# Does politics spoil your enjoyment?



## michael walsh

I get pleasantly emotional when I listen to Anton Bruckner's _Kol Nidrei _- a composer who was of course non-Jewish; a strong Catholic who lived through a very anti-Semitic period. Further, I doubt if any cellist plays it better than Mischa Maisky ... yet I am perturbed by my liking it so much when I am profoundly anti-Zionist.

Its translation means the repudiation of all vows taken during the preceeding year, which is anathema to me whose vows aren't intended to be dismissed at will.

I know there are those who appreciate the grandeur of Richard Wagner but are repelled by his anti-Semitism and wonder if they too are disturbed by the clash of principles when facing down artistic merit?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ever since the Romantics we have equated the art with the artist. Art has become little more than "self expression"... in spite of the fact that no work of art... however complex... can hope to convey the whole of a single individual human being... something Whitman recognized when he proclaimed "I contain multitudes". The art and the artist are not one and the same. Even were Mozart the same twit as portrayed in _Amadeus_ his music is undoubtedly brilliant. The fact that Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover and left their mutilated bodies for all to see does not negate the merit of his music. The fact that Caravaggio pandered homoerotic images of under aged "pretty boys" to high ranking church officials and later killed a man during a duel over a tennis match in no way undermines the brilliance of this:


----------



## Padawan

I admit that it used to bother me quite a bit, that one of my favorite artists, Pablo Picasso is a misogynist, my opinion only; so much that I would not buy any of his art. I’ve finally come to terms with that, and learned to compartmentalize. I can no longer deny myself the privilege to enjoy his art, his genius and creativity. I feel the same way about Frank Lloyd Wright and Richard Wagner. I know that I don’t embrace their views or ways of thinking.


----------



## Very Senior Member

michael walsh said:


> I get pleasantly emotional when I listen to *Anton Bruckner's* _Kol Nidrei _


I didn't know that Bruckner wrote such a work. Are you referring to Max Bruch's _Kol Nidrei_, Op 47?


----------



## michael walsh

Whoops! You're right! I took my eye off the ball there ... but as far as I know Max Bruch wasn't Jewish; not that it matters a great deal and from the other replies, an interesting question. Thanks VSM.


----------



## Very Senior Member

michael walsh said:


> Whoops! You're right! I took my eye off the ball there ... but as far as I know Max Bruch wasn't Jewish; not that it matters a great deal and from the other replies, an interesting question. Thanks VSM.


Nor was Bruch strongly pro-Catholic so I would assume that the basis of this thread is rather lost.

Unless of course the real motive is not to talk about Bruckner's alleged duplicitous religious/moral standards but to question those who like the music of Richard Wagner given his very clear anti-Semitic prejudices?


----------



## Very Senior Member

Normally when this topic comes up on classical music message boards the typical response is that members don't worry too much about any odd-ball or deviant characteristics of their favorite composer(s) and they focus only on the "wonderful music" they wrote.

This works fine and sounds very grand and noble provided a certain condition is met. Take the case of a hypothetical famous classical composer who was a mean, nasty wife-beating character but who wrote the most gorgeous symphonies. Provided he kept his wife-beating activities to those occasions when he wasn't composing, I guess it's possible to focus solely on the beauty of his symphonies and turn a blind eye to his more nefarious wife-beating activity. But what if this wasn't the case and the actual composition of the symphonies drew direct inspiration from the pursuit of his wife-beating? This is a different situation which I believe may generate a different response.

Sounds far-fetched I can hear some people say. But consider Richard Wagner, one of the most viciously anti-Semitic composers of the 19th C . This aspect of his life and career is not doubted by even his main band of loyalists, but they say that none of this affected in any way his musical output per se. However, some commentators (including some learned musicologists) have argued just the opposite, that his music was one of the main vehicles by which he communicated his anti-Semitism by parodying in a bad light what he perceived to be certain traits of Jewish culture and people in his various music dramas. In other words he only wrote the music in order to further his anti-Semitic leanings.

This is why many Jewish people especially have no time for Wagner and his music, regardless of any later association with Nazism. I'm not Jewish and I happen not to believe the contention in the previous paragraph. I believe that Wagner wrote some of the best music ever and any references to Jewish aspects were mainly incidental. Others may have different views on this topic.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Wagner wasn't simply antisemitic, he was also anti-French and anti-anything that he perceived as interfering with German nationalism and unification. One must remember that what we think of as Germany did not exist during Wagner's time. Rather, what we had was a series of loosely organized city-states, duchys, protectorates, etc... As a whole these were rather weak and ineffectual in comparison to France, Britain, and even Russia. At the same time, they were continually struggling with foreign (especially French) intervention against any real attempt at national unification.

This does not excuse Wagner's antisemitism, but it does serve to place it in a context. Wagner clearly saw the Jews as "outsiders", which to some extent they were (having been driven out of Spain at the time of the Inquisition and later out of the Netherlands as well as Russia and Eastern Europe) and part of the problem. The Jews never fully assimilated into the larger German culture, which obviously drew attention to them and made them a target of resentment. At the time there was certainly a major Jewish involvement in the arts. Hitler later ranted that Modernism was an invention of Jewish collectors, dealers, etc... This charge was not completely unfounded... in Hitler's time... or earlier. As my Jewish studio-mate has noted the arts have long been one of the areas in which the wealthier Jews attempted to assimilate.

Wagner would have been angered at this Jewish involvement (and influence) as it posed (to his mind) a threat to German culture and German nationalism. But there was also a personal animosity at play. Any difficulties or lack of support for Wagner's music could be attributed to supposed Jewish interference. This was not fully a product of Wagner's imagination when one considers that the most powerful and influential critic of the day, Eduard Hanslick, who was openly hostile toward Wagner and any of his apostles (including famously Bruckner and Hugo Wolf) was of Jewish heritage.

Yet Wagner was far to0 great of an artist to waste his creative energies upon giving vent to his antisemitism or politics in general... except in the most allegorical and oblique manner. One might argue that the character Alberich, from _Das Rheingold_, is a stereotype of the greedy Jew... and the harping critic, Beckmesser, in _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ was a parody of Hanslick... but this is all conjecture. Neither does either character damage the larger drama any more than Shylock (a far more obvious negative Jewish stereotype) damage the larger drama of Shakespeare's _Merchant of Venice_. If Wagner... or any artist had used his creative genius simply to create an anti-Jewish (or anti-French, anti-English, anti-anything) rant then certainly we might give more than a pause to the work... but the reality is that the larger themes of Wagner's dramas are far more concerned with love, death, transfiguration, heroism, etc... I probably wouldn't want to go and read Wagner's essay, _Jewishness in Music_ for pleasure... nor would I necessarily want to hang out with him as an individual... for more reasons than one... but this in no way effects my appreciation of his music.

A question I might ask... is there anything that one would imagine as clearly antisemitic in Wagner's music had you not been looking for it... had you not some knowledge of his politics? How many other great artists have skeletons in the closet and should these effect our perception of their art if they are not openly perceptible in the work?


----------



## Davidjo

What nonsense! Jews didn't assimilate into German culture? It woudl be hard to find a more assimilated Jewish community than the German Jews. In fact German Jews were often more German than the Germans. 

As for Wagner, trying to spray paint him as a nationalist won't work. He was a racist anti-semite, not a nationalistic or a religious one. He was very much the founder of German racist anti-semitism - which was of course part of the reason Hitler so loved him. 

As for Michael Walsh's comments, I am not sure why he is so keen that Palestine should be Judenfrei. Does he want to keep out foreigners from his own country? 

For my own part, I can never wholly enjoy and embrace Wagner, because it is impossible to dissociate his music from his racist ideology. There is a none of the ambiguities of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in his work. His music serves his ideology, as a faithful retainer.


----------



## Sid James

I'm suspicious of Wagner, because he was a racist. He was also undoubtedly a genius, but I can't ignore his darker side as well...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What nonsense! Jews didn't assimilate into German culture? It would be hard to find a more assimilated Jewish community than the German Jews. 

Yes, certain aspects of the Jewish community were fully assimilated... but others never did. Strictures of their religion, dress, diet, etc... made them immediately recognizable... as did the fact that they were often limited as to where they could live (ie the Ghettos) and what forms of employment they might aspire toward. The mere appearance of being an "outsider" is enough to make one a target or a scapegoat for personal or public hatreds... especially if the outsiders can be imagined as succeeding during hard times.

As for Wagner, trying to spray paint him as a nationalist won't work. He was a racist anti-semite, not a nationalistic or a religious one. He was very much the founder of German racist anti-semitism - which was of course part of the reason Hitler so loved him.

