# Do you agree with this Brahms quote?



## peeyaj

"I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*

Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


----------



## PetrB

Depth of emotion, spirituality, know no boundaries or exclusivity of Dogma, anyone's dogma.

This is still impossible to imagine for those who do have a belief system which lifts them up and to which they attribute all their inspiration. 

Probably that being without was even more impossible to imagine in Brahms' era.


----------



## Tapkaara

I do not agree.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahms was a bit of a self-righteous, know-it-all. I do not agree one bit with this quote.


----------



## science

I've never seen that quote before. What interests me is the question, what was going on in Brahms' heart/mind when he said or wrote that? What did "atheism" mean to him? What was "purely cerebral" music and what were the alternatives to that he had in mind? etc.


----------



## KenOC

Brahms lived in a time when inspiration was often laid to a "divine spark." All of us reflect the views of our times, after all.


----------



## opus55

That was 1896

Fifteen characters


----------



## brianvds

science said:


> I've never seen that quote before. What interests me is the question, what was going on in Brahms' heart/mind when he said or wrote that? What did "atheism" mean to him? What was "purely cerebral" music and what were the alternatives to that he had in mind? etc.


Yes, I wonder where that quote is from? To the best of my knowledge, Brahms was pretty much an atheist himself, or at least what we may describe today as an agnostic. Perhaps the term "atheism" had some particular meaning for him.


----------



## Crudblud

No, but then I don't agree with Brahms' music either, so I suppose it was meant to be.


----------



## Vaneyes

Brahms was a moralist and judgmental, but the accuracy of this quote supposedly made the year before his death remains suspicious to this day. In what context was anything like this said? Delusional thoughts during terminal illness (cancer)?

Misinterpretation, embellishment by the "news gatherer"?

Related:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/problem-about-absoluteness-Brahms-genuiness-1958399.S.139150777


----------



## bigshot

What contemporaries of his were athiests? Anyone at all good? It might have been true in his day.


----------



## mmsbls

Several biographies indicate that Brahms was an agnostic and humanist. His German Requiem explicitly excludes all traditional Christian references, and in a letter before the first performance he wrote, "As far as the text is concerned, I confess that I would gladly omit even the word German and instead use Human; also with my best knowledge and will I would dispense with passages like John 3:16."

So yes, that quote is a bit confusing. He somehow must be making a strong distinction between atheist and agnostic although I'm not sure why that would make a difference in musical composition.


----------



## GodNickSatan

I love Brahms, but I don't agree with what he said, if he did say it. I don't see why being religious or not would mean much in terms of composing. It'd be easy to point how many of the great composers were religious, but during that time almost everyone was.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> So yes, that quote is a bit confusing. He somehow must be making a strong distinction between atheist and agnostic although I'm not sure why that would make a difference in musical composition.


I suspect many people get more religious as they get older. Cooper makes a good case that Beethoven moved much closer to traditional Christian beliefs in the 1820s, after being more of a deist earlier. The same may have been true of Brahms.


----------



## PetrB

Vaneyes said:


> Misinterpretation, embellishment by the "news gatherer"?
> 
> Related:
> 
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups/problem-about-absoluteness-Brahms-genuiness-1958399.S.139150777


I can not believe anyone but the writer of that article gives a rat's [email protected]@ about that article, its questions, or the supposed hearsay statements of Brahms. But there it is, get a bit more and you've got material for a thesis for a graduate degree, I suppose.

News flash! "Absolute music _may actually be about something!_" Second news flash, in the tradition of scholarship, second hand info is hear say, and not admissible in defending your thesis.

Maybe the author would have not had to research at all if he understood an absolute piece might be about something, but no one is saying because it would all be conjecture without concrete evidence from the horse's mouth.


----------



## peeyaj

What does Brahms mean when he said that the Atheist works are pure "cerebral"? Isn't his music sometimes labeled as too academic..


----------



## Feathers

I disagree with the main point of the quote, but perhaps that's just Brahms' way of elevating music above the level of a regular learned skill, which I don't disagree with.


----------



## Novelette

peeyaj said:


> What does Brahms mean when he said that the Atheist works are pure "cerebral"? Isn't his music sometimes labeled as too academic..


He means that the music is calculated according to some pre-planned clever trick, but without real substance or musical merit. Such music follows from attempts to impress, not from inspiration, that is, not for its own sake nor for the sake of genuine expressiveness [not necessarily in a programmatic manner]. Cerebral--calculated to use some cute trick that is meant to impress, and everything around it is created only as a backdrop in order to make such a work appear a full work.

Edit: It seemingly presupposes that inspiration--that is, musical ideas--come either from the sense of fulfillment stemming from one's faith or even from god himself. Such faith is, then, necessary for the production of "genuine" musical ideas, as Brahms would likely define them. At least, this is what I gather from the quote. Context is everything, without which, probable guesses are surely valid.


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> He somehow must be making a strong distinction between atheist and agnostic although I'm not sure why that would make a difference in musical composition.


Because there IS a near polar opposite difference between the definition / meaning of atheist and agnostic -- not that that seems to be stopping many participating in this thread from just gliding right over that great difference.

[[ But aren't they nearly the same thing? LOL. ]]


----------



## moody

peeyaj said:


> What does Brahms mean when he said that the Atheist works are pure "cerebral"? Isn't his music sometimes labeled as too academic..


I wouldn't think so for one moment---apart from an overture that is, Ha.


----------



## moody

Novelette said:


> He means that the music is calculated according to some pre-planned clever trick, but without real substance or musical merit. Such music follows from attempts to impress, not from inspiration, that is, not for its own sake nor for the sake of genuine expressiveness [not necessarily in a programmatic manner]. Cerebral--calculated to use some cute trick that is meant to impress, and everything around it is created only as a backdrop in order to make such a work appear a full work.
> 
> Edit: It seemingly presupposes that inspiration--that is, musical ideas--come either from the sense of fulfillment stemming from one's faith or even from god himself. Such faith is, then, necessary for the production of "genuine" musical ideas, as Brahms would likely define them. At least, this is what I gather from the quote. Context is everything, without which, probable guesses are surely valid.


This is certainly a free and rather rambling translation isn't it? Cerebral in this case means from the mind rather than from the soul surely.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Because there IS a near polar opposite difference between the definition / meaning of atheist and agnostic -- not that that seems to be stopping many participating in this thread from just gliding right over that great difference.
> 
> [[ But aren't they nearly the same thing? LOL. ]]


Not sure who the REAL atheists were. Verdi is said to have been an atheist, maybe somebody can verify that. Shostakovich was certainly an atheist, but a regretful one. When asked if he was an atheist, he replied, "Yes, unfortunately."

Saw this about Clementi (can't vouch for it): When Clementi was in his deathbed, a priest asked him what his religion was. Clementi replied, "I am a pianist."


----------



## Novelette

moody said:


> This is certainly a free and rather rambling translation isn't it? Cerebral in this case means from the mind rather than from the soul surely.


Free and rambling, definitely; succinctness isn't one of my strengths. =\


----------



## Art Rock

Without a reference for the quote (so we can check in German - I have seen translation butchered before), I think there is little point in discussing this at all, at least not with the name Brahms attached to it.


----------



## peeyaj

Here's another one from Brahms.

"To realize we are one with the Creator, as Beethoven did, is a wonderful and awe-inspiring ex*perience. Very few human beings ever come into that realization and that is why there are so few great composers or creative geniuses in any line of human endeavor. I al*ways contemplate all this before commencing to compose. This is the first step. _When I feel the urge I begin by appealing directly to my Maker and I first ask Him the three most important questions pertaining to our life here in this world-woher, warum, wohin?" _(Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?) I immediately feel vibrations that thrill my whole being. These are the Spirit il*luminating the soul within, and in this exalted state I see clearly what is obscure in my ordinary moods; then I feel capable of drawing inspiration from above, as Beethoven did." -Johannes Brahms, 1896


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> Not sure who the REAL atheists were. Verdi is said to have been an atheist, maybe somebody can verify that. Shostakovich was certainly an atheist, but a regretful one. When asked if he was an atheist, he replied, "Yes, unfortunately."
> 
> Saw this about Clementi (can't vouch for it): When Clementi was in his deathbed, a priest asked him what his religion was. Clementi replied, "I am a pianist."


The Shostakovich quote reminds me of someone's quip about Thomas Hardy not being able to forgive God for not existing.

If you actually haven't seen me cite this before, just wait around a few months and I'm bound to cite it again, because it's a line I love.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I agree with Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi. 

They out number Brahms I think.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Ahh, but what exactly did Brahms mean by atheist. It's meaning has changed over the years. It didn't always mean the complete refutation of God as such.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/definitions-of-atheism/

In a modern sense I completely disagree. Inspiration, awe and sense of wonder are human conditions not confined to the religious.


----------



## GiulioCesare

So the only source of this quote is a certain Arthur Abell?

Sorry, it doesn't pass my credibility filter.


----------



## Kleinzeit

People sometimes get anxious as twilight approaches.

My grandfather was a standard northern Lutheran, and he hated Russian snake handlers, the second most popular faith at the time. Hated them. But he insisted he convert on his death bed and did. The local _käärme-ukko_ brought the snake & the scroll & the wooden spoons & everything.

My grandfather's friends were appalled. "Why do you do this now?" they pleaded? 
"Because I'm eager to see another Russian snake handler going straight to hell!"


----------



## Skilmarilion

Without getting into the intricacies of Brahms' quote, I am of the belief that the great composers (however this may be defined) were touched by the divine in some way. Without this inspiration, it would not be possible to create such artistic masterpieces which are among the greatest achievements of mankind.

This is just my humble opinion.

Of course, the number of composers who were religious or had spiritual inclinations of some sort seem to outnumber the alleged atheists.


----------



## Andreas

I instintively feel more sympathetic to composers who have a certain spiritual inclination. They don't have to subscribe to any copyrighted religion, though. I just find it pleasant if a composer doesn't consider our petty human everyday life as the alpha and omega of everything; if they recognize something greater and more important, to which humans can look up to and strive to, be it a god, nature, a myth, an idea, what have you. Something humbling.


----------



## Nereffid

It doesn't matter whether a composer is religious or our old friend "spiritual".
Music in of itself can't be religious.
It's up to the listener to attribute such qualities to the music.

I'm sure if Beethoven worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Brahms would detect His Noodly Appendages throughout Beethoven's works.


----------



## brianvds

Nereffid said:


> I'm sure if Beethoven worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Brahms would detect His Noodly Appendages throughout Beethoven's works.


I think it is more likely that Verdi and other Italian composers worshiped the FSM.


----------



## brianvds

Skilmarilion said:


> Of course, the number of composers who were religious or had spiritual inclinations of some sort seem to outnumber the alleged atheists.


The number of people in general who are religious or have spiritual inclinations outnumber the atheists. We may therefore expect to see this reflected in almost all professions besides the clergy.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> "I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*
> 
> Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Deism: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Compare with theism.



> "To realize we are one with the Creator, as Beethoven did, is a wonderful and awe-inspiring ex*perience. Very few human beings ever come into that realization and that is why there are so few great composers or creative geniuses in any line of human endeavor. I al*ways contemplate all this before commencing to compose. This is the first step. _When I feel the urge I begin by appealing directly to my Maker and I first ask Him the three most important questions pertaining to our life here in this world-woher, warum, wohin?" _(Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?) I immediately feel vibrations that thrill my whole being. These are the Spirit il*luminating the soul within, and in this exalted state I see clearly what is obscure in my ordinary moods; then I feel capable of drawing inspiration from above, as Beethoven did." -Johannes Brahms, 1896


The question here is not really whether or not there is a God, but whether he personally interacts with composers.

Another problem is the Western habit of "objectifying" God. Strictly speaking, in the Catholic sense, God is objective - is "out there."

In general spiritual terms, and in the Eastern view, these things are "subjectified," and many Westerners either don't understand this, or actively reject it as heresy, just as Gnostic Christianity was expunged.

This seems to be contradicted by the Western act of prayer, and also by what Brahms is quoted as saying. He seems to say that he "prays" before he composes, by "appealing directly" to God, then "feeling the vibrations." If this "contact with God" is in an objective sense, then it is problematic, and leads to exclusion.

If this contact with "God" comes from within, and our "gateway" to God and spirituality is within each of us, then this is inherently inclusive of all people, regardless of dogma, and leads to tolerance rather than exclusion and arguments over dogma.

To be an atheist and objectively deny the existence of God seems just as absurd to me as objectifying God.

For me, the answer lies within, and I think Brahms was experiencing this, although he gets lost in the objective argument, along with the Atheists.

Be careful, Peeyaj, that you do not become so "Westernized" that you lose sight of your inherent spirituality.


----------



## chalkpie

Sorry Mr. JB, but you are full of *****!


----------



## starthrower

KenOC said:


> Brahms lived in a time when inspiration was often laid to a "divine spark." All of us reflect the views of our times, after all.


Except for those who don't. Galileo, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, etc... You really can't attribute exceptional intelligence, talent, and imagination to religious beliefs.


----------



## moody

Skilmarilion said:


> Without getting into the intricacies of Brahms' quote, I am of the belief that the great composers (however this may be defined) were touched by the divine in some way. Without this inspiration, it would not be possible to create such artistic masterpieces which are among the greatest achievements of mankind.
> 
> This is just my humble opinion.
> 
> Of course, the number of composers who were religious or had spiritual inclinations of some sort seem to outnumber the alleged atheists.


What happens if you don't believe in the "divine" ? It then means nothing really,does it ?


----------



## moody

brianvds said:


> The number of people in general who are religious or have spiritual inclinations outnumber the atheists. We may therefore expect to see this reflected in almost all professions besides the clergy.


You mean in your part of the world do you ? Because I don't think it does in mine---Christanity that is and that's what Brahms was talking of.


----------



## moody

Andreas said:


> I instintively feel more sympathetic to composers who have a certain spiritual inclination. They don't have to subscribe to any copyrighted religion, though. I just find it pleasant if a composer doesn't consider our petty human everyday life as the alpha and omega of everything; if they recognize something greater and more important, to which humans can look up to and strive to, be it a god, nature, a myth, an idea, what have you. Something humbling.


What a load of stuff is being presented around here,as for 
Andreas I am not interested in being humbled thanks and I never have been.


----------



## millionrainbows

moody said:


> What a load of stuff is being presented around here,as for
> Andreas I am not interested in being humbled thanks and I never have been.


Then I think it's safe to say that you have no desire to "transcend your own ego." Are you married? Good luck with that, and whatever you do, avoid alcohol.


----------



## BurningDesire

peeyaj said:


> "I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*
> 
> Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


If that is a real, legit quote, I think Brahms easily defeats Stravinsky in the contest of stupid ******** composers say.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Brahms is correct. One cannot be a consistent atheist and be a great composer, but one can be an inconsistent atheist and borrow the learning and the principles developed by theistic composers in a theistic culture and society and write great music.

But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


----------



## Ukko

peeyaj said:


> "I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*
> 
> Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


Do you know that Berlioz, Bartók, Prokofiev and Verdi read those scores? You need to parse the message.
You too _BD_


----------



## aleazk

Skilmarilion said:


> Without getting into the intricacies of Brahms' quote, I am of the belief that the great composers (however this may be defined) were touched by the divine in some way. Without this inspiration, it would not be possible to create such artistic masterpieces which are among the greatest achievements of mankind.
> 
> This is just my humble opinion.
> 
> Of course, the number of composers who were religious or had spiritual inclinations of some sort seem to outnumber the alleged atheists.





Andreas said:


> I instintively feel more sympathetic to composers who have a certain spiritual inclination. They don't have to subscribe to any copyrighted religion, though. I just find it pleasant if a composer doesn't consider our petty human everyday life as the alpha and omega of everything; if they recognize something greater and more important, to which humans can look up to and strive to, be it a god, nature, a myth, an idea, what have you. Something humbling.


I don't agree completely with these "romantic" views.
The artist, as well as the scientist, are human beings like everybody. Sure, it's very likely that they have some intrinsic talent, but that's not all. A deep knowledge is crucial, and this knowledge only comes with very hard study. Hours and hours of their "petty human everyday life". 
The metaphysical (in the sense we are talking about here) plane doesn't exists by itself. Artistic and scientific creation involves a constant interaction between these two worlds. The artist or scientist of course must have some metaphysical motivation, but his world is the physical world, where he lives and where he will have to develop his ideas in a tangible way (e.g., an actual piece of music, a theory, etc.). Both, the metaphysical and the physical, are complementary realities. The exaltation of one over the other is an idealization with very little touch with the actual practice of art/science making.


