# How far should critical comments go? Is this libellous?



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

I'm a little cautious about starting this - I'm new to the forum and haven't yet learnt its nuances, so apologies if this is inappropriate.

I came across this analysis of Benjamin Britten's life and work a few years ago and it disturbed me greatly because it seemed so biased. It concerns his sexuality and accuses him of being a paedophile (the link isn't for the faint-hearted):

http://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/benjamin-britten.pdf

I found the assertions to be, arguably, as much about the writer as they are about the subject.

The author has a number of similar "deconstructions" of other composers published on the internet.

My questions are:

Is this a true picture of Britten and, if not, how can the assertions be addressed?

Does it matter if a composer has skeletons in the cupboard in terms of one's appreciation of her/his works?


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2015)

The article, as you say, says as much about the author as Britten.

Skeletons in cupboards, whether real or imagined, are bound to cause reassessment of a composer's works.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The author seems biased against the subject. All reliable sources I have seen indicate that while Britten had an attraction to boys, he never actually abused any children. Even in the wake of scandals involving child molestation in the UK in recent years, no allegations have yet come to light, and all children who knew Britten at the time have attested that he never went too far.

His interpretations of some works seem in line with mainstream views and at others perhaps not. It is certainly true that Britten was a difficult man, and could be perhaps quite childish at times.

That whole article sounds gossipy, though, and I doubt that the author is really speaking from first-hand experience in all of those anecdotes.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> All reliable sources I have seen indicate that while Britten had an attraction to boys, he never actually abused any children.


I believe that is absolutely correct.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

An example of a reliable source that seems to contradict the article:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-19/entertainment/ca-29680_1_special-singing



Article said:


> Britten's 1936 cycle for soprano and orchestra, "Our Hunting Fathers," is, according to Soderstrom, "very important music that should not be forgotten. I have sung it a lot, since I first performed it, way back in 1951. Ever since then, I have been suggesting it to conductors.
> 
> "It is a work that exists on several levels. It deals with the relation of humans to animals--and, by extension, to each other. Why is it not performed often? Well, it is very difficult . . . and it has a quiet ending. Some singers don't like quiet endings for an orchestral appearance. But I for one, until the day I cannot sing any more, will continue to suggest it."


Wikipedia also says the following, backing up her interpretation:



Wiki said:


> Although Britten's music had, as a biographer put it, "bizarre new sounds" calculated to discomfit an audience, most of the opprobrium seems to have been directed at Auden's text.[12] Ostensibly about man's relationship with animals it is a not very deeply disguised tract about man's relationship with man, from a left-wing, pacifist viewpoint.[2]


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

It'd been some time since I read Wright's 1997 account of Britten, so I did so just now. Considering the subject had been dead for 21 years, I thought his personal remembrances, interpretations of the works, and references to other biographical material, all above board. Below the belt, but above board.

Wright's writings aside, after reading what's been written in and about "Britten's Children" (Wikipedia link below), I have a difficult time believing his infatuations were never "fulfilled", or that he, "didn't cross the line". Sharing beds? Some parallel there with Michael Jackson, say wha'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten's_Children


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I rather enjoyed the article. I have always thought that Britten is overrated as a Composer and while I don't think that I am a prude I have always been bothered by his his obsession with pederasty. Clearly the author has an axe to grind but since he knew Bitten and apparently studied with him, I don't think that he should be airily dismissed.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Triplets said:


> I rather enjoyed the article. I have always thought that Britten is overrated as a Composer and while I don't think that I am a prude I have always been bothered by his his obsession with pederasty. Clearly the author has an axe to grind but since he knew Bitten and apparently studied with him, I don't think that he should be airily dismissed.


Sometimes it is best to know as little as possible about the composers and just enjoy the music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

IMO, critical comments should go as far as *critical thinking skills* allow. Crazy, right?


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

One fears that this author cannot see the beam in his own eye for his preoccupation with and judgement of the mote in Britten's. It seems that he loathes or loathed Britten, and that he loathed homosexuality, vehemently. I do wonder why he seems unable to accept even the possibility of a loving same-sex relationship for someone different to himself.

