Notes to pp. 393–395 585neutralizes it and levels it down to the integral, rational denominator of
abstract time; destroys meaning of every kind by refusing all logic and
context; abandons subjectivity in favour of a so-called being in itself; con-
fuses the integral coherence of material with an integral coherent meaning;
and consistently denies the immanent historical aspect of the material’
(Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, ‘Adornos Kritik der Neueren Musik’, p. 253ff.).
125 Adorno, Dissonanzen, p. 7; cf. the revised preface in GS, vol. 13, p. 12.
126 Adorno, ‘The Ageing of the New Music’, Essays on Music, p. 195.
127 In his polemic, Adorno succinctly formulated one of his chief criticisms:
‘Infatuation with the material along with blindness toward what is made
out of it resulting from the fiction that the material speaks for itself, from
an effectively primitive symbolism. To be sure, the material does speak
but only in those constellations in which the artwork positions it’ (ibid.,
p. 189).
128 Adorno to Kolisch, 4 June 1954, quoted in Tiedemann, ‘Nur ein Gast in
der Tafelrunde’, p. 180.
129 Heinz-Klaus Metzger had studied with Max Deutsch and Rudolf Kolisch,
among others, and had met Adorno in the International Summer Courses
in Darmstadt. He and Adorno had been on friendly terms, and the friend-
ship was even strengthened by the debate in the mid-1950s. At the turn of
the year 1957–8, he and Adorno took part in a debate on the radio with
the title ‘Recent Music – Progress or Regression?’. See Hans-Klaus
Jungheinrich, ‘“Ich halte jedenfalls an der Idee der Moderne fest”: Von
Adorno lernen: Ein Gespräch mit Heinz-Klaus Metzger’, p. 68ff.
130 Ibid., p. 70; cf. Metzger, ‘Musik wozu: Literatur zu Noten’, p. 61ff. and
also p. 90ff.; Konold, ‘Adorno – Metzger: Blick auf eine Kontroverse’,
p. 91ff.
131 Adorno to Marcuse, 24 November 1964, Herbert Marcuse Archive,
Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main; Adorno to Henius,
8 December 1964, Theodor W. Adorno Archive, Frankfurt am Main (Br
592/46); cf. Adorno, ‘Nach Steuermanns Tod’, GS, vol. 17, p. 311ff.
132 See Rolf Tiedemann, ‘Vorrede, Editorische Nachbemerkung’, in Adorno,
Beethoven: The Philosophy of Music, pp. ix and 249ff.
133 Ibid., p. 14.
134 Ibid., p. 39.
135 Ibid., p. 76f.
136 See Adorno, Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy, p. ix.
137 Ibid., p. 129.
138 Theodor W. Adorno Archive, Frankfurt am Main (Ts 52004).
139 Christine Eichel has clarified the concept of ‘physiognomy’. Adorno ‘traces
the hidden impulses of the music and their expressive language by inter-
preting the music anthropomorphically; by treating the structure of the
works as an analogy to the face with all its individual features, he explores
the expression of the work through an analogy with the mimicry that
comes to form an image of collective mimetic historiography which lies
beyond the rational analysis of reality.... The concept of physiognomy
points in two directions: on the one hand, the physiognomical expression
of a work of art is taken to exist independently of individual listeners;
on the other, it is assumed that this physiognomical expression can
be translated into a linguistic description – without the imponderabilia