----------



## brianvds

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms is correct. One cannot be a consistent atheist and be a great composer, but one can be an inconsistent atheist and borrow the learning and the principles developed by theistic composers in a theistic culture and society and write great music.
> 
> But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


There has never been an entirely atheistic society anywhere, thus this statement has yet to be tested.


----------



## Mahlerian

Why can't we acknowledge the talent of Boulez and Ligeti as well as Messiaen and Schoenberg?


----------



## Jobis

Well I'm an aspiring composer and a catholic and my composing is pretty awful. So I'd disagree with him on that one!


----------



## Cheyenne

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms is correct. One cannot be a consistent atheist and be a great composer, but one can be an inconsistent atheist and borrow the learning and the principles developed by theistic composers in a theistic culture and society and write great music.
> 
> But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


Okay, I'm done.


----------



## Yardrax

I don't understand what the poster who started this thread thought would be gained from this discussion besides the incitement of yet another religious debate on the internet. Incidentally, I was watching a rerun of the BBC's series on the development of the Symphony a few weeks back, and they interviewed Dvorak's Grandson, who claimed that his Grandfather was astounded that Brahms could write such stunningly beautiful music without himself being a believer. Which would seem to contradict the quote in the original post. Perhaps Brahms himself wasn't so consistent on this question.


----------



## aleazk

Well, let's settle down this once for all!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahms#Religious_beliefs 



> On his religious views, Brahms was an agnostic and a humanist.


----------



## Xaltotun

Oh, now I get it. Brahms was probably an agnostic but more importantly, he was a Very Grumpy Person. In his old age, he would raise his grumpiness to such a level that he would put down and ridicule even his own beliefs, and that's why we have a statement like this one.


----------



## Ukko

Yardrax said:


> I don't understand what the poster who started this thread thought would be gained from this discussion besides the incitement of yet another religious debate on the internet. Incidentally, I was watching a rerun of the BBC's series on the development of the Symphony a few weeks back, and they interviewed Dvorak's Grandson, who claimed that his Grandfather was astounded that Brahms could write such stunningly beautiful music without himself being a believer. Which would seem to contradict the quote in the original post. Perhaps Brahms himself wasn't so consistent on this question.


I suspect that Brahms was holding one end of a chain.

How easily you folks are lead into the notion that religion is a requirement for emotions both high and low. C'mon, now.


----------



## Andreas

Funny thing with Brahms. Wrote this wonderful Requiem. But for living, not the dead. Knew the bible like the back of his hand. Yet was regarded a non-believer. Surely a complicated character.

I've read about an interesting experiment. It goes like this: Take a picture of your mother. Print it out or make a photo copy of it. Fetch a pair of scissors. Now cut up the picture. If you cannot, or even just hesitate, ask yourself exactly why.


----------



## brianvds

Hilltroll72 said:


> I suspect that Brahms was holding one end of a chain.
> 
> How easily you folks are lead into the notion that religion is a requirement for emotions both high and low. C'mon, now.


There seems to be a deep desire in many people to read things about the personal life of artists from their art, or to believe that the creator of noble work must be a noble person (however we wish to define "noble").

But it seems to me there isn't much connection between composers as people and composers as creators of music. Great music has been written by everyone from psychotic murderers (Gesualdo) to naively pious pedophiles (Bruckner) to rather boringly well-balanced atheists (Bartok) to grumpy old curmudgeons with soft hearts (Brahms). Some composers knew preciously little about anything other than music (Bach and Mozart come to mind) while others were well educated, widely read and multi-talented (Mendelssohn).

Music seems to exist in a universe of its own, with little connection to the outside world. That is precisely what I like about it.


----------



## brianvds

Andreas said:


> Knew the bible like the back of his hand. Yet was regarded a non-believer.


Some research a year or two ago indicated that atheists know the Bible better than fundamentalists. Go figure.



> Surely a complicated character.


Indeed: virtually no people are ever entirely internally consistent in their beliefs and attitudes, or remain completely unchanged in their opinions. Most people do not have biographies written about them, so we only notice these inconsistencies in the famous.


----------



## Jobis

brianvds said:


> There seems to be a deep desire in many people to read things about the personal life of artists from their art, or to believe that the creator of noble work must be a noble person (however we wish to define "noble").
> 
> But it seems to me there isn't much connection between composers as people and composers as creators of music. Great music has been written by everyone from psychotic murderers (Gesualdo) to naively pious pedophiles (Bruckner) to rather boringly well-balanced atheists (Bartok) to grumpy old curmudgeons with soft hearts (Brahms). Some composers knew preciously little about anything other than music (Bach and Mozart come to mind) while others were well educated, widely read and multi-talented (Mendelssohn).
> 
> Music seems to exist in a universe of its own, with little connection to the outside world. That is precisely what I like about it.


This exactly.

Should we think Wagner is less of a composer because he was an anti-semite? Not at all: its irrelevant.


----------



## Mahlerian

brianvds said:


> naively pious pedophiles (Bruckner)


Nothing I've heard indicates that he was attracted to children as such. He was interested in teenage students (not prepubescents, as the word pedophile indicates) because he thought they were more likely to be virgins than older women.

Not that I'm interested in defending Bruckner's faults, but I think the use of the word pedophile is inappropriate (because intended to provoke an emotional response) except where it specifically applies.


----------



## BurningDesire

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms is correct. One cannot be a consistent atheist and be a great composer, but one can be an inconsistent atheist and borrow the learning and the principles developed by theistic composers in a theistic culture and society and write great music.
> 
> But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


The forum should add the option for Disliking posts.


----------



## Nereffid

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms is correct. One cannot be a consistent atheist and be a great composer, but one can be an inconsistent atheist and borrow the learning and the principles developed by theistic composers in a theistic culture and society and write great music.
> 
> But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


That's mighty generous of you, allowing the atheists to play with the theists' toys.


----------



## Op.123

stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid Brahms


----------



## KenOC

ScipioAfricanus said:


> But a pure atheist in an atheistic society and context writing great music is utter nonsense and foolish.


Thanks for that. I'll let Dmitri know! :lol:


----------



## julianoq

brianvds said:


> Great music has been written by everyone from psychotic murderers (Gesualdo) to naively pious pedophiles (Bruckner) to rather boringly well-balanced atheists (Bartok) to grumpy old curmudgeons with soft hearts (Brahms).


Even if I agree that we must separate the personality of the composers and the art, I think calling Bruckner a pedophile is an error. This is not supported by history.


----------



## BurningDesire

As an atheist AND a composer, I really don't appreciate some of the comments by some people in this thread. Furthermore, I think attributing art and inspiration to gods and religion really cheapens them. Art comes from people, real flesh and blood people. It comes from their feelings and their thoughts and experiences, from their imaginations, from their hard work and sincere effort and desire to create. It comes from hearts and minds. I find that considerably more beautiful than people randomly being selected as vessels of some dictator in the sky. To say an artist's work is actually not theirs but the work of somebody or something else is an insulting absurdity. A person's background does not determine whether or not they can be a great artist either.


----------



## Nereffid

Really, is the quote attributed to Brahms any better than this one from Wagner?



> a Jew can possess the richest measure of specific talents, the most refined and varied culture, the loftiest, most tender sense of honour, without even once through all these advantages being able to bring forth in us that profound, heart-and-soul searching effect we expect from music.


----------



## brianvds

Mahlerian said:


> Nothing I've heard indicates that he was attracted to children as such. He was interested in teenage students (not prepubescents, as the word pedophile indicates) because he thought they were more likely to be virgins than older women.
> 
> Not that I'm interested in defending Bruckner's faults, but I think the use of the word pedophile is inappropriate (because intended to provoke an emotional response) except where it specifically applies.


Yes, I was a bit naughty writing that. He was perhaps more of a hebephile or ephebophile. I was going to just mention his piety, and then suddenly remembered this other thing about him.

My main point remains of course simply that his music had nothing to do with any of this. Or perhaps more accurately, it is not possible for an outside observer to read any of it in his music. It is possible that his religion inspired, or the sight of pretty girls. But it may also have been anything else.


----------



## brianvds

BurningDesire said:


> As an atheist AND a composer,


Now, now, nobody said you couldn't be a composer. You just can't possibly be a GREAT composer... :devil:


----------



## brianvds

julianoq said:


> Even if I agree that we must separate the personality of the composers and the art, I think calling Bruckner a pedophile is an error. This is not supported by history.


Why do I get the feeling I hit a nerve with that offhand little remark? 
As I say in another post, it's really besides the point. There is no telling from a work of art what kind of person the artist may have been: everyone from murderers to genuine pedophiles to exceptionally saintly people have been great artists and composers.


----------



## BurningDesire

brianvds said:


> Now, now, nobody said you couldn't be a composer. You just can't possibly be a GREAT composer... :devil:


Sorry to burst the bubbles of some folks on this forum, but I intend on being a great composer


----------



## Cheyenne

When I hear a Bruckner symphony it is hard to see the face of Bruckner behind it; the face of a shy and pious and respectful man, humbly teaching counterpunt to many a genius like him. I imagined someone a little more like.. Like Wagner, actually.


----------



## Ebab

Burroughs said:


> stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid Brahms


You're commenting on an _unconfirmed_, possibly misattributed or fabricated quote. I'd advise to use caution.


----------



## Ondine

Do I agree?

Absolute statements are always dangerous, so I do not agree that in order to compose music it is necessary to believe in 'God' as an objective reality, but in the act of composing music, playing an instrument or listening, all them at full, becoming just [the] music, separateness vanishes and a sort of re-binding with something beyond the small and limited selfhood, happens. I think this is one of the most beautiful experiences that can be achieved through music.


----------



## nightscape

Taking the quote on its own terms, and removing Brahms from the equation, I've heard this Argument before from people who are religious. Without insulting the believers on this board, I can say that the belief in a divine mover and having artistic inclinations can be mutually exclusive. I heard Sam Harris give a quote from Fineman I think, saying it's a "poor poet who must fall silent when he finds out that the sun is actually a massive sphere of hydrogen fusing into helium." Knowing how something works, or being analytical, doesn't reduce the beauty of that thing. I believe it even enchances it. Aethists (a term I dislike) can be just as susceptible to the "transcendence" of an object or idea in a more emotional way. There have been efforts by more recent Philosophers to separate the idea of the Numinous and Religion, because it's an experience non-believers can have, and just as potent.


----------



## brianvds

Ondine said:


> Do I agree?
> 
> Absolute statements are always dangerous, so I do not agree that in order to compose music it is necessary to believe in 'God' as an objective reality, but in the act of composing music, playing an instrument or listening, all them at full, becoming just [the] music, separateness vanishes and a sort of re-binding with something beyond the small and limited selfhood, happens. I think this is one of the most beautiful experiences that can be achieved with music.


I think this is in fact the case with all creative acts, whether it be music, mathematics, visual art, or whatever else. It is in a sense a spiritual or religious sort of experience. But atheists have exactly the same access to that experience as believers.

Just listen to Carl Sagan going on about billions and billions of stars, in a tone of awed reverence: you can hardly imagine a televangelist being any more religious.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I would agree in part. A man who is inspired by belief and love for something or someone greater than himself, would most likely accomplish greater things than a composer who sees nothing beyond his own self and his desire for recognition. This greater thing or person does not always have to be God though, and that is where I disagree. A lot of masterpieces seem to have been inspired by romantic love for another human being. 

Also, a composer who believes that beauty and ability to create beauty come from God, would be less likely to waste that ability on something ugly, something done only for shock value or on dry experimentation for the sake of experimentation.

PS. I think I am starting to like old Mr. Brahms more than I thought I would...


----------



## KenOC

SiegendesLicht said:


> Also, a composer who believes that beauty and ability to create beauty come from God, would be less likely to waste that ability on something ugly, something done only for shock value or on dry experimentation for the sake of experimentation.


An interesting comment! But I have to think of old Bach, whose music revels in the beauty of Newton's deterministic universe, a concept that proved (then and now) very damaging to religions. And in fact, not too many years ago his clavier music was still considered dry to the point of desiccation.

In his time, of course, Bach was not only deeply religious but an acute theologian as well. If he lived today, I wonder if he would be, instead, an atheist.


----------



## millionrainbows

Boulez was a non-theist, and he wanted to "get beyond" himself and transcend his own ego by using serial methods to create a system which would generate all the material used without his interference, preference, desire, or choice.

_Structures _for two pianos was the result. Some do not consider this to be a successful work, and Boulez himself agrees; he sees it as transitional.

Was John Cage successful with his aleatoric pieces, such as _Concert for Piano and Orchestra,_ and _Atlas Eclipticalis? _Zen and Eastern religions are "non-theist," yet they do not actively deny the existence of God as true "atheists" such as Madeline Murray O'Hare did.
Is "transcending your ego" the same as submitting to a "greater force?"

*Is this the point of the Brahms quote?...that one must submit to a greater force?*

..or should we _simplistically_ read it (and be _simplistically_ offended or bolstered) by the requirement that a great composer cannot be atheist?

This simplistic reasoning could be taken to simplistic extremes. Technically, *Brahms mentions atheists as being excluded from greatness. Why is this? Are atheists seen as egotists?*

Is it perhaps that, as an artist, Brahms realized that the artist had to be "receptive" and be a "receiver," and "submit" to the creative forces. "Islam" means "to submit."


----------



## BurningDesire

I personally don't think this Brahms quote is legit. It sounds far more like something Wagner would say.


----------



## millionrainbows

BurningDesire said:


> I personally don't think this Brahms quote is legit. It sounds far more like something Wagner would say.


Then you shouldn't say that unless you do your homework and find out. Then tell us.

Here's what I got when I googled:

http://www2.byui.edu/OnLineLearning/courses/hum/202/TalksWithGreatComposers.htmhttp://www.linkedin.com/groups/problem-about-absoluteness-Brahms-genuiness-1958399.S.139150777

http://books.google.com/books?id=pb...a=X&ei=4kvLUdvfLcqwqwGTooH4CA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAw

(This third link is referencing a book called _Finding Divine Inspiration: Working with the Holy Spirit in your Creativity_ by J. Scott McElroy)

http://books.google.com/books?id=fdSIBIyrsU0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=I+know+several+young+composers+who+are+atheists.+I+have+read+their+scores,+and+I+assure+you+that+they+are+doomed+to+speedy+oblivion+because+they+are+utterly+lacking+in+inspiration.+Their+work+is+purely+cerebral.+No+atheist+has+ever+been+or+ever+will+be+a+great+composer.&source=bl&ots=Jcb6UthR6U&sig=ShvHauFp0yovMbBp_ifnO3FMbLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4kvLUdvfLcqwqwGTooH4CA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=

This fourth link is referencing a book called _Spiritual Lives of the Great Composers_ by Patrick Cavanaugh.

The Brahms quote is also referenced in Self-Realization Magazine, volumes 26-27: (this is where I think *peeyaj* got the quote)

http://books.google.com/books?id=LE...a=X&ei=_07LUceqO8m-0gGN5YDADw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw

..and the book _Talks with Great Composers_ by Arthur M. Abell:

http://books.google.com/books?id=mS...a=X&ei=_07LUceqO8m-0gGN5YDADw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg


----------



## moody

millionrainbows said:


> Then I think it's safe to say that you have no desire to "transcend your own ego." Are you married? Good luck with that, and whatever you do, avoid alcohol.


Too late on both counts--what does that have to do with anything?
Discipline is the answer to most of this nonsense , your striving for success is what should drive you on not some ridiculous myth.


----------



## moody

BurningDesire said:


> I personally don't think this Brahms quote is legit. It sounds far more like something Wagner would say.


Also you might add,who cares !


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

brianvds said:


> There has never been an entirely atheistic society anywhere, thus this statement has yet to be tested.


Atheistic composers have to borrow from the theistic worldview to be composers. They have to study Bach, Handel, Palestrina/


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

KenOC said:


> Thanks for that. I'll let Dmitri know! :lol:


 Even though Russia was communists, there were remnants of the original culture core which was Russian Orthodox. It is this culture core that was latent that allowed Russia to recover quickly after Communism collapsed.


----------



## BurningDesire

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Atheistic composers have to borrow from the theistic worldview to be composers. They have to study Bach, Handel, Palestrina/


No they don't o3o One could write great music and completely ignore the work of all 3 of them.


----------



## millionrainbows

moody said:


> Too late on both counts--what does that have to do with anything?
> Discipline is the answer to most of this nonsense , your striving for success is what should drive you on not some ridiculous myth.


"My father was a man who said "no" to God, and "yes" to alcohol." --Allan Pettersson


----------



## KenOC

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Even though Russia was communists, there were remnants of the original culture core which was Russian Orthodox. It is this culture core that was latent that allowed Russia to recover quickly after Communism collapsed.


