he was really getting at, I guess.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#24

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

My son saw a Don Hertzfeldt animation on the large screen and was struck (again. we had theater'd on it's release.) by how much more immersive and piercing it was on a large screen.

This is say that smaller (and less defined) television screens diminish on their own, compared to richer alternatives.

Not criticizing small video, just endorsing the more enveloping mediums.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#25

Post by ghaff »

Gravityloss wrote: post #18
musha68k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless it's outright public broadcasting itself e.g. check fantastic European arte.tv as probably best of class (?) example.

Hooray for public broadcasters. They do it in my country too. If you have good sound system connected to the TV it can be quite nice, though it's still not nearly the same as being there. And the recordings are available to be streamed. There's also this new world's largest modern concert organ that's a good piece of attraction. https://musiikkitalo.fi/en/organ/

A lot of people (like myself) don't even get broadcast/cable TV any longer. But lots of stuff streaming/purchased if you want it.

Being there is certainly different (plusses and minuses). But, of course, things like world-class opera and ballet aren't widely available (and are expensive).

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#26

Post by klodolph »

rpdillon wrote: post #19
coldtea wrote: post #8

For his cultural goals he wasn't wrong. His aim wasn't to just give more people access to classical music with whatever means (a la "worse is better"), but to give more people the appreciation of classical music that refined educated listeners had. To treat them as capable for that, as opposed to needing "dumbing down". Part of that was maintaining the primacy of music over unrelated attached things, like the televis…

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. Regardless, h…

> I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is.

I don’t think that’s the real problem with the word “problematic”. So many other words have the same problem—“bad” doesn’t say anything about what the badness is, “difficult” doesn’t say anything about the difficulty, etc. “Green” doesn’t say anything about greenness.

I think the problem people have with problematic is that you’re taking a subjective claim and making it sound like a property of the object. If the taste of the public is “problematic” then it means that someone has a problem with it, but that someone is absent from the sentence.

The word “problematic” is, eh, fine. Writers and speakers shouldn’t be injecting subjects into sentences just because the sentences express opinion. There’s not necessarily any kind of clear subject to introduce. The author/speaker is usually better used as an implicit subject for subjective statements.

I have other problems in Adorno’s claims here but I have somewhat accepted the word “problematic”.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#27

Post by vundercind »

cafard wrote: post #22
rpdillon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. Regardless, h…

A quibble: A 1983 Webster's Collegiate gives the definition of problematic as "1: a. difficult to settle or decide b. not definite or settled c. open to question or debate 2: expressing or supporting a possibility". (Bold type, proffered synonyms, and examples omitted.) The sense of "problematic" as in "you've got a problem" developed after 1968, perhaps after 1990.

I don’t recall encountering the latest usage until the mid-2010s.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#28

Post by jrm4 »

klodolph wrote: post #26
rpdillon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the fault of the sound engineers, who subsequently engage in fundamentally quite unmusical procedures by surgically extracting these voices, which is quite in keeping with their—if I may say this—unartistic intuitions and is also congenial to the highly problematic taste of the public. I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. Regardless, h…

> I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. I don’t think that’s the real problem with the word “problematic”. So many other words have the same problem—“bad” doesn’t say anything about what the badness is, “difficult” doesn’t say anything about the difficulty, etc. “Green” doesn’t say anything about greenness. I think the problem people have with pr…

Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic:

Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#29

Post by klodolph »

jrm4 wrote: post #28
klodolph wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never been a fan of the word 'problematic' because it says so little about what the problem actually is. I don’t think that’s the real problem with the word “problematic”. So many other words have the same problem—“bad” doesn’t say anything about what the badness is, “difficult” doesn’t say anything about the difficulty, etc. “Green” doesn’t say anything about greenness. I think the problem people have with pr…

Nah, "problematic" as used commonly today is, well, problematic: Kind of like "woke" and some others, perhaps "toxic", it's used as a placeholder for a feeling/idea that the speaker believes to be commonplace, but is often VERY ill-defined, and thus ends up muddying the discussion and/or leaving things unsaid that do deserve more consideration.

Kind of like the words “good” or “bad”, or “smart”, or “ugly”, or a million other subjective, contextual ideas?

Words that are ill-defined and leave things unsaid are the norm. If you want clarity, you need sentences, paragraphs, and context. Those sentences will be filled with words that, individually, and stripped of their context, are unclear.

Post reply on HN