# Bruckner: Symphony No. 7 (Furtwängler/BPO) - German announcement of Stalingrad defeat



## ribonucleic

On January 30, 1943, German state radio suspended normal broadcasts to play the Adagio. This was followed by Hermann Göring announcing the final defeat of Friedrich Paulus's Sixth Army in the battle of Stalingrad.












> In days to come it will be said thus: when you come home to Germany, tell them that you have seen us lying at Stalingrad, as the rule of honour and the conduct of war have ordained that we must do, for Germany's sake.












The German army had suffered 850,000 killed, missing, or wounded. It would never recover the initiative on the Eastern Front. 27 months later, the Soviets would occupy Berlin - bringing an end to the war in Europe.






When I think of the conundrum of Nazi Germany - the culture co-existing with the atrocity - I think about this.


----------



## hpowders

You and me both. It's very difficult to separate the politics from the music, especially with Bruckner, since his music was so popular with Hitler and was played so frequently at Nazi get togethers.

The Bruckner Seventh Symphony is the only Bruckner symphony I acknowledge to be a masterpiece from first note to last.
I play it once in a while-maybe twice in a given year.


----------



## Skilmarilion

The adagio is for Richard Wagner, and its misuse by 'politics' should not be remembered.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

hpowders, in this specific case, I have no difficulty separating the politics from the music because I don't think there is an actual meaningful political connection to had other than a certain monstrous dictator had a predilection for a certain composer's music long after said composer died. Hitler was 7 when Bruckner died, after all.

To the OP, I too find the co-existence of culture and atrocity fascinating but am not all surprised or bewildered by it. I can't recall which TC member said it, but someone brought up how Classical music doesn't _automatically_ make you a better person or more cultured as some people might mistakenly think. So it doesn't really shock me that someone like Hitler could be moved to tears by a Bruckner Adagio or a Beethoven symphony.


----------



## Mahlerian

This article was written to combat the idea that Bruckner was anti-Semitic. He was used as an example of a "pure" German composer (as opposed to Mahler) as far back as the first decade of the 20th century, but there's nothing to indicate he would have wanted such friends.
http://www.abruckner.com/Data/artic...cknermah/ward_brucknermahleranti-semitism.pdf


----------



## hpowders

Doesn't matter who Bruckner would have associated with. The music of Bruckner was adopted by the Nazis.
For some of us, that is enough of a turnoff. It may not be fair, but human psychology is what it is.


----------



## Andreas

Mahlerian said:


> This article was written to combat the idea that Bruckner was anti-Semitic. He was used as an example of a "pure" German composer (as opposed to Mahler) as far back as the first decade of the 20th century, but there's nothing to indicate he would have wanted such friends.
> http://www.abruckner.com/Data/artic...cknermah/ward_brucknermahleranti-semitism.pdf


The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra played the Bruckner 7 in concert, even under a German conductor (Masur, great performance). I wouldn't even know if Bruckner was aware of Wagner's antisemitic views. From what I understand, Bruckner was hardly able to follow the plot of Wagner's operas. I suppose it was all about the music with him.


----------



## hpowders

None of that matters. To people who lost relatives during the Nazi horror, Bruckner's music was prominent at Nazi functions.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> None of that matters. To people who lost relatives during the Nazi horror, Bruckner's music was prominent at Nazi functions.


Some have alleged a connection between the Salzburg Festival and Naziism as well. Why not throw Mozart onto the pyre?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15palm.html?_r=0


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Despite the not-so-flattering stories about Bruckner, there's something I really admire about him. He was from the countryside, wasn't nobility. Others before him dedicated their works to archdukes and princes, Bruckner dedicated a work to his landlord! Others may have been confident and intransigent, Bruckner was overly deferential to other composers, wasn't self-assured and was pretty insecure (see all of his numerous revisions due to the recommendation of others). "Half simpleton, half God" as it was said of him. All of this may certainly be fairly unimportant but I do find it fascinating on a certain level. Also, I should add that I really didn't care for the above-mentioned article at all, although I normally enjoy Tom Service's... service to classical music.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Some have alleged a connection between the Salzburg Festival and Naziism as well. Why not throw Mozart onto the pyre?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/arts/music/15palm.html?_r=0


 No. Simply because Mozart wasn't used by the Nazis as a musical symbol of their insane philosophy.

I'm not throwing anybody on anything. I just wish to eliminate all traces of German National Socialism from my life because they murdered family members.


----------



## EdwardBast

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Others before him dedicated their works to archdukes and princes, Bruckner dedicated a work to his landlord!


If he composed at a home keyboard I would say the landlord probably earned it and then some. ;-)


----------



## SONNET CLV

If an artist's work is appropriated by some radical faction of which the artist had no connection or even knowledge of and certainly no approving voice for, we cannot hold the artist or his work responsible for the actions of the faction. 

Bruckner remains a fine symphonist. His Seventh Symphony is certainly his masterpiece, and ranks among the greatest musical works of all time. A handful of the other symphonies by Bruckner rank highly, too.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> No. Simply because Mozart wasn't used by the Nazis as a musical symbol of their insane philosophy.


On the contrary, he was:
http://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2010/11/05/mozart-and-the-charade-of-fascist-culture/



hpowders said:


> I'm not throwing anybody on anything. I just wish to eliminate all traces of German National Socialism from my life because they murdered family members.


I don't think that Naziism has anything to do with Mozart, Bruckner, Wagner, or Beethoven. Nazis may have attempted to appropriate all kinds of things for their sick cause, but they cannot succeed in making these great artists into their own.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> This article was written to combat the idea that Bruckner was anti-Semitic. He was used as an example of a "pure" German composer (as opposed to Mahler) as far back as the first decade of the 20th century, *but there's nothing to indicate he would have wanted such friends*.
> http://www.abruckner.com/Data/artic...cknermah/ward_brucknermahleranti-semitism.pdf


That's right. I believe Bruckner was quite aware of antisemitic feeling when he was in Vienna and is on record as being sympathetic to what he called "the Israelites".


----------



## Guest

I feel inexplicably obliged to post a link to a song about "The Israelites":


----------



## Guest

I do so, of course, for the song's eschewing of WAMP (western art music production) vocal technique, but with no loss of pitch precision.


----------



## OperaGeek

Mahlerian said:


> I don't think that Naziism has anything to do with Mozart, Bruckner, Wagner, or Beethoven. Nazis may have attempted to appropriate all kinds of things for their sick cause, but *they cannot succeed in making these great artists into their own*.


Very well put. So many people had so much taken away from them by the Nazis. It would be a mistake to let the Nazis take away great music, too.