Well, "recover" may not be exactly the right word, but things do seem to be getting back to normal:

"The Moscow Patriarchate apologized Thursday for a photo editor's 'absurd mistake,' an image of Patriarch Kirill badly photoshopped to disguise his expensive Breguet wristwatch...its shape and size fit the image of Kirill's $30,000 Breguet wristwatch, which was spotted by Ukrainian journalists in 2009."

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456238.html


----------



## Ebab

millionrainbows said:


> Then you shouldn't say that unless you do your homework and find out. Then tell us.
> 
> Here's what I got when I googled: [...]


All of these quotes seem based on the highly controversial book from 1962 by that gentleman Arthur M. Abell. At least this transcript from a program of SWR (a German public broadcaster) calls him a charlatan and his supposed interviews a fabrication from A to Z.

Personally, I don't have any stock in Brahms, but I hate false quotes.


----------



## Ondine

brianvds said:


> I think this is in fact the case with all creative acts, whether it be music, mathematics, visual art, or whatever else.


Yes, it is true.

I have found that through music. So, this is true for any creative endeavour aside from theisms or atheisms.


----------



## quack

Daniel Beller-McKenna in _Brahms and the German Spirit_ calls Abell a "not an altogether trustworthy source" and says the book _Talks with Great Composers_ is "highly fanciful and probably has little if any basis in reality". It's also worth noting that the book was first published by the London Spiritual Press, the great composer's words seem to be influenced by Abell's own beliefs. There's also the fact that Brahms rarely talked about such private things making it even more suspicious.


----------



## Schubussy

Andreas said:


> I instintively feel more sympathetic to composers who have a certain spiritual inclination. They don't have to subscribe to any copyrighted religion, though. I just find it pleasant if a composer doesn't consider our petty human everyday life as the alpha and omega of everything; if they recognize something greater and more important, to which humans can look up to and strive to, be it a god, nature, a myth, an idea, what have you. Something humbling.


It's religions that treat our existence as the entire reason for the universe. In an atheist worldview we are just a tiny insignificant spec in this immense universe (which is perhaps only a spec in an even bigger multiverse) that doesn't care about us at all.








What's more humbling than that?

edit: the way talkclassical shrinks the picture takes away the grandeur a bit but hey-ho.


----------



## millionrainbows

quack said:


> Daniel Beller-McKenna in _Brahms and the German Spirit_ calls Abell a "not an altogether trustworthy source" and says the book _Talks with Great Composers_ is "highly fanciful and probably has little if any basis in reality". It's also worth noting that the book was first published by the London Spiritual Press, the great composer's words seem to be influenced by Abell's own beliefs. There's also the fact that Brahms rarely talked about such private things making it even more suspicious.


Then why don't we require that peeyaj cite the source of the quote he used? He seems to have disappeared.


----------



## quack

Does it matter as to what website peeyaj got the quote from? He is quoting well known remarks from Abell's book, more of which can be found here http://www2.byui.edu/OnLineLearning/courses/hum/202/TalksWithGreatComposers.htm and quotes that are used in quite a few books.

The words seem more likely to be Abell's than Brahms but the question can still stand as to atheism and composers, just without the authority of Brahms having said it, which seems unlikely from what we know of Brahms.


----------



## millionrainbows

quack said:


> Does it matter as to what website peeyaj got the quote from? He is quoting well known remarks from Abell's book, more of which can be found here http://www2.byui.edu/OnLineLearning/courses/hum/202/TalksWithGreatComposers.htm and quotes that are used in quite a few books.
> 
> The words seem more likely to be Abell's than Brahms but the question can still stand as to atheism and composers, just without the authority of Brahms having said it, which seems unlikely from what we know of Brahms.


I think it is, indeed, relevant where the quote came from, and only fair that we call out for the source. *I'd *never be able to get away with such a stunt, would I?

Furthermore, such a false attribution effectively robs this entire thread of its credibility. Time to start over, if you want to transform this into a generalized subject.


----------



## peeyaj

I think the quote is legitimate.


----------



## millionrainbows

According to peeyaj, he got the quote from "reddit."

So, the question now becomes, "Is the Brahms quote legitimate, or is it a fabrication of Abell's?"

If the quote appears in various places, in other books, then are they all quoting Abell as well?

If you are going to invalidate Abell's book, then I feel it is ebab's responsibility to explain the multiple appearances of the quote.



Ebab said:


> All of these quotes seem based on the highly controversial book from 1962 by that gentleman Arthur M. Abell. At least this transcript from a program of SWR (a German public broadcaster) calls him a charlatan and his supposed interviews a fabrication from A to Z.
> 
> Personally, I don't have any stock in Brahms, but I hate false quotes.


*My computer will not display the PDF file. Was anybody else able to pull up this link? Is it a valid workable link?*

Also, Quack owes us some more evidence:



quack said:


> Daniel Beller-McKenna in Brahms and the German Spirit calls Abell a "not an altogether trustworthy source" and says the book Talks with Great Composers is "highly fanciful and probably has little if any basis in reality". It's also worth noting that the book was first published by the London Spiritual Press, the great composer's words seem to be influenced by Abell's own beliefs. There's also the fact that Brahms rarely talked about such private things making it even more suspicious.


----------



## Novelette

millionrainbows said:


> I think it is, indeed, relevant where the quote came from, and only fair that we call out for the source. *I'd *never be able to get away with such a stunt, would I?
> 
> Furthermore, such a false attribution effectively robs this entire thread of its credibility. Time to start over, if you want to transform this into a generalized subject.


I've tried to be far more wary of quotes. I cannot tell you how many times I've come across a compelling quote, researched it, and, to my chagrin, found either that it is known to be spurious, or worse, that there is not a single citation anywhere that I can use to trace its original form.

There was a fantastic such quote attributed to Milton: "Gratitude bestows reverence...". Though I liked the quote, I've read most of Milton's poetic, polemical, and didactic works, and I never came across anything of the sort. Website after website has this quote, but I never found one that states its exact source. I could not help but conclude that the quote is spurious.

I try to be more careful these days.


----------



## Ebab

peeyaj said:


> I think the quote is legitimate.


Well then, cite your source.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ebab said:


> Well then, cite your source.


He gave me a link to "reddit" in a PM, which pulled it up. That's where he got it, but that will not answer the question of its legitimacy. The focus should now be off peeyaj, and on the quote's legitimacy and provenance.


----------



## KenOC

Found this snippet in Wiki: "The question of Brahms and religiosity has been controversial and elicited accusations of fraud. One example is the book Talks With Great Composers, released in the 1950s by Arthur Abell, which contains an unconfirmed interview with Brahms and Joseph Joachim, replete with biblical references. The interview has been declared fraudulent by Brahms biographer Jan Swafford."


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Found this snippet in Wiki: "The question of Brahms and religiosity has been controversial and elicited accusations of fraud. One example is the book Talks With Great Composers, released in the 1950s by Arthur Abell, which contains an unconfirmed interview with Brahms and Joseph Joachim, replete with biblical references. The interview has been declared fraudulent by Brahms biographer Jan Swafford."


Yes, I just discovered that, KenOC. That seems to be ample proof that the Brahms quote is bogus, coming as it does from a biographer. Of course, some people always use WIK as a credible source when it suits their agenda, and dismiss it as bogus when it's used in a counter-argument which doesn't. Myself, I am willing to accept the WIK entry, as I am with all WIK entries offered.


----------



## Ebab

millionrainbows said:


> If the quote appears in various places, in other books, then are they all quoting Abell as well?
> 
> If you are going to invalidate Abell's book, then I feel it is ebab's responsibility to explain the multiple appearances of the quote.


Obviously, one can never prove the falsehood of a supposed quotation; one can only demand reliable sources. One source copies from the next, but if none is authoritative, how can it possibly by my "responsibility" to explain anything? Weird.


----------



## moody

millionrainbows said:


> "My father was a man who said "no" to God, and "yes" to alcohol." --Allan Pettersson


Are you some sort of Holy Joe--I don't want your attention,can you understand that ?


----------



## PetrB

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Atheistic composers have to borrow from the theistic worldview to be composers. They have to study Bach, Handel, Palestrina/


Uh, they have to study music, not theology.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> Uh, they have to study music, not theology.


Do you happen to know what the significance of the _logy_ in theo_logy_ is?


----------



## PetrB

Hilltroll72 said:


> Do you happen to know what the significance of the _logy_ in theo_logy_ is?


Uh, you're speaking of _Logos_, I suppose.
From Wiki:
Logos (/ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego "I say") is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "*a ground*", "*a plea*", "*an opinion*", "*an expectation*", "*word*," "*speech*," "*account*," "*reason*,"[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535-475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.[3]

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric.[5] _The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe._"

So, way down the line, Johnny-come-lately-like, we have _one spin on Logos_ from the Stoics. Do we decide to accept their meaning only? (The more universally understood and known meaning is "Reason," i.e. logic.)

It is man who has invented and made music, just as man invented and made the idea of a Deity. Many are moved and charmed by both inventions. Some don't care for or about one or both.

Believing in a deity, and / or a man-made dogma built up on and around that premise, and making that a qualification of any ones ability to make a good or "great" piece of music is beyond me.

And, an BTW afterthought:
*If you are alive, you have "The Spark."*

*We're each and all and everybody, electric:
Some people light it up more than others.*


----------



## peeyaj

If any wants to order the book in Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0806515651

here's a review in the amazon site:



> The skeptics raise ligitimate questions about the accuracy of this work, but they are overwrought in their judgment. For the last 2000 years, almost all of the great artists have believed that their inspiration came from God. Why should they be so upset that Arthur Abell claims that Brahms was part of this tradition?
> 
> True, Brahms was very reticent about his religious beliefs and the Cambridge Companion to Brahms says that "most" Brahms scholars "question" the account solely because of that reticence, but Abell met Brahms near the end of his life and some people become garrulous as they sense the end coming. Also, Abell was introduced to Brahms by a very close friend which may have loosened him up a bit. What's more, the Cambridge Companion concludes that accounts of other composers in this book are correct. And Patrick Kavanaugh reaches the same conclusion as this book about Brahm's spirituality without relying on Abell, so there is plenty of material to suggest that Abell's account is accurate in its main premise.
> 
> Abell was a prominent music critic for more than 20 years and got to know many composeers very well. He wrote this book from memory many years after his conversations with these composers, with all the unreliability that creates. But that's different than fabrication.
> 
> This book is charming, instructive and covers more than the spiritual values of the composers. Puccini's account about his first meeting with Caruso is alone worth the price of the book.
> 
> One should be skeptical of everything one reads, but don't pass this one up.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ebab said:


> ...if none is authoritative, how can it possibly by my "responsibility" to explain anything?


Because you used the invalidation to bolster your argument. Pay the fiddler.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> If any wants to order the book in Amazon:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0806515651
> 
> here's a review in the amazon site:


Ah ha! At last, peeyaj comes creeping out of hiding, after the smoke of heated battle has cleared, and offers his justification for this questionable quote!


----------



## PetrB

Whether is is a legitimate and authenticated quote or not, I do not agree with the statement or the premise within it.

Since that is what you were actually asking.....

Personally, I find it just another massively vain statement as to one person's take on spirituality.


----------



## peeyaj

I am not hiding.  There are just more important priorities in life than having an intense internet debate whether a particular composer is Atheist or not.


----------



## KenOC

This reminds me of a certain trial taking place right now. Aside from the principals, no real witnesses!


----------



## brianvds

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Atheistic composers have to borrow from the theistic worldview to be composers. They have to study Bach, Handel, Palestrina/


I have seen this exact type of argument used to argue for the notion that only religious people can be scientists. After all, modern scientists stand on the shoulders of such figures as Newton, who was deeply religious. But I think this perhaps gives too much credit to religion.



KenOC said:


> Well, "recover" may not be exactly the right word, but things do seem to be getting back to normal:
> 
> "The Moscow Patriarchate apologized Thursday for a photo editor's 'absurd mistake,' an image of Patriarch Kirill badly photoshopped to disguise his expensive Breguet wristwatch...its shape and size fit the image of Kirill's $30,000 Breguet wristwatch, which was spotted by Ukrainian journalists in 2009."
> 
> http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/bloggers-spot-patriarchs-pricey-watch/456238.html


I have never been to Russia, so I am heavily dependent on whatever the media have to say. But based on that, I do get the impression that Russia is run along semi-theocratic lines by the mafia in cahoots with the Russian Orthodox Church. I'm not at all convinced that it is much of an improvement on what went before. 



Schubussy said:


> View attachment 20222
> 
> What's more humbling than that?
> edit: the way talkclassical shrinks the picture takes away the grandeur a bit but hey-ho.


The Hubble Deep Field is one of the most awesome things ever. Most people don't appreciate it much because they don't know the difference between stars, constellations and galaxies, nor just what a small patch of sky this photo represents, and thus they do not appreciate what it is that they are looking at.



Novelette said:


> I've tried to be far more wary of quotes. I cannot tell you how many times I've come across a compelling quote, researched it, and, to my chagrin, found either that it is known to be spurious, or worse, that there is not a single citation anywhere that I can use to trace its original form.


"The problem with quotes on the internet is that they are often misattributed."

--Abraham Lincoln

My favourite quote that no one actually said and that has been variously attributed to Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> I am not hiding.  There are just more important priorities in life than having an intense internet debate whether a particular composer is Atheist or not.


Then, since you started the thread, you are shirking your responsibility.


----------



## peeyaj

millionrainbows said:


> Then, since you started the thread, you are shirking your responsibility.


I think a debate from time to time is nice. It improves someone neurons.  I am not responsible to the rabid posts some of the members made in this thread. I think a little civility would be tantamount for the order in this forum. I found the Brahms quote in reddit (topic: Your favorite composer's quotes) and was surprised with that. So I've posted a topic about that quote in TC. I should know, but I never imagined that it will garner mixed and heated responses. But I never regret it. I have read some genuinely articulate and well-thought responses (petrb, science, novellete etc...). It still in my conviction that the quote is genuine. I maybe wrong, (and will accept it if I am) but I stand for what I stand.

Given this all debate, it never invalidates the universal truth: *Brahms is a great and awesome composer.*


----------



## brianvds

peeyaj said:


> I think a debate from time to time is nice. It improves someone neurons.  I am not responsible to the rabid posts some of the members made in this thread.


Well, in any event it can be fun to post some controversial quote and then sit back, relax and watch the ensuing battles.


----------



## peeyaj

brianvds said:


> Well, in any event it can be fun to post some controversial quote and then sit back, relax and watch the ensuing battles.


And its very intellectually stimulating too. So much cognitive dissonance in one thread. 

PS: Some of the posts are really thought provoking.


----------



## Nereffid

From peeyaj's quoted Amazon review:


> The skeptics raise ligitimate questions about the accuracy of this work, but they are overwrought in their judgment. For the last 2000 years, almost all of the great artists have believed that their inspiration came from God. Why should they be so upset that Arthur Abell claims that Brahms was part of this tradition?


Given that the vast majority of people have believed (publicly, at least) that God existed, it's not too surprising the great artists should fall in line.
But before 2000 years ago? The Greeks had their Muses, of course, which strike me as rather more appropriate sources of inspiration than God. If I recall correctly the Old Testament God liked having psalms sung to him, but his New Testament manifestation, which is the one Christians seem to favour, demonstrated no interest whatsoever in the arts.


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> If I recall correctly the Old Testament God liked having psalms sung to him, but his New Testament manifestation, which is the one Christians seem to favour, demonstrated no interest whatsoever in the arts.


On the other hand, the newer one wasn't constantly telling his people to slaughter everybody in sight. A reasonable trade-off, seems to me.


----------



## moody

KenOC said:


> On the other hand, the newer one wasn't constantly telling his people to slaughter everybody in sight. A reasonable trade-off, seems to me.


Oh well, they do that without being told by God,but what about Jehad ??


----------



## Nereffid

THREAD DERAILMENT ALERT!!!!


----------



## millionrainbows

brianvds said:


> Well, in any event it can be fun to post some controversial quote and then sit back, relax and watch the ensuing battles.





peeyaj said:


> And its very intellectually stimulating too. So much cognitive dissonance in one thread.


You might want to try focussing a magnifying glass on an ant-bed. That sounds like it would be your cup of tea.  And as I see it, I engaged in no "battle" with anyone. I simply tried to verify the quote, which should have been peeyaj's responsibilty. I will bear this in mind in the future.



Nereffid said:


> THREAD DERAILMENT ALERT!!!!


You're too late; this thread was derailed by the first post. We might as well put the space to good use...


----------



## BurningDesire

KenOC said:


> On the other hand, the newer one wasn't constantly telling his people to slaughter everybody in sight. A reasonable trade-off, seems to me.