It is difficult not to feel very uncomfortable about Britten's clearly reported sexual interest in under-age male children. He was clearly a troubled man and was perhaps rather troubling to others. But I have seen no evidence that this included actual criminal behaviour with children. Of course, to have a homosexual relationship with Pears was actually illegal in England until 1967.

I find such of his music as I have heard and got to know, powerful and moving. His seems an original artistic voice. I do not know what attitude to take to such flawed artists. I also like the work of the sculptor Eric Gill, whose sexual crimes against children and animals are known and recorded. I greatly dislike what I know of the man. His awful behaviour does not, I think, necessarily vitiate his artistic work.

We are surely all flawed and often behave badly towards others; some more so than others, and some breach the established and accepted limits and laws of our time and society. It is right that people are properly held to account if they do so: justice and compensation to victims demands this. I don't think that necessarily invalidates their work. Each of us will need to decide what is the balance of good and harm done by each person according to our conscience and viewpoint, understanding that our customs, relationships. learning and experience will lead us to this conclusion or that.

Some humility and compassion for others is usually of some help in the process. I don't believe that the author of the article demonstrates much of either.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The presumption of this writer is that his personal revulsion toward Britten's character and music is important enough to advertise. It isn't. This is tabloid trash, whether or not any of it is true. And no, the appreciation of a composer's music need not be affected by what we are told about his personal behavior. If that were not so, scarcely any artist's work's ability to give us pleasure would be able to withstand our knowledge of some aspect of his life.

Two-bit moralizers who gleefully dig up others' sewage and throw it at us as we pass by to prove their own righteousness - or to make money on our voyeurism - are among the lowest of creatures. I will prize Britten's music all the more next time I hear it.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> The presumption of this writer is that his personal revulsion toward Britten's character and music is important enough to advertise. It isn't. This is tabloid trash, whether or not any of it is true. And no, the appreciation of a composer's music need not be affected by what we are told about his personal behavior. If that were not so, scarcely any artist's work's ability to give us pleasure would be able to withstand our knowledge of some aspect of his life.
> 
> Two-bit moralizers who gleefully dig up others' sewage and throw it at us as we pass by to prove their own righteousness - or to make money on our voyeurism - are among the lowest of creatures. I will prize Britten's music all the more next time I hear it.


The sooner we can get that taste out of our mouths:






Ah... thank you, Rostropovich.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I've never understood why a composer's personal foibles should affect our enjoyment of their music. Britten, Henry Cowell, Saint-Saens, Henry Cowell, and of course Wagner all had scandalous episodes, proclivities, or opinions (by our lights today). Even Beethoven occasionally indulged in the casual anti-Semitism of his day.

So what? Somebody pointed out in another thread that we listen to music, not composers.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Ah... thank you, Rostropovich.


I'd thank him even more if he would have recorded the 3rd one as well.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I've never understood why a composer's personal foibles should affect our enjoyment of their music. Britten, Henry Cowell, Saint-Saens, Henry Cowell, and of course Wagner all had scandalous episodes, proclivities, or opinions (by our lights today). Even Beethoven occasionally indulged in the casual anti-Semitism of his day.
> 
> So what? Somebody pointed out in another thread that we listen to music, not composers.


Because the mistake that are made reveal something.


----------



## GKC (Jun 2, 2011)

Sloe said:


> Sometimes it is best to know as little as possible about the composers and just enjoy the music.


Yes. Didn't C.S. Lewis say something like: Wagner may have been a bad man, but nobody can convince me that he was a bad composer.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I don't know what I find worse: being annoyed by someone who uses their subjective opinion to create facts [I don't like Britten's music, so that mean's it's objectively not good] or the personal offense I take from the author saying homosexuality a "worrying feature" of Britten, "since so much of his work is sadistically homosexual", whatever _that_ means.

Back to main question: So long as the criticism is fair, I'm alright with it. The only bias should be in the critic's own taste. For example, why do I love Bach? I could go on about the craftsmanship, the counterpoint, the attention to detail, and so one to explain what I love so much about his music. But on a basic level, I just really like the music. I've loved Bach's music even before I had any of the vocabulary to describe it. Likewise, there are a lot of composers that I don't like at all, and I could go on explaining in detail my problems, but again, just on a base level, I reject the music before I form the specific reasons.