You have read a history book or two, perhaps? Antisemitism existed in Germany well before Wagner and in Europe as a whole well before the Jews settled in Germany. They were targeted by the Spanish Inquisition in 1492 and expelled from Britain even earlier in 1290 by the decree of Edward I. The very notion that Wagner was the founder of German antisemitism is laughable... he was but one more symptom... albeit quite open and vocal... in his antisemitism. The fact that Hitler loved Wagner is neither here nor there. He also loved Richard Strauss, Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, Wilhelm Furtwangler, etc...

For my own part, I can never wholly enjoy and embrace Wagner, because it is impossible to dissociate his music from his racist ideology. There is a none of the ambiguities of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in his work. His music serves his ideology, as a faithful retainer.

And so can you easily disassociate the prejudices and hatreds of other artists from their art. Caravaggio pandered homoerotic images of under-aged boys to high-ranking members of the Catholic church and ended up banished from Venice for murder. Gesualdo murdered and mutilated the bodies of his wife and her lover. Paul Verlaine... the most elegant and sensitive of French poets (who authored the famous _Claire de Lune_) repeatedly beat his wife and mother-in-law, ran across Europe on a mad homoerotic rampage with Rimbaud that ended in an attempted murder of the same. Undoubtedly the vast majority of European old masters in every artistic genre had their religious and nationalistic prejudices and hatreds common to when and where they lived. Wagner's misfortune is having stupidly given vent to these in his writings which were then embraced by Hitler with the horrific results which followed.

I do not personally see where Wagner's antisemitic or racist ideology informs his music. How is _Tristan und Isolde_ antisemitic? _The Flying Dutchman_? Again there are minor characters which we might conjecture represent some type of Jewish stereotype... but these are far more ambiguous than the character of Shylock, from Shakespeare's _Merchant of Venice_. No less eminent a critic than Harold Bloom (himself a self proclaimed non-believing, secular Jew) admits to wincing in response to this character... in spite of his absolute reverence of Shakespeare.

Personally, I imagine that if I need to find the artist a likable fellow with whom I am in complete agreement until I can appreciate the art... I'm not going to have a lot of art left. Indeed... if I even only eliminate those who I find ethically or morally challenged, I'm still going to be without a great many of the greatest artistic minds. Art and morality do not go hand in hand. This is something that the Nazis and the Renaissance princes should have made abundantly clear.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm suspicious of Wagner, because he was a racist. He was also undoubtedly a genius, but I can't ignore his darker side as well...

I wouldn't want to hang out with him myself... and I'm not even Jewish. As Phil G. Goulding notes in his book, _Classical Music_, Wagner was also a wife-stealer, a home-wrecker, and perhaps one of the most unpleasant men who ever lived. But I don't have to like him to like his music.


----------



## Lukecash12

> This does not excuse Wagner's antisemitism, but it does serve to place it in a context. Wagner clearly saw the Jews as "outsiders", which to some extent they were (having been driven out of Spain at the time of the Inquisition and later out of the Netherlands as well as Russia and Eastern Europe) and part of the problem. The Jews never fully assimilated into the larger German culture, which obviously drew attention to them and made them a target of resentment. At the time there was certainly a major Jewish involvement in the arts. Hitler later ranted that Modernism was an invention of Jewish collectors, dealers, etc... This charge was not completely unfounded... in Hitler's time... or earlier. As my Jewish studio-mate has noted the arts have long been one of the areas in which the wealthier Jews attempted to assimilate.
> 
> Wagner would have been angered at this Jewish involvement (and influence) as it posed (to his mind) a threat to German culture and German nationalism. But there was also a personal animosity at play. Any difficulties or lack of support for Wagner's music could be attributed to supposed Jewish interference. This was not fully a product of Wagner's imagination when one considers that the most powerful and influential critic of the day, Eduard Hanslick, who was openly hostile toward Wagner and any of his apostles (including famously Bruckner and Hugo Wolf) was of Jewish heritage.


This is really my own opinion, so take it or leave it respectfully. The real merit in music has nothing to do with who did or thought such and such. The more I study music, the more I love people in general. The only thing that makes a terrible person is lack of perspective, and people will always have rocky relationships with one another. You appreciate the person because you are by nature a social animal, and the fact of the matter is that we were really made for each other. There is nothing reprehensible in any manner with listening to a bigot's music and thinking, "what a wonderful person".

Maybe not everyone studies music to study people, but I can say for myself that I don't listen study Chopin's music to get some synthetic nostalgia out of it, I study Chopin himself using his music. I wouldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for the Bible to direct me, and people for me to study using music.

I can't really put a finger on how, it's as if you can read emotional wavelengths with music. But I'm guessing most everyone feels this way in the first place, right?


----------



## michael walsh

I think Hitler’s appreciation of Richard Wagner’s music on the grounds of his anti-Semitism has been rather overblown. The German leader was known to thoroughly enjoy the works of Franz Lehar and ensured his being awarded the Goethe Medal. 
Lehar had a Jewish wife and of course worked in an environment in which many of his colleagues would be Jewish. Hitler’s favourite operetta was Die lustige Witwe. 
It is also known that the fuehrer was very keen on Mahler and always attended one of his concerts where time allowed.


----------



## Very Senior Member

HERE is an example of the kind of arguments used by some Jewish musical scholars to demonstrate their belief that Wagner imbued his operas with anti-Semitic coding. This one, dating back to 2002, by Larry Solomon is quite well known. There are others. The thrust of these comments is that the degree of anti-Semitism embodied in Wagner's musical works was of such a scale that they could not be passed off as having been done merely for artistic purposes (eg as in the case of Charles Dickens Shylock). I don't find Solomon's arguments at all convincing but they are possibly worth reading in order to gauge the depth of anti-Wagnerian feeling in some quarters.


----------



## michael walsh

Solomon's thesis, as might be expected, is riddled with spin and distortion though there's points of interest. Of the last three quotations 5 and 6b are in fact Rauschning's and not Hitler's; therefore they are hearsay. 

As Rauschning fled National Socialist Germany and exiled himself to the U.S. he could hardly be counted on for reliable quotations. Few historians take him seriously despite decades of accepting much else at face value. 

So of the several quotations only one can be attributed to Hitler and that, compared with Winston Churchill's anti-Semitic utterances, was mild.


----------



## The Cosmos

My definitions are always pretty strait forward -

A guy like Gesualdo? I just think he was a complete assole, who also happened to write great music. The part about his life and stuff? well, he can keep that to himself and give me the music alone. He was quite a religious person wasn't he? Then I bet he's burning himself in hell, even to this day. 

Wagner? I think he was a prick tbh. The stuff about his politics and jews? Eww, excuse me, but I think he certainly had some issues.

And Caravaggio? The guy was a alcoholic who lived on the streets with a bunch of other lunatics. Got drunk one day; murdered someone; ran away in fear; and eventually payed his price. Heck, I've heard such stories a thousand times before anyways. The bugger just happened to paint with his eye (literally) and that definitely showed in his art.

History is just one of those things for me. Just show me the facts alone, and I'll make up my own story. His-stories, well, his-stories are certainly different than mine. Did it bother me? I already think some of these guys were complete lunatics, but the art can still be enjoyed for what it is. If there's one thing I rarely take inspiration from, it's from the lives of many of these artists, AWAY from their art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The Romantics are largely responsible for the notion of the "cult of personality" in which the work of art is imagined as little more than "self expression" and thus the art and the artist are imagined as inseparable. The later 19th century posited the notion that the goal of art was to be morally uplifting. As a result, the boom in construction of museums and theaters and concert halls was partially a result of the notion that morality and spirituality would be found in art rather than in the church. It was here that the notion of the artist as the moral/spiritual conscience of the time was imagined... and this carried over into the political sphere during Modernism.

It is disappointing for many to discover that their artistic heroes were no more ethical or moral than the average human being... and in some cases were far less so. This, however, was a reality that was recognized by those artists who embraced the notion of _art pour l'art_ (or art for art's sake). This philosophy, rooted in and espoused in the works of Theophile Gautier, Charles Baudelaire, Oscar Wilde, Walter Pater, among others, does not denote the notion that art should be about nothing other than art nor that it may not have a spiritual, moral, ethical, social message at its core. Rather, _art pour l'art_ simply argued that the work of art should only be judged upon aesthetic merits and not upon non-aesthetic concerns. A good number of artists involved in the _art pour l'art _movement created works of art that intentionally challenged the accepted values of the time (one might think of Baudelaire, Flaubert, Zola, Wilde, etc...) simply as a means of proving that a great work of art is not necessarily a work of high morals. Perhaps the most brilliant example of such a work of art is Nabokov's _Lolita_.