----------



## Celloissimo

Mahlerian said:


> This article was written to combat the idea that Bruckner was anti-Semitic. He was used as an example of a "pure" German composer (as opposed to Mahler) as far back as the first decade of the 20th century, but there's nothing to indicate he would have wanted such friends.
> http://www.abruckner.com/Data/artic...cknermah/ward_brucknermahleranti-semitism.pdf


I wasn't aware Bruckner wanted any friends in the first place. :/


----------



## Guest

Celloissimo said:


> I wasn't aware Bruckner wanted any friends in the first place. :/


That is not the case, Celloissimo. Bruckner had a good number of friends as the reputable biographies will indicate. Try Google or better still research the Bruckner website for details [http://www.brucknerjournal.co.uk/].


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> Doesn't matter who Bruckner would have associated with. The music of Bruckner was adopted by the Nazis.
> For some of us, that is enough of a turnoff. It may not be fair, but human psychology is what it is.


I can understand that. 
I remember someone who lived through the horrors of the war telling me "We can forgive, but we cannot forget". Of course, some cannot forgive either.
However, speaking for myself, I will not allow Bruckner's music to be tainted by the evils of 1933-45 and more than I will allow my enjoyment of Mozart's piano concertos to be spoilt by Stalin's enjoyment of them


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> No. Simply because Mozart wasn't used by the Nazis as a musical symbol of their insane philosophy.
> 
> I'm not throwing anybody on anything. I just wish to eliminate all traces of German National Socialism from my life because they murdered family members.


please accept my apologies for the previous post.

I do not wish to dispute your opinion on this


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Doesn't matter who Bruckner would have associated with. The music of Bruckner was adopted by the Nazis. For some of us, that is enough of a turnoff. It may not be fair, but human psychology is what it is.


I "understand" what you're saying HP, but that isn't good enough, sorry. You put on Bruckner CDs from time to time, you have said this.


----------



## Triplets

hpowders said:


> Doesn't matter who Bruckner would have associated with. The music of Bruckner was adopted by the Nazis.
> For some of us, that is enough of a turnoff. It may not be fair, but human psychology is what it is.


 Most of my family was also exterminated by the Nazis. 
I will never forgive Barenboim for Conducting Wagner in Israel, when he had specifically promised not to do so. However I would make a distinction between Wagner and Bruckner. One can see the distinct possibility that Wagner would have actively supported the Nazis, including the Final Solution. One can't envision Bruckner doing so. It isn't Bruckner's fault that the Nazi's made him a mascot.
It is unfortunate that such an association has ruined Bruckner appreciation for many listeners. However, as you point out, Human Psychology being what it is, such spoilage is inevitable


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> Most of my family was also exterminated by the Nazis.
> I will never forgive Barenboim for Conducting Wagner in Israel, when he had specifically promised not to do so. However I would make a distinction between Wagner and Bruckner. One can see the distinct possibility that Wagner would have actively supported the Nazis, including the Final Solution. One can't envision Bruckner doing so. It isn't Bruckner's fault that the Nazi's made him a mascot. It is unfortunate that such an association has ruined Bruckner appreciation for many listeners. However, as you point out, Human Psychology being what it is, such spoilage is inevitable


Some of my family were exterminated and others tortured by Francoist supporters in Spain by factions supported ideologically, financially and materially by Nazi Germany. This has never - and will never - cloud my judgement of composers who existed before these terrible events, however murderous, anti-semitic or misogynist they may have been.


----------



## Triplets

TalkingHead said:


> Some of my family were exterminated and others tortured by Francoist supporters in Spain by factions supported ideologically, financially and materially by Nazi Germany. This has never - and will never - cloud my judgement of composers who existed before these terrible events, however murderous, anti-semitic or misogynist they may have been.


Good for you. However, I would not be so intolerant of others that cannot divorce certain Composers from Personal associations.


----------



## Triplets

Celloissimo said:


> I wasn't aware Bruckner wanted any friends in the first place. :/


How many did he have on his Facebook page?


----------



## Guest

Triplets said:


> Good for you. However, I would not be so intolerant of others that cannot divorce certain Composers from Personal associations.


Well, not good for me, really, considering the diminished gene pool ! I would like to insist that I'm not intolerant of those who cannot divorce "music and politics", though I admit to a certain frustration in the matter.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

ribonucleic said:


> On January 30, 1943, German state radio suspended normal broadcasts to play the Adagio. This was followed by Hermann Göring announcing the final defeat of Friedrich Paulus's Sixth Army in the battle of Stalingrad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German army had suffered 850,000 killed, missing, or wounded. It would never recover the initiative on the Eastern Front. 27 months later, the Soviets would occupy Berlin - bringing an end to the war in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I think of the conundrum of Nazi Germany - the culture co-existing with the atrocity - I think about this.












_Reductio ad Hitlerum_ fallacy.

Null, void, and of no binding logical force whatsoever.

Case dismissed.

-- Unless of course we're going to impugn Karl May for writing all of those cowboy and Indian stories Hitler so cherished as well.


----------



## ribonucleic

I never heard of Karl May before. His Wikipedia article is fascinating. Apparently Einstein was a huge fan too.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

ribonucleic said:


> I never heard of Karl May before. His Wikipedia article is fascinating. Apparently Einstein was a huge fan too.


-- making my point all the more relevant.


----------



## Woodduck

Triplets said:


> Most of my family was also exterminated by the Nazis.
> I will never forgive Barenboim for Conducting Wagner in Israel, when he had specifically promised not to do so. However I would make a distinction between Wagner and Bruckner. *One can see the distinct possibility that Wagner would have actively supported the Nazis, including the Final Solution. * One can't envision Bruckner doing so. It isn't Bruckner's fault that the Nazi's made him a mascot.
> It is unfortunate that such an association has ruined Bruckner appreciation for many listeners. However, as you point out, Human Psychology being what it is, such spoilage is inevitable


I am not "one" who can see that. I have been reading about Wagner for fifty years and I have never encountered any information about him that would lead to that conclusion. What is your evidence?


----------



## ribonucleic

Woodduck said:


> What is your evidence?


Ahem.



> Wagner's first and most controversial essay on the subject was Das Judenthum in der Musik ('Jewishness in Music'), originally published under the pen-name K. Freigedank (K. Freethought) in 1850 in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. ... Wagner wrote that the German people were repelled by Jews due to their 'alien' appearance and behaviour: 'with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews' emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.' He argued that Jewish musicians were only capable of producing music that was shallow and artificial, because they had no connection to the genuine spirit of the German people. In the conclusion to the essay, he wrote of the Jews that 'only one thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus - going under!' ... Wagner republished the pamphlet under his own name in 1869, with an extended introduction, leading to several public protests at the first performances of Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg.


Who can say? Perhaps Wagner might have kept a distance from Hitler on class grounds - as the Germany military elite did. But it would be disingenuous to deny that he would have found the Nazi attitude towards Jews anything but attractive.

None of which interferes with this Jew's pleasure in being ravished by Wagner's music. But the unattractiveness of the man seems past debate.