EDIT: I just read on (I shouldn't have) and the author actually wrote about how Britten's homosexuality was hidden because "In those days, it was a crime!" as if it being illegal back in the day makes it self evident about how wrong it is.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Such allegations arise regularly. They don't interest me any and I couldn't be bothered to find out how much of them are true. Shostakovich manged to look beyond the tabloid reputation to know the composer. Can't we? I am not whitewashing the stories—they are serious, should they be true—but is listening to his music going to taint us somehow? If so, then we'd better stop listening to all music, stop reading all books, impeach all national leaders, etc. If we knew only half of what everyone had once done...


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> I just read on (I shouldn't have) and the author actually wrote about how Britten's homosexuality was hidden because "In those days, it was a crime!" as if it being illegal back in the day makes it self evident about how wrong it is.


It does rather seem driven by hatred of Britten and homosexuality in general, and that's unpleasant from a present (Western liberal) perspective. You don't have to go far from that (certain religious perspectives in the west; Africa, Russia, much of the Islamic world) to find people whose views are not at all accepting or tolerant of people with 'different' sexualities.

There is often a polarising of views about such issues: binary thinking and position taking; it gets seen as liberal permissiveness versus conservative intolerance of difference. I think that one problem is that this can obscure a consideration of what people have actually done to others (as opposed to what they 'are', allegedly or otherwise, which on the whole I don't think is anyone else's business).

There is a real issue here, as Vaneyes and Triplets point out. I presume that most of us wouldn't be happy to continue to praise the artistic acheivements of just anyone, regardless of their actions. I think the example of Eric Gill is a good one. I do think his artistic works are excellent. Every time I see one I enjoy it, but with a good deal of guilt and discomfort.

Personally I do not know where to draw the line in theory or in practice: what degree of artistic (or scientific, or political) excellence compensates for or cancels out what degree of bad or terrrible or even monstrous behaviour towards others? You can assert that, say, artistic achievement is on a different axis from violence, or sexual abuse of other people, but both are qualities connected to the artist just as surely.

If a genocidal dictator had written great chamber music, or a sadistic serial rapist-killer had painted marvellous canvasses, would we be able and willing to go on enjoying them as great works of art in the full knowledge of what else their creators had done? With what mixed feelings and with what consequences for us?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The main idea I got from that article was nothing more than a pathetic "Eww! Gay people are _icky_!"

If Britten were alive, some of the claims there would most certainly be libellous. That said, the impression I've got from reading about Britten is that he could be a really obnoxious person. Can't hear it in the music though.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm more interested in how _near_ should critical comments come.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Dim7 said:


> I'm more interested in how _near_ should critical comments come.


Oh, you're so damned smart... For that you get a few golf claps from an esteemed fellow:


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah, it wasn't necessarily the wittiest of my posts...................


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

About the actual content of this particular diatribe, I couldn't be less interested.

About this question: _Does it matter if a composer has skeletons in the cupboard in terms of one's appreciation of her/his works?_, that is not the first time it appears here, I will repeat again what always have worked for me: No, I don't care at all.


----------



## Fat Bob (Sep 25, 2015)

I don't think anyone needs to concern themselves too much with the stuff churned out by this particular writer. After reading the diatribe on Britten I made the mistake of looking up the website of this chap and there is more of this mean spirited drivel about many composers. For example in essays on: Ravel was "both homosexual and an atheist and these two conditions often go together"; Chopin "a lot of his piano music has no depth and spends a lot of time at the top of the piano so that Chopin could look at the cleavages of pretty young women sitting in the front row"; as far as Schubert is concerned "He is the master of boring repetition wrote one eminent composer. His music is often superficial. It has no real substance." The Elgar essay states -"He had curious feelings for Edward VII. And, after all, he was an Edward too" - and? 

