# Composers' weaknesses & the 'yuck' factor. . .



## Sid James

I think when it comes down to it, composers where just human beings like us, so they had the same human characteristics (eg. weaknesses or unpleasant - even criminal - aspects to their character, actions, politics, etc.)

I must admit that I had this 'yuck' factor with some composers. The ones I got over were *Saint-Saens *and *Szymanowski*. The former alleged to be a paedophile, the latter definitely that (but his teenage partner was acting with consent and later went on to become a homosexual himself). But it doesn't stop me now from enjoying their music, but its sometimes still in the back of my mind.

With *Beethoven*, I am appalled with how he treated his nephew. He spent 10 years largely wasting time (hardly composing) on legal wranglings about the boy. It has not stopped me, again, from enjoying his music. Beethoven is one of my favourite composers. I am glad that in the film _Immortal Beloved _(starring Gary Oldman in the title role) they did not skip over this fact, and its tragic consequences (the nephew tried to kill himself). I think its better to give a 'warts and all' account a composer's life, not picture him as a saint. Beethoven was a control freak for sure.

Another one is *Gesualdo*, but in his case, him murdering his wife and her lover kind of (in retrospect) worked in his favour. With a few films and documentaries about his life coming out in the past few decades, he's been given a lot of publicity. & as they say 'any publicity is good publicity.'

Of course,* Wagner *is the composer I cannot reconcile with, unlike those above. Its the usual reasons, which I have gone into many times on this forum before. But this thread is not only about him, its about broader issues.

Then there's composers like *Carl Orff *and *Richard Strauss *who where close to the Nazi regime. I have heard the opinion that Orff's _Carmina Burana _comes across as like music to a Nazi rally (which of course it is not, but it was composed during the Nazi regime). Orff may have been a double agent, and ultimately Strauss had an ambigious relationship with the Nazis. Another one was *Webern*, who tried to toady to the Nazis but with no results, I mean its unlikely they would put in their 'good books' a composer of atonal music, regardless of his political ideology.

I must admit I'm steering clear of *Franz Schmidt*, who composed a large scale choral work to celebrate Hitler's _Anschluss_. To know that is enough to turn me off even wanting to listen to this guy's stuff.

*So I'm asking you all, do any composers present to you as being 'problematic' due to these sorts of issues? I mean, in enjoying their music to the max.

Is it or has it been an issue for you?

Do you think about these sorts of things?

Is it hard to accept that a genius can be just a person, with all his character flaws?*

_But please note that I want to exclude just consensual sex between adults (whether hetero or not) from this thread, as we've had threads on it before. In any case, Liszt's 24 documented love affairs I'd say helped to 'sex him up,' he was like the 'sex, drugs and rock n'roll' thing 100 years before it happened. . ._


----------



## graaf

You really should have skiped the first two. Don't you know that what is seen cannot be unseen? Kinda like this, less damaging example:


----------



## Andreas

I find that genuises are often terribly flawed personalities. I love Bruckner, but he was religiously narrow-minded and non-intellectual. I love Sibelius but apparently he didn't mind receiving awards and money from Nazi Germany. But somehow these are more views and opinions rather than character traits.

Now Mahler, on the other hand, seemed to have had real character issues. In a nutshell, he was a pathetic wimp in his personal life. Hopelessly egocentric, a compulsive navel-gazer, a masochist in his marriage, weak, meek and neurotic. Yet, as a composer, as an artist, he was super self-confident powerhouse daredevil. I admire Mahler the artist, but I pity Mahler the person.


----------



## hocket

Both Nicolas Gombert and Johann Rosenmuller appear to have been paedophiles. It's disturbing that music of such beauty was created by people who were capable of being monsters. There's some question about Gombert. He did get into some kind of trouble and lost his position at court but the whole story of abusing a chorister is tied to the rather absurd picaresque tale of him being consigned to the galleys and then earning his freedom by composing the Magnificats for the Emperor. Nonetheless it remains the only indication of what caused his fall and seems the most likely explanation. When Rosenmuller got into trouble for pederasty, OTOH, he just moved to Venice -presumably that sort of thing was okay there...

It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the music -I have no trouble separating the composer from his works. OTOH Gombert's music is so tortured and intense that it does make me wonder whether the struggle with his personal demons played a role.


----------



## Ramako

Not really - this affects me much more more for authors than composers. Actually it matters much more to me anyway on the positive side of the scale - i.e. is this someone who I would like/agree with? Rachmaninov is probably the musician this most benefits for me, but even though I like the guy's life (from what I know) I still only like some of his music :lol:

Also I think the anti-Hitler mentality will pass within 50 years, as society is still in shock from the horrors of the Nazi regime. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it might be for Wagner who continually suffers, whether justly or not (I would think not), from Naziist accuastions.


----------



## mensch

Well Claude Debussy is often mentioned as having a rather terrible personality at times and yet I have no problems loving all of his musical output.

The same goes for the already mentioned Beethoven. I don't care if he was petty or spiteful as a human being, his music is simply to great. Also, these character traits are more easy to reconcile than the paedophilic tendencies of some composers.

As for Wagner and Strauss their respective failings just make it easier form me to ignore their music. Though Strauss was rehabilitated somewhat by the account Alex Ross has written in his book "The Rest is Noise".


----------



## Guest

I really don't give a monkey's duffy about their history or private life it is the music that is important to me.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

I think you just ruined Beethoven and Saint-Saens for me.  

Joking, I will still enjoy their music. 

I had never really thought about this before, I mean, I knew that composers were definitely not "saints" and they often had terrible personalities. Take Bach for example, he was imprisoned for something he said/did to a duke or something. But I never really gave a stuff, after all why stop listening to their beautiful music just because they were bad themselves?


----------



## Renaissance

I have this problem only with Wagner. I really can't pass this psychological block. Well, I am not a Jew, but it doesn't matter. I have a "natural" reluctance to such people. I can forgive Beethoven because I suspect him of Asperger Syndrome, histrionic personality, borderline, others... His lack of hearing and his problems regarding social skills can overwhelm an emotive personality like Beethoven's. He often adopted immature behaviours, and he was seen like an outsider. I can't think that he did what he did because he was cruel. Selfish, immature, impulsive, yes, it makes sense for me. Beethoven was very childish throughout his life, it is a main trait of his personality. Such people can be capable of shocking acts but only because of their weakness, and because of the feeling of being unworthy of love. Beethoven may have been weak, but in his journals we see a very different man. We all have weaknesses, that is why forgiveness is so important if we want to leave like people on this planets. 
The same things can be said about Wagner too, I guess, but I really have doubts about that. He knew very well what he was doing.
About Saens.... well... He was a really smart guy, very educated, but full of hatred, quarrelsome, highly critical about everything which didn't match his patterns/musical taste, and I was really shocked to find out that he is also thought to have been a paedophile... About homosexuality I have nothing to say, it is a "gift" from mother-nature. (most of the cases). No complaints here.

I guess the reason why my favorites composers are people like Bach, Cesar Franck, Beethoven, Faure... is because they were pretty balanced human beings and composed music only for the sake of music. Well, with the few exceptions from Beethoven which I can really understand in those circumstances. We are people, so we make mistakes, more often than we like. But it is very important to seek for perfection, no matter how, we must try to reach it. And Beethoven, Bach, and many others have really sought it. We can see it in their music.


----------



## nikola

I really don't understand most of you. All those aspects you mentioned makes all those composers a human beings with their flaws and virtues. 
First of all, so many germans didn't hate jews simply because they were jews. Germany was in bad situation, especially after 1st world war, while jewish people were mostly rich and on many leading positions. Well, german people probably needed to blame somebody back then. Many people in Germany hated jews, but they weren't aware that they were all killed in conc camps. I doubt that many of people from germany would agree with doing something like that. Same with Wagner. He didn't kill people.
But to dismiss all Wagner's music just because 'he didn't like jews' is stupid. I also don't like some people and some groups. But I don't hate them because of that and I don't want to kill anybody because of that... lol.

So, some composers were pedophiles, homosexuals... so what? Honestly, why should I care? Statistically, there are big chances you will find homosexuals among so many composers. Or some of you still think that being a homosexual is something against law or God? Grow a brain then.

Beethoven was obviously screwed on many levels as person and you can hear that in his music, but that is actualy what makes him also Beethoven on musical level after all. 
Mahler was a pathetic wimp? Well.. aren't we all? At least, he was honest.

Some of composers were close to Nazi regime? So what? 99% of german people were thinking back then that Hitler is God who will save them and give them bright future. 
Even Hitler painted some truly beautiful paintings (you can find those on youtube) and he was crazy sociopat who was able to show love only to his dog. I even don't think that he was that evil. He was disturbed and deluded maniac who almost made to conquer whole world simply because he truly believed in his crazy beliefs and because of that whole german nation started to believe in that.

But when I listen to music, I think that the most important thing is that you can HEAR that people who composed something great and subtle that can touch you on deeper level were actually in their core really good people. 
Can you imagine that some mass murderer could compose something like Barber's Adagio, or Mahler's Adagietto from symphony no.5 or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Wagner's Liebestod? 
I truly doubt.


----------



## dionisio

Ramako said:


> Also I think the anti-Hitler mentality will pass within 50 years, as society is still in shock from the horrors of the Nazi regime. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it might be for Wagner who continually suffers, whether justly or not (I would think not), from Naziist accuastions.


I second that.

And what about Caravaggio? However does anyone dislike his paintings for the sake of the painters cruelty?

I've seen some paintings from Hitler which i thought they were not bad at all (whether good enough for his admission in art school i do not know). However i can't say this out loud or else i'm labelled as a fascist/nazi. One time, with some friends of mine, i made the mistake telling them me and Hitler had the same taste in music (i was refering to Wagner) and they almost killed me.

I don't know if it exist a line between the artist and his work. Up until now i have never had the feeling to dislike a work of art because of the artist. Until now, for me the work has to value for it self. However we never know what tomorro will bring.

About being a paedophile or gay (because, whether we like it or not, it is always a delicate matter), society's opinion has changed through years. One of the most respected writers in the 19th century from my country, Almeida Garret, married a 13 year old child but is opus are still taught in school. On the other hand, when Oscar Wilde was arrested for promiscuous behaviour with other men he fell into disgrace in his time. Nevertheless his works are still read.

And to finish my post, i beg you please to understand i've just written. I'm not taking sides, approving/disapproving nothing nor expressing my feelings towards any kind of behaviour. I just presented some examples of the dichotomy man/work (or woman/work). Unfortunately we live in a world that the freedom of speech is replaced with "You are free to think at your own way as long as you think as the rest of us".

And finally, whether i'd like Wagner or not, that will never get between me and the music of the Master.


----------



## bassClef

I think Carl Orff gets a rough deal when being linked to the Nazi regime. I think it more likely that he was against it but quite understandably too afraid to denounce it, given that he was a prominent figure in Germany at the time. If he'd defended his friend Kurt Huber (one of the founders of The White Rose resistance movement), this wouldn't have escaped the attention of the upper echelons of the Nazi party.


----------



## norman bates

Sid James said:


> I must admit that I had this 'yuck' factor with some composers. The ones I got over were *Saint-Saens *and *Szymanowski*. The former alleged to be a paedophile,* the latter definitely that (but his teenage partner was acting with consent and later went on to become a homosexual himself*).


i know it's off topic but i don't see any problem in that (i'm referring to the bold text).

Anyway i think it's strange that all the time there are a lot of problems with Wagner and his antisemitism while Stravinsky was a great admirer of fascism and Mussolini and nobody seems to care.


----------



## Art Rock

Andante said:


> I really don't give a monkey's duffy about their history or private life it is the music that is important to me.


Granted, I would not have come up with the term monkey's duffy, but that aside, my feelings exactly/


----------



## mensch

nikola said:


> First of all, so many germans didn't hate jews simply because they were jews. Germany was in bad situation, especially after 1st world war, while jewish people were mostly rich and on many leading positions. Well, german people probably needed to blame somebody back then. Many people in Germany hated jews, but they weren't aware that they were all killed in conc camps. I doubt that many of people from germany would agree with doing something like that. Same with Wagner. He didn't kill people.


As I've said it makes it easier to dismiss their music. Also Wagner wasn't even alive during the Nazi period, so one can't accuse him of being a sympathizer. Wagner did play a very questionable role as a music critic, particularly in his treatise "Das Judenthum in der Musik". He's one of the reasons Mendelssohn faded into obscurity for a long while. I happen to be very fond of old Felix and I don't care for opera, so this puts Wagner high on my ignore list.

I agree that taking the negative traits of a composer into account is a wrong reason to dislike their music. But as I've said, those same traits make it easier for me to dismiss a composer altogether.

That doesn't mean I reevaluate composers on a regular basis. A few years ago I dismissed Liszt as a charlatan-composer, more interested in technical prowess than anything else. After acquainting myself with Liszt oeuvre I've come to a wholly different, positive conclusion regarding his compositional skills. The same revaluation could happen with Strauss or Wagner. Sadly they haven't produced any chamber music, which is the genre I like best and would make it easier to delve into their body of works.


----------



## emiellucifuge

mensch said:


> Sadly they haven't produced any chamber music, which is the genre I like best and would make it easier to delve into their body of works.


This was written when he was around 16 years old.


----------



## mensch

emiellucifuge said:


> This was written when he was around 16 years old.


I should rephrase my last statement to "Sadly they haven't produced any *notable* chamber music". Having looked at their list of compositions on Wikipedia I know both Wagner and Strauss have produced some chamber music, but most of it was produced when they were young. Also I don't think anybody would say that a proper introduction to the real Wagner starts with his Op. 1 Piano Sonata or the Fantasie in F sharp minor.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

It is kinda sad that Wagner wrote several anti-Semitic essays even though he did have Jewish friends throughout his life. The good thing is that the anti-Semitism doesn't come out in his glorious music.