----------



## Woodduck

ribonucleic said:


> Ahem.
> 
> Who can say? Perhaps Wagner might have kept a distance from Hitler on class grounds - as the Germany military elite did. But it would be disingenuous to deny that he would have found the Nazi attitude towards Jews anything but attractive.
> 
> None of which interferes with this Jew's pleasure in being ravished by Wagner's music. But the unattractiveness of the man seems past debate.


Unpleasant attitudes toward or disparaging conceptions of other people do not make one a murderer. The irresponsible implication that it does ("one can see the distinct possibility") is what I'm taking exception to.

If you are able to quote Wagner's "Jewishness and Music," you might have a look at an earlier passage in it where Wagner cites the deplorable persecutions Jews have historically suffered and his approval of laws granting Jews the rights of citizenship in modern European nations. The most controversial phrase in your quote, "the redemption of Ahasuerus - going under," probably refers to a Jewish character in a play who sacrifices himself to save his people, and in the context of Wagner's essay appears to imply that Jews must sacrifice their religious identity in order to become part of the wider culture. Repugnant as this idea is to us, it is not a call for extermination, was not taken that way in Wagner's time, and has only been so interpreted in post-Holocaust retrospect.

Post-Holocaust retrospect is the whole essence of the "Wagner problem." No one disputes that Wagner had a self-confessed distate for "Jewishness," however he conceived it, and went on to construct disagreeable theories to justify that distaste, much as he spent much of his life constructing theories about everything that went through his head. None of his ideas about Jews were either original or uncommon; his main distinction from the millions of other antisemites in post-Enlightenment Europe is that he talked and wrote incessantly, probably more than any other composer. It is also indisputable that he had many Jewish friends and associates during his lifetime, most notably Hermann Levi, the conductor to whom he entrusted the first performances of _Parsifal_ (and who stated that Wagner was a "great man"). It is also true that when asked to lend his support to movements to deprive Jews of civil rights, Wagner always refused.

The exact nature of Wagner's subjective feelings about Jews can of course never be known, despite his volublity on the subject. What we can know is that he is not known to have treated the Jews in his personal circles differently from others, that he never advocated doing so in a personal or political context, and that he never lent his support to any campaigns - which were gathering force in an era of intensifying antisemitism - to single out, segregate, or persecute any group of people.

Glib insinuations attributing to Wagner "possible" Nazi leanings and inclinations to "final solutions" are ignorant and irresponsible. Were Wagner alive now, they would also properly be called slanderous.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Unpleasant attitudes toward or disparaging conceptions of other people do not make one a murderer. The irresponsible implication that it does ("one can see the distinct possibility") is what I'm taking exception to.
> 
> If you are able to quote Wagner's "Jewishness and Music," you might have a look at an earlier passage in it where Wagner cites the deplorable persecutions Jews have historically suffered and his approval of laws granting Jews the rights of citizenship in modern European nations. The most controversial phrase in your quote, "the redemption of Ahasuerus - going under," probably refers to a Jewish character in a play who sacrifices himself to save his people, and in the context of Wagner's essay appears to imply that Jews must sacrifice their religious identity in order to become part of the wider culture. Repugnant as this idea is to us, it is not a call for extermination, was not taken that way in Wagner's time, and has only been so interpreted in post-Holocaust retrospect.
> 
> Post-Holocaust retrospect is the whole essence of the "Wagner problem." No one disputes that Wagner had a self-confessed distate for "Jewishness," however he conceived it, and went on to construct disagreeable theories to justify that distaste, much as he spent much of his life constructing theories about everything that went through his head. None of his ideas about Jews were either original or uncommon; his main distinction from the millions of other antisemites in post-Enlightenment Europe is that he talked and wrote incessantly, probably more than any other composer. It is also indisputable that he had many Jewish friends and associates during his lifetime, most notably Hermann Levi, the conductor to whom he entrusted the first performances of _Parsifal_ (and who stated that Wagner was a "great man"). It is also true that when asked to lend his support to movements to deprive Jews of civil rights, Wagner always refused.
> 
> The exact nature of Wagner's subjective feelings about Jews can of course never be known, despite his volublity on the subject. What we can know is that he is not known to have treated the Jews in his personal circles differently from others, that he never advocated doing so in a personal or political context, and that he never lent his support to any campaigns - which were gathering force in an era of intensifying antisemitism - to single out, segregate, or persecute any group of people.
> 
> Glib insinuations attributing to Wagner "possible" Nazi leanings and inclinations to "final solutions" are ignorant and irresponsible. Were Wagner alive now, they would also properly be called slanderous.


Mortimer Adler of Encyclopedia Britanica has nothing on TC savant Woodduck.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I've just come across this thread, somehow I missed it before, and some posts have reminded me of the following story. The other day a friend of mine and I went out for a beer. After we had one, the friend went outside for a smoke, and since I don't smoke, I stayed at the table and took out a book. It was a completely innocent book about popular science with a photo of a galaxy on the cover - except that the book was in German. And all of a sudden there is this guy sitting down at my table, noticing the book is in German and starting making comments about how his grandfathers rolled all the way to Berlin in their tanks, what were my own ancestors doing during WWII and whether they by any chance were Nazi collaborators. Fortunately I was feeling so completely relaxed and mellow I could not muster any real wrath. If I was completely sober, I would probably have emptied a glass on this douchebag's head. It was afterwards, thinking back, that this incident made me afraid - because I realized just how many people here and around the world associate Germany and the German language with only _one_ thing and how deeply they have been imbued with hatred. They have no idea about Wagner or Bruckner, nor about the beauty of the Bavarian Alps or old castles and churches, nor about the peaceful and civilized nation, nor about philosophy, poetry, engineering, science, medicine and any of the number of other things where this nation has contributed to human civilization - they have not the slightest freaking idea! Multiply this sentiment by several dozens of millions and it will only take the government pointing with the finger: "There is your enemy!" to get the tanks rolling again. I am not saying anybody's attitude on this thread is exactly like that (people on here _do_ know about Wagner, Bruckner and the others), but nevertheless....


----------



## Itullian

SiegendesLicht said:


> I've just come across this thread, somehow I missed it before, and some posts have reminded me of the following story. The other day a friend of mine and I went out for a beer. After we had one, the friend went outside for a smoke, and since I don't smoke, I stayed at the table and took out a book. It was a completely innocent book about popular science with a photo of a galaxy on the cover - except that the book was in German. And all of a sudden there is this guy sitting down at my table, noticing the book is in German and starting making comments about how his grandfathers rolled all the way to Berlin in their tanks, what were my own ancestors doing during WWII and whether they by any chance were Nazi collaborators. Fortunately I was feeling so completely relaxed and mellow I could not muster any real wrath. If I was completely sober, I would probably have emptied a glass on this douchebag's head. It was afterwards, thinking back, that this incident made me afraid - because I realized just how many people here and around the world associate Germany and the German language with only _one_ thing and how deeply they have been imbued with hatred. They have no idea about Wagner or Bruckner, nor about the beauty of the Bavarian Alps or old castles and churches, nor about the peaceful and civilized nation, nor about philosophy, poetry, engineering, science, medicine and any of the number of other things where this nation has contributed to human civilization - they have not the slightest freaking idea! Multiply this sentiment by several dozens of millions and it will only take the government pointing with the finger: "There is your enemy!" to get the tanks rolling again. I am not saying anybody's attitude on this thread is exactly like that (people on here _do_ know about Wagner, Bruckner and the others), but nevertheless....