Today we may have no problem with accepting the notion that Bernini and Lucas Cranach both created great works of art... in spite of the fact that Bernini's art was deeply involved with Catholic Counter-Reformation goals, while Cranach was of the opposite camp. We might also accept that both J.L. David's heroic portraits of Napoleon and Goya's horrific images of the terror's wrought by Napoleon's involvement in Spain are equally brilliant works of art. We might even embrace the architecture, painting, and music of Islam while fully rejecting the philosophy behind it.

In spite of all of this there is still a strong urge today to equate the artist with the art. The tragic myth behind Van Gogh has as much if not more to do with his popularity than does his actual paintings. Beethoven's deafness is a narrative that is often equally influential upon the perception of the composer's work. There also remain certain taboos that contemporary critics cannot turn their head to. Absurdly we have those critics who can ignore all the socio-pathetic violence of the Marquis De Sade but jump at Mark Twain's use of the word "******"... obvious proof of racism... even though the entire purpose was to critic the racism accepted at the time. Thomas Jefferson's political and Richard Wagner's musical achievements can be dismissed because one owned slaves at a time in which most wealthy American land-owners owned slaves, and the other was blatantly antisemitic... and yet someone like Stockhausen can equate the events of 911 to the most marvelous work of art and his comments are gleaned over.

I agree that racist, sexist, xenophobic (etc...) expressions within a work of art need to be critiqued when experiencing a work of art... and these need to be critiqued with some understanding of the context in which they were made. What was acceptable or even commonplace 500 years ago may be completely unacceptable today... but we cannot expect that every artist exist morally outside of his or her time... I don't expect that an artist be a spiritual or moral leader... I expect that he or she make good art. The artist's biography, on the other hand, should have little or nothing to do with our appreciation of the art. I don't love Beethoven because he was deaf and struggled against his "handicap" nor do I like Raphael because he was a nice guy. By the same token, if we are judging art upon aesthetic values we should not expect that we will always agree with what the artist has to convey. It is not what is being said but how it is being said that makes or breaks the art. I do not need an artist to reinforce my own beliefs, values, or even prejudices. I can acknowledge that Plato was a brilliant writer and even enjoy his writing while I might dispute nearly everything he had to say. The experience of art, to me, is like engaging in a dialog with a brilliant mind. I might not agree with what they have to say at times... but I would rather engage in a dialog with them than with a mediocre mind that parrots my own thoughts.


----------



## Davidjo

What nonsense! Jews didn't assimilate into German culture? It would be hard to find a more assimilated Jewish community than the German Jews. 

Yes, certain aspects of the Jewish community were fully assimilated... but others never did. Strictures of their religion, dress, diet, etc... made them immediately recognizable... as did the fact that they were often limited as to where they could live (ie the Ghettos) and what forms of employment they might aspire toward. The mere appearance of being an "outsider" is enough to make one a target or a scapegoat for personal or public hatreds... especially if the outsiders can be imagined as succeeding during hard times.

There were no ghettoes in Wagner's time. Large numbers of Jews were completely assimilated even in matters of diet and certainly in matters of dress. Very few German Jews wore Kaftans or similar. Vienna - Austria - was somewhat different. 

As for Wagner, trying to spray paint him as a nationalist won't work. He was a racist anti-semite, not a nationalistic or a religious one. He was very much the founder of German racist anti-semitism - which was of course part of the reason Hitler so loved him.

You have read a history book or two, perhaps? Antisemitism existed in Germany well before Wagner and in Europe as a whole well before the Jews settled in Germany. They were targeted by the Spanish Inquisition in 1492 and expelled from Britain even earlier in 1290 by the decree of Edward I. The very notion that Wagner was the founder of German antisemitism is laughable... he was but one more symptom... albeit quite open and vocal... in his antisemitism. The fact that Hitler loved Wagner is neither here nor there. He also loved Richard Strauss, Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, Wilhelm Furtwangler, etc...

I certainly have. Re-read what I wrote. I said he was one of the founders of German RACIST anti-semitism (believing that Jews were innately evil because of their biological make-up - not their religion or their nationality). The fact is that Hitler feted Wagner above all other musicians. 

For my own part, I can never wholly enjoy and embrace Wagner, because it is impossible to dissociate his music from his racist ideology. There is a none of the ambiguities of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in his work. His music serves his ideology, as a faithful retainer.

And so can you easily disassociate the prejudices and hatreds of other artists from their art. Caravaggio pandered homoerotic images of under-aged boys to high-ranking members of the Catholic church and ended up banished from Venice for murder. Gesualdo murdered and mutilated the bodies of his wife and her lover. Paul Verlaine... the most elegant and sensitive of French poets (who authored the famous _Claire de Lune_) repeatedly beat his wife and mother-in-law, ran across Europe on a mad homoerotic rampage with Rimbaud that ended in an attempted murder of the same. Undoubtedly the vast majority of European old masters in every artistic genre had their religious and nationalistic prejudices and hatreds common to when and where they lived. Wagner's misfortune is having stupidly given vent to these in his writings which were then embraced by Hitler with the horrific results which followed.

I do not personally see where Wagner's antisemitic or racist ideology informs his music. How is _Tristan und Isolde_ antisemitic? _The Flying Dutchman_? Again there are minor characters which we might conjecture represent some type of Jewish stereotype... but these are far more ambiguous than the character of Shylock, from Shakespeare's _Merchant of Venice_. No less eminent a critic than Harold Bloom (himself a self proclaimed non-believing, secular Jew) admits to wincing in response to this character... in spite of his absolute reverence of Shakespeare.

Personally, I imagine that if I need to find the artist a likable fellow with whom I am in complete agreement until I can appreciate the art... I'm not going to have a lot of art left. Indeed... if I even only eliminate those who I find ethically or morally challenged, I'm still going to be without a great many of the greatest artistic minds. Art and morality do not go hand in hand. This is something that the Nazis and the Renaissance princes should have made abundantly clear.

It's a complex matter. I know some people - even Jews like Barenboim - seem able to dissociate the ideas from the music. Perhaps because I am interested in politics and history I find it difficult. It depends partly on what you know about an artist. I don't know much about Caravaggio so I enjoy his paintings in a state of innocence. In any case personal wrongdoing, is not quite the same as ideologically motivated wrongdoing. Artists sometimes rise about their personal characters. Beethoven was horribly cruel to his nephew but his music is _not _a hymn to cruelty. However, I think Wagner's operas _are_ a hymn to a racist conception of the Germanic character.

I think Larry Solomon has got it right: 
*
"Here Wagner indicts the Jews and metaphorically links them to the Niebelungs, the curse, demons, goblins, and the lust for gold in the Ring drama. Thus, according to Wagner himself, it is Alberich, the greedy merchant Jew, who becomes the power-crazed goblin-demon lusting after Aryan maidens, attempting to contaminate their blood, and who sacrifices his lust in order to acquire the gold (his "pocket-book"), which would make him the "spectral world-controller".

Mime fares even worse, depicted as a stinking ghetto Jew. Siegfried, the Ring's hero, who knows no fear and is free of conscience, hates him merely for his appearance and smell: ". . . that shuffling and slinking, those eyelids blinking -- how long must I endure this sight? When shall I be rid of this fool? I'd like to catch you and end your shrinking and stop your blinking! So deeply, Mime, do I loathe you." After being nearly choked to death, Siegfried brutally murders Mime with the sword, Nothung. This is Mime's reward for having raised Siegfried, like a father, from birth. Since Siegfried represents the conscience-free, fearless Teuton, he feels no remorse. Wagner's music would have us justify Siegfried's form of personal vengeance. He is glorified as the warrior hero of the Ring, the archetypal proto-Nazi."*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There were no ghettoes in Wagner's time. Large numbers of Jews were completely assimilated even in matters of diet and certainly in matters of dress. Very few German Jews wore Kaftans or similar. Vienna - Austria - was somewhat different. 

The Spanish expulsion of the Jews in 1492 has wide repercussions, because of the growing power of Spain at this period. The Portuguese king is forced to expel his Jews in 1497 as a condition of marrying a Spanish princess. Spanish rule in Sicily and Naples means that from 1510 Jews have no place in the Italian peninsula south of the papal states. No expulsion of Jews is perpetrated by the papacy, but from 1555 the Jews even here are forced to live in ghettos and to wear a distinctive badge.

Meanwhile, copying the Spanish example, France expels its few remaining Jews. In England there have been no Jews since 1290. By the early 16th century the entire west of Europe is out of bounds to the Jewish people.

The majority of the Jews displaced in this wave of state persecution are those with a background in Spain. They become known as the Sephardim (from Sepharad, the Hebrew word for Spain) by contrast with the Jews of Germany and central Europe (the Ashkenazim, from Ashkenaz meaning Germany). The Sephardim, fleeing from the hostility of Christian Europe, make their way east to the more welcoming Muslim communities of north Africa, Palestine and above all Turkey.

