I studied this book in depth and anger in the sixth and last seminar for music theory with Dr. Cristian Ofenbauer at Mozarteum. It handles very important problems, but in an obscure manner. At that time I was philosophically sharper and perhaps not seduced by marxism and revolutionary thinking anymore.
Basically it is a pro-Kant vs. contra Aristotle position, that indeed criticises Roger Scruton. However, I recognise some important points there, even by Adorno (!), for example the concept of immanence of the musical material: how it determines „autonomously“ the form.(see paragraph 36 in the image below).
Or „ the musical material is in the musical artwork the readable history of music“. Paragraph no.35
Later I read also Roger Scrutons book on music, that i forgot now the name. It shows well a neo-conservative view of music, but the idea that Janacek should be a model to substitute Schoenberg looks very poor. Because: Schoenberg was born in Vienna, and I live there, therefore he is better…. No, it is poor, because it is impossible to translate Janacek, and because a „modern conservative model“ is a kinda of contradictory cult of personality.
I opened now this book (Autonomy of the Sound, a Philosophy of Music) and understand way better than in the first reading . It deserves a second reading. I realised that my thoughts go in a similar direction (observe some of my videos) , and start now to wonder if i „unconsciously“ learned this book very well – like by mistake…
You need one reading for the empathy and another one for the criticis