Nah he just threatens everybody with incomprehensible, unending suffering if they don't worship him.

But luckily for us, he isn't real


----------



## Jobis

These days people just want quick and easy fulfilment of their needs. Pop music in a sense is like fast food, and the typical person without any real interest in music generally doesn't make time to think about what they're listening to.

Its not really atheism as such that produces bad music, but a hedonistic, anti-intellectual culture.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> These days people just want quick and easy fulfilment of their needs. Pop music in a sense is like fast food, and the typical person without any real interest in music generally doesn't make time to think about what they're listening to. Its not really atheism as such that produces bad music, but a hedonistic, anti-intellectual culture.


Yes, it's materialism, and a failure to see and use music and art as conveyors of meaning. This is the responsibility of the consumer, and to blame pop music is off-mark. "I Am the Walrus" is art, and Samuel Beckett agrees.


----------



## Jobis

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's materialism, and a failure to see and use music and art as conveyors of meaning. This is the responsibility of the consumer, and to blame pop music is off-mark. "I Am the Walrus" is art, and Samuel Beckett agrees.


I'm not so much blaming pop music, (I like the beatles a lot) as the rejection of age-old music theory by new musicians because its somehow 'old' or 'restrictive' which is nonsense. I enjoy Thom Yorke's music for example, but as he dismisses most music theory it lessens his potential to make great music.

Also, pop music draws too much inspiration from other pop music, its like classical music has been wiped out of existence or is too uncool and bourgois to be associated with.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> I'm not so much blaming pop music, (I like the beatles a lot) as the rejection of age-old music theory by new musicians because its somehow 'old' or 'restrictive' which is nonsense. I enjoy Thom Yorke's music for example, but as he dismisses most music theory it lessens his potential to make great music.
> 
> Also, pop music draws too much inspiration from other pop music, its like classical music has been wiped out of existence or is too uncool and bourgois to be associated with.


I'm awaiting pop serialism. This is as close as I've heard:






or this:


----------



## Jobis

millionrainbows said:


> I'm awaiting pop serialism. This is as close as I've heard:


I'd like a little more objectivity in pop music. As a lot of bands don't write their material down their music which thus has too much of an improvised quality, (though I love the krautrock band Can who improvised whole albums) and its much harder to switch notes and keys around on a recording than it is on a manuscript.

Another thing about pop music is its too diplomatic! That's why there are fewer geniuses in pop music perhaps, because there is always another band member/producer/manager telling you how he wants the song to sound. I'd be happier to see more artists with complete artistic control, like Captain Beefheart, for example.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> I'd like a little more objectivity in pop music. As a lot of bands don't write their material down their music which thus has too much of an improvised quality, (though I love the krautrock band Can who improvised whole albums) and its much harder to switch notes and keys around on a recording than it is on a manuscript.
> 
> Another thing about pop music is its too diplomatic! That's why there are fewer geniuses in pop music perhaps, because there is always another band member/producer/manager telling you how he wants the song to sound. I'd be happier to see more artists with complete artistic control, like Captain Beefheart, for example.


Yes, I've got the Can stuff on DVD. Yes, pop music is like making movies, a participatory process...I think what distinguishes pop from CM is the lack of complete score, completely through-composed. Zappa is an exception...


----------



## Ebab

Es ist sicher gut, daß die Welt nur das schöne Werk, nicht auch seine Ursprünge, nicht seine Entstehungs- bedingungen kennt; denn die Kenntnis der Quellen, aus denen dem Künstler Eingebung floß, würde sie oftmals verwirren, abschrecken und so die Wirkungen des Vortrefflichen aufheben.

-Thomas Mann, _Tod in Venedig_​_It is surely as well that the world knows only the beautiful work itself, not also its origins, not the conditions of its genesis; for knowledge of the sources for the artist's inspiration would oftentimes confuse, deter and thus vitiate the effects of excellency._

-Thomas Mann, _Death in Venice_​


----------



## KenOC

Jobis said:


> That's why there are fewer geniuses in pop music perhaps...


Is that true? Some might argue that in recent years, at any point in time, there are quite a few more... 

Re Thomas Mann's "It is surely as well that the world knows only the beautiful work itself, not also its origins, not the conditions of its genesis," I learned long ago never to visit the kitchens in my favorite restaurants.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ebab said:


> Es ist sicher gut, daß die Welt nur das schöne Werk, nicht auch seine Ursprünge, nicht seine Entstehungs- bedingungen kennt; denn die Kenntnis der Quellen, aus denen dem Künstler Eingebung floß, würde sie oftmals verwirren, abschrecken und so die Wirkungen des Vortrefflichen aufheben.
> 
> -Thomas Mann, _Tod in Venedig_​_It is surely as well that the world knows only the beautiful work itself, not also its origins, not the conditions of its genesis; for knowledge of the sources for the artist's inspiration would oftentimes confuse, deter and thus vitiate the effects of excellency._
> 
> -Thomas Mann, _Death in Venice_​


_Nein, es ist sicher nicht gut... _ But seriously, how many classical fans are _not_ interested in also finding out about the origins of the great masterworks, the circumstances in which it was brought forth, even so far as to the political and social conditions of that time, and the emotions that might have moved their authors? Most of us actually are.

The general consensus seems to be that Brahms was a jerk for ever saying what he said. You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal. Of course, most humans have always been selfish, but nowadays even the best and the most talented are encouraged to look nowhere but into the mirror, all the while repeating:



> I intend on being a great composer...


There is only so much inspiration you can get out of that quote, and it is not much.Do they believe passionately in something (apart from the generic, insipid "love of humanity" that usually lasts only until someone steps on their foot in a crowd? Do they hold strong convictions? Are they willing to die for something? Are they even willing to argue about something that might get them socially ostracized? Hardly anymore.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Is that true? Some might argue that in recent years, at any point in time, there are quite a few more...
> 
> Re Thomas Mann's "It is surely as well that the world knows only the beautiful work itself, not also its origins, not the conditions of its genesis," I learned long ago never to visit the kitchens in my favorite restaurants.


There have got to be more -- simply because there are more of them!


----------



## PetrB

SiegendesLicht said:


> _Nein, es ist sicher nicht gut... _ But seriously, how many classical fans are _not_ interested in also finding out about the origins of the great masterworks, the circumstances in which it was brought forth, even so far as to the political and social conditions of that time, and the emotions that might have moved their authors? Most of us actually are.


It fascinates me that people think all those ancillary details add up to being able to 'better understand the music.' Context, etc. are all fine and well, but I don't believe they get you a scintilla nearer the pith of the music itself. (None of that sort of information -- for me -- has ever added any musical weight, meaning, to the music itself.)

It is exactly that cliche line of the buyer of a contemporary painting who says, "I'd like to meet the artist. I'll feel closer to the work, then." It is at least 50-50 if not more 80-50 that meeting the artist will only set up a conflict in what you think of the artwork 

Sitting down to compose a piece of any length is quite the opposite of any sort of "emotional" experience: to guess or attach any sort of emotional frame of reference to a work which was written over the course of months is not exactly going to get you any closer to the emotional import of a work. That it might be relevant is one of those dominant trail-over into the 20th century (and now the 21st as well) conceits from the romantic era.

[[ ADD: the above leads to what I think an interesting hypothetical posit:
If the listener needs to know all the ancillary details around and about a piece of music's having come into being, are the listener or the piece itself weak, lacking. Is the listener lacking something when they 'fail to get' the music as music without the ancillary non-musical information, or is the piece inherently so weak it cannot communicate its full meaning to bear on its own? ]]


----------



## Jobis

KenOC said:


> Is that true? Some might argue that in recent years, at any point in time, there are quite a few more...
> 
> Re Thomas Mann's "It is surely as well that the world knows only the beautiful work itself, not also its origins, not the conditions of its genesis," I learned long ago never to visit the kitchens in my favorite restaurants.


I'd love you to name a few geniuses of pop music. (I think as a style of music pop restricts real genius)


----------



## millionrainbows

PetrB said:


> It fascinates me that people think all those ancillary details add up to being able to 'better understand the music.' Context, etc. are all fine and well, but I don't believe they get you a scintilla nearer the pith of the music itself. (None of that sort of information -- for me -- has ever added any musical weight, meaning, to the music itself.)
> 
> It is exactly that cliche line of the buyer of a contemporary painting who says, "I'd like to meet the artist. I'll feel closer to the work, then." It is at least 50-50 if not more 80-50 that meeting the artist will only set up a conflict in what you think of the artwork
> 
> Sitting down to compose a piece of any length is quite the opposite of any sort of "emotional" experience: to guess or attach any sort of emotional frame of reference to a work which was written over the course of months is not exactly going to get you any closer to the emotional import of a work. That it might be relevant is one of those dominant trail-over into the 20th century (and now the 21st as well) conceits from the romantic era.
> 
> [[ ADD: the above leads to what I think an interesting hypothetical posit:
> If the listener needs to know all the ancillary details around and about a piece of music's having come into being, are the listener or the piece itself weak, lacking. Is the listener lacking something when they 'fail to get' the music as music without the ancillary non-musical information, or is the piece inherently so weak it cannot communicate its full meaning to bear on its own? ]]


Everybody always talks as if they can know a work solely from their own experience, without any context or background. I think experience is necessary, and education is desirable, the same as in any job. The only thing people know how to do inherently is reproduce.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brian Wilson: touched by God. Then, re-touched.


----------



## millionrainbows

PHREAD BLEEDAILMENT SPLUBURT!........................................llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll


----------



## brianvds

SiegendesLicht said:


> _
> The general consensus seems to be that Brahms was a jerk for ever saying what he said._


_

My impression from the bits that I have read about him was that he could be a bit of a tactless jerk, but was actually quite a kindly fellow once you got to know him, and was particularly fond of children. Thus on the whole perhaps a more pleasant man than the surface would suggest.




You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal. Of course, most humans have always been selfish, but nowadays even the best and the most talented are encouraged to look nowhere but into the mirror,...

Click to expand...

Yes, I think a certain cynicism has set in, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps we just have it too easy: the past century has been one of unprecedented peace and prosperity for our species, especially of course in the developed world. Maybe we need a few famines and plagues again, to rejuvenate our arts. _


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> My impression from the bits that I have read about him was that he could be a bit of a tactless jerk, but was actually quite a kindly fellow once you got to know him, and was particularly fond of children. Thus on the whole perhaps a more pleasant man than the surface would suggest.


Tchaikovsky was no fan of Brahms' music, but said this of him personally: "He is very sympathetic and I like his honesty and open-mindedness."


----------



## Ebab

SiegendesLicht said:


> _Nein, es ist sicher nicht gut... _ But seriously, how many classical fans are _not_ interested in also finding out about the origins of the great masterworks, the circumstances in which it was brought forth, even so far as to the political and social conditions of that time, and the emotions that might have moved their authors? Most of us actually are.


I see lovers of classical music today as a group generally more inclined to "work" for their enjoyment because the knowledge enhances their experience, certainly compared to the general "art-consuming" world. But it's true that broader audiences (of all art) today seem more interested in discussing the backgrounds you've mentioned; quite possibly this is actually an effect of the Internet. Before, especially when you've lived in a smaller town, you would only find a handful of people ready to discuss, and particularly when your interests were more specialized, you were out of luck. There were books and periodicals of course, but they were mostly a one-way street. Internet platforms have changed that.

For instance, when I was young, movies were never discussed that intensely by the broad public. Movies seemed to fall down from the sky, plus a little glamor and a little gossip, that's what audiences were interested in. They "liked" it or not, and that was essentially that. The idea that different cuts of a movie would be released, that, say, a filmed but eventually replaced ending would be available on a DVD - in my youth, that would certainly have confused audiences to the degree of rejection. Audiences have matured in that regard.

But back on the subject: Even with all of our books, the Internet, and all those discussions - do they enable us to really know the sources of an artist's inspiration? I doubt it.



> The general consensus seems to be that Brahms was a jerk for ever saying what he said.


I've already stated my doubts on the supposed Brahms quote (and it's not because I like or don't like the quote); I'll leave it at that.



> You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal.


I don't think people were all that different, that their true motives were so much more altruistic and idealistic. The position that all values are lost and everything is going downhill is as old as mankind.



> There is only so much inspiration you can get out of that quote, and it is not much.


You mean the Thomas Mann quote? I don't think it was intended to be inspiring; sobering actually. By the way, I posted the TM quote because I thought it would add an angle, not that it spoke in favor or against the original quote.



> Do they believe passionately in something (apart from the generic, insipid "love of humanity" that usually lasts only until someone steps on their foot in a crowd? Do they hold strong convictions? Are they willing to die for something? Are they even willing to argue about something that might get them socially ostracized? Hardly anymore.


Thomas Mann is actually an interesting example because he had this strong bourgeois and small-town background, and by his own nature was anything but a public fighter. In a way he was private, but he enjoyed being a celebrated writer, and possibly he would have enjoyed being the established Dichterfürst (poet-prince) of his society, like Goethe once was. He also had his strong roots in the Kaiserreich, and when the first, rather chaotic German democracy was established, he fought long with himself accepting it. Still, when the Nazis rose into power, he recognized that they overstepped the lines of humanity, and he did speak up because he felt it as his duty as an artist, and it was _not_ convenient. No, he did not die for his conviction - you can accuse him of that - he emigrated and lived in prosperity, but he did his share, in his way, by publicizing his convictions, lecture tours, radio speeches transmitted over the BBC (and they had quite an impact in Germany). He showed the world that there was a different Germany, and I think it made a difference.

Where did he take his inspiration? I don't think he felt it came from God, rather from his trust in the positive effects of beauty and knowledge, possibly from his family (being a link in chain), and, in fact, a "love of humanity". Feel free to mock that all you like.


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> Tchaikovsky was no fan of Brahms' music, but said this of him personally: "He is very sympathetic and I like his honesty and open-mindedness."


That was also Dvorak's experience, and the experience of plenty others whom Brahms helped to promote. I think we tend to make too much of his crustiness. There is of course always a desire to see artists and composers as weird or over the top in some or other way, but Brahms does not lend himself well to it: he was a psychologically balanced and basically normal guy. So now we desperately dig around in biographies to find signs of weirdness.


----------



## Nereffid

SiegendesLicht said:


> You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal.


Citations please.


----------



## Geo Dude

Without going through ten pages, has anyone verified _either_ of the Brahms quotes cited in the first two pages? My knowledge of him (from Swafford's biography, at least) is that he was a fierce agnostic (or atheist) throughout his life and that that continued into his old age. Those two quotes have the smell of Darwin's deathbed conversion quote about them.


----------



## KenOC

Actually this has all been discussed. Your going through the ten pages would be better than us rehashing it for you!


----------



## Geo Dude

Forgive me, it's late and asking a yes or no question didn't strike me as being too lazy.


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> *N.B. the below quote was posted by Brianvds, who is not the author.*
> 
> "You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal. Of course, most humans have always been selfish, but nowadays even the best and the most talented are encouraged to look nowhere but into the mirror,..."


Right! An utterly solipsistic viewpoint as per your mind being the universe in which all others are universally interested, and without awareness that others are also each a universe to be addressed as individual, is not a healthy prescription for art which communicates much, to many, at all.

One does not have to think much of the audience when making a communicative piece, at least not their every general collective taste, but one does have to see others as an entity to which one must be of some interest in order to expect their attention to your work at all.

Along with the navel-gazing, the self-absorbed are not likely to happen to think they are likely to have a better chance to communicate something worthwhile if they get the ego out of the way and at least think of serving the craft -- as servants of something larger than themselves -- rather than auteurs whose every twitch and concern is also of utmost interest to the rest of the world.

Overheard, two women looking upon a Julian Schnabel from his massive heavy application of paint with embedded broken cheap white dinner plates period, "I'm all for self-expression. It just has to express something to me."


----------



## brianvds

Just a note to PetrB: I did not write the bit you quote me as writing. I quoted it from someone else. 

Perhaps we should start a thread about composers that quoted bits that other composers quoted from someone else...


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> Just a note to PetrB: I did not write the bit you quote me as writing. I quoted it from someone else.


Clarified. The heat is off, until someone screams at you for an attribution and a source citation, that is.


----------



## peeyaj

Question: Do really old age and proximity to death makes someone more religious? Like they were clinging to some sort of hope in afterlife. Maybe, maybe, Abell justifies the Brahms quote because Brahms is at the end of his life.. (1896, when he talked Brahms and 1897, year of Brahms death).


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Overheard, two women looking upon a Julian Schnabel from his massive heavy application of paint with embedded broken cheap white dinner plates period, "I'm all for self-expression. It just has to express something to me."