The Ottoman sultan Bayazid II positively encourages Jewish settlement in the newly Muslim city of Istanbul. In their new homes around the eastern Mediterranean the Sephardim continue the traditions and rituals of Spanish Jewry.

In particular they preserve through the centuries the language known as Ladino. This derives from medieval Spanish, mixed with a certain amount of Hebrew, and is usually written in Hebrew characters. It is the equivalent of the Yiddish of the Ashkenazim, which has its roots similarly in medieval German.

For three centuries, from the 16th to the 18th, the ghetto becomes the environment of Jewish communities in Europe. Part of the reason is the Christian community's wish to control the Jewish minority in its midst; and part is the need of the Jews themselves for protection from Christian mobs. Each of the great waves of persecution - at the time of the crusades, or the Black Death - is followed by a tighter isolation of Jewish quarters.

from historyworld.net

In many cities throughout Europe these ghettos remained in usage until the mid-19th century (although the term "ghetto" was only popularized with the reinstatement of the ghettos under the Nazis.

I certainly have. Re-read what I wrote. I said he was one of the founders of German RACIST anti-semitism (believing that Jews were innately evil because of their biological make-up - not their religion or their nationality). The fact is that Hitler feted Wagner above all other musicians.

Whether the hatred of the Jews was based upon religion or warped scientific theory seems rather irrelevant. The fact remains that Wagner was far from being an originator of antisemitism in Germany or Europe as a whole.

Interestingly enough I recently came upon an article the cited the fact that performances of Wagner's operas actually decreased in frequency under Hitler.

It's a complex matter. I know some people - even Jews like Barenboim - seem able to dissociate the ideas from the music. Perhaps because I am interested in politics and history I find it difficult. It depends partly on what you know about an artist. I don't know much about Caravaggio so I enjoy his paintings in a state of innocence. In any case personal wrongdoing, is not quite the same as ideologically motivated wrongdoing.

So Wagner's personal dislike of the Jews is worse than murder and pedophilia and physical abuse? (as in the case of Gesualdo, Caravaggio, and Verlaine)

Artists sometimes rise about their personal characters. Beethoven was horribly cruel to his nephew but his music is not a hymn to cruelty. However, I think Wagner's operas are a hymn to a racist conception of the Germanic character.

Yes... the art often rises above the artist... or rather the art gives form to the best aspects of the artist as a human being. I personally don't find Wagner's music to be some great hymn to antisemitism. Yes, there are minor characters that can be conjectured to represent some Jewish stereotype... but these remain ambiguous. Without having known Wagner's antisemitic thoughts it is doubtful that we might make the connection with his work. Seeking out hidden expressions of the dark side of the artist's thoughts is too Freudian for my own likes.


----------



## bdelykleon

No, of course not. Even Nono who was an outspoken member and follower of the most murderer of human ideologies I can enjoy without thinking on it.


----------



## Davidjo

Stlukes - 

1. "The fact remains that Wagner was far from being an originator of antisemitism in Germany or Europe as a whole. " Yes the fact remains and it's a fact I never disputed - so completely irrelevant to the point i was making. 

2. The difference between racist anti-semitism and religious anti-semitism is that is only with the emergence of racist anti-semitism that we see an ideological project of complete extermination of races develop. It is such an abandonment of all ethics, that that is why I find it hard to stomach Wagner. 

3. His operas are imbued with a racist conception - that does not mean they are an anti-semitic rant from beginning to end. 

4. People are at liberty to like Wagner for whatever reason as far as I am concerned. I am just explaining why I think his ideological predilections make it impossible for me to enjoy his music, which was what the original question was about. Personally I think it is pointless to deny that Wagner music is soaked in his racist ideology. He wrote about his racist conception of music, so it should be no surprise.


----------



## World Violist

To my mind, the artist's life and experiences and personality brings a human element to the music. The prime example, of course, has been referenced several times as Richard Wagner, who wrote beautiful and profound music despite being generally seen as a terrible person.

If Hitler happened to like some composers, then good for him. I don't see why it matters, and if I sound very cold here, then realize that good music is good music, and "associating" it with anyone seems to me pretty foolish. I'd rather listen to what music I prefer to than to shrink back from it with the idea that Hitler or whoever was listening to the same thing 60 years ago.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Thomas May (who actually is, for the most part, a decent commentator when forwarding his OWN thoughts and not chasing after the [parts] of people like Donington) asks the correct relevant question when he inquires:

Thought experiment: if we had no knowledge of Wagner's anti-Semitic beliefs, would it occur to us that they exist in the operas?

I guess that some punditry well-exemplified by Solomon would say "yes." For my part, I think what we see in the Rorchach blots of the more subtle turns of Wagner's art ultimately tells us more about the observer than it does about Wagner. I really don't want to over-dramatize the extremes of an alternate viewpoint-- but as an illustration of how out-of-hand such suppositions can get, I remember reading some professor in South Australia remark that "of course" Beckmesser (from _Meistersinger_) was a Jewish caricature. 
We have Wagner's own testimony that the caricature was towards music-critic Hanslick- as well as famous accounts of Hanslick readily recognizing the parody to be of himself- but hey, why let _that_ get in the way of a righteous agenda!
There likely remain those who speculate that their heightened sensitivites to politics and history impel them to their abjuration of Wagner. However, when thinking of examples such as the one cited above, there's also reason to speculate that such a perspective can lead someone to find some really spiffy-lookin' clothes on the Emperor.

Perhaps this next quote, from Deryck Cooke, _also_ tells us more about the commentator than it does about Wagner. His observations (arguably more thorough than those of any English-language analyst) led to a very different conclusion:

...Wagner, with the supreme artist's infallible intuition, never intruded his racialist theories into his works of art. If we knew as little of Wagner's personal opinions as we know of Bach's or Shakespeare's- which is nothing- we should never guess that he was a racialist at all. The best of the man- and what a best!- went into his art, which is all that matters to us today.


----------



## Lukecash12

Apparently no individual seemed up to debating against my statement, so I bring it up once again as a definitive statement that obviously left people avoiding it: 

"This is really my own opinion, so take it or leave it respectfully. The real merit in music has nothing to do with who did or thought such and such. The more I study music, the more I love people in general. The only thing that makes a terrible person is lack of perspective, and people will always have rocky relationships with one another. You appreciate the person because you are by nature a social animal, and the fact of the matter is that we were really made for each other. There is nothing reprehensible in any manner with listening to a bigot's music and thinking, "what a wonderful person".

Maybe not everyone studies music to study people, but I can say for myself that I don't listen study Chopin's music to get some synthetic nostalgia out of it, I study Chopin himself using his music. I wouldn't be the person I am today if it weren't for the Bible to direct me, and people for me to study using music.

I can't really put a finger on how, it's as if you can read emotional wavelengths with music. But I'm guessing most everyone feels this way in the first place, right?"

If you can't simply appreciate people for being people, than you will have to excuse yourself for being so narrow minded. There is no loophole in being thankful for a person. We may be human, but it is very much possible for us to quite giving ourselves excuses. You can't look at life and say, "well that doesn't seem fair, and that's more fair". It's definitely more elegant, and intoxicating, than that dogma.


----------



## Davidjo

Lukecash - 

So have you studied the songs of Nazi band Skrewdriver and do you think they are "wonderful people" as a result of your studies.


----------



## Lukecash12

You miss the point entirely, my friend. To understand people you must literally lose your own opinion for a period of time. Rather than living vicariously, you take on experiences that aren't your own. You don't just comprehend the person, you learn from the person. When I look at a person I see both a sinner and a child of god. Full of hastily made justifications, and egotistical choices. But it makes itself apparent time and again that the person is simply hungry for something. It is instinctive to find significance, and people latch on to it. This is elementary stuff, really.

I don't appreciate a composers opinions, but his/her emotions are very engrossing. Truly, if you respond in anger and just try to get in a few words "edgewise", than you will make yourself out to be little more than an animal chasing after a bit of meat. but don't take this as an insult, I say what I say for your own benefit, and for nothing else. Rather than refuse to hearken to anything other than yourself, why don't we just pretend for second that this is right? And what would that mean? Imagine the possibilities. Try this on for size, and tell me what it says:


----------



## Tapkaara

I have no trouble admiring the art of some composers who may have, um, led less-than-perfect lives or had bad politics.

Sibelius was an alcoholic. I love him. Ifukube worked for the Japanese military during the Second World War. I love him. Khachaturian was a devout communist. I love him. And I am sure the list can go on and on.