He tends to present personal prejudices as though they are revelations of merit but fails to build any coherent argument and is often woeful as far as his use of the English language is concerned: again from the Elgar essay, in discussing the 2nd symphony he states "it was, in 2002, nationally voted the most least admired symphony."

I think his site is only worth visiting for laughs, certainly not for any serious insights.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Fat Bob said:


> I don't think anyone needs to concern themselves too much with the stuff churned out by this particular writer. After reading the diatribe on Britten I made the mistake of looking up the website of this chap and there is more of this mean spirited drivel about many composers. For example in essays on: Ravel was "both homosexual and an atheist and these two conditions often go together"; Chopin "a lot of his piano music has no depth and spends a lot of time at the top of the piano so that Chopin could look at the cleavages of pretty young women sitting in the front row"; as far as Schubert is concerned "He is the master of boring repetition wrote one eminent composer. His music is often superficial. It has no real substance." The Elgar essay states -"He had curious feelings for Edward VII. And, after all, he was an Edward too" - and?
> 
> He tends to present personal prejudices as thought they are revelations of merit but fails to build any coherent argument and is often woeful as far as his use of the English language is concerned: again from the Elgar essay, in discussing the 2nd symphony he states "it was, in 2002, nationally voted the most least admired symphony."
> 
> I think his site is only worth visiting for laughs, certainly not for any serious insights.


The bit on Chopin is ripe for quotation in the future, though. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2015)

Lukecash12 said:


> The bit on Chopin is ripe for quotation in the future, though. :lol:


The Ravel one is priceless too!

This could be a whole new line in STIs!!

"Telemann's music reflected both his childish love of socialism and the ungodly urges that he had towards small farm animals."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

It is never far enough.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2015)

Oh dear, now I've just read about Eric Gill, a man of God.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Having read some of this gentleman's posts I can only say his critical faculty could be summed up in the words of the letter Harry Truman wrote to the critic Paul Hume on reading Hume's review of his daughter's singing recital:

Mr Hume:
I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!
Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Of course, the music matters, not the wo/man. Britten' s fondness for boys does not affect my liking for his music. Percy Grainger, though, now there was a man of quaint and curious personal habits! And I hugely enjoy Malcolm Arnold's work, even though he was a destructive influence on those around him. And, to switch genres, didn't Enid Blyton have a thing about nude tennis?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't know anything about Britten but I can tell you you've found the wrong website. This guy is full of it. I suggest not to read any more of his messy "essays". 
He isn't a troll just for the sake of it, so his deception is not completely obvious from the start. He has researched the facts about composers, sometimes quite detailed, however, when he doesn't like a composer, he twists, manipulates, distorts, omits or simply makes up certain facts so that his little stories suit his own opinion: when he doesn't think highly of a composer's personality and personal life, the music can't be great either.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Personally I do not know where to draw the line in theory or in practice


That sums up my position too. I know that I might have inconsistent attitudes and that my preferences and feelings might unravel under scrutiny.

I admit that there are performers who I have enjoyed listening to in the past, but now my enjoyment of their work is tainted by their crimes - Phillip Pickett is a case in point - but quite where I wish to draw the line between avoidance and closing my eyes is very difficult to articulate and even harder to justify


----------



## Nevilevelis (Dec 23, 2015)

TurnaboutVox said:


> One fears that this author cannot see the beam in his own eye for his preoccupation with and judgement of the mote in Britten's. It seems that he loathes or loathed Britten, and that he loathed homosexuality, vehemently. I do wonder why he seems unable to accept even the possibility of a loving same-sex relationship for someone different to himself.
> 
> It is difficult not to feel very uncomfortable about Britten's clearly reported sexual interest in under-age male children. He was clearly a troubled man and was perhaps rather troubling to others. But I have seen no evidence that this included actual criminal behaviour with children. Of course, to have a homosexual relationship with Pears was actually illegal in England until 1967.
> 
> ...


Absolutely endorsed. I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> ...the appreciation of a composer's music need not be affected by what we are told about his personal behavior. If that were not so, scarcely any artist's work's ability to give us pleasure would be able to withstand our knowledge of some aspect of his life.