----------



## Mephistopheles

I think having the potential to be turned off by a composer's behaviour presumes the existence of free will. I don't believe we have a free will, and therefore I don't have any such bad reactions to their vileness.


----------



## Petwhac

Firstly, I don't think it is advisable to judge the attitudes of a person from previous eras by the standards and attitudes of today.
Composers like everyone else are born into and brought up in the world of their time with all it's prejudices and social mores.

Secondly, the well adjusted, balanced, socially conscientious, morally irreproachable, goody two shoes might not be the best candidate for creating great art. (?)

How are we to judge for example, the musicians who played for or received patronage from Bush and Blair if in 50 years time history decides to judge them as 'war criminals'? (please note I am *not* equating those two with the likes of Hitler and Stalin, but just illustrating a point) Would future generations see such musicians as condoning the actions of their political masters? The point being, composers like Wagner who may have held opinions that we find odious, probably knew no better. They were _naive_ in life but great thinkers in art.

Many people who hold their hands up in horror at some attitudes are quite capable of turning a blind eye to others. They may not even realize the implications of their own views.

I believe we should separate the art from the artist. Maybe Beethoven's work is so powerful and universally appealing _because _he was a grumpy, misanthropic, self centered curmudgeon. (If he was)


----------



## jani

Beethoven was a control freak yes, but he wanted to protect Karl, he knew what kinda friends he had etc... STD's were much more serious then than now ( today they can be cured pretty well or at least treated).


----------



## jani

Mozart was into scatology.


----------



## GGluek

Artists, or whom composers are a subset, are just like everybody else, only more so. Not to generalize, but there is a spectrum of "artistic" personalities that includes a lot of traits whom many of us would view as at least asocial, if not outright antisocial. And this goes for writers, artists, composers, actors, dancers, opera singers . . .

TS Eliot was an anti-Semite, Ezra Pound a fascist, Fitzgerald a drunk, van Gogh cut off his ear, Picasso was a saytr, Schumann went mad, Mozart had no social skills, Schubert never grew up, Melville wasn't very nice to his wife . . .

You have to look beyond the personality to the art.

(And face it, this even goes beyond art to embrace genius of all stripes. Edison was a horrible person. So was Steve Jobs.)


----------



## emiellucifuge

mensch said:


> Also I don't think anybody would say that a proper introduction to the real Wagner starts with his Op. 1 Piano Sonata or the Fantasie in F sharp minor.


Maybe not, but the piece is still unquestionably Wagner, and shows many of the little compositional 'quirks' that he also uses in his mature dramas.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

jani said:


> Mozart was into scatology.


The only reason I actually listened to his canons.


----------



## jani

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The only reason I actually listened to his canons.


Unrelated comment, but i also think that the final cadence on his musical joke is so epic!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

jani said:


> Unrelated comment, but i also think that the final cadence on his musical joke is so epic!


MV introduced me to that actually. Quite epic, I agree.


----------



## BurningDesire

The case that seems to be routinely made against Richard Strauss is pretty appalling. "Sorry Strauss, you didn't abandon your life and your family and flee just to save your future reputation, you must have been a nazi sympathizer." Things are more complex than that.


----------



## BurningDesire

GGluek said:


> van Gogh cut off his ear ... Schumann went mad, Mozart had no social skills


I don't really think its right to blame somebody who is mentally ill as having some personal fault. Kind of hard to control such things, especially when you don't have anti-depressants, and I wouldn't call refusing to kiss the arses of pretentious rich people a personal fault or even having "no social skills"


----------



## EricABQ

I think the fact that these men are dead and can no longer benefit financially from their music makes it easier to over look certain things about them and buy and listen to their music (not that I'm saying any of them are so horrible that they wouldn't deserve attention if alive. I honestly don't know.)

But, if a songwriter whose work I like was alive and recording and was an outspoken racist or homophobe, I would not buy their music no matter how much I like it. 

If the best chef in town was a member of the KKK, I wouldn't eat at his restaraunt regardless of how good the food was.

Basically, I think the fact that dead composers don't benefit from me purchasing their music makes a big difference to me.


----------



## Humidor

Renaissance said:


> About homosexuality I have nothing to say, it is a "gift" from mother nature


It's the gift that keeps on giving


----------



## mensch

BurningDesire said:


> The case that seems to be routinely made against Richard Strauss is pretty appalling. "Sorry Strauss, you didn't abandon your life and your family and flee just to save your future reputation, you must have been a nazi sympathizer." Things are more complex than that.


The same could be said about Shostakovich, who played a similarly ambivalent role in Stalin's Sovjet Union. I believe Shostakovich even went a little further by functioning like an official, albeit reluctant spokesperson for the regime in his capacity of deputy to the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR. Strauss served in a similar manner as president of the Reichsmusikkammer, but was only tolerated for a relatively short while. If I'm not mistaken he was not active in political circles during the war. His relationship with the nazis is further complicated by the fact that he had many Jewish family members whom he actively tried to protect. So not a villain, but a rather tragic figure living in tragic times.

Based on diaries and private correspondence we now know that both men had a very conflicted relationship with the totalitarian regime they both lived in. So indeed it's not all black and white.


----------



## starthrower

Hmm? I opened this thread assuming the title alluded to musical weaknesses. I can't imagine sexual preference being a factor in this day and age. And I didn't know people "went on to become homosexuals".

I agree about Wagner. Public displays of bigotry deserve no forgiveness. What a creep!


----------



## BurningDesire

mensch said:


> The same could be said about Shostakovich, who played a similarly ambivalent role in Stalin's Sovjet Union. I believe Shostakovich even went a little further by functioning like an official, albeit reluctant spokesperson for the regime in his capacity of deputy to the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR. Strauss served in a similar manner as president of the Reichsmusikkammer, but was only tolerated for a relatively short while. If I'm not mistaken he was not active in political circles during the war. His relationship with the nazis is further complicated by the fact that he had many Jewish family members whom he actively tried to protect. So not a villain, but a rather tragic figure living in tragic times.
> 
> Based on diaries and private correspondence we now know that both men had a very conflicted relationship with the totalitarian regime they both lived in. So indeed it's not all black and white.


I view Shostakovich as being a prisoner or slave of that regime. One could say he could have just escaped, run away at some point, but how can you expect a person to abandon their family? If he defected, its really not a stretch to assume the regime would do horrific things to his family that was left behind.


----------



## dionisio

starthrower said:


> Hmm? I opened this thread assuming the title alluded to musical weaknesses. I can't imagine sexual preference being a factor in this day and age. And I didn't know people "went on to become homosexuals".
> 
> I agree about Wagner. Public displays of bigotry deserve no forgiveness. What a creep!


Of all biographies i read about Wagner, i don't remember reading about Wagner hurting someone because of his views. What i have read a lot of is Wagner whining and complaining about other people (whether they were jews, french, etc.). He cursed them for not staging his operas and wrote about it.

His open mind against jews, to me, was not lesser than those who are anti-americans (not all of them are terrorist). And of those i know a lot. But they won't hurt a living soul.

Any relation between Wagner and the meaning that the word "anti-semitism" gained after WWII is pure stupidity.

Now if by bigot, the name of, for example, Newton comes around...there is some truth in it.


----------



## Sonata

mensch said:


> I should rephrase my last statement to "Sadly they haven't produced any *notable* chamber music". Having looked at their list of compositions on Wikipedia I know both Wagner and Strauss have produced some chamber music, but most of it was produced when they were young. Also I don't think anybody would say that a proper introduction to the real Wagner starts with his Op. 1 Piano Sonata or the Fantasie in F sharp minor.


Then you're simply dismissing their chamber work. Just because it was prduced when they were young and isn't on a top ten list does not mean it is without merit. Mahler's only extant piece of chamber work, for example, is not really discussed with favor but I happen to find it quite lovely.


----------



## hocket

Okay, not a composer, but Furtwangler's case would seem a more questionable one than Strauss's.


----------



## Art Rock

Furtwangler definitely composed as well - I have several CD's of his work.


----------



## moody

nikola said:


> I really don't understand most of you. All those aspects you mentioned makes all those composers a human beings with their flaws and virtues.
> First of all, so many germans didn't hate jews simply because they were jews. Germany was in bad situation, especially after 1st world war, while jewish people were mostly rich and on many leading positions. Well, german people probably needed to blame somebody back then. Many people in Germany hated jews, but they weren't aware that they were all killed in conc camps. I doubt that many of people from germany would agree with doing something like that. Same with Wagner. He didn't kill people.
> But to dismiss all Wagner's music just because 'he didn't like jews' is stupid. I also don't like some people and some groups. But I don't hate them because of that and I don't want to kill anybody because of that... lol.
> 
> So, some composers were pedophiles, homosexuals... so what? Honestly, why should I care? Statistically, there are big chances you will find homosexuals among so many composers. Or some of you still think that being a homosexual is something against law or God? Grow a brain then.
> 
> Beethoven was obviously screwed on many levels as person and you can hear that in his music, but that is actualy what makes him also Beethoven on musical level after all.
> Mahler was a pathetic wimp? Well.. aren't we all? At least, he was honest.
> 
> Some of composers were close to Nazi regime? So what? 99% of german people were thinking back then that Hitler is God who will save them and give them bright future.
> Even Hitler painted some truly beautiful paintings (you can find those on youtube) and he was crazy sociopat who was able to show love only to his dog. I even don't think that he was that evil. He was disturbed and deluded maniac who almost made to conquer whole world simply because he truly believed in his crazy beliefs and because of that whole german nation started to believe in that.
> 
> But when I listen to music, I think that the most important thing is that you can HEAR that people who composed something great and subtle that can touch you on deeper level were actually in their core really good people.
> Can you imagine that some mass murderer could compose something like Barber's Adagio, or Mahler's Adagietto from symphony no.5 or Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Wagner's Liebestod?
> I truly doubt.


I think it would have been better if you had not issued this post---especially the first paragraph.
You are treading in a minefield
By coincidence I have just been watching a documentary about Goebbels where he explained in great detail how he was going to exterminate the Jews.
Everyone in the vast audience went into paroxyms of hate and shrieked their support,the young ,the middle-aged, the old, both male and female.
You can apologise for Wagner if you wish,but you should not apologise for the Nazis.


----------



## Ramako

I probably have different views to most people here, but I have to say that I think that music should be judged on its own merit, rather than that of the artist, even if some sort of moral evaluation is taking place.

Also, I think most of us can be arrogant and bigoted, it's just that great composers have something to be arrogant _about_, so it stands out more, and they have less motivation to change.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I must admit that I had this 'yuck' factor with some composers. The ones I got over were Saint-Saens and Szymanowski. The former alleged to be a paedophile... But it doesn't stop me now from enjoying their music, but its sometimes still in the back of my mind.

Another one is Gesualdo, but in his case, him murdering his wife and her lover kind of (in retrospect) worked in his favour... as they say 'any publicity is good publicity.'

Of course, Wagner is the composer I cannot reconcile with, unlike those above. Its the usual reasons, which I have gone into many times on this forum before. But this thread is not only about him, its about broader issues.

Then there's composers like Carl Orff and Richard Strauss who where close to the Nazi regime. 
So I'm asking you all, do any composers present to you as being 'problematic' due to these sorts of issues? I mean, in enjoying their music to the max.

Is it or has it been an issue for you?

Do you think about these sorts of things?

Is it hard to accept that a genius can be just a person, with all his character flaws?

Is it really the "character flaws" that concern you... or are you more concerned with promoting a given political view than you are with the music? It seems odd that you cannot reconcile Wagner's antisemitism and the fact that he was beloved by the Nazis (which had absolutely nothing to do with him) and Strauss' links with the Nazi's which you have repeatedly misrepresented... but child molestation and even murder don't have the least effect upon whether you appreciate a given composer. And I notice that the composers who bowed down to the the demands of totalitarian leftist regimes (Shostakovitch, Prokofiev) are not mentioned.

Personally, I am interested in the art not the artist. This is why I repeatedly question the obsession with the artist's biography... or the "cult of personality".


----------



## Carpenoctem

Ramako said:


> I probably have different views to most people here, but I have to say that I think that music should be judged on its own merit, rather than that of the artist, even if some sort of moral evaluation is taking place.





StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I am interested in the art not the artist. This is why I repeatedly question the obsession with the artist's biography... or the "cult of personality".


Agreed.

Do I think about Bach's wig, his personal life or what was he eating while writing his cello sonatas?

No, I don't. I enjoy the music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I view Shostakovich as being a prisoner or slave of that regime. One could say he could have just escaped, run away at some point, but how can you expect a person to abandon their family? If he defected, its really not a stretch to assume the regime would do horrific things to his family that was left behind.

But lets look at Richard Strauss:

*Strauss was 68 years old when Hitler took power... not exactly an age when an individual is likely able to easily pack it up and leave his country for a foreign land where he struggle with the language and likely struggle economically

*Strauss never joined the Nazi party and refused to use the Nazi salute

*Strauss needed to protect his Jewish daughter-in-law and Jewish grandchildren. The children were bullied in school. When his Jewish daughter-in-law Alice was placed under house arrest in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1938, Strauss used his connections in Berlin, including the Berlin intendant Heinz Tietjen, to secure her safety. He drove to the Theresienstadt concentration camp in order to argue, albeit unsuccessfully, for the release of his son Franz's Jewish mother-in-law, Marie von Grab. Strauss also wrote several letters to the SS pleading for the release of her children who were also held in camps.