What!! Teach all that and instill national pride?
Never!!


----------



## hpowders

It's BAAAAAAACK!!!! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Hey!! Boys & girls!!!
> 
> It's BAAAAAAACK!!!! :lol::lol::lol:


Sadly (sigh).

And as long as the prejudiced keep bringing it back, bent on infecting the unwary with their prejudices, the unprejudiced will call them out.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.


----------



## DamoX

Not listened to Furtwangler's Bruckner except 8 & 9 (both of which are my favoooooourite!). Very curious, check the YouTube latre.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The conflict between the heights of culture achievements to which the German culture could aspire, and the depths to which it fell is brilliantly conveyed in this scene from _Schindler's List_.






The relationship between the staccato of the music and the burst of machine-gun fire is brilliant... and horrible.

The problem is that too many assume that Germany is a unique case... as if France, Britain, Spain, the United States have no such dark pages to their histories... and that such can never happen again in our enlightened world.


----------



## Badinerie

A reminder that otherwise ordinary people are capable of extraordinary evil. Pillars of society who commit dreadful acts in secret. Pleasant people who when the right, or wrong subject is breached become vociferous proponents of carnage racism or misogynist attitudes. 
There is a little bit evil in all of us which it why we need to watch ourselves as well as others. 
Remember the phrases "It cant happen here!" "The ends justify the means", "For the good of the majority" and "They dont shoot people like us, do they?" Because its still happening around the world.

The Soundtrack is irrelevant.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Itullian said:


> What!! Teach all that and instill national pride?
> Never!!


I forgot to mention: this story happened in Minsk, Belarus. So it was not so much about what the Germans think about themselves (though I think that should be improved too), as what the rest of the world thinks about Germans.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

SiegendesLicht said:


> I've just come across this thread, somehow I missed it before, and some posts have reminded me of the following story. The other day a friend of mine and I went out for a beer. After we had one, the friend went outside for a smoke, and since I don't smoke, I stayed at the table and took out a book. It was a completely innocent book about popular science with a photo of a galaxy on the cover - except that the book was in German. And all of a sudden there is this guy sitting down at my table, noticing the book is in German and starting making comments about how his grandfathers rolled all the way to Berlin in their tanks, what were my own ancestors doing during WWII and whether they by any chance were Nazi collaborators. Fortunately I was feeling so completely relaxed and mellow I could not muster any real wrath. If I was completely sober, I would probably have emptied a glass on this douchebag's head. It was afterwards, thinking back, that this incident made me afraid - because I realized just how many people here and around the world associate Germany and the German language with only _one_ thing and how deeply they have been imbued with hatred. They have no idea about Wagner or Bruckner, nor about the beauty of the Bavarian Alps or old castles and churches, nor about the peaceful and civilized nation, nor about philosophy, poetry, engineering, science, medicine and any of the number of other things where this nation has contributed to human civilization - they have not the slightest freaking idea! Multiply this sentiment by several dozens of millions and it will only take the government pointing with the finger: "There is your enemy!" to get the tanks rolling again. I am not saying anybody's attitude on this thread is exactly like that (people on here _do_ know about Wagner, Bruckner and the others), but nevertheless....


Yes, sad.

There are many peoples (replace with nations/religious ideology/political systems/cultures/skin colours etc etc as appropriate) that are tarred with the same brush and demonised .... even in the most liberal of democracies - for example, the blanket demonisation of muslims/jews/christians etc


----------



## Andreas

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The problem is that too many assume that Germany is a unique case... as if France, Britain, Spain, the United States have no such dark pages to their histories...


Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.

I forgot to mention that when the recording of the Bruckner 7 by the Israel Philharmonic was released, it was coupled with Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw. Maybe they had reservations about putting out the Bruckner 7 with its Wagnerian and decided to balance it off with a work as clear as one can get.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Andreas said:


> Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.


I'm English. Born in Liverpool. We have more dark pages in more dark books than most of us know about or wish to talk about ... the city I grew up in developed rapidly from a collection of mud huts to one of the grandest, wealthiest cities in the world as the result of a number of disgraceful pages over the course of hundreds of years .... including .... through the exploitation of the slave trade, from repressing the Indian textile industry, from forcibly importing opium into China, from the enforcement of trade monopolies through 'gunboat diplomacy', from exploiting cheap labour from rural areas of the world - including the Irish poatato famine, from squeezing pennies from those desperately fleeing poverty across northern Europe, from the exploitation of an empire right across the world, from the looting of artistic treasures from all over the world etc etc etc.

Oh yes, *we* have very unpleasant pages in *our* history, I'm ashamed to say


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Andreas said:


> Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.


And here goes the German self-image...

I think this has something to do with the fact that these events are yet not very distant in time, there are many people still living who participated in them, and the current political world order (for example the rise of the USA as a superpower after WWII) partly owes its existence to these events. I think in a hundred or two hundred years these events will be just another one of the dark pages of history.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ the very sad thing is that in a few hundred years time, the dark pages of the mid-C20 might be gathering dust under a thick pile of dark pages from the C21 and C22


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Double post.....


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ I think you are right. WWII is not the first and not the last. Probably the only way wars between humans will cease is if the Earth is threatened by an alien invasion. Then all people will have a common enemy to unite against. I only hope in the future there will yet remain a place for beauty, music and culture in the world.


----------



## scratchgolf

TalkingHead said:


> I "understand" what you're saying HP, but that isn't good enough, sorry. You put on Bruckner CDs from time to time, you have said this.


You didn't miss that either, huh? With too many hardline stances and definitive statements, one is bound to leave room for contradiction. Even with a moderately high IQ.


----------



## Woodduck

Andreas said:


> *Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.*I forgot to mention that when the recording of the Bruckner 7 by the Israel Philharmonic was released, it was coupled with Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw. Maybe they had reservations about putting out the Bruckner 7 with its Wagnerian and decided to balance it off with a work as clear as one can get.


Let's ask the prople who inhabited the Americas before Europe arrived under the banner of Christ.


----------



## Morimur

Woodduck said:


> Let's ask the prople who inhabited the Americas before Europe arrived under the banner of Christ.


