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

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#41

Post by bee_rider »

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…

They really didn’t know what they were doing back then. Art so obtuse you ned to be educated on how to enjoy it. Modern stuff is much better, you don’t even need so much as an instruction manual. We’ve come quite far really.

I think the problem is that they didn’t produce enough culture. So, they had to stretch each bit out by pretending the process of sitting around and trying to figure out how to enjoy it was in and of itself enjoyable.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#42

Post by seanhunter »

unraveller wrote: post #11

It's a fools errand to put elitist classical music and opera on TV to compete with the slop when mass TV dispersion is anti-elitism to the core, operating over the work week schedule not the broadway season. Any one who cares about experiencing art as a pastime can see that government subsidies of culture performances could be better spent anywhere else than TV. Surely the TV station will just game it so whatever app…

I don't know about that. The BBC have had great success with the Proms festival[1]. Tickets to go in person are cheap (if you're promming ie standing that is) although you have to queue to get them, and everything is broadcast on TV. The quality of the music is extremely high with a mix of new commissions, established works etc.

The key thing is that it is a public service broadcaster though. I don't think it would be possible otherwise.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/rfbp5v/series

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#43

Post by Almondsetat »

cheema33 wrote: post #33
Almondsetat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>clearly You are being disingenuous and setting up a false dichotomy

> You are being disingenuous and setting up a false dichotomy Or he is taking the argument to an extreme to highlight the absurdity of its trajectory.

It's not its extreme

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#44

Post by rpdillon »

klodolph wrote: post #29
jrm4 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think of it like the writing advice that tells you not to use words like good, bad, and nice, since they are low information density. My general feeling is you could replace the word problematic with a much more specific word in every single context where it's used, and the message would be clearer.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#45

Post by coldtea »

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…

>Regardless, he seems to have disdain for the tastes of the public, which doesn't quite jibe with the idea that he's treating the public as capable of appreciating music without it being dumbed down.

Their "tastes" are not set in stone - and according to him they're not even consciously their own to begin with, in the sense that they arrived at them with knowledge of the possible options and/or after cultivating them. Just conditioning from the music industry and lack of education. Like a teenager who defaults to the current hits everybody listens to.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#46

Post by coldtea »

empath75 wrote: post #39
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…

Would he have been out of place on any audiophile forum today? This is just one of these things where he wants to find some deep philosophical basis for his personal preferences.

Rather one of the things based on the idea that "personal preferences" as in "everything is personal taste, bro, and as good as another, if you like it you like it", is a bad aesthetic and even moral default - backed by a certain line of development of culture and aesthetic ideas for a couple of millenia before the mass market era arrived (America, once it developed beyond barebones settles was almost always embedded in it like fish in the water -with the exception of some European leaning academics and such-, so ideologically can't even understand it could be any different to begin with).

Which is less than some definite objective final measurement (as it's not physics, it's culture, and it's impossible), but a lot more than "personal preferences".

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#47

Post by coldtea »

bee_rider wrote: post #41
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…

They really didn’t know what they were doing back then. Art so obtuse you ned to be educated on how to enjoy it. Modern stuff is much better, you don’t even need so much as an instruction manual. We’ve come quite far really. I think the problem is that they didn’t produce enough culture. So, they had to stretch each bit out by pretending the process of sitting around and trying to figure out how to enjoy it was in an…

Why, Taylor Swift and Nicky Minaj which you don't need any education to enjoy, is so much better than Mahler or even Bach.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#48

Post by coldtea »

vikramkr wrote: post #13
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…

Given songs could be made hits because of their videos - that's arguably the opposite of prescient, because it turned out that the televised image was not actually unrelated but in fact a new core integral aspect of a new art form, the music video!

>because it turned out that the televised image was not actually unrelated but in fact a new core integral aspect of a new art form, the music video!

Or rather a parasite on the music, which killed the music for cool shots, "I'm badass" poses, and girls in bikinis.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#49

Post by coldtea »

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 the only REAL way to experience music is in your private box at a grand symphony hall dressed in full evening wear.

Clearly is closer to the connection with the moment and the expression than in canned form.

Re: Televised Music Is a Pointless Rigmarole (1968)

#50

Post by Gravityloss »

ghaff wrote: post #25
Gravityloss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Public broadcasters offer the same content as live stream or on demand. You can watch with a phone if you want to. Some summer we watched football world cup with a friend while having beers outside.
Post reply on HN