Aside from being composers, they were also people, and people are imperfect. Be it personality shortcomings or the politics they were involved in, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any composer, artist, or human being for that matter, who did not have some sort of prejudice, crazy political view, or a penchant for self-destructive behavior.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

2. The difference between racist anti-semitism and religious anti-semitism is that is only with the emergence of racist anti-semitism that we see an ideological project of complete extermination of races develop. It is such an abandonment of all ethics, that that is why I find it hard to stomach Wagner.

Again... I see little difference between antisemitism based upon religion vs based upon modern biological issues. The reality is the skewed science was simply employed to prove an already existing racism... not unlike later studies proving the inferiority of blacks. The results of antisemitism (whatever its basis) is equally horrific. Certainly one can argue that the genocide imposed under Hitler was more thorough than anything achieved under the Spanish Inquisition, the English expulsions, the Russian pogroms, etc... but then we are talking about the effectiveness of modern technologies and bureaucracy... which has proven equally devastating under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc...

4. People are at liberty to like Wagner for whatever reason as far as I am concerned. I am just explaining why I think his ideological predilections make it impossible for me to enjoy his music, which was what the original question was about. Personally I think it is pointless to deny that Wagner music is soaked in his racist ideology. He wrote about his racist conception of music, so it should be no surprise.

Certainly, one is free to dislike an artist's work for whatever reason. Hitler disliked Mahler and Mendelssohn because they were Jewish. You dislike Wagner because he disliked Jews. How different are the two?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Lukecash... my earlier posting relates somewhat to your question:

_I agree that racist, sexist, xenophobic (etc...) expressions within a work of art need to be critiqued when experiencing a work of art... and these need to be critiqued with some understanding of the context in which they were made. What was acceptable or even commonplace 500 years ago may be completely unacceptable today... but we cannot expect that every artist exist morally outside of his or her time... I don't expect that an artist be a spiritual or moral leader... I expect that he or she make good art. The artist's biography, on the other hand, should have little or nothing to do with our appreciation of the art. I don't love Beethoven because he was deaf and struggled against his "handicap" nor do I like Raphael because he was a nice guy. By the same token, if we are judging art upon aesthetic values we should not expect that we will always agree with what the artist has to convey. It is not what is being said but how it is being said that makes or breaks the art. *I do not need an artist to reinforce my own beliefs, values, or even prejudices. I can acknowledge that Plato was a brilliant writer and even enjoy his writing while I might dispute nearly everything he had to say. The experience of art, to me, is like engaging in a dialog with a brilliant mind. I might not agree with what they have to say at times... but I would rather engage in a dialog with them than with a mediocre mind that parrots my own thoughts.*_

The dialog between the artist(s) in the form of the art work and the audience may be imagined as a form of study of people... a sort of communing with the best minds of other times... places... cultures... beliefs. Kafka called it (reading in his instance) a sort of "intercourse with spirits"... a "communing with the dead". It is a dialog that interests me and inspires me far more than the petty and sometimes less-than-attractive facts of the mere biographies of the artist.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Tapkaara said:


> I have no trouble admiring the art of some composers who may have, um, led less-than-perfect lives or had bad politics.
> 
> Sibelius was an alcoholic. I love him. Ifukube worked for the Japanese military during the Second World War. I love him. Khachaturian was a devout communist. I love him. And I am sure the list can go on and on.
> 
> Aside from being composers, they were also people, and people are imperfect. Be it personality shortcomings or the politics they were involved in, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any composer, artist, or human being for that matter, who did not have some sort of prejudice, crazy political view, or a penchant for self-destructive behavior.


This misses the main point, like so much other comment from others in this thread. We're mainly talking about situations where the music itself is the device by which the composer deliberately flaunts his particular shortcoming/viewpoint. The fact that Sibelius was an alcoholic, or Khachaturian was a devout communist, or Ifukube worked for Jap military in WWII, is totally irrelevant. Their works were not specifically designed to further alcoholism or communism or Japanese war crimes. These aspects were side issues that can be separated from the music they wrote.

What's special about Wagner, however, is that he wasn't just an anti-Semite but the argument has been made that some of his music dramas (eg Ring) were one of the vehicles for propagating his anti-Semitic beliefs by parodying Jewish personalities. I'm not saying I believe any of these allegations, in fact I don't, but this is the main issue we are talking about. Did he or didn't he do these things as per Solomon's (and others') allegations, and if he did does it matter? I would specifically like to know from Wagner fans what their attitude would be if it could be shown without significant doubt (eg by new research) that Solomon's arguments are largely valid.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

This misses the main point, like so much other comment from others in this thread. We're mainly talking about situations where the music itself is the device by which the composer deliberately flaunts his particular shortcoming/viewpoint. The fact that Sibelius was an alcoholic, or Khachaturian was a devout communist, or Ifukube worked for Jap military in WWII, is totally irrelevant. Their works were not specifically designed to further alcoholism or communism or Japanese war crimes. These aspects were side issues that can be separated from the music they wrote.

What's special about Wagner, however, is that he wasn't just an anti-Semite but the argument has been made that some of his music dramas (eg Ring) were one of the vehicles for propagating his anti-Semitic beliefs by parodying Jewish personalities. I'm not saying I believe any of these allegations, in fact I don't, but this is the main issue we are talking about. 

When a work of art espouses an idea with which we disagree the situation becomes more difficult. As I stated before, such an instance surely demands that the ideas be critiqued... questioned... challenged... but does it ruin the artistic merit of the art as a whole? A great deal of literature of the past espouses philosophies that we would now find sexist or racist. Does this undermine the entire work of art? Shakespeare's Shylock but one example. There are unsavory characters who may or may not have been intended as Jewish caricatures to be found in Dickens, Dostoevski, and endless other authors... in numerous paintings and even in music. Obviously, it might be argued that the figure of Judas (even in Bach's Passions) is a caricature of the evil Jew. Similar examples of racism can be found throughout literature and art... whether it is in the form of the clear expression of hatred... or in a patronizing manner. How many now unacceptable expressions of national superiority can be found throughout the arts? How many presentations of women that we would now find verge upon sexism?

If indeed it could be proven (not merely conjectured based upon a study of his music prejudiced by a foreknowledge of his politics) that Wagner included intentional Jewish caricatures within his music, these surely demand critique. How much needs to be based upon just how central these issues are to the larger intentions of the work as a whole. Still the issue arises... do we negate the artistic merits of a work of art if it expresses a philosophy that we disagree with... or even find repugnant? Many of the ideas of a state designed for the larger good of the whole as espoused in Plato's Republic I could not disagree with more... and yet I cannot negate Plato as either a writer or a philosopher. There are the same problematic aspects to be found in Dante, Milton, the Bible, Rousseau, etc... Perhaps the most challenging example might be found in the films of Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl is unquestionably a brilliant film-maker... what she does with camera angles, camera placement, and imagery was influential to a great deal of subsequent film-makers. And yet the themes of her films are completely repugnant. As an artist her ideas (or the ideas which she gave form) repulse us... but the manner in which she gave these ideas form is unquestionably brilliant. Great art is not reserved solely for the ideas that we find good and noble. The Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis, and the Soviet Union under Stalin were not without aesthetic achievements... sometimes in clear support of ideas with which we would have nothing to do. The art survives because it rises above the hatreds of certain ideas and expresses something greater. This is certainly true of Wagner... even though I find most of the imagined "flaws" to be conjecture, at best.


----------



## Tapkaara

Wagner's operas were not composed to specifically propogate anti-Semitism. They might have been used by the Nazis in later years as the pride of the aryan artisic mind, but again, it's not like Wagner was churning out musical versions of (the notorious film) The Eternal Jew or anything like that.

So, if this thread is is based on the far-fetched and unprovable notion that Wagner composed anti-semitic music, then the whole thread is flawed and everyone is going to have answers that irritate someone because no one seems to give the answers that were expected.

Just a flawed and useless thread.


----------



## dmg

If I were to run into Richard Wagner on the street, I'd probably punch him in the face - then listen to _Tristan und Isolde_ on the drive home.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Very Senior Member said:


> We're mainly talking about situations where the music itself is the device by which the composer deliberately flaunts his particular shortcoming/viewpoint.


Well- that's what _you're_ talking about. That's all right- it's an interesting direction of inquiry )).

For my part, I distinguish between art in the service of ideas that I consider incorrect/flawed/erroneous (like *St. Luke's* citation of Plato's _Republic_) and art in the service of acknowledged evil (like Nazi propaganda).

The closest anyone has come to providing a clear example of the latter is *St. Luke's* mention of Riefenstahl. The exercise would be less academic if someone could furnish another example or two, rather than take the topic in the direction of "what-if" games.