The gentlemen I quoted above is totally correct. This is commonly known as the fallacy of _poisoning the well_.

"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say [or in this case, compose]." Wiki

Sadly, ad hominem attacks work, which is the reason why people use them so often. If this standard is correct it implies a well build damn might break if the engineer had a rotten character. Obviously, when we put the fallacy this way, we can see how nonsensical it is.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

We like to think that people are consistent, that they have well-defined "selves," and that, when we see displayed a certain prominent aspect of their personality or a particular set of characteristic behaviors, we can tell the "kind of person they are." One manifestation of this is that we want and expect that the works of an artist should communicate the same things to us as the facts of his biography communicate to us. 

Unfortunately, the reality of the human person is messier and more fragmented. But we cling to our need to simplify it so that we can confidently pass judgment and shore up our own sense of who we are and what we believe. I can't recall now the number of times I have had to contest, on this very forum, the various ways in which that old reprobate Wagner is associated with you-know-what-genocidal-dictator, and the notion that because Wagner hated Jews his operas must be full of antisemitic characterizations and subtexts. It's just unthinkable to many that this should not be so, and there is a virtual cottage industry grinding out theories attempting to show that it is indeed so. But the truth is that all such theories, once they are pulled apart piece by piece, finally come down to "It just isn't possible for the art of a horrible self-declared racist to be free of racism!"

Well, I'm sorry to have to disturb this orderly and reassuring image of reality, but the truth is that it is indeed possible. And it is not only possible: it is even - we will see if we look at the personal lives and thoughts of artists throughout history - very likely. Human beings are inconsistent with themselves in numberless ways, and the conscious thinking that governs their affairs may be widely at variance with the inner visions which arise from places within them they cannot fully comprehend, and which determine that the art which emerges from their unseen selves may well aspire to a condition far more meaningful than, and superior to, life as they daily know it and live it. 

What then are we to do with the cognitive dissonance which arises in us when we see the contrast between a composer's life and his work? The first thing to do is simply to acknowledge its inevitability - to realize that it is not only normal but the rule rather than the exception. Human nature is fragmented; the relationship between a man and himself, and between his art and any given aspect of himself, is neither straightforward nor predictable. We need to give up the expectation, on approaching a work of art, that we are going to learn from it what the artist is like as a person - except with this in mind: that because art is fed by streams issuing from layers of the personality below the levels of consciousness and control which constitute the artist's persona in the world, we are not unlikely to be seeing in the art something fundamental to him that even people who see and talk with him day by day rarely if ever see. And we may very well feel that this something makes him seem to us a better man than we thought he was. The chances are that this is no illusion - and it ought, at the very least, to help us get past whatever impediments to enjoying his work his less attractive personal traits have thrown in our path.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2015)

I wouldn't dignify that article by printing it and using it for toilet paper.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> The main idea I got from that article was nothing more than a pathetic "Eww! Gay people are _icky_!"


I often feel that Britten is one of those composers you are supposed to like which disturb me. I like some of his music but he is far from a favourite and I really don´t like his operas. Among gay composers if that have anything to do with their music I prefer Szymanowski.


----------



## Nevilevelis (Dec 23, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> We like to think that people are consistent, that they have well-defined "selves," and that, when we see displayed a certain prominent aspect of their personality or a particular set of characteristic behaviors, we can tell the "kind of person they are." One manifestation of this is that we want and expect that the works of an artist should communicate the same things to us as the facts of his biography communicate to us.
> 
> Unfortunately, the reality of the human person is messier and more fragmented. But we cling to our need to simplify it so that we can confidently pass judgment and shore up our own sense of who we are and what we believe. I can't recall now the number of times I have had to contest, on this very forum, the various ways in which that old reprobate Wagner is associated with you-know-what-genocidal-dictator, and the notion that because Wagner hated Jews his operas must be full of antisemitic characterizations and subtexts. It's just unthinkable to many that this should not be so, and there is a virtual cottage industry grinding out theories attempting to show that it is indeed so. But the truth is that all such theories, once they are pulled apart piece by piece, finally come down to "It just isn't possible for the art of a horrible self-declared racist to be free of racism!"
> 
> ...