Americans, of course! Duh.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> I'm English. Born in Liverpool. We have more dark pages in more dark books than most of us know about or wish to talk about ... the city I grew up in developed rapidly from a collection of mud huts to one of the grandest, wealthiest cities in the world as the result of a number of disgraceful pages over the course of hundreds of years .... including .... through the exploitation of the slave trade, from repressing the Indian textile industry, from forcibly importing opium into China, from the enforcement of trade monopolies through 'gunboat diplomacy', from exploiting cheap labour from rural areas of the world - including the Irish poatato famine, from squeezing pennies from those desperately fleeing poverty across northern Europe, from the exploitation of an empire right across the world, from the looting of artistic treasures from all over the world etc etc etc.
> 
> Oh yes, *we* have very unpleasant pages in *our* history, I'm ashamed to say


I never confuse people with government.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Originally Posted by Andreas
> 
> Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.I forgot to mention that when the recording of the Bruckner 7 by the Israel Philharmonic was released, it was coupled with Schoenberg's A Survivor from Warsaw. Maybe they had reservations about putting out the Bruckner 7 with its Wagnerian and decided to balance it off with a work as clear as one can get.





Woodduck said:


> Let's ask the prople who inhabited the Americas before Europe arrived under the banner of Christ.


Let's not wear our 'hearts' on our sleeves and ask the Aztecs.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> I never confuse people with government.


I never forget that government consists of people.


----------



## Morimur

Woodduck said:


> I never forget that government consists of people.


The worst of the lot.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Let's not wear our 'hearts' on our sleeves and ask the Aztecs.


Is this to reinforce my point - which I grant was implicit rather than explicit - or to take exception to it? Or is it to make some other point?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I never forget that government consists of people.


Then was it 'the people themselves' who voluntarily marched into the gas chambers? Or did government do that to them?


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Is this to reinforce my point - which I grant was implicit rather than explicit - or to take exception to it? Or is it to make some other point?


Now I'm blonde-and-confused.

I thought you were making a point about the allegedly idyllic and halcyonic pre-lapsarian cultures of the Americas before the migrations of Europeans.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Then was it 'the people themselves' who voluntarily marched into the gas chambers? Or did government do that to them?


Not the people themselves, and not government. _Other_ people - vicious, depraved, deluded, stupid, prejudiced, ignorant, irresponsible, cowardly etc. people - using the machinery of government. The machinery doesn't exist or work by itself.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Not the people themselves, and not government. _Other_ people - vicious, depraved, deluded, stupid, prejudiced, ignorant, irresponsible, cowardly etc. people - using the machinery of government. The machinery doesn't exist or work by itself.


Fair shooting.

-- but then, they can't oppress me without the 'machinery' either.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Now I'm blonde-and-confused.
> 
> I thought you were making a point about the allegedly idyllic and halcyonic pre-lapsarian cultures of the Americas before the migrations of Europeans.


Goodness no! Andreas had said that the Nazi horror was uniquely horrible. I was offering an obvious counterexample. Pre-European invasion societies in the Americas were extremely diverse and it would be pointless to generalize about them. What they had in common was that they were obliterated, and their members brutally murdered by every available method, by people who considered themselves commissioned by God. I don't see any fundamental difference between one presumption of superiority, entitling one to genocidal slaughter, and another. And of course the scale in the Americas was far greater, if that matters to anyone's inherently offensive attempts at weighing one unspeakable evil against another.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Fair shooting.
> 
> -- but then, they can't oppress me without the 'machinery' either.


True enough. Or at least they can't oppress six million.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Goodness no! Andreas had said that the Nazi horror was uniquely horrible. I was offering an obvious counterexample. Pre-European invasion societies in the Americas were extremely diverse and it would be pointless to generalize about them. What they had in common was that they were obliterated, and their members brutally murdered by every available method, by people who considered themselves commissioned by God. I don't see any fundamental difference between one presumption of superiority, entitling one to genocidal slaughter, and another. And of course the scale in the Americas was far greater, if that matters to anyone's inherently offensive attempts at weighing one unspeakable evil against another.


You said it non-blonde.

I totally agree with that thesis.

Thanks for straightening me out; and breaking it down potato-head style so that I could understand. _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> True enough. Or at least they can't oppress six million.


- or ten-and-three-quarter million Russians (Hitler)

- or twenty-million Russians (Stalin)

- or eighty-million Chinese (Mao)

- or. . .

Where are the Hollywood movies on_ these _atrocities?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Marschallin Blair said:


> - or ten-and-three-quarter million Russians (Hitler)
> 
> - or twenty-million Russians (Stalin)
> 
> - or eighty-million Chinese (Mao)
> 
> - or. . .
> 
> Where are the Hollywood movies on_ these _stories?


I can give you an answer on the second and the first one. You see, it is the victors who get to write history. And since it was the Soviets, among other countries, that won WWII, they also got their go at demonizing their enemy (not the Nazis alone, but the German nation) as a symbol of ultimate evil, while Stalin himself acquired a positive reputation as a victor and savior. As for those that died in gulag... well, those were necessary sacrifices. At least if you ask an average modern Russian what he thinks about Stalin, that is the answer you will get.

For someone who never lived in Russia or the sphere of Russian influence it is hard to imagine what extent the cult of WWII and the "Great Victory" has here. Endless films, programs, daily reminders in the news, museums, monuments, annual military parades... *insert a puking smiley here*. Of course there are days of remembrance for war veterans in many countries, but this cult is not about remembrance, but about demonstrating military strength and about reminding the nation that _the enemy lies in the West_ There are probably hundreds of Soviet/Russian-made films about the war. As for Hollywood... I guess the folks there simply believe the Jews are more important.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SiegendesLicht said:


> I can give you an answer on the second and the first one. You see, it is the victors who get to write history. And since it was the Soviets, among other countries, that won WWII, they also got their go at demonizing their enemy (not the Nazis alone, but the German nation) as a symbol of ultimate evil, while Stalin himself acquired a positive reputation as a victor and savior. As for those that died in gulag... well, those were necessary sacrifices. At least if you ask an average modern Russian what he thinks about Stalin, that is the answer you will get.
> 
> For someone who never lived in Russia or the sphere of Russian influence it is hard to imagine what extent the cult of WWII and the "Great Victory" has here. Endless films, programs, daily reminders in the news, museums, monuments, annual military parades... *insert a puking smiley here*. Of course there are days of remembrance for war veterans in many countries, but this cult is not about remembrance, but about demonstrating military strength and about reminding the nation that _the enemy lies in the West_ There are probably hundreds of Soviet/Russian-made films about the war. As for Hollywood... I guess the folks there simply believe the Jews are more important.


Bolshevism.

National Socialism.

What's the difference?

One says that consciousness is class struggle.

One says that consciousness is determined by blood.

Both deny the sovereignty of reason.