----------



## Lukecash12

> This misses the main point, like so much other comment from others in this thread. We're mainly talking about situations where the music itself is the device by which the composer deliberately flaunts his particular shortcoming/viewpoint. The fact that Sibelius was an alcoholic, or Khachaturian was a devout communist, or Ifukube worked for Jap military in WWII, is totally irrelevant. Their works were not specifically designed to further alcoholism or communism or Japanese war crimes. These aspects were side issues that can be separated from the music they wrote.
> 
> What's special about Wagner, however, is that he wasn't just an anti-Semite but the argument has been made that some of his music dramas (eg Ring) were one of the vehicles for propagating his anti-Semitic beliefs by parodying Jewish personalities. I'm not saying I believe any of these allegations, in fact I don't, but this is the main issue we are talking about.
> 
> When a work of art espouses an idea with which we disagree the situation becomes more difficult. As I stated before, such an instance surely demands that the ideas be critiqued... questioned... challenged... but does it ruin the artistic merit of the art as a whole? A great deal of literature of the past espouses philosophies that we would now find sexist or racist. Does this undermine the entire work of art? Shakespeare's Shylock but one example. There are unsavory characters who may or may not have been intended as Jewish caricatures to be found in Dickens, Dostoevski, and endless other authors... in numerous paintings and even in music. Obviously, it might be argued that the figure of Judas (even in Bach's Passions) is a caricature of the evil Jew. Similar examples of racism can be found throughout literature and art... whether it is in the form of the clear expression of hatred... or in a patronizing manner. How many now unacceptable expressions of national superiority can be found throughout the arts? How many presentations of women that we would now find verge upon sexism?
> 
> If indeed it could be proven (not merely conjectured based upon a study of his music prejudiced by a foreknowledge of his politics) that Wagner included intentional Jewish caricatures within his music, these surely demand critique. How much needs to be based upon just how central these issues are to the larger intentions of the work as a whole. Still the issue arises... do we negate the artistic merits of a work of art if it expresses a philosophy that we disagree with... or even find repugnant? Many of the ideas of a state designed for the larger good of the whole as espoused in Plato's Republic I could not disagree with more... and yet I cannot negate Plato as either a writer or a philosopher. There are the same problematic aspects to be found in Dante, Milton, the Bible, Rousseau, etc... Perhaps the most challenging example might be found in the films of Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl is unquestionably a brilliant film-maker... what she does with camera angles, camera placement, and imagery was influential to a great deal of subsequent film-makers. And yet the themes of her films are completely repugnant. As an artist her ideas (or the ideas which she gave form) repulse us... but the manner in which she gave these ideas form is unquestionably brilliant. Great art is not reserved solely for the ideas that we find good and noble. The Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis, and the Soviet Union under Stalin were not without aesthetic achievements... sometimes in clear support of ideas with which we would have nothing to do. The art survives because it rises above the hatreds of certain ideas and expresses something greater. This is certainly true of Wagner... even though I find most of the imagined "flaws" to be conjecture, at best.


Ahh, the words of wisdom. You protect art just as it should be, and I commend you.


----------



## Sid James

I'd just like to make a point that, despite anti-Semitism being strong in the C19th, not all composers where like Wagner. Look at Brahms, who was good friends with the Hungarian Jewish violinist Joseph Joachim. & I just read on Wikipedia how the Hungarian composer Erno Dohnanyi used his fortune during WW2 to help Jewish musicians. I think Wagner was a hypocrite. What's the point of writing beautiful music if you're a racist? I think that there's a big contradiction there. I think that Wagner's music will always have this stigma attached to it becuase of his attitudes, regardless of how the Nazis used his music as propaganda. Obviously, he was a great and influential composer, but one cannot ignore these skeletons in the cupboard, so to speak...


----------



## Lukecash12

Have you missed out on everything everyone his just said or something? Not everything about every person is pleasant, but when it comes down to it, people are very engrossing.


----------



## michael walsh

Of course Solomon's stance as shown here is not valid. This is transparent from the first paragraph as I have already pointedly proved. It is spin; you know, 'on message'. 

He has tweaked his case in favour of the desired outcome, and, if you go along with his balderdash of course you will nod your heads in approval just as easily as the raised arm will shoot up at a Nuremberg rally.

Why has this thread again been hijacked? A simple enough question asking if you have been influenced by a composer's private life has been turned none to adeptly as an anti-Wagner rant. 

What about many others? Herbert von Karajan was hardly alone in artistic adoration of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist creed.


----------



## Lukecash12

Good point. I have nothing against (and even like a lot of times) music that has been recorded by vehement Communists, Fascists, Racists, and Cult Psychos (meaning musicians/composers like Scriabin; who thought he was God). It's often a very interesting exercise in what you might call psychology. Janacek wrote 700 passionate letters to a married woman, even though he was, from what we know, a markedly moral individual. It makes you think more fundamentally about why things are right or wrong; but don't misinterpret that assertion and assume that I'm against most morals. You find yourself more firmly planted when more definite line is drawn. Nothing can be wrong simply because it is wrong.


----------



## chillowack

Andre said:


> I think Wagner was a hypocrite. What's the point of writing beautiful music if you're a racist? I think that there's a big contradiction there.


I must respectfully dispute this idea. The reason being that _the man who is morally flawed is more in need of redeeming characteristics than the man who isn't_.

To illustrate the point: which is better--to be a racist and _not_ contribute anything good to the world, or to be a racist and contribute beautiful music to the world?

Obviously, being a racist is a problem either way: but if that part can't be eliminated, then our next task is to choose the better of the two versions. At least in the second example, there is some redemption happening. The man is at least creating something beneficial--and this matters very much in the evaluation of him.

Nor is the gift of music somehow less beautiful because it originated in a mind which also happens to encompass racism. If the anti-Wagnerites in this thread didn't know his moral leanings, they would have no problem with the music; therefore it has an independent (not to say "absolute") quality, which exists apart from ideology.

So rather than say, "What's the point of creating beautiful music if you're a racist?" we should be saying, "If only _more_ racists created beautiful music--at least then we might see a ray of hope within them, which might serve as a lever to redeem them."

Whether or not Wagner himself was ever redeemed from his racist thinking is incidental--the principle applies regardless. A good thing should not be rejected just because it happens to co-exist alongside a bad one.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

chillowack said:


> To illustrate the point: which is better--to be a racist and _not_ contribute anything good to the world, or to be a racist and contribute beautiful music to the world?


It is a moot point whether or not Wagner composed "beautiful music", as you happily assume. The contention by some of his critics is that his music is not beautiful but was merely a contrivance to further his anti-Semitic views. If you haven't picked up this key point from the preceding comments I suggest you go back and re-read them.



> Obviously, being a racist is a problem either way: but if that part can't be eliminated, then our next task is to choose the better of the two versions. At least in the second example, there is some redemption happening. The man is at least creating something beneficial--and this matters very much in the evaluation of him.


What you are saying is akin to arguing that a murderer who gives his granny a box of chocolates on her birthday is less of an evil than one who doesn't. This is completely ridiculous. Do you honestly reckon that any Court or Jury would take any notice of this difference?


----------



## chillowack

Andy Loochazee said:


> It is a moot point whether or not Wagner composed "beautiful music", as you happily assume. The contention by some of his critics is that his music is not beautiful but was merely a contrivance to further his anti-Semitic views. If you haven't picked up this key point from the preceding comments I suggest you go back and re-read them.
> 
> What you are saying is akin to arguing that a murderer who gives his granny a box of chocolates on her birthday is less of an evil than one who doesn't. This is completely ridiculous. Do you honestly reckon that any Court or Jury would take any notice of this difference?


There have been many points made in this thread, Andy; your opinion is that the "key" point regarded Wagner's music being a vehicle for anti-Semitism, but that's not the point I was addressing.

Your analogy of the murderer and the chocolates is fallacious, because racism is far from being comparable to murder, nor is a box of chocolates anything like Wagner's musical contribution.

Nor do "courts" and "juries" have anything at all to do with this discussion, since racism is not a crime. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.

My point is simply this: that if one is a racist, then let us hope that along with that racism some good also exists within him: for that good may be the hope of his redemption from evil.

The argument "he's a racist, therefore he has no right to create beautiful music" is not only silly, but destructive. Why forbid someone to create something good? In so doing you only strengthen the bad thing you despise.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

pretty much all of common practice period music is really racist so i dont see how it matters


----------



## Andy Loochazee

chillowack said:


> Your analogy of the murderer and the chocolates is fallacious, because racism is far from being comparable to murder, nor is a box of chocolates anything like Wagner's musical contribution.
> 
> Nor do "courts" and "juries" have anything at all to do with this discussion, since racism is not a crime. This is a moral issue, not a legal one.