In 1942, Strauss moved with his family back to Vienna, where Alice and her children could be protected by Baldur von Schirach, the Gauleiter of Vienna. Strauss was unable, however, to protect his Jewish relatives completely; in early 1944, while Strauss was away, Alice and his son Franz were abducted by the Gestapo and imprisoned for two nights. Only Strauss's personal intervention at this point was able to save them, and he was able to take the two of them back to Garmisch, where they remained under house arrest until the end of the war

*Strauss hoped to not only help to preserve German culture, but also the music of such banned composers as Mahler, Debussy, Mendelssohn, Stravinsky, etc...

*Strauss repeatedly wrote anti-Nazi comments in his personal journal:

_"I consider Goebbels... as a disgrace to German honour..."

"In November of 1933, the minister Goebbels nominated me president of the Reichsmusikkammer without obtaining my prior agreement. I was not consulted. I accepted this honorary office because I hoped that I would be able to do some good and prevent worse misfortunes, if from now onwards German musical life were going to be, as it was said, "reorganized" by amateurs and ignorant place-seekers."_

*Strauss attempted to ignore Nazi bans on performances of works by Debussy, Mahler, and Mendelssohn. He also continued to work on a comic opera, Die schweigsame Frau, with his Jewish friend and librettist Stefan Zweig. When the opera was premiered in Dresden in 1935, Strauss insisted that Zweig's name appear on the theatrical billing, much to the ire of the Nazi regime.

*Strauss wrote a letter to Stefan Zweig, in which he stated:

_"Do you believe I am ever, in any of my actions, guided by the thought that I am 'German'? Do you suppose Mozart was consciously 'Aryan' when he composed? I recognise only two types of people: those who have talent and those who have none."_

This letter to Zweig was intercepted by the Gestapo and sent to Hitler. Strauss was subsequently dismissed from his post as Reichsmusikkammer president in 1935.

*In 1938, when the entire nation was preparing for war, Strauss created Friedenstag (Peace Day), a one-act opera set in a besieged fortress during the Thirty Years' War. The work is essentially a hymn to peace and a thinly veiled criticism of the Third Reich. With its contrasts between freedom and enslavement, war and peace, light and dark, this work has a close affinity with Beethoven's Fidelio. Productions of the opera ceased shortly after the outbreak of war in 1939.

*Strauss completed the composition of Metamorphosen, a work for 23 solo strings, in 1945. The title and inspiration for the work comes from a profoundly self-examining poem by Goethe, which Strauss had considered setting as a choral work. Generally regarded as one of the masterpieces of the string repertoire, Metamorphosen contains Strauss's most sustained outpouring of tragic emotion. Conceived and written during the blackest days of World War II, the piece expresses in music Strauss's mourning of, among other things, the destruction of German culture - including the bombing of every great opera house in the nation. At the end of the war, Strauss wrote in his private diary:

_"The most terrible period of human history is at an end, the twelve year reign of bestiality, ignorance and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany's 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom."_

But somehow Strauss is repeatedly painted as "close to the Nazi regime" and "having an ambiguous relationship with the Nazis".

I guess its always possible to interpret the facts to suit whatever bias you wish to support.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Some of composers were close to Nazi regime? So what?

My thought as well. I find myself wondering just how many composers and artist of every ilk have been close to some rather bloodthirsty leaders. As Robert Hughes wrote:

_Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo de Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocento architects, Leno Battista Alberti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino de Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapcity that he was known in life as Il Lupo, The Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic Church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell-a distinction he earned by trussing up a Papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini._

One could continue by pointing out that most of the greatest artists of the Italian Renaissance were employed by the most rapacious of rulers: the Medici, Orsini, Borgias, Barberini, etc... All were the equivalent of today's Latin-American drug lords... sans the automatic weapons. And the great painter of the French Revolution... J.L. David had ties with leading figures of the Reign of Terror, including Danton and Marat, who he subsequently canonized in his famous painting _The Death of Marat_.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think Carl Orff gets a rough deal when being linked to the Nazi regime. I think it more likely that he was against it but quite understandably too afraid to denounce it...

Orff gets a bad reputation for having volunteered to rewrite the music to _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ after the music of Mendelssohn had been banned. Richard Strauss refused the commission, declaring that Mendelssohn's music couldn't be improved upon.

There is also the disturbing incident with Orff's friend, Kurt Huber. Orff was a friend of Kurt Huber, one of the founders of the resistance movement Die Weiße Rose (the White Rose), who was condemned to death by the Volksgerichtshof and executed by the Nazis in 1943. Orff by happenstance called at Huber's house on the day after his arrest. Huber's distraught wife begged Orff to use his influence to help her husband, but Orff declined her request. If his friendship with Huber came out, he told her, he would be "ruined". Huber's wife never saw Orff again. Wracked by guilt, Orff would later write a letter to his late friend Huber, imploring him for forgiveness.


----------



## TresPicos

I can't listen to Gesualdo without being spooked about the fact that I'm listening to the music of a murderer. So I don't listen to him. 

Other than that, character flaws usually don't get in the way of my appreciation of composers, but that is partly because I prefer to stay oblivious in some cases. I don't want to know that Debussy might not have been a nice person all of the time. 

Then, about character flaws... The concept seems to suggest that there is an important line to be drawn between being "normal" and being flawed. That we should somehow (in theory) frown equally upon Schumann for his journey to the looney bin (or Mussorgsky for being a drunk), and upon Mahler for forbidding his wife to compose (or Lully for punching that pregnant lady), since all of them are downright "flawed". When, in fact, the important line should instead be drawn between treating others badly and not treating others badly, no matter the flaws.


----------



## nikola

Ok, I must admit that I've never heard about Gesualdo, but I just read on wiki about his killings. I think it's much harder to appreciate music or to listen to it knowing that someone actualy did such horrible things. But really killing people can't be compared with 'not liking jews' or with 'being a homosexual' kind of stuff. 
It would be kinda interesting to hear his stuff considering that he was such trash of human being, but I doubt that I could enjoy in it knowing such facts.


----------



## norman bates

nikola said:


> Ok, I must admit that I've never heard about Gesualdo, but I just read on wiki about his killings. I think it's much harder to appreciate music or to listen to it knowing that someone actualy did such horrible things. But really killing people can't be compared with 'not liking jews' or with 'being a homosexual' kind of stuff.
> It would be kinda interesting to hear his stuff considering that he was such trash of human being,* but I doubt that I could enjoy in it knowing such facts.*


i wonder what you think about caravaggio.


----------



## Cnote11

You're honestly missing out. I don't care if Gesualdo raped a village of little boys and girls before lopping off their heads, devouring their brains, then used them as bombs to destroy the children's parent's homes. The music remains absolutely exquisite.


----------



## nikola

norman bates said:


> i wonder what you think about caravaggio.


Well he seems like a great painter. How many people did he kill? :lol:
Actualy, painting is different kind of art. Hard to see person's mentality through paintings... most of the time. I'm also drawing portraits, but by looking at them you would never guess that I already killed 16 people.. lol 
Hitler was also great painter. 
Ok, you can notice some things through painting style, but not as much as through music. Music really goes deep.


----------



## Cnote11

I turn on Gesualdo and the blood runs out of my speakers. The first time I listened to Wagner, I was so moved that I am now an anti-semite. Whenever I hear Carnival des animaux, I have the sudden urge to fondle little boys. It must be the way the keys were written to be played. It was as if he was thinking about fondling genitalia when he wrote some of those piano parts. It is just so tangible.


----------



## Ramako

nikola said:


> Well he seems like a great painter. How many people did he kill? :lol:
> Actualy, painting is different kind of art. Hard to see person's mentality through paintings... most of the time. I'm also drawing portraits, but by looking at them you would never guess that I already killed 16 people.. lol
> Hitler was also great painter.
> Ok, you can notice some things through painting style, but not as much as through music. Music really goes deep.


I think the opposite is more arguable - music is abstract, painting is less abstract and literature is even less abstract.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Is it really the "character flaws" that concern you... or are you more concerned with promoting a given political view than you are with the music? It seems odd that you cannot reconcile Wagner's antisemitism and the fact that he was beloved by the Nazis (which had absolutely nothing to do with him) and Strauss' links with the Nazi's which you have repeatedly misrepresented... but child molestation and even murder don't have the least effect upon whether you appreciate a given composer. And I notice that the composers who bowed down to the the demands of totalitarian leftist regimes (Shostakovitch, Prokofiev) are not mentioned.
> 
> Personally, I am interested in the art not the artist. This is why I repeatedly question the obsession with the artist's biography... or the "cult of personality".


I wholeheartedly agree. You deserve a round of applause for this post and Sid James now should go listen to all the Wagner he can get his hands on. :clap:


----------



## Cnote11

Responsible for the death of six-million Jews.


----------



## norman bates

nikola said:


> Well he seems like a great painter. How many people did he kill? :lol:
> Actualy, painting is different kind of art. Hard to see person's mentality through paintings... most of the time


i disagree, there's no great difference. I don't think that anybody who enjoy Percy Grainger's music can say that he was into sadomasochism, while it's easy to perceive the anguish in a painting of Soutine or Van Gogh.


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> You're honestly missing out. I don't care if Gesualdo raped a village of little boys and girls before lopping off their heads, devouring their brains, then used them as bombs to destroy the children's parent's homes. The music remains absolutely exquisite.


That's true, but still.... murderer? I'm not saying that's what makes music bad in the slightest possible way, but such things are really hard to ignore while listening to such music if you know what that person was doing and what for he was capable of. So much negative energy possibly also sometimes noticeable through music I guess. 
I think that's really rare occasion that composer is murderer and such awful and disturbed murderer like Gesualdo. Composers are mostly sensitive creatures even though they show that through all possible positive and negative ways.

But such fact that he was murderer simply would make me feel uncomfortable while listening to his music. It doesn't mean it would make YOU feel uncomfortable. I'm talking about me. I could listen to his music for half an hour I guess, but I would never like to go into some deep psychological analysis of his music while listening all his stuff for 1 week or more 18 hours per day.
I mean... if he did kill anybody while he was probably psychologically completely destroyed or drunk, I would say 'well, **** happens', but he was obviously first class murderer. 
I really couldn't care less about musicians urges and personalities and what they did like and who they didn't like... I don't care, but killing people is simply something completely different.


----------



## nikola

norman bates said:


> i disagree, there's no great difference. I don't think that anybody who enjoy Percy Grainger's music can say that he was into sadomasochism, while it's easy to perceive the anguish in a painting of Soutine or Van Gogh.


He was still not murderer.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I may not like the composer as a human being but I could adore his/her music.


----------



## Cnote11

I may not like CoaG's music but I adore him as a human being.


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> Responsible for the death of six-million Jews.


Wagner did not kill anybody


----------



## Cnote11

nikola said:


> That's true, but still.... murderer? I'm not saying that's what makes music bad in the slightest possible way, but such things are really hard to ignore while listening to such music if you know what that person was doing and what for he was capable of. So much negative energy possibly also sometimes noticeable through music I guess.
> I think that's really rare occasion that composer is murderer and such awful and disturbed murderer like Gesualdo. Composers are mostly sensitive creatures even though they show that through all possible positive and negative ways.
> 
> But such fact that he was murderer simply would make me feel uncomfortable while listening to his music. It doesn't mean it would make YOU feel uncomfortable. I'm talking about me. I could listen to his music for half an hour I guess, but I would never like to go into some deep psychological analysis of his music while listening all his stuff for 1 week or more 18 hours per day.
> I mean... if he did kill anybody while he was probably psychologically completely destroyed or drunk, I would say 'well, **** happens', but he was obviously first class murderer.
> I really couldn't care less about musicians urges and personalities and what they did like and who they didn't like... I don't care, but killing people is simply something completely different.


----------



## Cnote11

nikola said:


> Wagner did not kill anybody


You must be new here.


----------



## DeepR

Those who think the character and lifestyle of a composer says a lot about (the quality of) their music should have a blast with this website

http://www.wrightmusic.net/


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


>


You have kinda illogical approach since you're so contradictory to yourself. You don't care if composer was mass murderer, but you do care if he killed anybody by accident. By trying to make me look stupid with that, you only make yourself looking like an idiot. And if you actualy believe that Wagner was responsible for death od six million jews, when I say 'idiot' then I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as a sad fact. You sir, are an idiot then 
Yes, I'm new here, but we did talk on other topic about Wagner's music and Hitler would kill 6 million jews even without Wagner. 
Go sell your delusions of your 'big smart brain' to somebody else. 
I was talking about MY personal experience and I didn't say that some smart *** like you must not like music of murderer.


----------



## Cnote11

Contracting and subsequently dying from syphilis: One of Schubert's favorite hobbies! 

I don't really care for the way that website is written.


----------



## Cnote11

nikola said:


> You have kinda illogical approach since you're so contradictory to yourself. You don't care if composer was mass murderer, but you do care if he killed anybody by accident. By trying to make me look stupid with that, you only make yourself looking like an idiot. And if you actualy believe that Wagner was responsible for death od six million jews, when I say 'idiot' then I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that as a sad fact. You sir, are an idiot then
> Yes, I'm new here, but we did talk on other topic about Wagner's music and Hitler would kill 6 million jews even without Wagner.
> Go sell your delusions of your 'big smart brain' to somebody else.
> I was talking about MY personal experience and I didn't say that some smart *** like you must not like music of murderer.


You're obviously lost in your web of assumptions.

