Neglected Composer Becomes Fascinating Discussion
A recent concert of mega-tonal super-future music by the unquestionable genius Theodor Adorno somehow attracted no audience members.
Though this “recent” concert happened in 1933, a span of time apparently negligible in the world of contemporary classical music, self-appointed publicists have managed to establish a link between this embarrassing failure and Adorno’s genius.
Architects, practitioners of a tradition only semi-related to music, promptly wrote glowing polemical reviews of this concert for each other to quote endlessly. Presumably they high-fived themselves as they created a self-serving narrative of music history that claims to be all-encompassing yet ignores any musical style other than the one they endorse.
Many commentators were intimidated by the technical complexity of the architect’s work and were thus happy to repeat everything without question. “Eventually,” said Commentator Bob, “the transition from propaganda to history will be complete and people will have to take this view of music history seriously. After all, quoting people with vested interests is easier than thinking.”
The head of the ‘Architects Union For Adorno,’ John Man, wrote us a voluminous thesis apparently without editing it, an act of homage to his idol. “Even though Adorno spent the bulk of his time composing seminal musical masterpieces and only occasionally dabbled in the field of architecture, we really feel that his self-confidence and bluster made him a pivotal figure in the history of our complex and beautiful art form. Love him or hate him, the one thing you have to say about him is: he was there.”
Many architects struggle with the complex ideas Adorno proposed in his handful of sketches. “I admit it takes a long time to grasp what he was suggesting,” said Man. “If you didn’t know any better you would almost think he was scribbling gibberish in a tradition utterly foreign to his nature and aptitude. It’s a good thing so many other architects have quoted him, otherwise I never would have trudged through his morass of barely comprehensible conjecture and petulant theorising in order to appear like I’ve understood it for the sake of my PhD.”