I suggest you are completely mistaken in your comment above.

Racial discrimination is a criminal offence in many countries, as too is hate crime motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim's race. For example, in the UK there is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which makes provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. In the USA there are laws that protect the individual against crimes motivated by racial hatred, and heaven knows you need them, given the appalling history of racial hatred in in your country.

If Wagner lived in current times he would very likely have been up before a Court for some of his nasty racial comments. Anyone trying to mount a defence, or seeking a reduced sentence, on the grounds that he allegedly wrote beautiful music would be laughed out of Court.


----------



## chillowack

Andy Loochazee said:


> I suggest you are completely mistaken in your comment above.
> 
> Racial discrimination is a criminal offence in many countries, as too is hate crime motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim's race. For example, in the UK there is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which makes provision about offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. In the USA there are laws that protect the individual against crimes motivated by racial hatred, and heaven knows you need them, given the appalling history of racial hatred in in your country.
> 
> If Wagner lived in current times he would very likely have been up before a Court for some of his nasty racial comments. Anyone trying to mount a defence, or seeking a reduced sentence, on the grounds that he allegedly wrote beautiful music would be laughed out of Court.


You are veering _far_ from the point, my friend. This discussion isn't about the legal or criminal policies of Great Britain or America.

And with all due respect, your continued references to being "laughed out of court" are bewildering to me--I almost wonder whether you are having the same discussion the rest of us are having. What does "court" have to do with the topic?

The question (as I understood it) had to do with whether or not a composer's moral shortcomings impede your ability to enjoy his music.

Various side issues have sprung up around this original question--many of them quite interesting--but as far as I can tell, you are the only one who has flown off on this tangent about "courts" and "crimes."

If you want to suggest that Wagner was a "criminal" based on his racist beliefs, then you can do so. I don't agree, but it's your right to go there, if you want.


----------



## Tapkaara

Why argue in these silly threads? The premise is flawed, and it seems like everyone "misses the point." (There's always someone who tells you you're missing the point, isn't there?)


----------



## chillowack

You are right Tapkaara, it's silly to argue.

Have you noticed that several of the more controversial (and argument-provoking) threads tend to originate with Michael Walsh?

That's nothing against Michael--his threads are quite interesting, and fascinating discussions ensue--but he does seem to have a knack for zeroing in on the kinds of topics likely to inspire "spirited debate."


----------



## Tapkaara

chillowack said:


> You are right Tapkaara, it's silly to argue.
> 
> Have you noticed that several of the more controversial (and argument-provoking) threads tend to originate with Michael Walsh?
> 
> That's nothing against Michael--his threads are quite interesting, and fascinating discussions ensue--but he does seem to have a knack for zeroing in on the kinds of topics likely to inspire "spirited debate."


I really am not familiar with Michael Walsh, but if this sort of thing is his specialty, I'll be sure to avoid his similar threads in the future lest I "miss the point" again and again and again.


----------



## Davidjo

michael walsh said:


> Why has this thread again been hijacked? A simple enough question asking if you have been influenced by a composer's private life has been turned none to adeptly as an anti-Wagner rant.


Michael Walshes on his original post. He was asking "Do politics affect your enjoyment" not "Have you been influenced by a composer's private life". Must have short term memory loss! And it was HE who raised Wagner and anti-semitism first! Hint: if you don't want people to rant against the racial ideologue Richard Wagner don't mention him in a thread that asks people whether politics affects their enjoyment of music.


----------



## chillowack

There you have it: the original poster himself has acknowledged the flexibility of his theme.

So to those who accused Tapkaara and me of "missing the point," I cordially extend my tongue at you: _nyaah!_


----------



## Artemis

Davidjo said:


> Michael Walshes on his original post. He was asking "Do politics affect your enjoyment" not "Have you been influenced by a composer's private life". Must have short term memory loss! And it was HE who raised Wagner and anti-semitism first! Hint: if you don't want people to rant against the racial ideologue Richard Wagner don't mention him in a thread that asks people whether politics affects their enjoyment of music.


Basically I agree with you on this. However, I'm not clear what the true purpose of this thread is. The thread title itself "_Does politics spoil your enjoyment?_" is ambiguous. Why mention "politics" if "composer's private life" is the real intention, as later argued by the author (see post 39).

In the opening post the first two paragraphs are personal statements about a particular piece of music, the first of which involves a mis-attribution, and the second is probably incorrect (reference to renunciation of past vows). The only question in that post is "_I know there are those who appreciate the grandeur of Richard Wagner but are repelled by his anti-Semitism and wonder if they too disturbed by the clash of principles when facing down artistic merit?"_

It is therefore hardly surprising that several replies have been concerned solely with Wagner's anti-Semitism, and I am totally puzzled why the author is now expressing concern that his thread has been allegedly "hi-jacked" in discussing Wagner! This comment would appear to be totally unjustified, given the explicit reference to Wagner's anti-semitism, and the author's request for opinions on whether they are repelled by this aspect of his personality. Very strange indeed.


----------



## michael walsh

There's nothing strange about my objecting to MY thread being hi-jacked, though it was a small exaggeration as there have been several good points made about various other great and not so great musicians. All new to me and quite interesting. 

As Wagner was of the 19th Century he would hardly be alone in being outspoken about Jewish influence; this was rather general, certainly by today's interpretation of anti-Semitism.

I presume that most musicians had political traits or affiliations that were objectionable to some listeners. I despise Communism and its crimes but it doesn't effect my enjoyment of musicians who served that despicable blood-soaked regime.

There must be many with similar views of different political persuasions. Let's just give Wagner a break. He wasn't the only sinful (objectionable to Jews) musician. He wasn't the only musician to hold views which we now find unacceptable.


----------



## chillowack

michael walsh said:


> I despise Communism and its crimes but it doesn't effect my enjoyment of musicians who served that despicable blood-soaked regime.


This sentence is just fraught with errors. Communism isn't a "regime," it's a system of economic and political ideas. "Crimes" cannot be ascribed to it, because a system can't commit crimes. A regime can commit crimes, but it is not clear which regime you're referring to.

Presumably you're thinking of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his ilk, but if so, you're confusing the original ideology of Marx and Lenin with the later horrific perversions of Stalin--a mistake often made by conservative Americans. Communism and totalitarianism are two completely different things.

The last thing I want to do is launch a political debate in this thread--so please, don't anyone take this that way--but your sentence above is so misleading that I felt it needed correction.


----------



## Lukecash12

It doesn't seem like it's been illustrated well enough yet, so I'll try (and most likely fail like the idiot I am). This entire thread has been about whether or not bad morals or "evil" has anything to do with a composers music. In my opinion, "evil" is really a fatal misunderstanding, and it isn't so hard to sympathize with Wagner or any other bigoted or distraught composer. If we want to go down that road than we can relate the fact that first of all, I am evil and bigoted and hateful by my very nature. Does anyone here think that I can't do anything wonderful, that I can't put things into perspective for just a moment. That if I don't love something or another, that I can't genuinely love something that I say I do love.

Than why is it that Wagner wasn't capable of anything fantastic? I really don't think any of us are in the position to cast the first stone. I think Wagner was fantastic, that he thought dearly about many people he knew, and also that he mentally victimized himself and saw a problem where there really wasn't. So he tried to solve a problem that didn't exist and he only imagined should affect his spirits. He didn't overcome himself, so he failed at life. And that's terrible, but why on Earth can't people appreciate it when they hear the great things about him in his music? Why can't we hear domestic fulfillment, pride in the interesting philosophies of the German people, and love for at least some of his fellow people?

Did I put it across right, or am I still an idiot? You have full permission to call me out on my stupidity. Just do it if you feel the urge, and you just might be right too. What's evil about the good things in Wagner?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It is a moot point whether or not Wagner composed "beautiful music", as you happily assume. The contention by some of his critics is that his music is not beautiful but was merely a contrivance to further his anti-Semitic views. If you haven't picked up this key point from the preceding comments I suggest you go back and re-read them.

The contention by his critics is that the music occasionally gives vent to some of his racist or antisemitic ideas. There is virtually no question as to the formal or aesthetic merits of the music. Antisemitism was but one part of Wagner the person. Are we to assume that his music is completely tainted by this one personality flaw? The few elements in the music that can be thought to convey racist notions remain conjecture based upon a prejudicial view of Wagner. Or perhaps you are suggesting that his music would clearly convey antisemitic or racist overtones without the prejudicial interpretations made as a result of what we know of his antisemitic writings or ideas? Exactly what aspect of his melodies, his harmonies, his use of orchestration is antisemitic? Did Mahler inadvertently employ any of these antisemitic elements as a result of having been so profoundly impacted by Wagner? If you are going to make a declaration that the music as a whole is tainted by antisemitism and nothing more than a contrivance to further his antisemitic views then you must provide the proof of such.