Edit: BTW, who is this "WE" you are referring to exactly? I honestly can't make out if you're talking about the board as a whole, or if you think you and I had some sort of discussion about Wagner.


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> You're obviously lost.


:lol: you would like that. Don't you see that you're becoming lost!?


----------



## Cnote11

nikola said:


> :lol: you would like that. Don't you see that you're becoming lost!?


There is a reason so many people are "liking" my Wagner post. Perhaps you should go back and evaluate your argument again to save face.


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> You're obviously lost in your web of assumptions.
> 
> Edit: BTW, who is this "WE" you are referring to exactly? I honestly can't make out if you're talking about the board as a whole, or if you think you and I had some sort of discussion about Wagner.


Your post is bigger every minute. Madness is approaching. Blue sky is becoming grey. Are we all murderers or saints? Who are we? Who are you? Oh God... who is lost!?


----------



## Cnote11

This is honestly getting pathetic.


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> There is a reason so many people are "liking" my Wagner post. Perhaps you should go back and evaluate your argument again to save face.


Sure, I can spend my whole day with nonsense... if only 
Majority is there to save you with their 'likes'


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> This is honestly getting pathetic.


So, why did you go down on my level and talking to me at all? Isn't that too low for your big ego?


----------



## Cnote11

Sigh... if you can't tell that this

"I turn on Gesualdo and the blood runs out of my speakers. The first time I listened to Wagner, I was so moved that I am now an anti-semite. Whenever I hear Carnival des animaux, I have the sudden urge to fondle little boys. It must be the way the keys were written to be played. It was as if he was thinking about fondling genitalia when he wrote some of those piano parts. It is just so tangible."

followed by this










Responsible for the death of six-million Jews.

is _not serious_, then you either have some form of "cognitive impairment" or your IQ is as low as your post count; OR, you're just being an *** with a highly poor sense of getting your humor across.


----------



## mmsbls

Please return this discussion to the topic of composers and their faults. If you disagree with someone, remember our terms of service:

_Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner._


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> Sigh... if you can't tell that this
> 
> "I turn on Gesualdo and the blood runs out of my speakers. The first time I listened to Wagner, I was so moved that I am now an anti-semite. Whenever I hear Carnival des animaux, I have the sudden urge to fondle little boys. It must be the way the keys were written to be played. It was as if he was thinking about fondling genitalia when he wrote some of those piano parts. It is just so tangible."
> 
> followed by this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Responsible for the death of six-million Jews.
> 
> is _not serious_, then you either have some form of "cognitive impairment" or your IQ is as low as your post count; OR, you're just being an *** with a highly poor sense of getting your humor across.


If someone like you would think that my IQ is high, that would be the only moment in my life when I would actualy become worried that I'm probably really stupid. 
The sad part of your posts are when you were trying to prove with some nonsense contradictions how my opinions are stupid and wrong. That was like WoW. I actualy think I like you. You're so smart and full of sarcasm. If I'm not straight I would probably go on a date with you.


----------



## Mephistopheles

DeepR said:


> Those who think the character and lifestyle of a composer says a lot about (the quality of) their music should have a blast with this website
> 
> http://www.wrightmusic.net/


That's such a wonderfully disjointed writing style. And I always love being presented with a wall of text in the third-person which you know beyond doubt has been written by the person it purports to be about. I definitely trust this man and his ideas.


----------



## Cnote11

In the end, I care much more about music than gossip.


----------



## Cnote11

nikola said:


> If someone like you would think that my IQ is high, that would be the only moment in my life when I would actualy become worried that I'm probably really stupid.
> The sad part of your posts are when you were trying to prove with some nonsense contradictions how my opinions are stupid and wrong. That was like WoW. I actualy think I like you. You're so smart and full of sarcasm. If I'm not straight I would probably go on a date with you.


I never made a comment on your opinions. You really need to lay off the defense act and stop acting like all my posts were somehow directed at you. I merely said that you're missing out on what I consider to be a great composer, and that I thought your sentence announcing that a drunk killing somebody is merely "**** happens" was humorous. I'm pretty sure neither of those things has actually _anything_ to do with your opinion on listening to a murderer, as if I even care. I highly suggest you stop replying because this will be the last time I waste my time and continue to push this topic off-topic for no reason except that you want to overreact. Mmbls clearly stated to knock-it-off, and it is my intention to fulfill that.


----------



## Ramako

DeepR said:


> Those who think the character and lifestyle of a composer says a lot about (the quality of) their music should have a blast with this website
> 
> http://www.wrightmusic.net/


An interesting (read: very annoying) article. A few things strike me:

1) The standard article-type practice of stating gossip as if it were fact, like Vivaldi's supposed simultaneous affair with two women, despite being supposed to be a chaste priest. The usual statement is "Well, of course he would deny that *nudge nudge, wink wink*" which seems to be offered as some kind of evidence, despite the fact that motive does not invalidate any statement.

2) The ambiguity with which it is expressed. Is he condoning listening to horrible people's music or not?

If after listening to a piece of music we suddenly have a desire to go and kill someone (or, indeed, invade Poland :lol we probably want to stop listening to that piece. Not if the artist happened to like throwing tea-pots at his cat. But then can we forget the artist? Perhaps not. I don't know if we should. It is an interesting moral dilemma.

Still, I think I may go and listen to some Gesualdo, after I have finished with this Wagner (no joke), and perhaps even buy some


----------



## nikola

Cnote11 said:


> I never made a comment on your opinions. You really need to lay off the defense act and stop acting like all my posts were somehow directed at you. I merely said that you're missing out on what I consider to be a great composer, and that I thought your sentence announcing that a drunk killing somebody is merely "**** happens" was humorous. I'm pretty sure neither of those things has actually _anything_ to do with your opinion on listening to a murderer, as if I even care. I highly suggest you stop replying because this will be the last time I waste my time and continue to push this topic off-topic for no reason except that you want to overreact. Mmbls clearly stated to knock-it-off, and it is my intention to fulfill that.


Yes, that pic of car was really funny... 
If that was suggestion that every murder is also murder no matter under what conditions, then ok if you believe in that. But I was saying this:


> But such fact that he was murderer simply would make me feel uncomfortable while listening to his music. It doesn't mean it would make YOU feel uncomfortable. I'm talking about me. I could listen to his music for half an hour I guess, but I would never like to go into some deep psychological analysis of his music while listening all his stuff for 1 week or more 18 hours per day.


That doesn't mean that's ultimate truth and I didn't say that. It's my personal feeling about something like that. I didn't say that I don't want to hear EVER music of him because he was murderer. I only said it would be uncomfortable for me to listen to his music non-stop while knowing that he was such terrible s*it of human being who was killing people and ordering his servants to kill people. 
It's almost like trying to enjoy in music of Vlad Tepeš (if there would be any). I actualy can't believe that such person is actualy able to compose something with true and sincere emotional depth no matter how technicaly his music would be 'good'. 
It's only an opinion.


----------



## Mephistopheles

I'm listening to some of Gesualdo's music right now. I think I _prefer_ this murderous sound. And boy, can you tell! Every harmonic progression seems laced with blood. It's sick and beautiful all at once.


----------



## superhorn

The relationship of Richard Strauss and the Nazis is rather complicated and ambiguous.
He was never actually a gung ho Nazi supporter, and apparently just lacked the guts to stand of to
Hitler and the Nazis. But he did not stop his son Franz from marrying a Jewish woman, and his two grandsons were thus half Jewish , and were bullied in school for this. 
I wouldn't call Bruckner "religiously narrow-minded" or anti-intellectual. True, he was a devout Catholic, but he was also a philo-semite , which was very unusual in that day , and always went out of his way to be respectful to Jews . He was also very much interested in science and medicine, and counted some of Vienna's leading scientists and physicians as his fdriends .


----------



## Ivanovich

Those who are morally irreproachable don't become artists, and if they did their art wouldn't be very interesting. The artist must retain an almost child-like selfishness and live for his art rather than for other people.


----------



## peeyaj

Schubert is said to be gay and loves partying and alcohol too much. So, what??


----------



## Cnote11

Perhaps that is why you get such a buzz from Schubert's music?


----------



## Mephistopheles

Whatever your opinion of unpleasant composers, I think it's important to not fall into the trap of believing that there is some "artistic type". You just run into sampling bias, remembering all the nasties, but the personalities of artists are as variable as the general population, except a higher average intelligence and feeling of determination. Just take Faure, he was reputedly adorable!


----------



## nikola

Ok, I apologize to all and to Cnote11. I obviously overreacted.


----------



## Ivanovich

Mephistopheles said:


> Whatever your opinion of unpleasant composers, I think it's important to not fall into the trap of believing that there is some "artistic type". You just run into sampling bias, remembering all the nasties, but the personalities of artists are as variable as the general population, except a higher average intelligence and feeling of determination. Just take Faure, he was reputedly adorable!


Temperament aside, the artist does have a distinct purpose.


----------



## Ramako

If a moral artist does not appeal to us, then it probably means that we don't like being moral very much.

But fortunately I think Bach, Mendelssohn and Bruckner stand in the way of this stereotype.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But can we "read" the "anguish" in the above little fairie-fantasy... by an artist who murdered his own father certain he was the devil, fled to France where he attempted to kill a tourist with a razor... and spent the rest of his life in "Bedlam" and Broadmoor psychiatric hospitals?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Those who are morally irreproachable don't become artists, and if they did their art wouldn't be very interesting. The artist must retain an almost child-like selfishness and live for his art rather than for other people.

Satire... I hope.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The relationship of Richard Strauss and the Nazis is rather complicated and ambiguous.
He was never actually a gung ho Nazi supporter, and apparently just lacked the guts to stand of to
Hitler and the Nazis.

Go back and read my earlier post on Strauss' "ambiguous" relationship with the Nazis. By the way... what artists actually did have the "guts to stand up to Hitler"... and didn't end up dead?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Artists tend to have extreme personalities one way or the other and occasionally this can manifest in behavior that others deem as 'immoral'. But to take these behaviours, which are produced occasionally, and to apply them as a label onto the entire mind of a human being, the same mind from which great works of art have sprung is a position which is untenable given current neuroscientific thought.

To take an example from each side of the 'moral' divide; Bruckner and Wagner. The former has just now been held up as an example of a moral artist and the latter is probably the foremost example of the opposite. The OP gives him as one of the few artists whose immoral behaviour simply cannot be overlooked. 

What do we really know about these men? Their thoughts and their 'hearts'? Next to nothing would be my answer, yet one of them has been put aside as evil or the equivalent. For the reason that he wrote a vile anti-semitic essay, during a period of great stress I might add. At the time he lived on nothing, could barely feed himself let alone his wife - his marriage on the brink of disaster, and artistically he was ignored. That he should perform some 'extreme', disgusting act is almost to be expected as all animals bite when cornered, and at the most his hatred betrays a mental imbalance of some kind. Perhaps a deep-seated insecurity, but I speculate. (Let us not forget that this was hardly an extreme position at the time.)

Bruckner indubitably had a mental fault too and this time I state with more confidence that he suffered from insecurity. That this manifested only in the tearing up of manuscripts and the xth rewrite of a symphony is surely only incidental, environmental, due to his upbringing.

Where does this 'evil core' lie in one and not in the other? I think its time we stop with our moral absolutism and outdated thought on the mental functioning of individuals, and refrain from passing judgement on people. Their actions may be condemned by all means, but an extension of this into a human's very identity is in my mind a mistake.


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I view Shostakovich as being a prisoner or slave of that regime. One could say he could have just escaped, run away at some point, but how can you expect a person to abandon their family? If he defected, its really not a stretch to assume the regime would do horrific things to his family that was left behind.
> 
> But lets look at Richard Strauss:
> 
> *Strauss was 68 years old when Hitler took power... not exactly an age when an individual is likely able to easily pack it up and leave his country for a foreign land where he struggle with the language and likely struggle economically
> 
> *Strauss never joined the Nazi party and refused to use the Nazi salute
> 
> *Strauss needed to protect his Jewish daughter-in-law and Jewish grandchildren. The children were bullied in school. When his Jewish daughter-in-law Alice was placed under house arrest in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1938, Strauss used his connections in Berlin, including the Berlin intendant Heinz Tietjen, to secure her safety. He drove to the Theresienstadt concentration camp in order to argue, albeit unsuccessfully, for the release of his son Franz's Jewish mother-in-law, Marie von Grab. Strauss also wrote several letters to the SS pleading for the release of her children who were also held in camps.
> 
> In 1942, Strauss moved with his family back to Vienna, where Alice and her children could be protected by Baldur von Schirach, the Gauleiter of Vienna. Strauss was unable, however, to protect his Jewish relatives completely; in early 1944, while Strauss was away, Alice and his son Franz were abducted by the Gestapo and imprisoned for two nights. Only Strauss's personal intervention at this point was able to save them, and he was able to take the two of them back to Garmisch, where they remained under house arrest until the end of the war
> 
> *Strauss hoped to not only help to preserve German culture, but also the music of such banned composers as Mahler, Debussy, Mendelssohn, Stravinsky, etc...
> 
> *Strauss repeatedly wrote anti-Nazi comments in his personal journal:
> 
> _"I consider Goebbels... as a disgrace to German honour..."
> 
> "In November of 1933, the minister Goebbels nominated me president of the Reichsmusikkammer without obtaining my prior agreement. I was not consulted. I accepted this honorary office because I hoped that I would be able to do some good and prevent worse misfortunes, if from now onwards German musical life were going to be, as it was said, "reorganized" by amateurs and ignorant place-seekers."_
> 
> *Strauss attempted to ignore Nazi bans on performances of works by Debussy, Mahler, and Mendelssohn. He also continued to work on a comic opera, Die schweigsame Frau, with his Jewish friend and librettist Stefan Zweig. When the opera was premiered in Dresden in 1935, Strauss insisted that Zweig's name appear on the theatrical billing, much to the ire of the Nazi regime.
> 
> *Strauss wrote a letter to Stefan Zweig, in which he stated:
> 
> _"Do you believe I am ever, in any of my actions, guided by the thought that I am 'German'? Do you suppose Mozart was consciously 'Aryan' when he composed? I recognise only two types of people: those who have talent and those who have none."_
> 
> This letter to Zweig was intercepted by the Gestapo and sent to Hitler. Strauss was subsequently dismissed from his post as Reichsmusikkammer president in 1935.
> 
> *In 1938, when the entire nation was preparing for war, Strauss created Friedenstag (Peace Day), a one-act opera set in a besieged fortress during the Thirty Years' War. The work is essentially a hymn to peace and a thinly veiled criticism of the Third Reich. With its contrasts between freedom and enslavement, war and peace, light and dark, this work has a close affinity with Beethoven's Fidelio. Productions of the opera ceased shortly after the outbreak of war in 1939.
> 
> *Strauss completed the composition of Metamorphosen, a work for 23 solo strings, in 1945. The title and inspiration for the work comes from a profoundly self-examining poem by Goethe, which Strauss had considered setting as a choral work. Generally regarded as one of the masterpieces of the string repertoire, Metamorphosen contains Strauss's most sustained outpouring of tragic emotion. Conceived and written during the blackest days of World War II, the piece expresses in music Strauss's mourning of, among other things, the destruction of German culture - including the bombing of every great opera house in the nation. At the end of the war, Strauss wrote in his private diary:
> 
> _"The most terrible period of human history is at an end, the twelve year reign of bestiality, ignorance and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany's 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom."_
> 
> But somehow Strauss is repeatedly painted as "close to the Nazi regime" and "having an ambiguous relationship with the Nazis".
> 
> I guess its always possible to interpret the facts to suit whatever bias you wish to support.