An excellent post and particuarly the highlighted text which sums up what I have always felt. In far less persuasive language than your own, I would say that art has that redemptive quality - the very best of men and women is in their art, or can be... Perhaps it may also be a form of atonement in some cases, although I can't think of any right now! Actions speak louder than words, certainly, but the creative urge being so great in humans that it must count for something.

I'm sure that all sounds very naive and will unravel under close scrutiny.

Choir Christmas cards beckon!


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I do get the idea that Dr. David C.F. Wright DMus Spends his spare time dressing up in sheets and setting fire to religeous iconography! Of course thats just the impression I get from his work.


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

Firstly, I'm pleased, as a newcomer, to find that I've not been found offensive in posting this topic.
The level of response endears me to the forum as a whole.

I was appalled when I first discovered Dr White's website since it contains some truly offensive views, showing him be dreadfully homophobic and arrogant enough to pass his distorted opinions as fact. Since he carries academic qualifications, there is a tendency to give those views some credence.

My subsidiary question, concerning judgements of composers who may have gravely transgressed has been answered with an almost uniform "No". I agree with this (albeit wondering whether I'd spend much time listening to Attila the Hun's concerto for elephant tusk). People are uniformly un-uniform and we all carry flaws and skeletons packed away in differing quantities. Whilst we know of Handel's bellicosity, our knowledge of Haydn tends to suggest he was the sort of chap you'd take home to meet your mother. But who knows? - he may have been a serial sheep stealer who never got caught (or worse).


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Wright's website is revealing. He seems to show a mix of self-righteous assertiveness, belief in his own abilities, complete lack of self awareness, a child-like innocence and a tendency to write bathetic unintentional comedy. This combination reminds me of the poetry (and self-justificatory pamphlets) of another rather eccentric figure, William McGonagall, the famous 19th century Scottish 'bad poet', though MacGonagall does not seem to have been prone to the venomous, perhaps jealous or envious, abuse of people he didn't approve of.

Here he is on Gershwin: 

"Gershwin’s music is decadent as was the jazz age generally. It is music of sexual
impurity and indecency!"

On Gershwin's piano concerto:

"I asked twenty concert pianists about this concerto. Nineteen detested it and said that if they played
it, it would damage their reputation and they did not wish to be associated with such awful music."

He likes to quote supporting opinions from unnamed colleagues and musicians who, interestingly, seem to write in a style and voice identical to his own.

Hilarious. Is he taken seriously by anyone?


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Hilarious. Is he taken seriously by anyone?


 at least 10% of anyone take anything seriously, may be 15% on a good day.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2015)

If he had a blog, I'd put it in my favourites.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2015)

Stirling said:


> at least 10% of anyone take anything seriously, may be 15% on a good day.


46.2% of statistics are made up.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

dogen said:


> If he had a blog, I'd put it in my favourites.


 there are many people who have a list entitled " the worst of the web". I know I do, and occasionally will quote from.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

dogen said:


> 46.2% of statistics are made up.


 no, that is about what fringe parties can hope for on a good day - if they get more the regular parties will either have to reform what they stand for, or start shooting.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Having read some of this gentleman's posts I can only say his critical faculty could be summed up in the words of the letter Harry Truman wrote to the critic Paul Hume on reading Hume's review of his daughter's singing recital:
> 
> Mr Hume:
> I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay."
> ...


or as Max Reger said:

"I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me"


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

TurnaboutVox said:


> If a genocidal dictator had written great chamber music, or a sadistic serial rapist-killer had painted marvellous canvasses, would we be able and willing to go on enjoying them as great works of art in the full knowledge of what else their creators had done? With what mixed feelings and with what consequences for us?


I can in fact enjoy Hitler's paintings. Though I recognize they are not masterpieces, neither are they horrible. I really can't connect the picture below to any of what history tells us of the man. I think that our brains are complex enough to compartmentalize in both the creators and consumers of art.










However, I am by no means comparing Britten to Hitler or suspecting him of immorality. I wasn't there. How would I know?