Which is why neither socialist gang recognizes individual rights.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ The only difference lies in that as usually in history, might makes right. Thus the defeated are made to be the ultimate evil, and the winners, _misguided_ or _tolerably evil_. In any modern society it is totally unacceptable to be a national socialist, but itis quite acceptable to be a communist. They tried to build a better future, after all


----------



## violadude

It's really unfortunate that some people still dwell on the Nazi thing when it comes to their perception of Germany. Germany today is a very safe country, quite fair and egalitarian. 

(From what I've read, anyway).


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ The only difference lies in that as usually in history, might makes right. Thus the defeated are made to be the ultimate evil, and the winners, _misguided_ or _tolerably evil_. In any modern society it is totally unacceptable to be a national socialist, but itis quite acceptable to be a communist. They tried to build a better future, after all


National Socialism and Bolshevism are but two species of the same genus: collectivism.

Collectivism by its very nature is anti-individual, as it's anti-man, anti-mind, and anti-life; which is to say: pure evil.

No one has to ask the State for permission to think, to act, or to live.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

violadude said:


> It's really unfortunate that some people still dwell on the Nazi thing when it comes to their perception of Germany. Germany today is a very safe country, quite fair and egalitarian. (From what I've read, anyway).


Equality under the law is justice.

Egalitarianism under the law is not.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Marschallin Blair said:


> National Socialism and Bolshevism are but two species of the same genus: collectivism.
> 
> Collectivism by its very nature is anti-individual, as it's anti-man, anti-mind, and anti-life; which is to say: pure evil.
> 
> No one has to ask the State for permission to think, to act, or to live.


Extreme collectivism is evil, but so is extreme individualism. Under one you have oppression and a society of mindless drones, under the other you have a lawless, dog-eat-dog society where the only ethic is the abovementioned "might makes right". Humans are social animals, most of them cannot survive all alone. Civilization is only possible with a balance of both: individual good and collective good.


----------



## Morimur

SiegendesLicht said:


> Extreme collectivism is evil, but so is extreme individualism. Under one you have oppression and a society of mindless drones, under the other you have a lawless, dog-eat-dog society. Humans are social animals, most of them cannot survive all alone. What is needed is a balance of both: individual good and collective good.


Very true. 
********


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SiegendesLicht said:


> Extreme collectivism is evil, but so is extreme individualism. Under one you have oppression and a society of mindless drones, under the other you have a lawless, dog-eat-dog society where the only ethic is the abovementioned "might makes right". Humans are social animals, most of them cannot survive all alone. Civilization is only possible with a balance of both: individual good and collective good.


You're confusing liberty with license. Liberty is doing anything you want, provided you don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

License is doing anything you want without regard to others.

License is compatable with crimes against individuals but liberty never is.

The collective 'good,' so-called, is just the individual _bad_.

All history shows this.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Marschallin Blair said:


> - or ten-and-three-quarter million Russians (Hitler)
> 
> - or twenty-million Russians (Stalin)
> 
> - or eighty-million Chinese (Mao)
> 
> - or. . .
> 
> Where are the Hollywood movies on_ these _atrocities?


Films *are* made but the audiences tend to ignore them. For example - _*Katyn*_ directed Andrzej Wajda (2007) - about the massacre of about 22,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of war in 1940. The massacre was the subject of a 'stitch-up' where the Soviets tried to make it look as if the Nazis had done it (there is still a vociferous denial of it in many Russian circles) - it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (of course, that alone will consign it to oblivion in most of the english-speaking world)


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> You're confusing liberty with license. Liberty is doing anything you want, provided you don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
> 
> License is doing anything you want without regard to others.
> 
> License is compatable with crimes against individuals but liberty never is.
> 
> The collective 'good,' so-called, is just the individual _bad_.
> 
> All history shows this.


The textbook definition of Liberty does not exist in most countries; it is fictitious.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Morimur said:


> The textbook definition of Liberty does not exist in most countries; it is fictitious.


Don't tell the editors of Black's Law Dictionary that.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

violadude said:


> It's really unfortunate that some people still dwell on the Nazi thing when it comes to their perception of Germany. Germany today is a very safe country, quite fair and egalitarian.
> 
> (From what I've read, anyway).


Yes, Germany is (overall) a wonderful place, but it is ironic that the New York Times should publish an article entitled _Europe's anti-semitism comes out of the shadows _ *yesterday* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/europe/europes-anti-semitism-comes-out-of-shadows.html?_r=0


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> Films *are* made but the audiences tend to ignore them. For example - _*Katyn*_ directed Andrzej Wajda (2007) - about the massacre of about 22,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of war in 1940. The massacre was the subject of a 'stitch-up' where the Soviets tried to make it look as if the Nazis had done it (there is still a vociferous denial of it in many Russian circles) - it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (of course, that alone will consign it to oblivion in most of the english-speaking world)


Quite agreed, Prince. I was blonde-course referring to huge, roll-out-type Hollywood films-- with the type of PR like _Sophie's Choice, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List_, and so on._ ;D_


----------



## Morimur

I love the Germans, they make such great chocolate. What's not to love?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Marschallin Blair said:


> The collective 'good,' so-called, is just the individual _bad_.
> All history shows this.


Oh, Marschallin, you'll never get me to agree with that. Society is made tolerable by balancing individual rights, requirements and responsibilities with collective ones. Surely?


----------



## violadude

Morimur said:


> I love the Germans, they make such great chocolate. What's not to love?


I don't like chocolate, but I loovveee Sauerkraut.


----------



## Morimur

TurnaboutVox said:


> Oh, Marschallin, you'll never get me to agree with that. Society is made tolerable by balancing individual rights, requirements and responsibilities with collective ones. Surely?


Balancing individual, rights, requirements and responsibilities means SACRIFICE, and this is a very bad word in uber capitalistic countries. Extreme forms of government, left or right, only lead to destruction.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

TurnaboutVox said:


> Oh, Marschallin, you'll never get me to agree with that. Society is made tolerable by balancing individual rights, requirements and responsibilities with collective ones. Surely?


Voxxy, when people respect the life, liberty, and property of others--- you have, as Jefferson would put it: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none.

On the other hand, with socialism and with aggressive nationalism: When goods don't cross borders, armies will.


----------



## Wood

Marschallin Blair said:


> - or ten-and-three-quarter million Russians (Hitler)
> 
> - or twenty-million Russians (Stalin)
> 
> - or eighty-million Chinese (Mao)
> 
> - or. . .


....half a million Iraqis (Bush / Blair)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.

Such a comment suggests either little knowledge of history... or a view of history through rose-colored glasses. The United States, "the land of the free and the home of the brave", has a history of slavery... where millions perished... and millions more lived their lives treated as cattle. Then there is the treatment of the Native American "Indians" which again resulted in millions of deaths, mass populations forced to abandon their homes and placed on barren reservations... to say nothing of the intentional spread of smallpox among the tribes. Then we have the internment of Japanese-Americans, etc... Japan? Look at the atrocities committed against the Chinese and others in WWII alone. Russia? Stalin? China? Mao? The Mongol Invasions are estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 30-40 million... during the 13th and 14th centuries. The deaths during the Qing Dynasty Conquests or the MIng and the Taipei Rebellion are estimated to have resulted in as many as 125 million lives.