Okay, did I ever condemn Strauss? I believe I defended him in that regard. Why do you feel the need to constantly condemn Shostakovich and Prokofiev? The Soviet regime is not the same thing as the Nazis. The situation isn't equal.


----------



## BurningDesire

Is "being a homosexual" actually considered a personal flaw by anybody on this site? Really? If so, you are an idiot, and your ignorant opinion is worthless. Go away. If not, good


----------



## Cnote11

BurningDesire said:


> Is "being a homosexual" actually considered a personal flaw by anybody on this site? Really? If so, you are an idiot, and your ignorant opinion is worthless. If not, good


I was going to make a joke about the opening post stating "he later went on to become a homosexual", but I didn't.


----------



## Mephistopheles

I hope he applied for his homosexuality through all the proper channels. There's nothing worse than an illegitimate homosexual, stealing all the rights of genuine homosexuals.


----------



## moody

BURNING DESIRE.

Stalin actually was responsible for the deaths of far more people than Hitler, he was a dreadful monster.
There has not been a Soviet Union for many years.


----------



## Carpenoctem

BurningDesire said:


> Is "being a homosexual" actually considered a personal flaw by anybody on this site? Really? If so, you are an idiot, and your ignorant opinion is worthless. Go away. If not, good


I'm quite liberal and support gay rights 100%.

But this is plain dumb. So let's say someone is a smart, well - educated person. That person finished college and is a valued member of the society. He/she was raised in a conservative family, therefore doesn't support homosexuals in their attempt to acquire equal rights as straight people.

By your logic, he/she is an absolute idiot, his/her opinion is worthless and it doesn't matter how much that person achieved in his/her life just because he/she doesn't support homosexuals?

Sorry for off topic but I am allergic to any kind of generalization because only ignorant people do them.


----------



## bigshot

How about "yuck factor"?


----------



## bigshot

I heard that Brahms kicked a dog once, and Schumann liked to pinch babies and make them cry when their mother wasn't looking!


----------



## Cnote11

Carpenoctem said:


> I'm quite liberal and support gay rights 100%.
> 
> But this is plain dumb. So let's say someone is a smart, well - educated person. That person finished college and is a valued member of the society. He/she was raised in a conservative family, therefore doesn't support homosexuals in their attempt to acquire equal rights as straight people.
> 
> By your logic, he/she is an absolute idiot, his/her opinion is worthless and it doesn't matter how much that person achieved in his/her life just because he/she doesn't support homosexuals?
> 
> Sorry for off topic but I am allergic to any kind of generalization because only ignorant people do them.


I thought the same upon reading that statement, but you have to remember your scenario is purely hypothetical


----------



## Petwhac

Carpenoctem said:


> I'm quite liberal and support gay rights 100%.
> 
> But this is plain dumb. So let's say someone is a smart, well - educated person. That person finished college and is a valued member of the society. He/she was raised in a conservative family, therefore doesn't support homosexuals in their attempt to acquire equal rights as straight people.
> 
> By your logic, he/she is an absolute idiot, his/her opinion is worthless and it doesn't matter how much that person achieved in his/her life just because he/she doesn't support homosexuals?
> 
> Sorry for off topic but I am allergic to any kind of generalization because only ignorant people do them.


Well replace 'homosexual' with 'black' in your argument and you will get the picture.


----------



## Cnote11

Petwhac said:


> Well replace 'homosexual' with 'black' in your argument and you will get the picture.


I'm pretty sure he "gets" the picture. If you replace "homosexual" with "black", then what he said is still valid, hypothetically. If Einstein had been opposed to minority rights or to homosexual marriage, his work would suddenly not be completely worthless. He might have extremely idiotic opinions when it came to social policy, but that wouldn't suddenly make his opinions on physics worthless. Get the picture?


----------



## Mephistopheles

Cnote11 said:


> I'm pretty sure he "gets" the picture. If you replace "homosexual" with "black", then what he said is still valid, hypothetically. If Einstein had been opposed to minority rights or to homosexual marriage, his work would suddenly not be completely worthless. He might have extremely idiotic opinions when it came to social policy, but that wouldn't suddenly make his opinions on physics worthless. Get the picture?


No, but we might (colloquially) call Einstein an idiot for that blip in his ideas, and BurningDesire's statement didn't really go much further than that.


----------



## Cnote11

However, we must be careful to note that BurningDesire did not specify whether or not she meant opinion as a singular or collective entity (your ignorant opinion (on homosexual marriage) or your ignorant opinion (all your opinions))


----------



## Cnote11

Mephistopheles said:


> No, but we might (colloquially) call Einstein an idiot for that blip in his ideas, and BurningDesire's statement didn't really go much further than that.


That may well be, but under carpenoctem's hypothetical reading and Petwhac's criticism of said reading, the fact remains that it would still be valid given that reading and scenario.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Why do you feel the need to constantly condemn Shostakovich and Prokofiev? The Soviet regime is not the same thing as the Nazis. The situation isn't equal.

I know college will be quite challenging without a basic grasp of reading comprehension. No where did I condemn Shostakovitch or Prokofiev. I merely pointed out that like Strauss and numerous other composers and artists throughout history they were employed or under the influence of leaders who were morally deficient in any number of ways. Such is the reality of the artist's life. I doubt that many artists run a moral/ethical background check upon their patrons or collectors before deciding to accept a given commission or sell a given work of art.

As for whether the Soviet regime was unlike that of the Nazis... I suspect you may need to brush up on your history. The death toll under Stalin may actually be higher than that under Hitler.


----------



## Cnote11

I dare everybody to do an ethical/moral background check on all of their employers, and if they find anything morally/ethically appalling they must at once quit their work. Good luck with that one!


----------



## samurai

If I may, a couple of points about the German people "not knowing" what was happening to their fellow citizens who just happened--to their great and everlasting misfortune--to belong to the Jewish faith.
First off, Hitler made it very clear--beginning with* Mein Kampf,* which he wrote in prison in the 
--exactly what he thought of Jews and how he would deal with them should he ever gain power. he adumbrated the "Final Solution" right there and then.
Secondly, how could those people who lived near the numerous extermination camps in Germany and Poland *not know *what was going on when they smelled the stench of burned bodies rising into the air day after day. 
Thirdly, they must have known after so many of their fellow German citizens were "disappeared" and their property seized from them or sold at ridiculously low rates.
Being Jewish myself--though non-religious--and after having just re-read *The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich*, I really find it hard to believe that anyone today would or could believe that the Germans of *that time* did not know what was going on. Next, somebody will post that the Holocaust and slavery in America never really happened, but were really elaborate hoaxes.
When it comes to discussing the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children who were butchered by this maniac, we cannot afford to be so naive, lest it should be allowed to happen again. And yes, I do like some of Wagner, and also believe that Hitler distorted his music--as he did so many other things--to suit his own political ends.
Again, all of this is just in my humble opinion.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, it wasn't charming leaders snaking their way into top positions and carrying out their own evil agendas under the nose of the German people. A lot of this was actually national sentiment and that is the reason these kind of people were put into power by the German populace.


----------



## Carpenoctem

Petwhac said:


> Well replace 'homosexual' with 'black' in your argument and you will get the picture.


Replace it, it's still valid and has a firm ground. A person shouldn't be judged by one idea/belief that is primitive. More factors should be included when saying that someone is an idiot and his/her opinion is worthless.



Cnote11 said:


> I'm pretty sure he "gets" the picture. If you replace "homosexual" with "black", then what he said is still valid, hypothetically. If Einstein had been opposed to minority rights or to homosexual marriage, his work would suddenly not be completely worthless. He might have extremely idiotic opinions when it came to social policy, but that wouldn't suddenly make his opinions on physics worthless. Get the picture?


Exactly.


----------



## BurningDesire

moody said:


> BURNING DESIRE.
> 
> Stalin actually was responsible for the deaths of far more people than Hitler, he was a dreadful monster.
> There has not been a Soviet Union for many years.


.......... yes.


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why do you feel the need to constantly condemn Shostakovich and Prokofiev? The Soviet regime is not the same thing as the Nazis. The situation isn't equal.
> 
> I know college will be quite challenging without a basic grasp of reading comprehension. No where did I condemn Shostakovitch or Prokofiev. I merely pointed out that like Strauss and numerous other composers and artists throughout history they were employed or under the influence of leaders who were morally deficient in any number of ways. Such is the reality of the artist's life. I doubt that many artists run a moral/ethical background check upon their patrons or collectors before deciding to accept a given commission or sell a given work of art.
> 
> As for whether the Soviet regime was unlike that of the Nazis... I suspect you may need to brush up on your history. The death toll under Stalin may actually be higher than that under Hitler.


I'm aware that the Soviet regime committed mass genocide, just as the Nazis had, on an even larger scale, but the manner that regime operated in was not a plain copy of Hitler's. I was making the point that you seemed to be condemning Shostakovich and Prokofiev for bowing to the communists, whilst Strauss stood his ground to an extent, but the thing is, Strauss had clout and respect, and the Nazis were far more selective in their genocide, whereas the Soviet genocide really didn't have a narrowed down list of target groups, and thus Soviet artists were far more constricted by the shadow of terror and death that loomed over them, all of them.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If I may, a couple of points about the German people "not knowing" what was happening to their fellow citizens who just happened--to their great and everlasting misfortune--to belong to the Jewish faith.
First off, Hitler made it very clear--beginning with Mein Kampf, which he wrote in prison in the 
--exactly what he thought of Jews and how he would deal with them should he ever gain power. He adumbrated the "Final Solution" right there and then.

I'll offer no defense of Hitler or the Nazis. I will note that antisemitism was rampant throughout Europe. Until the aftermath of WWI Germany/Austria was one of the better homes for the Jews of Europe. As a rabbi acquaintance of mine suggested, the only surprising this about the Holocaust was that it occurred in Germany and not France or Russia.

I agree that _Mein Kampf_ outlined much of Hitler's hatred of the Jews... but how many average citizens actually read the book? _Die Endlösung_ or "The Final Solution"... the plan for the systematic genocide of European Jews was actually the "brainstorm" of Heinrich Himmler... the result of a discussion among high-ranking Nazi officials as to how to best handle the "Jewish Question".

Hitler did however reveal his intentions prior to the war in various speeches (and quite likely in Mein Kampf as well... I can't say I read more than was required as part of a history. Beyond being simply repulsive, the work was inanely repetitive and horribly written) in which he continued the vilify the Jews as responsible for WWI, the grinding depression which followed, Communism, the "abominations" of Modernism in the arts and culture etc...:

_"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"_

Leaders will always evoke the notion of some scapegoat as an easy target to blame... the Irish or Italian or eastern European immigrants, African-Americans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Muslims, illegal immigrants, etc... and many in the populace will fall for such an easy target... rather than look for a more complex answer... or even at their leaders themselves.

Secondly, how could those people who lived near the numerous extermination camps in Germany and Poland not know what was going on when they smelled the stench of burned bodies rising into the air day after day. Thirdly, they must have known after so many of their fellow German citizens were "disappeared" and their property seized from them or sold at ridiicuously low rates.

Undoubtedly a good many knew what was occurring... but a good many others didn't... or refused to acknowledge or even imagine something as horrific as was actually transpiring. We can point the finger at the German citizens but should remember that the same accusing finger will ultimately point back at us in the US and Britain. Many of our leaders knew or suspected what was going on, and yet they tightened immigration laws and refused to bomb the camps.

Being Jewish myself--though non-religious--and after having just re-read The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, I really find it hard to believe that anyone today would or could believe that the Germans of that time did not know what was going on. Next, somebody will post that the Holocaust and slavery in America never really happened, but were really elaborate hoaxes.