"_Nor do "courts" and "juries" have anything at all to do with this discussion, since racism is not a crime. This is a moral issue, not a legal one_."

I suggest you are completely mistaken in your comment above.

Racial discrimination is a criminal offense in many countries, as too is hate crime motivated by hostility or prejudice based upon the victim's race. For example, in the UK there is the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which makes provision about offenses involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds. 
If Wagner lived in current times he would very likely have been up before a Court for some of his nasty racial comments. Anyone trying to mount a defence, or seeking a reduced sentence, on the grounds that he allegedly wrote beautiful music would be laughed out of Court.

I don't recall when the Bill of Rights ("freedom of speech") were repealed in the US. As a result, I hate to inform you that making nasty racial comments is not illegal. Certainly attempting to incite others to engage in illegal activities as a result of your personal racism or participating in illegal activities as a result of your racist beliefs is illegal... and may carry added penalties as "hate crimes" and certainly employers may insist that racist and sexist remarks will not be tolerated and can be grounds for dismissal, but not mere nasty racist comments.

In the US racism is not a crime. We still have the freedom to believe as we wish and the freedom to express our beliefs... however stupid, wrong-headed, or ignorant they may be. Racism only becomes a legal issue when it is used in tandem with an actual crime. This would include denying employment or denying individual rights on the basis of race, as well as the obvious commission of a crime (assault, etc...) because of race. If you beat somebody, that is already criminal. If you beat somebody because of their race or religion this compounds the crime and makes it a "hate crime" resulting in stiffer penalties. This does not make it illegal to spew all sorts of racist nonsense... as long as one does not incite others to commit illegal acts in the name of this racism.

All of this is semantics. Wagner is far from being the only artist who held beliefs that we no longer find acceptable. One would actually be surprised if the vast majority of artists, writers, and composers from past centuries did not share certain racist beliefs, certain hatred of other nationalities, other religions, etc... Wagner is simply the biggest target because of the existence of his antisemitic writings... because of the fact that his music was embraced by Hitler and employed as a form of Nazi propaganda... and because of the nearness of the Holocaust that makes antisemitism even less acceptable than racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc... and portrays Wagner as a virtual supporter of the crimes of the Nazis. Wagner committed nothing that was criminal during his lifetime and yet he is ostracized more than others who were charged and found guilty of crimes: Caravaggio (murder, peddling homoerotic images of under-aged boys to church officials), Carlo Gesualdo (murder and mutilation of his wife and her lover), Baudelaire (drug abuse, pornography), Verlaine (spousal abuse, attempted murder), etc...

"_I despise Communism and its crimes but it doesn't effect my enjoyment of musicians who served that despicable blood-soaked regime._"

This sentence is just fraught with errors. Communism isn't a "regime," it's a system of economic and political ideas. "Crimes" cannot be ascribed to it, because a system can't commit crimes. A regime can commit crimes, but it is not clear which regime you're referring to.

Presumably you're thinking of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his ilk, but if so, you're confusing the original ideology of Marx and Lenin with the later horrific perversions of Stalin--a mistake often made by conservative Americans. Communism and totalitarianism are two completely different things.

This, again, is but semantics. Communism didn't kill anyone. Then by the same token neither did Fascism or National Socialism (Nazis). No... it was the individuals of Stalinist Russia, the Third Reich, or Maoist China. The reality is that there were artists... some of real merit... who worked for those regimes. There were artists in the Italian Renaissance who knowingly worked for some of the most rapacious and blood-soaked lords: the Borgias, the De Medici, the Orsini, the Barberini, etc... In some of these instances the art was in direct support of the political aims of the tyrants. I believe that these facts must be brought up and that elements that are clearly inspired by beliefs no longer acceptable need to be critiqued and discussed... but I do not believe that such instances immediately negate the aesthetic/artistic merit of an artist's creation... I still like Shostakovitch and Tatlin.

The question (as I understood it) had to do with whether or not a composer's moral shortcomings impede your ability to enjoy his music.

That WAS the question as I understood it. Such a question is largely hypothetical or theoretical until we bring up specific examples. It is intriguing that Wagner inspires a greater degree of hostility than Caravaggio or Gesualdo (both murderers) or someone like Lewis Carroll... the beloved creator of _Alice in Wonderland_ who also collected nude photographs of young girls and may have harbored pedophile leanings.


----------



## Davidjo

Very pleased to hear you despise Communism and its crimes, Michael Walsh. How about Nazism and its crimes? Why keep us all in suspense? All this flirting with "Jewish influences" , "anti Zionism" and so on. 
Don't be shy! Come on out and tell us what you think...


----------



## Lukecash12

Obviously no one felt like answering my two cents. I guess i didn't really put it across right (not as if I want to beg for attention or something, it's your choice whether or not you want to discuss those ideas).

As for Davidjo, I don't understand your post. Are you being literal, or are you questioning the moral character of Michaelwalsh? Not as if i want to imply you were being condescending or sarcastic, but what did you actually intend in saying that? I'm at a loss as to how to interpret it.


----------



## Davidjo

I've nothing more to add. Sometimes people who make frequent reference to Jewish influence, their anti-Communism, their anti-Zionism and Wagner have something they want to get off their chests. I merely gave the invitation to do so. 

Lukecash, your contribution was thoughtful. I don't disagree in many senses. Evil can be fascinating and entertaining and evil people can nonetheless love and produce great works in life. However, that's slightly beside the point of the question - which was whether politics (implicitly the politics of the composer) could get in the way of your enjoyment of music. I answered yes, honestly. It doesn't mean I think Wagner's music is rubbish (although I do think it is somewhat overrated compared with the truly great like Beethoven). 

By the way I don't think Wagner was particularly "evil". I think he was particularly stupid - that's part of the reason I find it difficult to enjoy the music. You have the grandiosity of his music and then you have the paltry, fly blown nonsense of his politics. The two don't sit well together.


----------



## Lukecash12

> You have the grandiosity of his music and then you have the paltry, fly blown nonsense of his politics.


 But they are independent things (at least for me). Even if his music had it's implications, that certainly doesn't mean you won't find anything meaningful.

But you can like or dislike whatever music you want. I guess I can see where you are coming from.


----------



## dgrin

Michael:

I'm afraid you're a little confused on two counts. First of all, the piece _Kol Nidrei_ is by Max Bruch, not Anton Bruckner. Max Bruch was in fact Jewish, unlike Bruckner, who was Catholic. Second of all, you have taken the _Kol Nidrei_ prayer out of context. The absolution from vows only holds for vows made to God. Jewish theology is rather clear on this point: for promises broken or wrongs done to other human beings, Judaism demands that you make amends on your own. Kol Nidrei does not free you of responsibility for wrongdoing to other people.

Also, even if you are against Zionism, I don't see anything wrong with liking a beautiful piece of Jewish music.


----------



## munirao2001

Creative works totally, Ego-centric will only serve the self satisfaction and even find appreciation of all those who are having similar opinions and ideals - insecure and conditioned minds, achieving temporary sense of security.
Creative works totally, Self-less, transcends and becomes universal-free, open, secure and ushers in peace with joy, care and love for humanity.


----------



## Earthling

I confess that Wagner's antisemitism is one of the reasons I tended to avoid exploring his music (that's changing now, and I regret that its taken me this long to get over myself). I have misgivings about that (not to mention the cult of Art he tried to create, which was simply absurd and pretentious), but it doesn't stop me today from listening to and enjoying his music. 

Usually my awareness of some political aspects of composers is a plus, such as Beethoven's general support for Enlightenment ideals. And while Shostakovich was no dyed-in-the-wool anti-communist, certainly there is a human voice crying out in his music that speaks to me. Being an atheist hardly keeps me from enjoying Bach or sacred works by other composers. 

But composers are humans too, sometimes rather unpleasant ones, or with unpleasant ideas or habits (personal, political, whatever). I'm more interested in the music than any composer's shortcomings or blind spots. We all have shortcomings and blind spots ourselves anyway.


----------



## Aramis

> which was simply absurd and pretentious


No, it wasn't.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Never! I don't care if a composer believed/did whatever! It's about the music, not the person. But sometimes, I wonder about certain ones for the spiritual condition.

Shostakovich is a great example. Lots and lots of his music embodies communist ideas, so much, he does works glorifying people like Lenin, and overall Humanity. But I just don't take the music like that. I'm not going to become communist just because one of my favorite composers would have wanted me to be persuaded by his music to become so.


----------

