Adorno: What would he think

Adorno admonishes jazz for feigning novelty while realistically conforming to a static set of rules. What is still perplexing to me is how Adorno could consider the very beginning of jazz, in all its structure breaking glory, unartistic. Does the existence of method itself render a piece of music unartistic? He writes, "everything unruly in [jazz] was from the very beginning integrated into a strict scheme, that its rebellious gestures are accompanied by the tendency to blind obeisance, much like the sado-masochistic type described by analytic psychology, the person who chafes against the father-figure while secretly admiring him, who seeks to emulate him and in turn derives enjoyment from the subordination he overtly detests"



So, jazz overtly rebels against the common structure of music while secretly loving it. The common structure is the source for the rebellion, for its method.



To be considered art, it seems a piece of music has to exist in and of itself, without its difference from other music deriving from an intentional rebellion against former structure. Its novelty can't be defined by its intentional separation from a previous form. But what does this realistically look like? How can anything exist in this state?



This song by Devendra Barnhart is the closest thing i can think of-- It starts slow, and speeds up the same rhythm to give the strange effect- at least for me - of time passing by faster and faster as I age. So there is still method here. I am not sure whether Devendra intended this specific effect, but it seems at least that it does not appear mainly as a rebellion against the commonly even time structure of a song, but instead as a metaphorical reflection of an aesthetic experience itself. It is different, but its difference isn't afforded by intentional rebellion. I'm sure Adorno, still, would find something wrong with it.