I don't think that even Neo-Nazi or militant Islamic deniers of the Holocaust honestly believe the vile propaganda the promulgate. It merely suits their goals.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Strauss stood his ground to an extent, but the thing is, Strauss had clout and respect, and the Nazis were far more selective in their genocide, whereas the Soviet genocide really didn't have a narrowed down list of target groups, and thus Soviet artists were far more constricted by the shadow of terror and death that loomed over them, all of them.

Well... I don't know how "selective" the Nazis were in their mass murders. Among their targets they included not only the Jews, the mentally ill, the disabled, the Gypsies, the mentally retarded, the homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals, any political opponents such as social democrats and socialists, the Soviets, the Poles, the Slavic people in general, members of Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics, any "non-Aryan" people including Blacks and Asians (except for the Japanese). They also targeted the so-called "degenerate artists" in art, music, literature, film, architecture etc... and pretty much anyone Hitler didn't like... or who challenged him in any way.


----------



## Cnote11

Can't forget that the Soviet Union was not under a single leader for its length of being. A bit weird to refer to the Soviet as a whole instead of the individual leaders and phases of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Sid James

Thanks for all, I did not think there'd be such a huge response, I'm short on time now (but I've read 4 of the 8 pages so far).

I think there's a number of schools of thought here. Some big ones are:
- KISS - 'Keep it simple, stupid' type view, eg. focus on the music, not the composer behind it
- The issue that I think Trespicos said re Gesualdo, of being 'spooked' by a composer's music, in terms of linking that with knowledge what he did/his life
- Composer's 'flaws' of character as a strength in terms of people connecting with their music (eg. they are more human)
- Maybe not knowing is better, 'ignorance is bliss' - one person (Maestroviolinist?) joked I'd 'ruined' Saint-Saens and Beethoven for her
- The issue with Wagner, eg. linking his views with what happened after his death (Hitler/Nazis)

As for accusations of bias, well I'm sorry I did not include Stalinist ideologues in my opening post. I get (probably rightly) accused of being long winded as it is. I wanted to come back and edit to add the Stalinist Khrennikov to the same paragraph as I put Franz Schmidt. So there, I hate both Nazi and Stalinist ideologue composers, just for the record. Schmidt was elevated by the Nazis while Mahler's music was banned, and Khrennikov was feted by the Soviet regime while others (Like Shostakovich) where 'put in their place.'

& yes, I am biased, I think I made it clear in my OP, at least by implication. Everyone is different. I am glad that so far (the first 4 pages of this thread) there has been minimal mud slinging. Let's keep it that way. Let's prove we are intelligent people who are able to have an above board conversation about issues I admit can get emotional and are controversial/confrontational issues. But it looks like this hit a nerve with a good deal of TC members, and that's good in some ways.


----------



## bigshot

There's new info on the Katyn mass murder in the news this week. Newly released documents show that the US was aware of the fact that the Soviets murdered 22,000 Polish intellectuals during WW2 and buried them in mass graves. The US hushed it up. Stalin was allowed to do what he did.

http://en.ria.ru/features/20120911/175903560.html

Fixed! Thanks


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That should read 22,000.


----------



## mmsbls

For me personally, a composer's life does not effect whether I enjoy or choose to listen to their music. I may learn something about a composer that helps me understand why she wrote what she did, but their (im)moral actions do not influence me at all. I know people who feel that Martin Luther King's alleged infidelity degrades his standing as a great civil rights leader. I strongly disagree. The husband and the leader are two different people in my mind and should be judged separately. I feel the same way towards composers.



Sid James said:


> I am glad that so far (the first 4 pages of this thread) there has been minimal mud slinging. Let's keep it that way. Let's prove we are intelligent people who are able to have an above board conversation about issues I admit can get emotional and are controversial/confrontational issues. But it looks like this hit a nerve with a good deal of TC members, and that's good in some ways.


I strongly second this. Too many interesting threads are closed because they stray off topic and include posts that violate the TOS. This thread is already catching the moderators "interest" a bit too often.


----------



## Sid James

Well having gone through the whole thread now, I can offer more comments on what people have said

- The issue of stereotyping 'artisitic personalities' as someone bought up - its fraught with danger, as any other stereotype. Not all composers had bigger than usual character 'flaws,' I mean some that come across as pretty 'ordinary' are Haydn and Dvorak.

- Some composers did act with dignity in tough times - eg. Kodaly, who was opposed to all regimes ruling Hungary during his life (the Nazis wanted him dead at one stage, he had to go into hiding; he was an active supporter of the 1956 anti-Soviet uprising; but post-1956 with de-Stalinisation he did get recognition and respect from the more moderate Communists; to the Hungarian people this man was as near they got to a living saint). & his ideology was relevant, he was a Christian, but one not only in theory but also in practice (eg. he was appalled about what was happening to the Jews). Some of this is covered in the tv series produced in Australia 'Classical Destinations' hosted by Simon CaLLow. I can give further examples but he's the best example.

- Bitterness over a regime elevating one composer (dead or alive) and correspondingly dissing another: eg. examples of this have already been discussed re Nazi and Stalinist regimes

- IMO its not a matter of which of these horrible regimes was 'worse' - they were all horrible.

- The importance of just knowing and being informed about these issues, which is quite apart from forming an opinion or strong 'for' or 'against' type polemic argument on it

- My own sarcastic view of some of the comments above "whitewashing" composers (& that's a judgement by me, its not meant to say I'm 100 per cent 'right' - these are controversial issues) - it reminds me of Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned to the ground. Can you separate those two things? I really can't.


----------



## Couchie

When we celebrate great composers we are really celebrating unusual but guaranteed fluctuations deviating from the mundaneness of the societal fabric, the "outliers", if you will, the 99.9999 percentile who had the ability, motivation, and circumstance to achieve something great and different as opposed to what the great many people do: eat, and keep warm. For reasons of convenience and moral comfort we may congratuate the "great men" of history that we like, but really these people deserve little credit whatsoever, they are the children of circumstance of their societies. Ergo, if you want to congratulate the "great men" of history, you must take the good with the bad. All people who celebrate Bach and Mozart also celebrate Hitler.


----------



## samurai

Couchie said:


> When we celebrate great composers we are really celebrating unusual but guaranteed fluctuations deviating from the mundaneness of the societal fabric, the "outliers", if you will, the 99.9999 percentile who had the ability, motivation, and circumstance to achieve something great and different as opposed to what the great many people do: eat, and keep warm. For reasons of convenience and moral comfort we may congratuate the "great men" of history that we like, but really these people deserve little credit whatsoever, they are the children of circumstance of their societies. Ergo, if you want to congratulate the "great men" of history, you must take the good with the bad. All people who celebrate Bach and Mozart also celebrate Hitler.


How so, Couchie? I celebrate Bach and Mozart but I certainly don't hold any positive or kind feelings for Hitler. After all, they created while he destroyed countless millions of innocent lives. I simply don't get the connection that you are trying to make here amongst the three.


----------



## Couchie

samurai said:


> How so, Couchie? I celebrate Bach and Mozart but I certainly don't hold any positive or kind feelings for Hitler.


If you had been born a typical German during Hitler's reign can you really offer any substantial reason for why you wouldn't have been a Hitler-lover like the rest of them?


----------



## samurai

I can't really answer that as I'm not sure what a "typical German"--or any other nationality--would comprise. I know that if I had been born of a Jewish mother over there at that time--as I was in America later on--I would never have been allowed to live. You see, my problem with your formulation is that the German Jews--right up until the persecutions and exterminations began--always thought of and considered themselves to be "typical Germans" just like their non-Jewish fellow citizens.


----------



## Couchie

samurai said:


> I can't really answer that as I'm not sure what a "typical German"--or any other nationality--would comprise. I know that if I had been born of a Jewish mother over there at that time--as I was in America later on--I would never have been allowed to live. You see, my problem with your formulation is that the German Jews--right up until the persecutions and exterminations began--always thought of and considered themselves to be "typical Germans" just like their non-Jewish fellow citizens.


You're begging the luxuries of hindsight and being Jewish. In reality if you were an "Aryan"-type German during WWII you would have likely succumbed to the seduction of this charismatic man bent on restoring your country's shame after WWI enough to not ask or think about where the Jews go. Remember, you didn't have the internet, easy access to communication, free press, and are constantly fed propaganda.


----------



## bigshot

Believe it or not, the internet is a rich source of propaganda


----------



## Couchie

bigshot said:


> Believe it or not, the internet is a rich source of propaganda


Assuming it's uncensored, you're at least free to choose your propaganda on the internet.


----------



## Sid James

Well its an interesting conversation above but I will not comment, I am just going back to some earlier things.

The main thing is values today compared with those of earlier times. I mean looking at things in retrospect. Re Szymanowski, someone responding asked about the info I put in brackets (re his long term 'boyfriend' who was a minor). The issue of consent is tricky with sex with minors, even today (even between a person just over the age of majority and someone just below that age, slightly). So I kind of put that in to say its a kind of 'fence' type issue.

But paedophilia - or child sexual abuse - is still considered unacceptable, but in some cultures it is kind of accepted. I mean look at the artist Paul Gauguin with his Tahitian 'vahines,' some of whom would have been minors. Gauguin was hetero, so maybe that's easier to gloss over than Australian artist Donald Friend who had boys as lovers in the Pacific islands. But its funny, and some Australian writers have bought this up, if we have a 'pedo' in our midst, some of us literally treat him as a peraiah (I mean after they are released following their term in prison), but if its an artist like Friend, well he's accepted, or he's a great artist first and a pedo last, or its not even talked about. I mean everyone knew it when he was alive (his forte was drawings of these boys in the nude, for god's sake!) but Friend as a paedophile was only officially 'outed' many years after his death.

Re the posthumous publication (and censorship of some aspects of) Friend's diaries, wikipedia has this to say:

_Following the publication of Volume 4, accusations were made that the publishers had not been granted permission to publicly name some of Friend's sexual partners, who were minors at the time of their encounters with Friend. *There were also accusations that Friend's paedophilia had been whitewashed by Australian art scholars*._

But then again, if you're alive and not dead, and an artist portraying minors, you run the risk of being censored. This was the story more recently of Australian photographer Bill Henson.

So, double standards? Once you're dead are you untouchable and set in stone?

I think there's parallels to be drawn with composers here too, and not only in terms of paedophilia, but other issues as well which are topics in this thread.


----------



## clavichorder

I think the negative traits of Wagner's personality may be blown a little out of proportion, both on the forum and in texts about him. What are the worst things the man actually did? To me, the worst things I've heard are about how he stepped on people's toes to promote himself, and made a married woman fall in love with him(only its sounds to me like she was a 'difficult person' too. The anti semitism is blown WAY out of proportion. He wouldn't have been a Hitler for Christ's sake! Its a commonly made counterargument that antisemitism was very common back then, not that it was right, but still...in light of that I'm a little mollified.

'Difficult people' as we most commonly experience them in real life can be also very interesting people to talk to, and usually have their good points. One thing that redeems Wagner a little for me is how he could humbly admire the music of J.S. Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## clavichorder

Also, I want to add that I'm drawn to this thread to see what kinds of dirt people have on composers, that I didn't already know about. Still reading...


----------



## clavichorder

DeepR said:


> Those who think the character and lifestyle of a composer says a lot about (the quality of) their music should have a blast with this website
> 
> http://www.wrightmusic.net/


I'll read more into it, but I'm instantly annoyed at the bias presented by the statement, "Schubert and his 'laziness and plagiarism.'" That's not a very positive thing to say about a musical genius.

Edit:
I didn't realize that you might be facetiously promoting that website.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> You're begging the luxuries of hindsight


Every person that has replied on this thread is also doing that.


----------



## Sid James

Couchie said:


> You're begging the luxuries of hindsight and being Jewish. In reality if you were an "Aryan"-type German during WWII you would have likely succumbed to the seduction of this charismatic man bent on restoring your country's shame after WWI enough to not ask or think about where the Jews go. Remember, you didn't have the internet, easy access to communication, free press, and are constantly fed propaganda.


In this and your earlier post its like as if you're simplifying the whole thing of what happened (eg. the Nazi dictatorship, war, genocide, etc.). I mean for one thing, certain Germans did not agree with Hitler or the ideology of Nazism, and they where not Jewish. Around 6 million Jews where killed in the HOlocaust, but many others where as well (about 5 million extra, but some sources say its more than that) such as gypsies (who Hitler called the orginal Aryans, from India, but that did not save many of them being taken away), also Christians who opposed the regime (see my comments on Kodaly above), anyone of non-Nazi parties opposing them (esp. of the left, eg. Communists), homosexuals, those with physical and mental disabilities and so on.

I agree there was a Messiah complex there, but saying that is a factor is one thing, but putting all the blame on Hitler is another. & unfortunately, he didn't just come out of thin air. There was a ghetto system there for like hundreds of years, the Jews lived in ghettos, and of course it was not just Germany (watch_ Fiddler on the Roof _for the Russian version of racism there). No surprises how Stalin was just as anti-Semitic as Hitler, just that he was planning a 'Holocaust Mark 2' when he thankfully carcked it.

Basically there's various ways of dealing with this, and its not going to help to just blame Hitler, or just the head Nazis. The other thing that came post-war, the classic 'head in sand' attitude is of no help either (the Japanese did the same thing as the Germans, they did not know of the horrors what their troops did - or did not want to know - for a long time after the war). I can understand aspects of this, it was a way of those generations who lived through it to cope with it. They wanted to forget it like a nightmare.