One need only look at Wikipedia's page on Wars and Anthropogenic (human derived) disasters and genocides to see that the Holocaust was by no way a unique event in history. It was merely one of the best organized and documented genocides.

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


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Morimur said:


> Balancing individual, rights, requirements and responsibilities means SACRIFICE, and this is a very bad word in uber capitalistic countries. Extreme forms of government, left or right, only lead to destruction.


"Sacrifice"--- that's a floating abstraction.

Sacrifice_ to whom_? _For what_?

Hitler got a lot of mileage out of that type of propaganda.

In fact, in Nazi Germany some of the money had a sacrificial slogan on it: "_Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz"_("the common good before the individual good").


----------



## mmsbls

The past several pages of posts have nothing to do with music (specifically Bruckner's 7th). While the discussion has been civil, political threads rarely remain so. Please move back to discussing _music_ rather than pure politics.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I don't think they do. Sure they have dark pages in their histories, all societies do. But not that particular kind of dark. It is, so far as I can see, mankind at its most base and vile.
> 
> Such a comment suggests either little knowledge of history... or a view of history through rose-colored glasses. The United States, "the land of the free and the home of the brave", has a history of slavery... where millions perished... and millions more lived their lives treated as cattle. Then there is the treatment of the Native American "Indians" which again resulted in millions of deaths, mass populations forced to abandon their homes and placed on barren reservations... to say nothing of the intentional spread of smallpox among the tribes. Then we have the internment of Japanese-Americans, etc... Japan? Look at the atrocities committed against the Chinese and others in WWII alone. Russia? Stalin? China? Mao? The Mongol Invasions are estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 30-40 million... during the 13th and 14th centuries. The deaths during the Qing Dynasty Conquests or the MIng and the Taipei Rebellion are estimated to have resulted in as many as 125 million lives.
> 
> One need only look at Wikipedia's page on Wars and Anthropogenic (human derived) disasters and genocides to see that the Holocaust was by no way a unique event in history. It was merely one of the best organized and documented genocides.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll


Death by _government._ That is to say: neither 'left' nor 'right'-- but rather 'government per se.'

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for.


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> Voxxy, when people respect the life, liberty, and property of others--- you have, as Jefferson would put it: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none.
> 
> On the other hand, with socialism and with aggressive nationalism: When goods don't cross borders, armies will.


Let's not forget capitalism, which is fond of selling and providing weapons to allies and enemies alike -- narrow minded stupidity.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

violadude said:


> I don't like chocolate, but I loovveee Sauerkraut.


Now, that is one part of German culture I absolutely can't stand.

I encounter Germans in my line of work every day, since Germany is Europe's biggest exporter of just about everything and several of the world's largest logistics operators that use the services of smaller trucking companies like the one I work for, are situated there. Mostly nice and helpful folks, and they always pay on time. When my workday is over, I come home and recharge (not _relax_!) with Bach, Schubert, Strauss, Wagner, Bruckner and the others. Then I talk to my man on Skype - in German of course, and so the typical day goes by. Sometimes on a given day I speak more German than Russian. And then some day vacation time comes, and I board a plane and leave for... yeah, you've guessed it.


----------



## violadude

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now, that is one part of German culture I absolutely can't stand.


Is it just sauerkraut or you don't like fermented/pickled goodies in general?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

violadude said:


> Is it just sauerkraut or you don't like fermented/pickled goodies in general?


I don't like anything pickled generally.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't like anything pickled generally.


Interesting. I dislike pickled things generally but love sauerkraut. _And_ chocolate (but never pickled).

I also love Bruckner's 7th, which is not pickled but was for some reason mentioned awhile back.


----------



## violadude

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't like anything pickled generally.





Woodduck said:


> Interesting. I dislike pickled things generally but love sauerkraut. _And_ chocolate (but never pickled).
> 
> I also love Bruckner's 7th, which is not pickled but was for some reason mentioned awhile back.


Well, more for me I guess!


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> Well, more for me I guess!


Pickled beets for chocolate...?

Deal!


----------



## Wood

Not pickled chocolate, but chilli chocolate is quite acceptable.


----------



## Xaltotun

Stalingrad?

Oh no, you've got the wrong map there. You want the Ilfracombe and Barnstaple section!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

This, and those who listen to Wagner or Shostakovich thinking about the war, I find completely unmusical if not incredibly idiotic altogether. In any case, by self-deluding oneself via these psychological procedures, one is just encouraging the exact same thing is pretending to exorcize. I find it slightly sad that so many reasonable get caught in the web of pseudo-historical assumptions, these collections of unjustified customs, false traditions and beliefs is the bread and butter of politicians. If I were to contaminate a listening of Bruckner's Symphony No. 7 I would in it's own realm, pointing out the motivic development and the twists and turns in the extended and phrygian harmonies...


----------



## Sid James

Bruckner composed the Adagio of the 7th symphony some four months before Wagner died. I think this dedication was in retrospect, as was Saint-Saens' Organ Symphony (which Liszt heard in its preparatory stages, again it was a posthumous dedication). The real dedicatee of Bruckner's 7th though does have a strong link with Wagner, it was Prince Ludwig of Bavaria.

In terms of its broadcast during the dying days of the Nazi regime in memory of Hitler, of course this was a misappropriation of music, another example of how such regimes twist and turn things to serve their own ends.

There is a scene in the movie _Taking Sides_, which is about Maestro Furtwangler's role in German musical life during the Nazi era (and all the moral dilemmas it brought up). At one point, the American investigator (played by Harvey Keitel) derisively says to Furtwangler that they played his recording of Bruckner's 7th, not "Little K's." That was Furtwangler's rival, Karajan. A lot was made in the film about Furtwangler conducting for Hitler on his birthday, but overall I remember the film as leaving all these ethical issues as an open question.

Apologies if I'm repeating stuff others have possibly said, I'll have to come back and read the whole thread given more time later.


----------



## Sid James

Okay, well I've skim read the whole thread now. As far as I see, there was no mention of what I said in my post above.

Another thing I remember about Hitler's appropriation of Bruckner was that their home towns where not far apart. So Hitler had this attachment (obsession?) about Bruckner. Below is a photo I remember coming across in a documentary, Hitler with his pantheon of composers, Bruckner being very prominent.

That said of course they appropriated many things in their agenda. Another piece was Beethoven's 9th symphony, and another one was Liszt's Les Preludes. When people came off the trains at the death camps, classical music of all kinds was played on loudspeakers.