I can buy that. Otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## Andreas

peeyaj said:


> Question: Do really old age and proximity to death makes someone more religious? Like they were clinging to some sort of hope in afterlife. Maybe, maybe, Abell justifies the Brahms quote because Brahms is at the end of his life.. (1896, when he talked Brahms and 1897, year of Brahms death).


I think melancholy characters are, in a way, close to death all their life.


----------



## Nereffid

peeyaj said:


> Question: Do really old age and proximity to death makes someone more religious? *Like they were clinging to some sort of hope in afterlife.* Maybe, maybe, Abell justifies the Brahms quote because Brahms is at the end of his life.. (1896, when he talked Brahms and 1897, year of Brahms death).


Like you seem to be clinging to some sort of hope that the Brahms quote is real?


----------



## moody

peeyaj said:


> Question: Do really old age and proximity to death makes someone more religious? Like they were clinging to some sort of hope in afterlife. Maybe, maybe, Abell justifies the Brahms quote because Brahms is at the end of his life.. (1896, when he talked Brahms and 1897, year of Brahms death).


No it doesn't I can assure you.


----------



## Ukko

Andreas said:


> I think melancholy characters are, in a way, close to death all their life.


In a way, maybe. Melancholy is no _closer_ to death than the other humours, but may be better acquainted with the concept.


----------



## BurningDesire

SiegendesLicht said:


> _Nein, es ist sicher nicht gut... _ But seriously, how many classical fans are _not_ interested in also finding out about the origins of the great masterworks, the circumstances in which it was brought forth, even so far as to the political and social conditions of that time, and the emotions that might have moved their authors? Most of us actually are.
> 
> The general consensus seems to be that Brahms was a jerk for ever saying what he said. You know, I think one of the reasons for the modern decline of art (and modern art, compared to the previous eras, is almost certainly in decline) is that modern man has lost the ability to look up to something higher than himself, be it God, the beloved or some ideal. Of course, most humans have always been selfish, but nowadays even the best and the most talented are encouraged to look nowhere but into the mirror, all the while repeating:
> 
> There is only so much inspiration you can get out of that quote, and it is not much.Do they believe passionately in something (apart from the generic, insipid "love of humanity" that usually lasts only until someone steps on their foot in a crowd? Do they hold strong convictions? Are they willing to die for something? Are they even willing to argue about something that might get them socially ostracized? Hardly anymore.


I don't only look to myself for inspiration. I'm inspired by the world around me, beautiful things I see, that I experience, that I hear. I am also inspired by certain trains of thought that I have and ideas that come to me. Is it not considerably more egotistical to pretend that you are this holy receiver of transmissions from some god? I think that is ludicrously egotistical, and I really resent theists acting like all secularists are just totally selfish and self-absorbed. Also, there is no decline of art in our current time, at least in the first world. Typically the main times we see genuine declines in art are when religious people decide they have the authority to impose limits on what artists can create under serious penalties. Sure, artists will rise through adversity, but to argue that more freedom causes a decline in art is absurd.


----------



## BurningDesire

Jobis said:


> I'd love you to name a few geniuses of pop music. (I think as a style of music pop restricts real genius)


Well it depends on how broadly you use that term, but.... Damon Albarn, Frank Zappa, Bjork, Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Tom Waits, Brian Wilson, Captain Beefheart

I personally don't respect any of them inherently less than classical composers (I actually don't really make the distinction between pop and classical composers for many of them)


----------



## Jobis

BurningDesire said:


> Well it depends on how broadly you use that term, but.... Damon Albarn, Frank Zappa, Bjork, Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Tom Waits, Brian Wilson, Captain Beefheart
> 
> I personally don't respect any of them inherently less than classical composers (I actually don't really make the distinction between pop and classical composers for many of them)


eh I feel like they could be more amazing with an in depth knowledge of theory.

Its obvious they are brimming full of talent, but how much of that is lost by that lack of understanding?


----------



## BurningDesire

Jobis said:


> eh I feel like they could be more amazing with an in depth knowledge of theory.
> 
> Its obvious they are brimming full of talent, but how much of that is lost by that lack of understanding?


Bjork was trained in a conservatory, and Frank studied scores and the writings of composers he admired. Both know theory :3 I'm pretty sure Paul McCartney knows theory too, and same with Wilson. However, it really doesn't matter _that_ much. Theory really can help a composer understand what they're doing better, but there are plenty who could create great things with only the simplest understanding of theory in an intellectual sense, or none whatsoever in that sense. Jimi Hendrix is a great example of a person who composed entirely from instinct, learning from others through sound alone. His music is often times beautiful beyond words, just as is the case of composers like Ives and Chopin and many others who had a comprehensive musical education. Even on our own forum we have Crudblud who hasn't been taught any theory (to my knowledge), and he writes brilliant music


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ebab said:


> You mean the Thomas Mann quote? I don't think it was intended to be inspiring; sobering actually. By the way, I posted the TM quote because I thought it would add an angle, not that it spoke in favor or against the original quote.
> 
> Thomas Mann is actually an interesting example because he had this strong bourgeois and small-town background, and by his own nature was anything but a public fighter. In a way he was private, but he enjoyed being a celebrated writer, and possibly he would have enjoyed being the established Dichterfürst (poet-prince) of his society, like Goethe once was. He also had his strong roots in the Kaiserreich, and when the first, rather chaotic German democracy was established, he fought long with himself accepting it. Still, when the Nazis rose into power, he recognized that they overstepped the lines of humanity, and he did speak up because he felt it as his duty as an artist, and it was _not_ convenient. No, he did not die for his conviction - you can accuse him of that - he emigrated and lived in prosperity, but he did his share, in his way, by publicizing his convictions, lecture tours, radio speeches transmitted over the BBC (and they had quite an impact in Germany). He showed the world that there was a different Germany, and I think it made a difference.
> 
> Where did he take his inspiration? I don't think he felt it came from God, rather from his trust in the positive effects of beauty and knowledge, possibly from his family (being a link in chain), and, in fact, a "love of humanity". Feel free to mock that all you like.


My dear friend, I _absolutely did not mean_ the Thomas Mann quote! The only part of my post related to him was the first paragraph, the rest of had already nothing to do with the words you quoted. Who am I, after all, to put down the great master?! He was certainly an inspired man, and I have great respect of him (even though I am not as familiar with his work as I would like to be - that is still in the future). Besides, that "modern" mentality of believing in nothing and holding nothing sacred seems to have originated sometime between WWI and the 1960s, and Thomas Mann had his own mentality formed way before that time, in 1960 he was not even around any more. I certainly understand how you feel (and you did not sound very pleased in your last post), and I would have felt the same way if I saw someone put him down they way you thought I was doing.

It must have been my poor choice of words that led to your misunderstanding me, and I am sorry for that. I was a bit tired and sleepy last night while writing this, but that does not excuse me. I do apologize.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> Like you seem to be clinging to some sort of hope that the Brahms quote is real?


It is (or at least was) common enough there is a phrase for it: death-bed conversion.

The person aged or often _in extremis_ has either previously rejected religion, or never having had it, or having earlier converted from one faith to another, wants to get it in a hurry -- a lot of that motivation the rank doubt and fear around the various superstitions held that if one is not shriven in one dogma or another you may just go to hell -- which requires a resurrected believe in the person converting that there are a heaven and hell.

Often enough, the death-bed conversions were people who thought, at least at the moment, that they had suddenly changed their mind on the possibility of "an afterlife" and the ranking or heirarchy involved. Many deathbed conversions are not so much people who of a sudden "believe," but programmed with their culture's notions of afterlife, and how one may or may not be treated after death, they hedge their bets, call in that priest or Rabbi: they want the ritual and acceptance in to the organization they believe holds those keys… "Just In Case."


----------



## Geo Dude

Geo Dude said:


> Forgive me, it's late and asking a yes or no question didn't strike me as being too lazy.


Well, I take it back. This thread was worth reading, some parts were quite entertaining.

As I suspected, the quote was falsified. Or perhaps it was real...I could _swear_ I saw a quote by H.L. Mencken saying that you have to believe in God to be a good writer.

By the way, if anyone wants real information on Brahms--and he is worth reading up on, a very complex and fascinating man--Jan Swafford's biography is excellent.


----------



## Ebab

SiegendesLicht said:


> My dear friend, I _absolutely did not mean_ the Thomas Mann quote! The only part of my post related to him was the first paragraph, the rest of had already nothing to do with the words you quoted. Who am I, after all, to put down the great master?! He was certainly an inspired man, and I have great respect of him (even though I am not as familiar with his work as I would like to be - that is still in the future). Besides, that "modern" mentality of believing in nothing and holding nothing sacred seems to have originated sometime between WWI and the 1960s, and Thomas Mann had his own mentality formed way before that time, in 1960 he was not even around any more. I certainly understand how you feel (and you did not sound very pleased in your last post), and I would have felt the same way if I saw someone put him down they way you thought I was doing.
> 
> It must have been my poor choice of words that led to your misunderstanding me, and I am sorry for that. I was a bit tired and sleepy last night while writing this, but that does not excuse me. I do apologize.


No need at all to apologize; it was in fact in part a misunderstanding, and re-reading your posting I realize that I'm probably the responsible part. I really appreciate your concerns, and thank you!

But my posting was not entirely based on the assumption that you were referring to Thomas Mann. I really meant him as an example for a man who was hesitant, who was not always sure about his convictions and if and how to stand up for them, what to be ready to give up; a man who was somewhat introverted and distanced, but strove for this excellency and therefore (sometimes with the help of some mild pushes from his wife and daughter), became ready to take responsibility and to assume a role that he was not really born for.

It's not always the men who are born to fight, who never have a doubt, that eventually make a difference. It happened then, and it happens now; the only difference is that in hindsight, we have a clear vision while the present is blurry. I disagree about a general loss of values; a lot is wrong now and a lot was wrong then, but there were and are men and women with an idea and the capability for the constructive and the beautiful. I mean, if there aren't, why don't we just hang ourselves? There were always criminals and crooks and charlatans, and always good reason to point fingers at the negative.

Maybe I can put it this way ... Thomas Mann's work still astounds (some of) us today not because he was such a supernaturally better or stronger person than we are. What he was able to do is to take a step away from himself, coolly capture his own condition with all its doubts and weaknesses, and most skillfully put that into words. And in a way, he was able to apply that process onto his own life, make a snapshot of his idea of the excellent person he could be, analyze what he was missing and what it would cost, and, slowly, grow into the gap.

I realize I'm not even entirely sure why I'm posting this in our given context; probably I'm not doing a very good job trying to make my point that we're not living in the first truly dark age of man.


----------



## TresPicos

I think God whispers in the ears of atheist composers too.


----------



## Cheyenne

Geo Dude said:


> Or perhaps it was real...I could _swear_ I saw a quote by H.L. Mencken saying that you have to believe in God to be a good writer.


Hey, yeah, I saw that too! It was in an essay praising his good friend William Jennings Bryan, if I remember correctly.


----------



## PetrB

TresPicos said:


> I think God whispers in the ears of atheist composers too.


That's rather sweet, though it has that nasty feeling similar to the aggressive Christian addressing the person who has made it plain they are atheist, "Well, Jesus loves you anyway."


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> That's rather sweet, though it has that nasty feeling similar to the aggressive Christian addressing the person who has made it plain they are atheist, "Well, Jesus loves you anyway."


That 'nasty feeling' must come on you easily. No Muse need whisper either?


----------



## brianvds

Cheyenne said:


> Hey, yeah, I saw that too! It was in an essay praising his good friend William Jennings Bryan, if I remember correctly.


No, it wasn't an essay. It was a remark he made in a letter to Mrs Mary Baker Eddy, in which he praised her for her scientific work and compared her with the great Bryan. :angel:


----------



## PetrB

brianvds said:


> No, *it wasn't an essay.* It was a remark he made in a letter to Mrs May Baker Eddy, in which he praised her for her scientific work and compared her with the great Bryan. :angel:


People wrote *much longer letters* back then. (No texting, no eMails


----------



## PetrB

Hilltroll72 said:


> That 'nasty feeling' must come on you easily. No Muse need whisper either?


Apology due and given.

You were just speaking your mind. I should have said your statement was just enough of a sort that it made me recall that other type of more smug and aggressive tack... because so many people in the west are Christian or nominally so, such things as you said are commonplace and not thought of as condescending to those who think differently than.

I did sincerely mean the 'rather sweet.' Though I do not agree at all with the romantic notions of "inspiration" I do believe some of our best ideas do not come from the core of ego; they often enough do sometimes seem to come from 'outside.' I've just never been too busy with where those unattributable ideas do come from.


----------



## Andreas

PetrB said:


> That's rather sweet, though it has that nasty feeling similar to the aggressive Christian addressing the person who has made it plain they are atheist, "Well, Jesus loves you anyway."


It would be out of character for him no to.


----------



## Ebab

PetrB said:


> It fascinates me that people think all those ancillary details add up to being able to 'better understand the music.' Context, etc. are all fine and well, but I don't believe they get you a scintilla nearer the pith of the music itself. (None of that sort of information -- for me -- has ever added any musical weight, meaning, to the music itself.)


Learning about the background, at the risk of ending up with false or misleading information, still helps me experiencing the music. When I widen my mental horizon a bit through knowledge, I gain this new spot where the work can comfortably fit in, so to speak. I agree, this doesn't change the emotional confrontation with the actual music one bit (even bears the danger of preconceived notions), but my mind/soul/... is more open and ready to absorb, and I have a place where to store the music, find connections etc.



> [[ ADD: the above leads to what I think an interesting hypothetical posit:
> If the listener needs to know all the ancillary details around and about a piece of music's having come into being, are the listener or the piece itself weak, lacking. Is the listener lacking something when they 'fail to get' the music as music without the ancillary non-musical information, or is the piece inherently so weak it cannot communicate its full meaning to bear on its own? ]]


Great pieces of art have multiple layers, can be experienced from different angles; the facets manifest differently for listeners with different backgrounds, but the core remains the same. Ideally, the work should communicate its core to everybody.


----------



## Cheyenne

PetrB said:


> People wrote *much longer letters* back then. (No texting, no eMails


How I wish people still wrote letters like back in the day!


----------



## PetrB

Ebab said:


> Learning about the background, at the risk of ending up with false or misleading information, still helps me experiencing the music. When I widen my mental horizon a bit through knowledge, I gain this new spot where the work can comfortably fit in, so to speak. I agree, this doesn't change the emotional confrontation with the actual music one bit (even bears the danger of preconceived notions), but my mind/soul/... is more open and ready to absorb, and I have a place where to store the music, find connections etc.
> 
> Great pieces of art have multiple layers, can be experienced from different angles; the facets manifest differently for listeners with different backgrounds, but the core remains the same. Ideally, the work should communicate its core to everybody.


I think some took what I said as a an ukase, "Dump and ignore all history." Nonsense, of course. Knowing as much as one can about the era, the ethos of the era, the history of the era, all very much help at least to better explain why a particular piece from a specific era is "why it is like that."

But... I think many really think it helps them better "guess" most directly what the composer was feeling, thinking, at the time they wrote it. I think that is nonsensical.

Telling people who really think they are accessing rather directly what the composer was thinking - feeling when the composer made a particular piece that they are delusional might shock them so much that they'd fall off their Unicorn.


----------



## starry

PetrB said:


> People wrote *much longer letters* back then. (No texting, no eMails


There are blogs, websites and forums though where people can write longer things.

As for the origins of creativity how can we fully ascertain that if we still don't fully understand how the brain works?


----------



## TresPicos

PetrB said:


> That's rather sweet, though it has that nasty feeling similar to the aggressive Christian addressing the person who has made it plain they are atheist, "Well, Jesus loves you anyway."


Gee, sorry for being nasty, then...

I'm just saying that the religious camp would first have to prove the existence of that lack of inspiration it quite arbitrarily attributes to atheist composers. And if inspiration behind music would be God whispering in the ears of religious composers, an explanation would also be needed regarding why God wouldn't whisper in the ears of atheist composers as well.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Ebab said:


> It's not always the men who are born to fight, who never have a doubt, that eventually make a difference.


Bach and Bruckner (if we get back to music) were not fighting men either, but they (especially Bruckner) were as convinced of the existence of someone greater then themselves, namely God, and the need to write their music in such a way as to glorify him, as we are convinced of the existence of gravity of some other physical fact. That is what I would call deep conviction, even if they never had to fight for it.



> I disagree about a general loss of values; a lot is wrong now and a lot was wrong then, but there were and are men and women with an idea and the capability for the constructive and the beautiful.