So what I'm saying is let's not play games here with history. The issue is to just say that the 'whitewash' or overly simplistic/false dichotomy type approaches have had their day on this forum. Well, they have with me.


----------



## drpraetorus

You pose the question that is at the bottom of "Amadeus". How can such great art be created by such a terrible person? Mozart wasn't that terrible by the way. 

I think the problem is we want the artist to be as great as the art. We don't want the artist to be human. The problem is that most artists tend to be to some extent different from non artists. More sensative, more tempermental, more emotion, more willing to express emotions, more willing to explore alternative ideas. Also more prone to depression and bi polar disorders. Add to that the adoration of the "Artiste" that developed in the romantic period and you have a person who may be seriously flawed being fawned over as a messenger from the gods. We call them "stars" now. 

Look at the lives of our current famous artists. If they were not stars, we would not tolerate there self centered, opinonated, libertine personalities. We overlook it because they are Great Artists, at least for the next couple weeks. Think of the pop stars and the movies stars of our times. Did it hurt Angelina Jolies career when she destroyed Brad Pitts marriage? Has Sean Penn lost any work for being a tody of Hugo Chavez? Guess what, John Lennon was real a..hole. But because we enjoy thier work we ignore their less than lauditory lives. 

Some artists are genuinely nice people. I've met some. Some artists are genuinely disgusting people. Most are just people.


----------



## BurningDesire

drpraetorus said:


> You pose the question that is at the bottom of "Amadeus". How can such great art be created by such a terrible person? Mozart wasn't that terrible by the way.


I didn't think Mozart was terrible in that film o3o I liked that it portrayed him as a complex person with a sense of humor, a seriousness about his craft, and faults like arrogance.

I don't really mind that artists aren't perfect, I don't care that many great composers could be total jerks at times (everybody can be).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Ignorance is bliss. 

I'm outta this thread.


----------



## dionisio

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> I'm outta this thread.


Rule number...whatever: "If any discussion takes place in the internet, the chances of coming up with Hitler are 100%"

For mathematicians: Lim time->infinity =>discussion->Hitler


----------



## nikola

Considering Hitler and Stalin. I guess that we went way too far from composers to those lunatics. 

But ok, since we're talking about them.... honestly, I believe that Stalin was much worse person than Hitler (and I don't base that on quantity of killed people because you can kill 1 person and being the same kind of **** as someone who killed 20 millions of them). Stalin was killing his own people and his own nation and also his own followers. He always seemed to me like completely paranoid and evil person to the bottom of his core.
On the other hand, Hitler was something completely opposite. He didn't go around killing his own people. When he conquered Poland and France or any other country he didn't command army to go around killing and slaughtering all civils. He was 'man with the vision'. He had his own big delusions about superior german race which will expand all over the world. With that 'dream' he somehow managed to make all german nation go crazy. He didn't make an army. He made one big machine that was alone conquering so many countries. So, imagine how much you must be crazy to actually go into conquering the half of the planet!? And the most funny part of it- he almost did it. 1 country going around succesfuly conquering every possible country. The reason why that happened was that they actualy truly believed in Hitler's delusions. Even he did believe in his delusions. 
But at the end of the day if I have to choose I would rather spent an hour in Hitler's presence than with Stalin because I know that I probably wouldn't end up alive after meeting Stalin. 
Also, russian army was raping women all around and in germany at the end of the war. German army didn't do that because they had different purpose, different mentality and they were all turned into one cohesive machine. I also believe that soldiers who would do something like that would be shot by their own commanders. 

But sure, that's really going too far with such stories about the biggest mass murderers in history. 

Like I already said and like emiellucifuge has said, there were other reasons why many people back then in germany hated jews. Sure, Jews were not the main reason of great stress in germany, but people simply must find somebody to blame in such situations. Jews were always capable to earn money. So, I guess that's why germans were blaming them for destroying country. Jews are capable and talented on many levels. It's probably the way they function since forever. 
I'm from Zagreb (the capital of Croatia) and there were also many Jews here before the 2nd world war and they were very succesful here too, but the only difference is that Croatian people didn't hate them ever because of that. We almost don't have jews here anymore. Before 2nd world war they had their stores all over the city. Unofrtunately, at that same 4 years of madness, in Croatia for the first time in history we've had 'independent Croatia' which was actualy a regime built on nazi and fascist intitiation. So, Croatia was playing big part in killing more than 20 000 Jews and deporting 7000 of them to german conc camps. On the other hand, civils in Croatia were helping jews to run away from Croatia. Big role in saving jews had cardinal Aloysius Stepinac who was actualy also a friend of my grand dad who was judge back then and one of the justices of supreme court at one time. 

So, blaming Wagner for ANYTHING AT ALL is really nonsense in my opinon. He didn't like jews. Well, that makes him only a human being I guess. Many people don't like for some reason some other people, nations, etc. 
I don't mean to say that's good thing since hatred and generalizing is the worst thing.

I personally don't have anything against jews. They have so many great artists like Mahler, Bernstein (I simply love his teachings about music), Spielberg.... Billy Joel is also jew. And thousands of them are great artists. What does that mean actualy? It means nothing. What counts is - are you human being or piece of **** and not from where are you and what is your DNA. 

You can also never know will Wagner tolerate holocaust. I truly doubt. We can't judge people basing on something that was probably 'in their heads' most possibly caused by insecurity and bad situation in country. Nobody ever said that composers were saints. They were humans with flaws and virtues. They were angry, sad, scared, mad, laughing, crying just like all of us.


----------



## Ramako

If I may voice my opinions...

1) Just because people were in tune with the morals of their day does not mean that it was therefore 'right' for them to be like that/believe what they did. It does give them significant excuse however.

2) How people ought to act under a dictatorship is an extremely difficult issue, and we should not judge those who folded (e.g. Shostakovich, R. Strauss) from the comfort of our Capitalistically-funded fireside armchairs.

3) Thank you Sid for pointing out that pedophilia is a cultural issue as well. I thought I might get burned for voicing the opinion that it might well be viewed differently in our society in 100 years if things continue as they do now. Actually, some people here are voicing the opinion that sex with minors with consent is ok...

4) The Nazi regime was horrible, but I repeat that I think the next generation (after this young one) will have historical perspective, even if us young'ns don't already.


----------



## nikola

Ramako said:


> If I may voice my opinions...
> 
> 1) Just because people were in tune with the morals of their day does not mean that it was therefore 'right' for them to be like that/believe what they did. It does give them significant excuse however.
> 
> 2) How people ought to act under a dictatorship is an extremely difficult issue, and we should not judge those who folded (e.g. Shostakovich, R. Strauss) from the comfort of our Capitalistically-funded fireside armchairs.
> 
> 3) Thank you Sid for pointing out that pedophilia is a cultural issue as well. I thought I might get burned for voicing the opinion that it might well be viewed differently in our society in 100 years if things continue as they do now. Actually, some people here are voicing the opinion that sex with minors with consent is ok...
> 
> 4) The Nazi regime was horrible, but I repeat that I think the next generation (after this young one) will have historical perspective, even if us young'ns don't already.


In old Greece, pedophilia was 'normal' part of living. I am actualy against any kind of sexual intercourse with anyone who doesn't want that or who is not mentally, psychologicaly or physically able to understand or accept that. Of course, that includes children too and I think it's something really wrong on so many levels no matter in what time and in what culture. On the other hand I would not judge somebody simply because of his pedophile urges, but that doesn't mean that I could ever justify such act. Actualy, I feel sorry for pedophiles. I think that they can't help themselves just like homosexual can't help him/herself to be homosexual and like straight person can't help him/herself to be straight. 
I don't like to judge people because of their primal instincts no matter how awful they might be to me or to anybody else. That doesn't mean that 'sex with children' is OK. It's so wrong on all possible levels because of all possible reasons. It's actualy not sex... it's raping. It also can't be compared with homosexuality where 2 men or women mutually decided to live together, to love eachother and to have sex. 
I would also be in minority with such opinion in my country where still many people can't handle homosexuals, but we're still better than people in some other countries. I don't have delusions that I have any right to tell anyone who to love, what to do or how to act on the street with person that he/she loves. 
Who really annoys me are those primitive people who think they have right to interfere with other people lives and to judge them. Like they're some 'moral verticals', while they're only bunch of hypocrites. They are one of the worst kind of people IMO.


----------



## dionisio

nikola said:


> In old Greece, pedophilia was 'normal' part of living. I am actualy against any kind of sexual intercourse with anyone who doesn't want that or who is not mentally, psychologicaly or physically able to understand or accept that. Of course, that includes children too and I think it's something really wrong on so many levels no matter in what time and in what culture. On the other hand I would not judge somebody simply because of his pedophile urges, but that doesn't mean that I could ever justify such act. Actualy, I feel sorry for pedophiles. I think that they can't help themselves just like homosexual can't help him/herself to be homosexual and like straight person can't help him/herself to be straight.
> I don't like to judge people because of their primal instincts no matter how awful they might be to me or to anybody else. That doesn't mean that 'sex with children' is OK. It's so wrong on all possible levels because of all possible reasons. It's actualy not sex... it's raping. It also can't be compared with homosexuality where 2 men or women mutually decided to live together, to love eachother and to have sex.
> I would also be in minority with such opinion in my country where still many people can't handle homosexuals, but we're still better than people in some other countries. I don't have delusions that I have any right to tell anyone who to love, what to do or how to act on the street with person that he/she loves.
> Who really annoys me are those primitive people who think they have right to interfere with other people lives and to judge them. Like they're some 'moral verticals', while they're only bunch of hypocrites. They are one of the worst kind of people IMO.


You'd be shocked with the animal kingdom


----------



## nikola

dionisio said:


> You'd be shocked with the animal kingdom


Well, I think that people are more advanced animals even though I know that even animals can't be cruel like people can be sometimes.


----------



## peeyaj

Cnote11 said:


> Perhaps that is why you get such a buzz from Schubert's music?


What do you mean?


----------



## dionisio

nikola said:


> Well, I think that people are more advanced animals even though I know that even animals can't be cruel like people can be sometimes.


Why not? What is more cruel? To kill one or ten or one hundread?


----------



## peeyaj

clavichorder said:


> I'll read more into it, but I'm instantly annoyed at the bias presented by the statement, "Schubert and his 'laziness and plagiarism.'" That's not a very positive thing to say about a musical genius.
> 
> Edit:
> I didn't realize that you might be facetiously promoting that website.


His whole article about Schubert is pure hogwash. It is full of fabrications, presented as facts. If I'll see that "David Wright", I'm going to punch his face. Seriously.


----------



## DeepR

clavichorder said:


> I'll read more into it, but I'm instantly annoyed at the bias presented by the statement, "Schubert and his 'laziness and plagiarism.'" That's not a very positive thing to say about a musical genius.
> 
> Edit:
> I didn't realize that you might be facetiously promoting that website.


Maybe I shouldn't have drawn attention to it at all. I guess what I am looking for is confirmation that this person's essays are rubbish, despite their presentation as being well founded. It's too much work to be from a 'troll', but I guess he is someone who likes to distort facts from various sources so they fit his own opinions.


----------



## nikola

dionisio said:


> Why not? What is more cruel? To kill one or ten or one hundread?


Cruelty doesn't have to do anything with number of killings.


----------



## crmoorhead

nikola said:


> On the other hand I would not judge somebody simply because of his pedophile urges, but that doesn't mean that I could ever justify such act. Actualy, I feel sorry for pedophiles. I think that they can't help themselves just like homosexual can't help him/herself to be homosexual and like straight person can't help him/herself to be straight.
> I don't like to judge people because of their primal instincts no matter how awful they might be to me or to anybody else. That doesn't mean that 'sex with children' is OK. It's so wrong on all possible levels because of all possible reasons. It's actualy not sex... it's raping. It also can't be compared with homosexuality where 2 men or women mutually decided to live together, to love eachother and to have sex.
> I would also be in minority with such opinion in my country where still many people can't handle homosexuals, but we're still better than people in some other countries. I don't have delusions that I have any right to tell anyone who to love, what to do or how to act on the street with person that he/she loves.
> Who really annoys me are those primitive people who think they have right to interfere with other people lives and to judge them. Like they're some 'moral verticals', while they're only bunch of hypocrites. They are one of the worst kind of people IMO.


Well said! The reality is that most paedophiles are not 'monsters' but simply people who are very sick and don't have a normal perception of reality. They live in a kind of fantasy world. Many were abused themselves or never found love with someone their own age. Many are emotionally retarded. The act is something that I have utter contempt for - it is the same as rape, but I think that to tar them all with the same brush is a mistake. It is the same with murderers. There is a difference between people who are serial killers and get a thrill out of killing and so-called crimes of passion. There was a recent documentary about murderers in UK prisons and most of them came across as perfectly normal people who deeply regretted their actions but also accepted their punishment. One man had killed his abusive wife after she told him that she was leaving him for a man who she had already been having an affair with. He just snapped. His daughters were also part of the program and they visited him regularly in prison. People who premeditate a murder as revenge can also be victim to falling into a fantastic version of reality. Gesualdo was probably not in a well state of mind when he killed his wife and, as far as I know, his life up until then was relatively normal. There are worse people in the world, such as a woman I saw on a documentary last night who gave drugs to her kids to keep them quiet. People who are profoundly stupid or apathetic rather than being mentally disturbed or who have irresistable urges. Even then, however, apathy can be something that is symptomatic of depression and 'stupidity' a symptom of extremely low self-confidence. There are so many broken people in the world, however, and society will never have enough capacity to mend them all. I do feel pity for them, even if they should be punished for their actions. Its also quite difficult to tell people who have genuine problems from true sociopaths.