Music was used in many ways by the regime, this might not be easy for us classical fans to accept, but it is part of the history surrounding music. There aren't only good bits, there are many bad bits too, and this was one of the worst.


----------



## mmsbls

NOTE: A number of purely political posts were deleted.


----------



## hpowders

Sid James said:


> Okay, well I've skim read the whole thread now. As far as I see, there was no mention of what I said in my post above.
> 
> Another thing I remember about Hitler's appropriation of Bruckner was that their home towns where not far apart. So Hitler had this attachment (obsession?) about Bruckner. Below is a photo I remember coming across in a documentary, Hitler with his pantheon of composers, Bruckner being very prominent.
> 
> That said of course they appropriated many things in their agenda. Another piece was Beethoven's 9th symphony, and another one was Liszt's Les Preludes. When people came off the trains at the death camps, classical music of all kinds was played on loudspeakers.
> 
> Music was used in many ways by the regime, this might not be easy for us classical fans to accept, but it is part of the history surrounding music. There aren't only good bits, there are many bad bits too, and this was one of the worst.


Yes. Strauss Waltzes, at times, believe it or not. Sometimes Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Played too as the inmates went to "work".


----------



## Badinerie

So Hitler et al had Bruckner and Wagner.....and what did we get ? Very Lynn and George Formby....How did we win!?


----------



## Sid James

hpowders said:


> Yes. Strauss Waltzes, at times, believe it or not. Sometimes Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Played too as the inmates went to "work".


Yes everything. Just as they use their music to sell everything from cars to holidays to tea and much else for television ads. I have a funny feeling that the public relations and advertising execs (or their underlings) have a pretty good knowledge of classical music to use it to such great effect in their advertisements. That's today's equivalent to the dictators and megalomaniacs of yesterday. Not an exact fit at all, but as close as we can get now.

There are many lessons to be taken from history. I suppose the big lesson there was that having knowledge or appreciation of music (or any type of culture) doesn't make you a better person. Also, you can use the most beautiful thing to cover up the most horrible things. I see a lot of evidence of not learning the lessons of history all the time. I have a strong sense of there being short memory (whether deliberate or not) regarding history.

In terms of Bruckner, he did revere Wagner, but only for his music. Bruckner's seventh symphony has references to Wagner's music (I can't remember from exactly which opera) and his third symphony had already been dedicated to Wagner. I think that there was something going on in Hitler's mind connecting his adulation of Wagner with Bruckner's and creating this sort of triumvirate.

But the most shocking scene in _Taking Sides_ speaking to all of this was a drunk Harvey Keitel showing the actor playing Furtwangler footage of the cleaning up of the camps. Hundreds of corpses being bulldozed into a mass grave. Its famous footage. I remember he said to the Maestro something like "your friends did this." Furtwangler just sat there shocked. That's the only reaction one can have to that, no nice music can massage or cover up terrible things like that.


----------



## hpowders

Sid James said:


> Yes everything. Just as they use their music to sell everything from cars to holidays to tea and much else for television ads. I have a funny feeling that the public relations and advertising execs (or their underlings) have a pretty good knowledge of classical music to use it to such great effect in their advertisements. That's today's equivalent to the dictators and megalomaniacs of yesterday. Not an exact fit at all, but as close as we can get now.
> 
> There are many lessons to be taken from history. I suppose the big lesson there was that having knowledge or appreciation of music (or any type of culture) doesn't make you a better person. Also, you can use the most beautiful thing to cover up the most horrible things. I see a lot of evidence of not learning the lessons of history all the time. I have a strong sense of there being short memory (whether deliberate or not) regarding history.
> 
> In terms of Bruckner, he did revere Wagner, but only for his music. Bruckner's seventh symphony has references to Wagner's music (I can't remember from exactly which opera) and his third symphony had already been dedicated to Wagner. I think that there was something going on in Hitler's mind connecting his adulation of Wagner with Bruckner's and creating this sort of triumvirate.
> 
> But the most shocking scene in _Taking Sides_ speaking to all of this was a drunk Harvey Keitel showing the actor playing Furtwangler footage of the cleaning up of the camps. Hundreds of corpses being bulldozed into a mass grave. Its famous footage. I remember he said to the Maestro something like "your friends did this." Furtwangler just sat there shocked. That's the only reaction one can have to that, no nice music can massage or cover up terrible things like that.


Thank you, Sid for a most informative post! :tiphat:


----------



## Sid James

hpowders said:


> Thank you, Sid for a most informative post! :tiphat:


Your welcome. I can go on about this, I have come across things on it over the years. An example of the hypocrisy of the regime is their destruction of the Mendelssohn monument (in front of the Gewanhaus in Liepzig) in 1936. Mendelssohn did so many things for German music and culture, of course Wagner attacked him. One thing Mendelssohn did was taking the leading part in the moves to revive Bach, he raised funds for the first monument to Bach in the city (now called the old Bach monument). That's what I don't like most in these cases, the rewriting of history.


----------



## hpowders

Sid James said:


> Your welcome. I can go on about this, I have come across things on it over the years. An example of the hypocrisy of the regime is their destruction of the Mendelssohn monument (in front of the Gewanhaus in Liepzig) in 1936. Mendelssohn did so many things for German music and culture, of course Wagner attacked him. One thing Mendelssohn did was taking the leading part in the moves to revive Bach, he raised funds for the first monument to Bach in the city (now called the old Bach monument). That's what I don't like most in these cases, the rewriting of history.


To the Nazis, racially, Mendelssohn was classified as a Jew. Simple as that. They didn't care about what he did for German music and culture. Being a Jew negated all the rest.


----------



## Sid James

hpowders said:


> To the Nazis, racially, Mendelssohn was classified as a Jew. Simple as that. They didn't care about what he did for German music and culture. Being a Jew negated all the rest.


Yes, it was a central aspect of their policy. Mahler is similar, and its interesting to compare how the Nazis saw his legacy with Bruckner's.

Of course today much has been done to rectify these distortions of history. For example, the same Mendelssohn monument was rebuilt in 2008:










I am though concerned with the general value of history, apart from the specific era we are talking about on this thread (World War II, Holocaust, etc.). It doesn't seem to be seen as important, maybe even just like trivia for some light conversation. I really hope that this isn't the case, because as the saying goes, those who forget history are likely to repeat it.

Overall though this is why pure formalism doesn't work for me, I see it as potentially being used as a tool to cover up these things. Like saying Bruckner's 7th symphony is just music. We it is, and it isn't. There's a whole lot to be said about looking at its context and history, whether the focus is narrower or wider. Simply negating these histories of music, particularly the less pleasant aspects of it, strikes me as an attempt at whitewash.

It happens with all issues such as this surrounding controversial issues in music. I see many things as being linked and having many nuances and levels of meaning. To dismiss these in an attempt to avoid issues that may be discomfiting or confronting strikes me as the very easy way out.


----------