Sure. I never said everything was fine back then. And yet, somehow we have managed to come from Bach, Bruckner, Schubert, Schumann etc. to something like 4'33, which, I am sure, those men would laugh at, if they were told some day it would be considered art. From Wagner, the master poet and composer, we have come to the men who take a Wagner opera, stock it up with rats, Nazis and suchlike things and then claim this is their artistic vision.

Ah, yes, and in the other arts we have come from Da Vinci and Caspar Friedrich to the "Black Square" and Andy Warhol's soup cans (not to mention other, even more weird attempt at art), from Michelangelo to the notorious work of one Andres Serrano, etc. I am not saying those examples are _all_ of modern art, but the very fact that they exist, are admired, exhibited and sold for huge amounts of money, shows that both modern artists and their admirers operate on a different, more "anarchistic" (I don't mean political anarchism, but rather the internal "anything goes" mode of thinking) mentality. Artistic freedom used to mean the freedom to produce art that the current political regime would not like. Now it means the freedom to take anything, no matter how ugly, meaningless or repulsive, and claim it to be a work of art on a par with great masterworks. And no, I am not in any way proposing that this freedom be limited.



> I mean, if there aren't, why don't we just hang ourselves? There were always criminals and crooks and charlatans, and always good reason to point fingers at the negative.


Why, because we still have those great masters from the past to admire and draw comfort from, of course. 
I am not saying everything was so good before and so bad now. We have come a long way forward in creating a civilization of peace and prosperity (and isn't the ability for progress exactly that which makes our civilization great?), with a more universal access to great art than ever before. But we also seem to have lost something along the way.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> It is (or at least was) common enough there is a phrase for it: death-bed conversion.
> 
> The person aged or often _in extremis_ has either previously rejected religion, or never having had it, or having earlier converted from one faith to another, wants to get it in a hurry -- a lot of that motivation the rank doubt and fear around the various superstitions held that if one is not shriven in one dogma or another you may just go to hell -- which requires a resurrected believe in the person converting that there are a heaven and hell.
> 
> Often enough, the death-bed conversions were people who thought, at least at the moment, that they had suddenly changed their mind on the possibility of "an afterlife" and the ranking or heirarchy involved. Many deathbed conversions are not so much people who of a sudden "believe," but programmed with their culture's notions of afterlife, and how one may or may not be treated after death, they hedge their bets, call in that priest or Rabbi: they want the ritual and acceptance in to the organization they believe holds those keys… "Just In Case."


You write with great certainty on this. Have you any evidence, real life cases, etc?


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> That's rather sweet, though it has that nasty feeling similar to the aggressive Christian addressing the person who has made it plain they are atheist, "Well, Jesus loves you anyway."


Just why is it Christians who are aggressive? What about atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc - are they not aggressive to people who have made it plain they are believers? Aren't they just as aggressive and fundamentalist in their beliefs as anyone else?


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Just why is it Christians who are aggressive? What about atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc - are they not aggressive to people who have made it plain they are believers? Aren't they just as aggressive and fundamentalist in their beliefs as anyone else?


Outspoken? Certainly in some cases. Aggressive? Not that I know of. Fundamentalist? Not in the way that term is commonly used.

I sometimes think that people of faith wish atheists would just _*shut up*_. When they speak, that's irritating and it seems (to them) aggressive. But atheists don't knock on my door, telemarket me, or ask me to send money to them.


----------



## Antihero

Mahlerian said:


> Nothing I've heard indicates that he was attracted to children as such. He was interested in teenage students (not prepubescents, as the word pedophile indicates) because he thought they were more likely to be virgins than older women.
> 
> Not that I'm interested in defending Bruckner's faults, but I think the use of the word pedophile is inappropriate (because intended to provoke an emotional response) except where it specifically applies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia


----------



## Antihero

Mahlerian said:


> Nothing I've heard indicates that he was attracted to children as such. He was interested in teenage students (not prepubescents, as the word pedophile indicates) because he thought they were more likely to be virgins than older women.
> 
> Not that I'm interested in defending Bruckner's faults, but I think the use of the word pedophile is inappropriate (because intended to provoke an emotional response) except where it specifically applies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia


----------



## Ukko

KenOC said:


> [...]
> I sometimes think that people of faith wish atheists would just _*shut up*_. When they speak, that's irritating and it seems (to them) aggressive. But atheists don't knock on my door, telemarket me, or ask me to send money to them.


Of course they do. Selling vacuum cleaners isn't restricted to 'religionists'.


----------



## tdc

BurningDesire said:


> As an atheist AND a composer, I really don't appreciate some of the comments by some people in this thread. Furthermore, I think attributing art and inspiration to gods and religion really cheapens them. Art comes from people, real flesh and blood people. It comes from their feelings and their thoughts and experiences, from their imaginations, from their hard work and sincere effort and desire to create. It comes from hearts and minds. I find that considerably more beautiful than people randomly being selected as vessels of some dictator in the sky. To say an artist's work is actually not theirs but the work of somebody or something else is an insulting absurdity. A person's background does not determine whether or not they can be a great artist either.


I think it can be looked at in different ways. A religious person may think it is hubris for an individual to try to take sole credit for a piece of art without thanking some kind of higher power. Can you name an example of a composer saying their work was created by God? I'd like to hear the context of the quote. Otherwise it just seems you are creating a straw man here and then proceeding to beat him up. Also, I don't see how your views couldn't be taken as insulting to someone who does believe in God. If you want respect for your beliefs don't you think it is reasonable that you should then also offer some respect and tolerance for others beliefs?

For the record I don't agree with the Brahms quote.


----------



## Mahlerian

Antihero said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronophilia


Your point? If he showed no marked interest in pre-adolescent girls, he's not a pedophile, period.


----------



## Ukko

tdc said:


> I think it can be looked at in different ways. A religious person may think it is hubris for an individual to try to take sole credit for a piece of art without thanking some kind of higher power. Can you name an example of a composer saying their work was created by God? I'd like to hear the context of the quote. Otherwise it just seems you are creating a straw man here and then proceeding to beat him up. Also, I don't see how your views couldn't be taken as insulting to someone who does believe in God. If you want respect for your beliefs don't you think it is reasonable that you should then also offer some respect and tolerance for others beliefs?
> 
> For the record I don't agree with the Brahms quote.


_BD_'s use of the indefinite plural 3rd person pronoun indicates that it's gods and religions that are cheapened by being held responsible for music (including music of questionable quality). I can't argue with that.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Outspoken? Certainly in some cases. Aggressive? Not that I know of. Fundamentalist? Not in the way that term is commonly used.
> 
> I sometimes think that people of faith wish atheists would just _*shut up*_. When they speak, that's irritating and it seems (to them) aggressive. But atheists don't knock on my door, telemarket me, or ask me to send money to them.


No, but Dawkins has had his own TV programme where he is as pushy as any televangelist.

Where people of faith object is where atheists like Dawkins are so incredibly ill-informed in making their case. And not just the faith brigade. Humanists are sick of this type of ranting as it gets them a bad name. As one of them put it: 'Dawkins has become a figure of fun, shaking his fist at imaginary fairies at the bottom of the garden!'


----------



## tdc

Hilltroll72 said:


> _BD_'s use of the indefinite plural 3rd person pronoun indicates that it's gods and religions that are cheapened by being held responsible for music (including music of questionable quality). I can't argue with that.


:lol:

I don't personally agree, but your post cracked me up. I believe in the ancient teaching _we are all one_ allowing the "creator" to know and experience itself. I personally don't think it is possible to cheapen or to not serve the "creator" in anything we do. I also use the term "creator" in a broad sense as in referencing and pointing the way towards something infinite that cannot be described or put into words. I have a deep respect for all religions, but think they have been largely misused and corrupted. Religions have for the most part been made to look bad in the West, because Western society (the system not referring to all people) worships money and the egoistic self, the accumulation of material items etc. Our current way of life here is not really compatible with religion, generally speaking. To look at the current state of religion and say it is bad, is like using McDonalds as an example to suggest food is bad.


----------



## Geo Dude

KenOC said:


> But atheists don't knock on my door, telemarket me, or ask me to send money to them.


And they certainly don't kill people in the name of atheism...which is sort of the point of Dawkins, etc. (Or push legislation aimed at discriminating against people with different religious beliefs, for that matter. (Also part of their point.)

In other words, there are different levels of 'aggression' out there.

EDIT: For what it's worth, virtually all of the arguments I've seen made against Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris (this can hardly be said of Dennett) both by religious and non-religious come down to "They're mean," rather than "They're ignorant of arguments for and against God's existence."


----------



## millionrainbows

Do you agree with this Boulez quote?

"I know several young composers who are Judeo-Christians. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy obsolescence because they are utterly lacking in innovation. Their work is purely emotional. No Christian has ever been, or ever will be, a great serial composer." - Pierre Boulez, 2006


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> "No Christian has ever been, or ever will be, a great serial composer." - Pierre Boulez, 2006


Perhaps because the term "great serial composer" is an oxymoron?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Perhaps because the term is an oxymoron?


No, no...it's because, like I explained to Kim Beazley, tonality's gravity represents God and the Newtonian universe, and serialism represents the Humanism which began to creep-in and erode tonality, until we were left with a relativistic, Godless, non-centered universe created by Man.


----------



## Geo Dude

millionrainbows said:


> Do you agree with this Boulez quote?
> 
> "I know several young composers who are Judeo-Christians. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy obsolescence because they are utterly lacking in innovation. Their work is purely emotional. No Christian has ever been, or ever will be, a great serial composer." - Pierre Boulez, 2006


Kudos, that was genius. 

Errr...I mean...clearly that is a real quote that merits serious discussion.


----------



## DavidA

Geo Dude said:


> And they certainly don't kill people in the name of atheism...which is sort of the point of Dawkins, etc. (Or push legislation aimed at discriminating against people with different religious beliefs, for that matter. (Also part of their point.)
> 
> In other words, there are different levels of 'aggression' out there.
> 
> EDIT: For what it's worth, virtually all of the arguments I've seen made against Dawkins, Hitchens, & Harris (this can hardly be said of Dennett) both by religious and non-religious come down to "They're mean," rather than "They're ignorant of arguments for and against God's existence."


Moa formed an atheist state where religion was abolished and believers (of all faiths) persecuted and killed. He was the greatest mass killer of all time with an estimated 50 million or more deaths. History. The second was Stalin's (also atheist) state.
But we perhaps need to get back to Brahms. 
I don't think that Brahms was conventionally religious but he certainly had a faith. Interesting that the passages he chose for the requiem were from the Lutheran Bible and not any church liturgy.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Do you agree with this Boulez quote?
> 
> "I know several young composers who are Judeo-Christians. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy obsolescence because they are utterly lacking in innovation. Their work is purely emotional. No Christian has ever been, or ever will be, a great serial composer." - Pierre Boulez, 2006


In my opinion there is no such thing as a great serial composer anyway. I cannot listen to such stuff.

As for Boulez, wasn't he also the one who applauded Mao's red guards during the murderous Cultural Revolution? So why should we take his opinions seriously?


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> In my opinion there is no such thing as a great serial composer anyway. I cannot listen to such stuff.


"Great" is just old hero-worship rhetoric of the past, so that doesn't bother me. Do they make a Webern statuette you can put on your spinet piano, on a lace doily? :lol:



DavidA said:


> As for Boulez, wasn't he also the one who applauded Mao's red guards during the murderous Cultural Revolution?


Give us a link or source on that if you want it discussed.



DavidA said:


> So why should we take his opinions seriously?


Because he's a great composer. Hell, he had the entire French government backing him, built IRCAM, and is a very respected conductor.
It appears you are negatively biased, and not fully cognizant of some key information which is necessary for a productive discussion.


----------



## brianvds

Cheyenne said:


> How I wish people still wrote letters like back in the day!


If a biographer wishes to write a book about some famous person who lived in the 19th century, a major source of information is the letters that the person wrote and received. I wonder how on Earth future biographers are going to go about it when they write about today's people... 



Mahlerian said:


> Your point? If he showed no marked interest in pre-adolescent girls, he's not a pedophile, period.


The problem is really that the word "pedophile" has come to be used in two completely different ways. One is the scientific way, in which the word does indeed have a fairly specific meaning and is not loaded with all manner of moral or emotional baggage. The other is the way in which it is used by the press and general public, in which a pedophile is a person attracted to anyone "under age", which in turn means "whatever age I consider to be too young or is illegal, in whatever jurisdiction." In the latter usage, the word also carries overtones of evil.

Strictly speaking, Bruckner was not a pedophile. And I should note that I have no problem at all with what proclivities he did seem to have. There's no evidence that he ever actually molested anyone, and besides, in his day it was not at all unusual for teenagers to get married.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> "Great" is just old hero-worship rhetoric of the past, so that doesn't bother me. Do they make a Webern statuette you can put on your spinet piano, on a lace doily? :lol:
> 
> Give us a link or source on that if you want it discussed.
> 
> Because he's a great composer. Hell, he had the entire French government backing him, built IRCAM, and is a very respected conductor.
> It appears you are negatively biased, and not fully cognizant of some key information which is necessary for a productive discussion.


I don't have a link or source. Just remember Boulez was reported saying it at the time. I was a student then and it was fashionable for left wing pseudo intellectuals to come out with things like this.

Yes, I am negatively biased. I don't like what appears to me tuneless noise.

The French government have also been great supporters of the EEC over the years so that does not give one confidence in their judgment.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Because he's a great composer. Hell, he had the entire French government backing him...


Which may have been quite necessary. As Kozeluch said on Mozart's death, "...if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions." Boulez may have been in a similar position, even absent the death of a genius.

I like his conducting well enough, though it seems detached and cold at times. "So, OK. Marcel, I am sure that a week ago, before you went all hoity-toity on us, you never even heard of Pierre Boulez. So how you gonna write about something as complicated as that?"

"Structural clarity. It's a breeze to write about Boulez. You just say "structural clarity" and you're home free. Doesn't matter if you're reviewing his conducting Mahler or 'Pli selon Pli.' It's all about structural clarity, John."

(courtesy of John Adams, http://www.earbox.com/posts/40)


----------



## Ebab

SiegendesLicht said:


> Bach and Bruckner (if we get back to music) were not fighting men either, but they (especially Bruckner) were as convinced of the existence of someone greater then themselves, namely God, and the need to write their music in such a way as to glorify him, as we are convinced of the existence of gravity of some other physical fact. That is what I would call deep conviction, even if they never had to fight for it.


Good for them, and if it inspires them to write great music, good for us. Although again: how their process of creating art _really_ ticked, we will never know, and I suspect it's not seldom more down to earth.

Conviction is good, and if art makes a powerful statement of that, that's just wonderful. But art is also about searching, asking questions, doubts, reflecting the complexities and painful contradictions of both the reality and the inner world.

Even leading church leaders have told about crises of severe doubt. Faith is an eternal _process_, and I believe religious music tells about that too. If art only eternally reiterated an established formula, that's what _I_'d call "insipid".



> Sure. I never said everything was fine back then. And yet, somehow we have managed to come from Bach, Bruckner, Schubert, Schumann etc. to something like 4'33, which, I am sure, those men would laugh at, if they were told some day it would be considered art. From Wagner, the master poet and composer, we have come to the men who take a Wagner opera, stock it up with rats, Nazis and suchlike things and then claim this is their artistic vision.
> 
> Ah, yes, and in the other arts we have come from Da Vinci and Caspar Friedrich to the "Black Square" and Andy Warhol's soup cans (not to mention other, even more weird attempt at art), from Michelangelo to the notorious work of one Andres Serrano, etc. I am not saying those examples are _all_ of modern art, but the very fact that they exist, are admired, exhibited and sold for huge amounts of money, shows that both modern artists and their admirers operate on a different, more "anarchistic" (I don't mean political anarchism, but rather the internal "anything goes" mode of thinking) mentality. Artistic freedom used to mean the freedom to produce art that the current political regime would not like. Now it means the freedom to take anything, no matter how ugly, meaningless or repulsive, and claim it to be a work of art on a par with great masterworks. And no, I am not in any way proposing that this freedom be limited.


Well, that's a perfectly valid point of view. I don't have any "objections" to that, just some annotations, and a different perception.

First, a distinction: Some pieces of art speak for themselves (like a painting), and some need to be performed (like an opera). Make a new painting or write a new opera -- just fine, your responsibility and good luck. But interpreting the work of another artist is a special artistic responsibility, even an ethical question: How much interpretation is necessary and how much faithfulness.

So I'd like to make this distinction: If you create something new, go right ahead; I may like it or not, but in principle I don't have any problem with "anything goes" regarding new art (OK, within _some_ legal and ethical boundaries). But I have a different sensibility for the problems of performing old art, especially if the drastically transformed stagings seem to overpower any attempts to present what's really in the book and has lost nothing of its power.