I can sometimes for instance enjoy a work of fiction without agreeing with its author (Orson Scott Card perhaps being an exception), and I have certainly enjoyed pop songs without agreeing with their lyrical content or liking their performers' personalities. I am proud to have never put a single cent into Ted Nugent's pocket - er, loin cloth -- but I have to admit "Stanglehold" is a pretty good rock song.

Beethoven, a favorite composer for many, wasn't exactly Prince Charming by most accounts.

I think when the artist is gone and the deeds are all but forgotten, the art remains.

(And oh, how I wish I could better organize my thoughts in this post! Arrrg!  )


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Weston said:


> I can in fact enjoy Hitler's paintings. Though I recognize they are not masterpieces, neither are they horrible. I really can't connect the picture below to any of what history tells us of the man. I think that our brains are complex enough to compartmentalize in both the creators and consumers of art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree with your post! But, I have to include even Orson Scott Card as a person with whom I can separate the man from the art. I grew up as a young child (11 or so) reading Ender's Game and being enthralled by it and all the books the followed from it. As I grew up I've read a multitude of books and entire series' by this man, and his books are in my opinion wonderful. His religiously based views of homosexuality are abhorrent to me, but on the other hand his work has given me so much pleasure throughout the years.

Somewhat surprisingly, he actually features a gay man in one of his series' (the Homeland series) and he actually paints him as a very favorable character, though I think his biases still show through in how he depicted him. At the same time, this character was a cool character, and at the time (again I was probably like... 16 when I read this) I had no idea of his bigoted views, and wouldn't have thought he had them simply given the way he treated this gay character.

Long story short, I disagree with Card so far as to think him ridiculous and to be ridiculed. But as you say, I can partition these things apart and enjoy his books without loving the man who made them. Besides, I tend to think it's his religious indoctrination that informs his abhorrent views, and that without said indoctrination he would actually be a pretty decent person. One can never know, however.

Edit: Card can't possibly be as bad as Hitler can he?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Dedalus said:


> I absolutely agree with your post! But, I have to include even Orson Scott Card as a person with whom I can separate the man from the art. I grew up as a young child (11 or so) reading Ender's Game and being enthralled by it and all the books the followed from it. As I grew up I've read a multitude of books and entire series' by this man, and his books are in my opinion wonderful. His religiously based views of homosexuality are abhorrent to me, but on the other hand his work has given me so much pleasure throughout the years.
> 
> Somewhat surprisingly, he actually features a gay man in one of his series' (the Homeland series) and he actually paints him as a very favorable character, though I think his biases still show through in how he depicted him. At the same time, this character was a cool character, and at the time (again I was probably like... 16 when I read this) I had no idea of his bigoted views, and wouldn't have thought he had them simply given the way he treated this gay character.
> 
> ...


Still, it would be wise to stop buying books written by that man until he dies, as to not support him spreading his bigoted views.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

To take just the two examples in Weston's post, Hitler's art might (in part) possibly 'be about' searching for a way to impose a certain order on the world. Britten's music, especially his operas and more programmatic works, might in part 'concern' a gay man's struggle with his sexual desire towards forbidden subjects. But an artistic struggle with this, resulting in works of art (indirect, sublimated expression) doesn't have the same consequences as a direct expression of the desire would do, and has many clear benefits, viz. important works of art are available for appreciation and contemplation.

They may shock others, if they're sufficiently direct to be understood, but that's not the same thing at all.

I can see the artistic merit in Hitler's paintings, just as I can the considerably greater merit in Britten's music. The thing is, I can never be comfortable in contemplating a Hitler painting, because of what else he did. There is actually something rather chilling about their emptiness and calm order, I think, knowing what murderous cruelty and chaos he later unleashed on the world. And actually I am also a bit uncomfortable about enjoying Britten's music in the light of some of his reported behaviour and attitudes, although less so. Obviously these are just examples: we could apply these observations to the work of many other people.

I understand what is being argued about the art and the man being seperate things, it's just that I think that seperation is a consequence of our active seperation of them in our minds, in order to avoid dealing simultaeously with all the aspects of a particular artist. Our brains clearly are complex enough to do this, and we do so all the time. But it's a way of protecting ourselves. There is a link, whether we choose to appreciate it or not. And, I think we will differ in our emotional reactions to the totality of an artist, hence many of our disagreements on this forum.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Dedalus said:


> Edit: Card can't possibly be as bad as Hitler can he?


Not at all. In fact I don't think of him as evil, just as you say indoctrinated. But he can still profit from his writing, and I have no more effective way to show my disagreement than through my wallet.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I can see the artistic merit in Hitler's paintings,


Really? *Artistic merit?*

sure, its an innocuous enough picture, but is that 'art' and does it have 'artistic merit'? I know that defining 'art' and 'merit' are very difficult (nay, impossible?) but this doesn't look to me as if anyone would pay much attention to it without the name of the 'artist'. Yes, ok, if it was in my possession I would pop along to Antiques Roadshow, pocket the cash and then go to buy something that was more interesting, but frankly this looks dull and lifeless to my eyes


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Weston said:


> I can in fact enjoy Hitler's paintings. Though I recognize they are not masterpieces, neither are they horrible. I really can't connect the picture below to any of what history tells us of the man. I think that our brains are complex enough to compartmentalize in both the creators and consumers of art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Painting has a good structure and i like the shapes, angles and corners of objects and shadow positions...Style not bad also...


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Really? *Artistic merit?*
> 
> sure, its an innocuous enough picture, but is that 'art' and does it have 'artistic merit'? I know that defining 'art' and 'merit' are very difficult (nay, impossible?) but this doesn't look to me as if anyone would pay much attention to it without the name of the 'artist'. Yes, ok, if it was in my possession I would pop along to Antiques Roadshow, pocket the cash and then go to buy something that was more interesting, but frankly this looks dull and lifeless to my eyes


Yes! In the hands of a more thoughtful, self-aware artist (or at least one who was in touch with his unconscious mind) this might have become an interesting expression and exploration of inner dullness, lifelessness, emptiness, the need to impose order on the world for defensive purposes, etc. (I'm being serious, by the way). As others better qualified to judge have said, Hitler was technically reasonably proficient as an artist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^The windows on the wall and the staircase show that he doesn't understand the basics of linear perspective. What is that thing in the lower left? It, and that mass of brown above it, convey no sense of existing in space. The direction and distribution of the light is confusing. The colors are dead. If you want to do this kind of precise realism - virtually an architectural rendering - you need to be a better observer. Was he a kid when he did this?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Hitler was technically reasonably proficient as an artist.


OK, I think we have enough to agree on here. 'Technically' and 'reasonable proficient' I can go with - albeit with the caveats that Woodduck points out .... but we would have to go our separate ways on the 'artistic merit' aspect, perhaps?


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> OK, I think we have enough to agree on here. 'Technically' and 'reasonable proficient' I can go with - albeit with the caveats that Woodduck points out .... but we would have to go our separate ways on the 'artistic merit' aspect, perhaps?


I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was much artistic merit in Hitler's paintings, HH, only that there was a modicum!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I agree with TV's comments re Hitler
I think the crux for me when trying to separate the man from the artist, (whomever we are considering) is how far adrift the moral compass of their behaviour or views is from the rest of decent society.
I am not interested in any art form produced by mass murders/dictators/despots no matter how good it might be. If I don't find what they have done or said to be extreme then so be it, I don't have to like them or live with them.
It's where each of us sets their little line in the sand that matters to the individual.
Crackpot commentators prone to exaggeration or malice are best ignored.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was much artistic merit in Hitler's paintings, HH, only that there was a modicum!


Phew!!! :kiss:


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^The windows on the wall and the staircase show that he doesn't understand the basics of linear perspective. What is that thing in the lower left? It, and that mass of brown above it, convey no sense of existing in space. The direction and distribution of the light is confusing. The colors are dead. If you want to do this kind of precise realism - virtually an architectural rendering - you need to be a better observer. Was he a kid when he did this?


Well he certainly wasnt a genius but a talent is visible...If he only managed to get into Academy work on himslef and start a professional career as an artist, things would maybe turn out totally different.


----------