> Why, because we still have those great masters from the past to admire and draw comfort from, of course.
> I am not saying everything was so good before and so bad now. We have come a long way forward in creating a civilization of peace and prosperity (and isn't the ability for progress exactly that which makes our civilization great?), with a more universal access to great art than ever before. But we also seem to have lost something along the way.


But you've also told us that you do enjoy some contemporary music, if not in the Classical arena. I'd find it rather sad if you didn't.

I do find my joy in contemporary art; much of it is "low-brow" as well, but I don't believe that music needs to be inaccessible to be good. And I found my access to some "modern" visual arts or music. Mostly it happened through context, of the time, of a certain collection, or within the evolving work of a particular artist. Kandinsky for instance went from Figurative to Abstract, and I love his early work so much (some of it hangs in Munich) that it makes me want to follow him. I can manage only so far, but really, who am I to question his honesty and seriousness, his _conviction_.

And with all that said, in a way I agree, we've lost something substantial, some sense of being a part of a greater whole. I considered it yesterday going by train from Munich to the Chiemsee lake area. Buildings in a village used to arrange themselves to a sensible whole; they had common proportions and styles but each one was individual; they were showing the owner's pride, but didn't need to cry for singular attention. If I had to bring it to a formula, it'd be "pride in modesty", and we seem to have lost much of that.


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> Which may have been quite necessary. As Kozeluch said on Mozart's death, "...if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions." Boulez may have been in a similar position, even absent the death of a genius.




The great thing about the state supporting the arts is that artists can go wherever their muse takes them, without having to worry about their finances. That is also the very worst thing about the state supporting the arts.


----------



## Ukko

It appears you are negatively biased, and not fully cognizant of some key information which is necessary for a productive discussion.

Hmm. That construct appears to bring into question the utility of the _bon mot_.


----------



## millionrainbows

> millions said: It appears you are negatively biased, and not fully cognizant of some key information which is necessary for a productive discussion.





Hilltroll72 said:


> Hmm. That construct appears to bring into question the utility of the _bon mot_.


I agree. I think the _bon mot_ is useless in serious on-line discussions, and sarcasm/witty remarks usually don't translate well on-line anyway.


----------



## Geo Dude

DavidA said:


> Moa formed an atheist state where religion was abolished and believers (of all faiths) persecuted and killed. He was the greatest mass killer of all time with an estimated 50 million or more deaths. History. The second was Stalin's (also atheist) state.
> But we perhaps need to get back to Brahms.


They _happened_ to be atheists and killed people. They did not kill people with atheism as their primary motivation for it (or, if one wants to be particularly generous to religion, claim their atheism as an excuse for killing people when they had other reasons for it). There's a difference.



> I don't think that Brahms was conventionally religious but he certainly had a faith. Interesting that the passages he chose for the requiem were from the Lutheran Bible and not any church liturgy.


Records on the subject indicate that he was what would be called an agnostic or freethinker at the time; an atheist in a modern sense. A fun note on that subject: After a conversation with Brahms about his religious beliefs Dvorak famously quipped to a friend, "Such a great man, such a great soul....and yet he believes in NOTHING!"


----------



## DavidA

Geo Dude said:


> They _happened_ to be atheists and killed people. They did not kill people in the name of atheism or because of their atheism. There's a difference.
> 
> Records on the subject indicate that he was what would be called an 'agnostic' at the time, or an atheist in a modern sense. After a conversation with Brahms about his religious beliefs Dvorak famously quipped to a friend, "Such a great man, such a great soul....and yet he believes in NOTHING!"


Of course, that's Hitchens' tired old argument. If you read the history of the time you will see that both of them set out stamp out religion. Churches were closed and thousands of believers perished in the purges. I have actually met people who were imprisoned by Stalin. it was because they were Christian believers and he wanted them to be communists and therefore atheists. It was done in the name of atheism - thev wanted to create an atheist state. To argue any other way is illogical. Why the new atheist tie themselves in intellectual knots over this one. The arguments just don't hold water.


----------



## Geo Dude

DavidA said:


> Of course, that's Hitchens' tired old argument. If you read the history of the time you will see that both of them set out stamp out religion. Churches were closed and thousands of believers perished in the purges. I have actually met people who were imprisoned by Stalin. it was because they were Christian believers and he wanted them to be communists and therefore atheists. It was done in the name of atheism - thev wanted to create an atheist state. To argue any other way is illogical. Why the new atheist tie themselves in intellectual knots over this one. The arguments just don't hold water.


I'm aware of the fact that churches were closed and that some believers were imprisoned or killed; if this was done _exclusively_ to believers, I'd see your point, but it was part of a much wider political purge. Plenty of atheists (and unorthodox communists) were imprisoned and killed, too, since the point was getting rid of political dissidents. If this was really done in the name of atheist fundamentalism rather than politics, one has to ask why he revived the Orthodox Church in 1941.


----------



## jani

peeyaj said:


> "I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*
> 
> Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


Brahms must have been trolling.


----------



## Ukko

There is a moderately fine philosophical point in play here. Stalin (so I read) was intent on strengthening Soviet-style communism. He figured that the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church would help.

No further motivation is necessary.


----------



## Geo Dude

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is a moderately fine philosophical point in play here. Stalin (so I read) was intent on strengthening Soviet-style communism. He figured that the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church would help.
> 
> No further motivation is necessary.


And he brought back the Russian Orthodox Church when he thought it would be politically useful to do so, strengthening this point.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Geo Dude said:


> If this was really done in the name of atheist fundamentalism rather than politics, one has to ask why he revived the Orthodox Church in 1941.


Because the Nazi armies were moving full speed in the direction of Moscow, and Stalin needed every means to motivate his people to fight better. Also, the Nazis promised to reopen churches on the conquered territories, so I guess he decided to do that himself, in order to avoid a switch of allegiance from those who were still believers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *Hilltroll72* 
There is a moderately fine philosophical point in play here. Stalin (so I read) was intent on strengthening Soviet-style communism. He figured that the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church would help.

No further motivation is necessary



Geo Dude said:


> And he brought back the Russian Orthodox Church when he thought it would be politically useful to do so, strengthening this point.


And I think this proves that, contrary to David A's "Christians are victims" stance, that The State, whoever it is, has their own agenda, and wants to occupy territory previously held by religion, or any other power.

Christianity has not been targeted specifically, except as a competitor for power, like any dominant religion.

The way China treated Tibetan buddhist is a good example.

And Islam, since it is a religion which recognizes no separation of Church and State, destroyed many Buddhist icons, for the same reason.

I think these facts should be recognized, before this thread becomes another religious debacle.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> What does Brahms mean when he said that the Atheist works are pure "cerebral"? Isn't his music sometimes labeled as too academic..


Compared to Liszt or Wagner, maybe. Compared to Milton Babbitt, no. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *Hilltroll72*
> There is a moderately fine philosophical point in play here. Stalin (so I read) was intent on strengthening Soviet-style communism. He figured that the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church would help.
> 
> No further motivation is necessary
> 
> And I think this proves that, contrary to David A's "Christians are victims" stance, that The State, whoever it is, has their own agenda, and wants to occupy territory previously held by religion, or any other power.
> 
> Christianity has not been targeted specifically, except as a competitor for power, like any dominant religion.
> 
> The way China treated Tibetan buddhist is a good example.
> 
> And Islam, since it is a religion which recognizes no separation of Church and State, destroyed many Buddhist icons, for the same reason.
> 
> I think these facts should be recognized, before this thread becomes another religious debacle.


Of course if you argue like that you can say exactly the same thing about so-called Christian persecutions like the Inquisition. Then other Christians who had different beliefs from the established church were persecuted. The reason has been made very well by Melvin Bragg in a recent BBC program. It was the fact that the church had become a political entity and they were worried about losing power. Now I have no problem with this reasoning. But it seems to me the atheists want it both ways. You cannot use it for Christians and not for atheists just because it doesn't fit your prejudices.
Stalin persecuted Christians because he was an atheist and Christians did not fit his communist atheistic ideology.
Same with Mao - but he also persecuted other religions. Why? The ideology was Communism and you could not be a Communist without being an atheist. People were persecuted for their beliefs because their beliefs did not fit the ideology.
Anyway I'm sure that people who advocate an atheist ideology will be queuing up to go to the only officially atheistic state left in the world - North Korea. Quite a Utopia, I believe!


----------



## Nereffid

I think it's a pity that mass murders get brought up in the religion vs atheism debate, because this does tend to distract from, you know, _all the other reasons_ people are atheists.

Besides, I'm not sure that "but atheists have been mass murderers too!" is much of an argument _for_ religion.


----------



## KenOC

Re atheist mass murderers, Shostakovich tells this story of Stalin and his favorite pianist.
-----------------------------
Once Stalin called the Radio Committee, where the administration was, and asked if they had a record of Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23, which had been heard on the radio the day before. "Played by Yudina," he added. They told Stalin that of course they had it. Actually, there was no record, the concert had been live. But they were afraid to say no to Stalin, no one ever knew what the consequences might be. A human life meant nothing to him. All you could do was agree, submit, be a yes-man, a yes-man to a madman.

Stalin demanded that they send the record with Yudina's performance of the Mozart to his dacha. The committee panicked, but they had to do something. They called in Yudina and an orchestra and recorded that night. Everyone was shaking with fright, except for Yudina, naturally. But she was a special case, that one, the ocean was only knee-deep for her.

Yudina later told me that they had to send the conductor home, he was so scared he couldn't think. They called another conductor, who trembled and got everything mixed up, confusing the orchestra. Only a third conductor was in any shape to finish the recording.

I think this is a unique event in the history of recording -- I mean, changing conductors three times in one night. Anyway, the record was ready by morning. They made one single copy in record time and sent it to Stalin. Now that was a record. A record in yes-ing.

Soon after, Yudina received an envelope with twenty thousand rubles. She was told it came on the express orders of Stalin. Then she wrote him a letter. I know about this letter from her, and I know that the story seems improbable. Yudina had many quirks, but I can say this -- she never lied. I'm certain that her story is true. Yudina wrote something like this in her letter: "I thank you, Joseph Vissarionovich, for your aid. I will pray for you day and night and ask the Lord to forgive your great sins before the people and the country. The Lord is merciful and He'll forgive you. I gave the money to the church that I attend."

And Yudina sent this suicidal letter to Stalin. He read it and didn't say a word, they expected at least a twitch of the eyebrow. Naturally, the order to arrest Yudina was prepared and the slightest grimace would have been enough to wipe away the last traces of her. But Stalin was silent and set the letter aside in silence. The anticipated movement of the eyebrows didn't come.

Nothing happened to Yudina. They say that her recording of the Mozart was on the record player when the "Leader and Teacher" was found dead in his dacha. It was the last thing he had listened to.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> I think it's a pity that mass murders get brought up in the religion vs atheism debate, because this does tend to distract from, you know, _all the other reasons_ people are atheists.
> 
> Besides, I'm not sure that "but atheists have been mass murderers too!" is much of an argument _for_ religion.


It's not an argument for religion but it is an argument against the often facile comments made by people like Dawkins that 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems.'


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> It's not an argument for religion but it is an argument against the often facile comments made by people like Dawkins that 'religion is the cause of all the world's problems.'


That is indeed a facile comment. Perhaps you were confusing it with this _actual_ quote from Dawkins:
"Religion is not the root of _all_ evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything".

ETA: But, again, better to focus on minor issues like shooting the messenger than engage in a serious consideration of the message itself...


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> That is indeed a facile comment. Perhaps you were confusing it with this _actual_ quote from Dawkins:
> "Religion is not the root of _all_ evil, for no one thing is the root of all anything".
> 
> ETA: But, again, better to focus on minor issues like shooting the messenger than engage in a serious consideration of the message itself...


Dawkins did a whole programme called 'root of all evil?' Which was saying we'd be better off without religion as it causes all the world's problems. I have also seen him in several televised debates from America where he says the same thing. So please do not say that the atheists did not say it. I have heard them and read them.
Again the pint is brought up by the atheist side then you accuse us of 'shooting the messenger' - I too think we'd be better off facing the issue - evil in this world comes through human beings.


----------



## EllenBurgess

i do not agree at all with this thing its freaky crazy...


----------



## millionrainbows

EllenBurgess said:


> i do not agree at all with this thing its freaky crazy...


I'll contact the mother saucer and give you full clearance. Meanwhile, keep thinking the thoughts I made you think, and I'll do the same. The revelations keep coming, we'll keep you apprised as they manifest physically. And then, we'll eat them...if they're still alive.


----------



## brianvds

millionrainbows said:


> There is a moderately fine philosophical point in play here. Stalin (so I read) was intent on strengthening Soviet-style communism. He figured that the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church would help.
> No further motivation is necessary
> And I think this proves that, contrary to David A's "Christians are victims" stance, that The State, whoever it is, has their own agenda, and wants to occupy territory previously held by religion, or any other power.
> Christianity has not been targeted specifically, except as a competitor for power, like any dominant religion.


Yup. Totalitarian states are in fact pretty much like fundamentalist cults, with the head of state taking the place of God. And like fundamentalist religions, any other beliefs represent a danger to them, so they do what they can to stamp it out.



DavidA said:


> Of course if you argue like that you can say exactly the same thing about so-called Christian persecutions like the Inquisition. Then other Christians who had different beliefs from the established church were persecuted. The reason has been made very well by Melvin Bragg in a recent BBC program. It was the fact that the church had become a political entity and they were worried about losing power.


Yes, indeed. One has to distinguish between religion and organized religion, and between religion and fundamentalism. They are not all the same.

In any event, people who think the Inquisition was bad should go take a look at what secular governments of the day did to people. If memory serves the Inquisition was in fact initially an attempt to moderate the behaviour of lynch mobs. But any bureaucracy sooner or later takes on a life of its own, whatever its original purpose was.

They didn't torture people and burn witches because they were religious. They did it because at the time, western Europe was populated by a bunch of utterly barbaric, uneducated, pig-ignorant fools. The church was in fact just about the only bit of light in all that darkness.


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> They didn't torture people and burn witches because they were religious. They did it because at the time, western Europe was populated by a bunch of utterly barbaric, uneducated, pig-ignorant fools. The church was in fact just about the only bit of light in all that darkness.


Ahem. The Spanish Inquisition *was* an arm of the church, created originally through the papal bull "Ad Abolendam." Its investigations were based entirely on religion, attending to heresy and such. They *did* torture people to elicit confessions, although those they judged guilty were turned over to civil authorities for punishment, including execution. As for being "barbaric, uneducated, pig-ignorant fools," I doubt they were any more or less so than we are today.

The church in Rome did try to moderate the Spanish Inquisition from time to time, but not very successfully.


----------



## BurningDesire

Hilltroll72 said:


> _BD_'s use of the indefinite plural 3rd person pronoun indicates that it's gods and religions that are cheapened by being held responsible for music (including music of questionable quality). I can't argue with that.


is this a joke?


----------



## BurningDesire

tdc said:


> :lol:
> 
> I don't personally agree, but your post cracked me up. I believe in the ancient teaching _we are all one_ allowing the "creator" to know and experience itself. I personally don't think it is possible to cheapen or to not serve the "creator" in anything we do. I also use the term "creator" in a broad sense as in referencing and pointing the way towards something infinite that cannot be described or put into words. I have a deep respect for all religions, but think they have been largely misused and corrupted. Religions have for the most part been made to look bad in the West, because Western society (the system not referring to all people) worships money and the egoistic self, the accumulation of material items etc. Our current way of life here is not really compatible with religion, generally speaking. To look at the current state of religion and say it is bad, is like using McDonalds as an example to suggest food is bad.


To say religion is made to look bad in the West, no, it does that itself, it doesn't really need the help of others, and if anything, most people glorify it, or passively let its failings and wrong-doings slide.

I also don't understand people who "have a deep respect" for religions. What is there to respect?


----------



## BurningDesire

DavidA said:


> Moa formed an atheist state where religion was abolished and believers (of all faiths) persecuted and killed. He was the greatest mass killer of all time with an estimated 50 million or more deaths. History. The second was Stalin's (also atheist) state.
> But we perhaps need to get back to Brahms.
> I don't think that Brahms was conventionally religious but he certainly had a faith. Interesting that the passages he chose for the requiem were from the Lutheran Bible and not any church liturgy.


Yeah no, you don't get to bring that up and then shift it back to Brahms. What Mao and Stalin did wasn't in the name of atheism, or skepticism, or humanism. It was a desire for power, and they stamped out religions which would be competition in their desire to have power over people. I doubt Mao can compete with the whole of Christianity in terms of suffering inflicted upon humanity.


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> Ahem. The Spanish Inquisition *was* an arm of the church, created originally through the papal bull "Ad Abolendam." Its investigations were based entirely on religion, attending to heresy and such. They *did* torture people to elicit confessions, although those they judged guilty were turned over to civil authorities for punishment, including execution. As for being "barbaric, uneducated, pig-ignorant fools," I doubt they were any more or less so than we are today.
> 
> The church in Rome did try to moderate the Spanish Inquisition from time to time, but not very successfully.


Secular governments did the same, or worse. I'm sure if they were all secular humanists the Middle Ages would have been a more pleasant time to live in than they were, but alas, our modern notions of what is right and good are apparently things we had to learn from hard experience.

Fact is that at the time, the church was just about the only centre of any form of literacy and learning. This was especially true in the early Middle Ages. Thus it was the only candle in the dark, even if they used that candle every now and then to burn people with...


----------



## BurningDesire

EllenBurgess said:


> i do not agree at all with this thing its freaky crazy...


Freaky Crazy should be the title of an album


----------



## KenOC

brianvds said:


> Fact is that at the time, the church was just about the only centre of any form of literacy and learning. This was especially true in the early Middle Ages. Thus it was the only candle in the dark, even if they used that candle every now and then to burn people with...


Well, the "only candle in the dark" in Europe anyway, once the Moors had been expelled from Spain. The inquisition was merely religious war continued by other means -- the main targets were crypto-Jews and "conversos," Muslims who had (perhaps) falsely converted to Christianity. There were growing "convert or die" movements in Spain, which were no doubt quite persuasive.

You are also correct that the Spanish Inquisition, although it had the Authority of Rome, was under the direct control of those kindly monarchs who financed Columbus's rediscovery the new world. In any event, the whole affair was really a giant purge, or perhaps "ethnic cleansing." Nothing stupid or ignorant about it, just the realpolitik of the time, practiced then as we practice it now. But a balanced look at the inquisition can be found here:


----------



## Nereffid

Again, though, this "your pogrom was bigger than my pogrom" illustrates to me how hard it is to get a fruitful discussion about the possible bad effects of religion. Because back in the day when the Church was torturing and executing people for heresy, well, that was nothing to do with religion, and atheists probably would have done the same. And when Christians were enslaving the peoples of Africa and the New World, well, they weren't genuinely doing it in the name of Christianity, and anyway atheists probably would have done the same. And all that anti-Semitism, well, that was just your ordinary fear of the Other and had nothing whatsoever to do with the long tradition of noticing that the Jews were involved in Christ's death, and I'm sure if there were Mongolians or Patagonians living in ghettos around Europe we'd have persecuted them just as readily, or rather of course we wouldn't have because Christians don't persecute anyone, and anyway Hitler was an atheist, wasn't he? And when the Pope, the divinely appointed leader of the Church, wielded enormous power and controlled great wealth and ordered crusades and so forth, well, that was nothing to do with Christianity and anyway that's why we had the Reformation. And when we put Galileo on trial and later refused to accept the theory of evolution, well, that was just the simple ignorance of the day because of course nowadays we don't actually believe the creation story as written in the Bible that comes directly from God, just like when you point out all those injunctions from Leviticus and Deuteronomy about beards and stoning your children, well, yes, these things are in the bible but clearly (although we can't quite give you the reasons) these particular commandments are ones we don't need to follow right now and anyway I once saw an atheist with a beard so that demolishes your argument right there, and In Conclusion you're just being mean, and all those Christians who did horrible things weren't being Christian when they did them so that doesn't count. And, again, Hitler. QED.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

KenOC said:


> Well, the "only candle in the dark" in Europe anyway, once the Moors had been expelled from Spain. The inquisition was merely religious war continued by other means -- the main targets were crypto-Jews and "conversos," Muslims who had (perhaps) falsely converted to Christianity. There were growing "convert or die" movements in Spain, which were no doubt quite persuasive


At least they (and the crusaders) managed to keep Islam out of Europe for all that time. If it was not for those restraining forces, who knows if we would have a Europe at all.


----------



## mmsbls

The discussion has deviated rather far from the original OP concerning Brahms' quote about music composition. We don't normally care strongly if a thread gets diverted, but when the discussion concerns religion alone, often we have eventually had to close the thread and possibly give infractions. We'd prefer to keep threads open, so please return to a discussion of the OP.


----------



## DavidA

I have deleted my post as per the moderators instructions.


----------



## Geo Dude

Sorry, folks, I didn't intend to cause this thread to be diverted for several pages.

I will, again, recommend Swafford's biography of Brahms which gives some excellent insight into the life of a very complex man, including his religious beliefs (or lack thereof, in his case).


----------



## Nereffid

Well, ahem, being a defender of Dawkins it kind of goes with the territory that one shouldn't care whether people get offended in a discussion of religion, but the mod's point is taken and I'm more than happy to let it lie. After all, didn't I warn about thread derailment many pages back? :angel:


----------



## Tristan

As a Christian, am I supposed to like quotes like that? How is it any different than saying that a theist can't be a true scientist? It's all ridiculous--pointlessly driving wedges between people who already have a hard enough time understanding each other.


----------



## Mahlerian

Tristan said:


> As a Christian, am I supposed to like quotes like that? How is it any different than saying that a theist can't be a true scientist? It's all ridiculous--pointlessly driving wedges between people who already have a hard enough time understanding each other.


I should hope that, as an adult, you can think for yourself and not feel compelled to agree with something because you have something in common with that person. In other words, I agree.


----------



## brianvds

mmsbls said:


> The discussion has deviated rather far from the original OP concerning Brahms' quote about music composition. We don't normally care strongly if a thread gets diverted, but when the discussion concerns religion alone, often we have eventually had to close the thread and possibly give infractions. We'd prefer to keep threads open, so please return to a discussion of the OP.


Well, in summary: I doubt whether the quote is authentic, and it is demonstrably false.


----------



## Geo Dude

Tristan said:


> How is it any different than saying that a theist can't be a true scientist? It's all ridiculous--pointlessly driving wedges between people who already have a hard enough time understanding each other.


Hear, hear!



brianvds said:


> Well, in summary: I doubt whether the quote is authentic, and it is demonstrably false.


This is an excellent summary.


----------



## millionrainbows

I thought the whole thread was religious in nature from the first post! After all, it did ask what we thought about this quote:



peeyaj said:


> *"I know several young composers who are atheists.* I have read their scores, and I assure you that *they are doomed to speedy oblivion* because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral. *No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer." *- Johannes Brahms, 1896
> Berlioz, Bartok, Ravel, Prokofiev and Verdi disagree.


 I think that this is a justified intervention, and that this exposes peeyaj's opening post as flawed from the start.

_1.) This was a flawed thread from its inception,_ because of its religious nature.

_2.) Additionally,_ it was based solely on a quote which was of _questionable origin._ That's flaw number two.

_3.) Additionally,_ peeyaj did nothing to clear up any ambiguities or reveal any sources publicly, then later petulantly chimed-in that he stood behind the quote and was amused by the negative "cognitive dissonance" that it caused. This gives it a troll-like quality.

I agree with the moderator: three strikes, and it's outta here.


----------



## BurningDesire

This thread sucks the big one.


----------



## KenOC

Getting back to the quote: It's accurate or it's not. That has nothing to do with whether we *want* it to be accurate. So far, nothing else in the book where the quote appears has been challenged. Why should we assume that this quote is invented?


----------



## peeyaj

KenOC said:


> Getting back to the quote: It's accurate or it's not. That has nothing to do with whether we *want* it to be accurate. So far, nothing else in the book where the quote appears has been challenged. *Why should we assume that this quote is invented?*


Because of cognitive dissonace, KenOC. Lol.


----------



## Nereffid

Well, seeing as this is a thread about religion, can I point out that

_Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true._


----------



## brianvds

KenOC said:


> Getting back to the quote: It's accurate or it's not. That has nothing to do with whether we *want* it to be accurate. So far, nothing else in the book where the quote appears has been challenged. Why should we assume that this quote is invented?


Because it goes against what is generally known about Brahms. Thus it may be fairly challenged, though it is certainly possible that it is true that Brahms said it.

As for whether the sentiment is true (whether Brahms said so or the pope), it is demonstrably false.


----------



## Geo Dude

brianvds said:


> Because it goes against what is generally known about Brahms. Thus it may be fairly challenged, though it is certainly possible that it is true that Brahms said it.


Exactly. Given what Brahms scholars (such as Swafford) have to say on the subject, this quote is likely as real as Darwin's infamous deathbed conversion.

Even if I was to grant that Brahms became religious in his old age and no other scholar noticed this--I don't--the odds of a man who had been an atheist all of his life until his late-in-life conversion making such a bigoted statement about non-believers is quite low. Hell, using that logic he would be arguing that the majority of the music that he wrote throughout his life was no good; given that his late-in-life concerns about his music was that he was not as good as he used to be (he often speculated that he had reached a point where he was rehashing his own material), that seems especially silly.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Getting back to the quote: It's accurate or it's not. That has nothing to do with whether we *want* it to be accurate. So far, nothing else in the book where the quote appears has been challenged. Why should we assume that this quote is invented?


You mean, where did this doubt of the quote's accuracy arise? _Short memory. Read the previous posts._


----------



## millionrainbows

Geo Dude said:


> Exactly. Given what Brahms scholars (such as Swafford) have to say on the subject, this quote is likely as real as Darwin's infamous deathbed conversion.
> 
> Even if I was to grant that Brahms became religious in his old age and no other scholar noticed this--I don't--the odds of a man who had been an atheist all of his life until his late-in-life conversion making such a bigoted statement about non-believers is quite low. Hell, using that logic he would be arguing that the majority of the music that he wrote throughout his life was no good; given that his late-in-life concerns about his music was that he was not as good as he used to be (he often speculated that he had reached a point where he was rehashing his own material), that seems especially silly.


Wow! I didn't know until now that Brahms was an atheist!


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> Because of cognitive dissonace, KenOC. Lol.


You spelled it wrong. Lol.


----------



## millionrainbows

Nereffid said:


> Well, seeing as this is a thread about religion, can I point out that
> 
> _Just because it's in a book doesn't make it true._


I can't tell from that response which side you're on.

But I do see your point; all scripturally-based religions have used their scriptures to justify whatever agendas they wish to push: women, slavery, killing, racism, etc.

*Those cognitive-dissonance inducing rascals! Aren't they cute!*


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> But I do see your point; all scripturally-based religions have used their scriptures to justify whatever agendas they wish to push: women, slavery, killing, racism, etc.


Yeah, religious peoples sins look suspiciously the same as non-religious peoples sins. I wonder if our common humanity is at fault?


----------



## Geo Dude

millionrainbows said:


> Wow! I didn't know until now that Brahms was an atheist!


He was called an "agnostic" at the time in the same sense that Darwin or H.L. Mencken were called agnostics, but I'd argue that in a modern sense he's an atheist given that his agnosticism was known to be...quite devout shall we say? The term "atheist" wasn't really used at the time, "agnostic" or "free-thinker" was much more common.*

If you were being sarcastic and trying to point out that he was called an agnostic, though...well, point taken and I should have clarified my reasons for calling him an atheist in my original post.

*Come to think of it, that sheds even more suspicion on whether that quote is real...



millionrainbows said:


> You spelled it wrong. Lol.


Well played.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> Yeah, religious peoples sins look suspiciously the same as non-religious peoples sins. I wonder if our common humanity is at fault?


Probably. But they've got it in writing.


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Probably. But they've got it in writing.


I bet it's more complex than that, buddy, but it begs the question: and non-religious get it from..?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

BurningDesire said:


> This thread sucks the big one.


What's wrong with it? We have the freedom to discuss anything here that relates to classical music even remotely, no?


----------



## millionrainbows

Geo Dude said:


> He was called an "agnostic" at the time in the same sense that Darwin or H.L. Mencken were called agnostics, but I'd argue that in a modern sense he's an atheist given that his agnosticism was known to be...quite devout shall we say? The term "atheist" wasn't really used at the time, "agnostic" or "free-thinker" was much more common.*
> 
> If you were being sarcastic and trying to point out that he was called an agnostic, though...well, point taken and I should have clarified my reasons for calling him an atheist in my original post.
> 
> *Come to think of it, that sheds even more suspicion on whether that quote is real...
> 
> Well played.


If what you say is accurate, then what the hey is Brahms doing using the term "atheist?" That doesn't make sense, and degrades the veracity of the "quote."

Hey, I think people who profess to be "Christians" have plenty of explaining to do, as do professed "atheists." As far as doctrine is concerned, if Brahms did not adhere to the tenets of the Nicene Creed, then he has no business implying that he is a Christian by calling others "atheists."


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> I bet it's more complex than that, buddy, but it begs the question: and non-religious get it from..?


Their own sinful nature, of course. Don't get upset, Kieran, or I'll have to restrain you...


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Their own sinful nature, of course. Don't get upset, Kieran, or I'll have to restrain you...


You get it from the same place we do, my friend: the dark alcoves of the human heart.

How could I be upset? I'm listening to Wolfgang!


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> You get it from the same place we do, my friend: the dark alcoves of the human heart.
> 
> How could I be upset? I'm listening to Wolfgang!


Yes, sooth your gentle soul with music, that your true nature may emerge from the dark alcoves of your heart. Then gaze upon the green fields of Ireland, and know that there is a place where love springs forth eternally. I want to walk those green fields...


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, sooth your gentle soul with music, that your true nature may emerge from the dark alcoves of your heart. Then gaze upon the green fields of Ireland, and know that there is a place where love springs forth eternally. I want to walk those green fields...


Let me know when you come, I'll introduce you to the dark alcoves in McDaid's and O'Donoghue's bars!


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> Let me know when you come, I'll introduce you to the dark alcoves in McDaid's and O'Donoghue's bars!


Then I'll introduce you to some REAL darkness! Sorry, I'm allergic to the stuff. But those green fields...


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Then I'll introduce you to some REAL darkness! Sorry, I'm allergic to the stuff. But those green fields...


We've got plenty of them, but we've got music in the bars... :tiphat:


----------



## Geo Dude

millionrainbows said:


> If what you say is accurate, then what the hey is Brahms doing using the term "atheist?" That doesn't make sense, and degrades the veracity of the "quote."


Exactly. "Atheist" was occasionally used at the time, but generally exclusively as a pejorative; that _could_ have been the sense in which it was used if the quote was real, but it's unlikely that a lifelong free-thinker/agnostic/atheist would suddenly turn around and despise atheists because of a late religious conversion that no known Brahms scholar seems to be aware of.


----------



## millionrainbows

Geo Dude said:


> Exactly. "Atheist" was occasionally used at the time, but generally exclusively as a pejorative; that _could_ have been the sense in which it was used if the quote was real, but it's unlikely that a lifelong free-thinker/agnostic/atheist would suddenly turn around and despise atheists because of a late religious conversion that no known Brahms scholar seems to be aware of.


Right; and it looks to me like "our side" is winning, despite the chummy interaction between peeyaj and KenOC earlier. They do put up a united front, that odd pair...they must belong to the same cult.


----------



## Aries

peeyaj said:


> "I know several young composers who are atheists. I have read their scores, and I assure you that they are doomed to speedy oblivion because they are utterly lacking in inspiration. Their work is purely cerebral._ No atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer."_ -* Johannes Brahms, 1896*


I think it is possible for atheist to be much better than Brahms, but i am not sure, whether it is possible for atheists to be good as Bruckner. But maybe his faith is not the ultimate reason, that he is that good. Probably his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder made him that faithful. Probably you need only a Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. At least you have to be insane, to be a genius.


----------



## KenOC

Aries said:


> I think it is possible for atheist to be much better than Brahms, but i am not sure, whether it is possible for atheists to be good as Bruckner.


Logically, the meaning here is that Bruckner was a better composer than Brahms. Just sayin'!


----------



## peeyaj

KenOC said:


> Logically, the meaning here is that Bruckner was a better composer than Brahms. Just sayin'!


Citation needed. LOL.


----------



## BeatOven

Who cares? Does this worry an atheist composers? I would surely hope not.


----------



## Geo Dude

KenOC said:


> Logically, the meaning here is that Bruckner was a better composer than Brahms. Just sayin'!


Furthermore, since the available evidence indicates that Brahms was an atheist/agnostic, this is conclusive proof that an atheist composer actually *can* be better than Bruckner.


----------



## Brahmatist

Apocryphal, to say the least. It doesn't sound like the man at all. His religious views were famously ambiguous and he was never known to opine on religion in such a blatant fashion. I have not come across this quote before, and having read volumes on Brahms I'm almost certain you're mis-attributing it. If anything, Brahms may have been an atheist himself.


----------