----------



## crmoorhead

nikola said:


> Cruelty doesn't have to do anything with number of killings.


Cruelty implies indifference to, or deriving pleasure from, the misfortune or pain experienced by others caused by one's own actions. I agree that the number doesn't matter, simply the quality of the feeling.


----------



## dionisio

nikola said:


> Cruelty doesn't have to do anything with number of killings.


So why is Man more cruel than the other animals?


----------



## nikola

Sure, some people don't need to kill to be even worse than some killers. For example, I've known one girl she went with me on faculty. She was sociopath because she was using other people for her twisted games and only when she wanted something from them. If they couldn't or didn't want to give her what she wanted, she hated them then. Actualy, she hated all the time all people. She was also great in making other people 'feel guilty' because of her.
The thing is, she probably isn't such completely horrible person, but she was trully disturbed and self obsesed. Many people has screwed psych, unfortunately. 
Sure, sometimes the reason of that can be that she was abused on some levels in her life from parents, collegues at school, boss at work. That all can make people to become awful. Other people are born like that.... self obsessed, narcissistic, mean, psychopats, sociopaths.
Kinda sad.


----------



## nikola

dionisio said:


> So why is Man more cruel than the other animals?


You're asking me that becuase you don't know the answer or you're interested in my opinion? Read crmoorhead answer above.


----------



## mensch

Sid James said:


> The issue of consent is tricky with sex with minors, even today (even between a person just over the age of majority and someone just below that age, slightly). So I kind of put that in to say its a kind of 'fence' type issue.


There are of course the stories of Benjamin Britten and his fondness for minors - actor David Hemmings being a famous example. I'm not sure what to think of this. Only one boy ever accused him of abuse and Britten acted like a boy trapped in a mature body throughout is life. This doesn't legitimize his pedophiliac tendencies of course, but puts it somewhat into perspective. From the biography I've read on Britten I that aspect of his personality comes across as rather non-prepedatorial, yet creepy, somewhat comparable to the gossip surrounding Michael Jackson and his alleged escapades on Neverland.



Ramako said:


> 2) How people ought to act under a dictatorship is an extremely difficult issue, and we should not judge those who folded (e.g. Shostakovich, R. Strauss) from the comfort of our Capitalistically-funded fireside armchairs.


Yes, indeed. It's strange that we have trouble accepting the fact that some people joined the Hitler Jugend or were at least politically passive during war times. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a believer. I'm not so sure if I would've had the guts to (actively) stand up against a tyrannical regime like Hitler Germany or Stalin's Russia. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, I'm not fond of dying.
That fact makes it easier to understand people like Shostakovich or Strauss, who were reluctant figureheads. On the other hand I have a harder time evaluating a composer like Anton Webern, who was at a certain time a staunch follower of Hitler. Not sure what his later status of degenerate artist did to his resolve, though.


----------



## dionisio

nikola said:


> You're asking me that becuase you don't know the answer or you're interested in my opinion? Read crmoorhead answer above.


In the animal kingdom (Man included) there's killing, raping, paedophile, homossexuality, canibalism, necrophilia, incest, robbing, racism, sexism (or the male or the female, according to which animal, has power over the other gender), slavery (if we consider that ants or bees work for the queen as slavery, for example), violence, polygamy, cruelty, infanticide, patricide, adultery, parasitism, and so on...it looks like Der Ring was written with the animal kingdom in Wagner's mind.

I don't want any answer of yours.

Man is as much cruel as the other animals. Perhaps the difference is not the action itself (which may not be cruel to them as for us) but the realization of such actions represents to us according to our society.


----------



## nikola

dionisio said:


> In the animal kingdom (Man included) there's killing, raping, paedophile, homossexuality, canibalism, necrophilia, incest, robbing, racism, sexism (or the male or the female, according to which animal, has power over the other gender), slavery (if we consider that ants or bees work for the queen as slavery, for example), violence, polygamy, cruelty, infanticide, patricide, adultery, parasitism, and so on...it looks like Der Ring was written with the animal kingdom in Wagner's mind.
> 
> I don't want any answer of yours.
> 
> Man is as much cruel as the other animals. Perhaps the difference is not the action itself (which may not be cruel to them as for us) but the realization of such actions represents to us according to our society.


Sure, but animals didn't invent something like this:
http://www.oddee.com/item_96596.aspx

Animals don't have 'advanced' brain for such torture and whatever they do is not because of some sociopathic or psycopathic needs. It's mostly because of their primal needs- food, sex, ego (I'll be alpha male in my herd).
Of course, if you observe baboon herd you'll noticed that they have much more complex architecture of their 'society' that is also somehow similar to human society, but they're still not able for such cruelty for no obvious reason like people are.


----------



## bassClef

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think Carl Orff gets a rough deal when being linked to the Nazi regime. I think it more likely that he was against it but quite understandably too afraid to denounce it...
> 
> Orff gets a bad reputation for having volunteered to rewrite the music to _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ after the music of Mendelssohn had been banned. Richard Strauss refused the commission, declaring that Mendelssohn's music couldn't be improved upon.
> 
> There is also the disturbing incident with Orff's friend, Kurt Huber. Orff was a friend of Kurt Huber, one of the founders of the resistance movement Die Weiße Rose (the White Rose), who was condemned to death by the Volksgerichtshof and executed by the Nazis in 1943. Orff by happenstance called at Huber's house on the day after his arrest. Huber's distraught wife begged Orff to use his influence to help her husband, but Orff declined her request. If his friendship with Huber came out, he told her, he would be "ruined". Huber's wife never saw Orff again. Wracked by guilt, Orff would later write a letter to his late friend Huber, imploring him for forgiveness.


Yes I think that's a cut'n'paste from Wikipedia. But seriously what could he do? It doesn't mean he was pro-Nazi.


----------



## crmoorhead

dionisio said:


> So why is Man more cruel than the other animals?


Because man has the capability to empathise with other and can understand the infliction of pain from another point of view. If one cannot do this, then one cannot be 'cruel' because one is incapable of malice or revenge. Freud defined the terms id, ego and superego. Id is what animals have - they act according to impulses that are entirely selfish. Others instincts have a purely evolutionary origin, but animals do not have the capability of thinking of abstract concepts and therefore the word 'cruel' simply doesnt have meaning in their context.


----------



## Ramako

I have just been listening to some Gesualdo.

What I hear is not a screaming man tearing apart his wife and her lover limb from limb, but, unless I imagine it (quite possible), it does sound like someone torn by strong emotions - perhaps trying to distract from guilt for what he did? It is impossible to tell if these things are read into the music or not - certainly it is very powerful music, driven to extremes. Is my reading so implausible, whether it is post facto or not?

Does it bother me that he was a murderer? Actually, on the contrary it probably makes me more fascinated, as I generally do have an interest for this sort of thing. Certainly this thread has brought him to my attention. I think I will get some when I start buying more Renaissance music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Yes I think that's a cut'n'paste from Wikipedia.

Well, it probably is the most convenient source.

But seriously what could he do? It doesn't mean he was pro-Nazi.

He obviously could have refused the commission to rewrite Mendelssohn's music... as did Strauss and several others. but he clearly saw it as an opportunity to further his career. Undoubtedly a good many artists of every ilk were opportunists under the Nazis... including Herbert von Karajan. As I suggested before, it really doesn't affect their music of my opinion of that music.

As for Orff and Huber... clearly he suffered in the form of his guilty conscience. Could he have really saved Huber? That's doubtful. The Nazis and Hitler were not inclined toward clemency toward what they would have seen as treason. Strauss made personal pleas for various individuals... but in these instances their only "crime" was being Jewish. Traitors to "the cause" would have been looked upon as far worse... and anyone speaking on their behalf risked being seen as a collaborator.


----------



## TresPicos

dionisio said:


> In the animal kingdom (Man included) there's killing, raping, paedophile, homossexuality, canibalism, necrophilia, incest, robbing, racism, sexism (or the male or the female, according to which animal, has power over the other gender), slavery (if we consider that ants or bees work for the queen as slavery, for example), violence, polygamy, cruelty, infanticide, patricide, adultery, parasitism, and so on...it looks like Der Ring was written with the animal kingdom in Wagner's mind.


Why do you list homosexuality among all those despicable things?


----------



## bassClef

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes I think that's a cut'n'paste from Wikipedia.
> 
> Well, it probably is the most convenient source.
> 
> But seriously what could he do? It doesn't mean he was pro-Nazi.
> 
> He obviously could have refused the commission to rewrite Mendelssohn's music... as did Strauss and several others. but he clearly saw it as an opportunity to further his career. Undoubtedly a good many artists of every ilk were opportunists under the Nazis... including Herbert von Karajan. As I suggested before, it really doesn't affect their music of my opinion of that music.
> 
> As for Orff and Huber... clearly he suffered in the form of his guilty conscience. Could he have really saved Huber? That's doubtful. The Nazis and Hitler were not inclined toward clemency toward what they would have seen as treason. Strauss made personal pleas for various individuals... but in these instances their only "crime" was being Jewish. Traitors to "the cause" would have been looked upon as far worse... and anyone speaking on their behalf risked being seen as a collaborator.






Maybe he could have done more, but as you say, probably not much. Watch this from 14:20 - he's quoted here as hating the nazis.


----------



## Mephistopheles

On artists living in oppressive regimes, I believe we have out-of-whack perceptions about how they should have behaved. Living in 21st century developed countries, most of which (outrageously!) go on about themselves being the pinnacle of democracy, and most of us having been brought up steeped in narratives of (often simple and humane) heroes beating back tyrants, we expect it to be natural that every person puts justice and compassion above their own survival. But this expectation is romanticised beyond reality. Most people don't even put justice and compassion above unnecessary material wealth, let alone their own _lives_.

When we all sit in comfort while thousands die every day, all across the world, perhaps because we are not as charitable as we could be, or because the governments we prop up are committing crimes against humanity, by what standard can we condemn these artists of the past while keeping our consciences clean?

Most of us talking here would have behaved exactly as those artists who we feel uncomfortable with. Instead of thinking that the norm should be to stick it to the autocrats, we should expect the norm to be keeping your head down and muddling on, while anyone who actually did spit in the face of an oppressive regime should be praised as unhumanly moral.


----------



## Arsakes

dionisio said:


> So why is Man more cruel than the other animals?


I've seen an ant tribe tearing up another tribe, cut off the heads of loser ants ... maybe they would eat them later!

But Humans can be gods and saints or demons and monsters.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I'll listen to any music I like regardless of the ethical fortitude of the composer, the players, of their dogs because I'm not a preening sanctimonious ***.

No offense to anyone intended.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

TresPicos said:


> Why do you list homosexuality among all those despicable things?


Hey, polygamy's another "abnormal" sexual behavior that doesn't hurt anyone in an ideal world. (In practice things may be different, but don't most people nowadays agree "whatever consenting adults do should be okay?") Maybe he's just talking about perceived deviances.


----------



## moody

nikola said:


> Sure, some people don't need to kill to be even worse than some killers. For example, I've known one girl she went with me on faculty. She was sociopath because she was using other people for her twisted games and only when she wanted something from them. If they couldn't or didn't want to give her what she wanted, she hated them then. Actualy, she hated all the time all people. She was also great in making other people 'feel guilty' because of her.
> The thing is, she probably isn't such completely horrible person, but she was trully disturbed and self obsesed. Many people has screwed psych, unfortunately.
> Sure, sometimes the reason of that can be that she was abused on some levels in her life from parents, collegues at school, boss at work. That all can make people to become awful. Other people are born like that.... self obsessed, narcissistic, mean, psychopats, sociopaths.
> Kinda sad.


I'll have you know that I think you are talking about my ex-wife!


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> There are of course the stories of Benjamin Britten and his fondness for minors - actor David Hemmings being a famous example. I'm not sure what to think of this. Only one boy ever accused him of abuse and Britten acted like a boy trapped in a mature body throughout is life. This doesn't legitimize his pedophiliac tendencies of course, but puts it somewhat into perspective. From the biography I've read on Britten I that aspect of his personality comes across as rather non-prepedatorial, yet creepy, somewhat comparable to the gossip surrounding Michael Jackson and his alleged escapades on Neverland.
> 
> Yes, indeed. It's strange that we have trouble accepting the fact that some people joined the Hitler Jugend or were at least politically passive during war times. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a believer. I'm not so sure if I would've had the guts to (actively) stand up against a tyrannical regime like Hitler Germany or Stalin's Russia. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, I'm not fond of dying.
> That fact makes it easier to understand people like Shostakovich or Strauss, who were reluctant figureheads. On the other hand I have a harder time evaluating a composer like Anton Webern, who was at a certain time a staunch follower of Hitler. Not sure what his later status of degenerate artist did to his resolve, though.


Britten's boyfriend was Peter Pears the tenor.


----------



## nikola

moody said:


> I'll have you know that I think you are talking about my ex-wifw!


:lol: poor you! poor us with women


----------



## mensch

moody said:


> Britten's boyfriend was Peter Pears the tenor.


Yes he was, indeed. But Britten allegdly had a fondness for young boys throughout his life. This is documented by John Bridcut in his Britten's Children and a BBC documentary of the same name. One of the boys was David Hemmings who went on to become an actor. Harry Morris is the only boy to file charges of sexual abuse by Britten.


----------



## moody

mensch said:


> Yes he was, indeed. But Britten allegdly had a fondness for young boys throughout his life. This is documented by John Bridcut in his Britten's Children and a BBC documentary of the same name. One of the boys was David Hemmings who went on to become an actor. Harry Morris is the only boy to file charges of sexual abuse by Britten.


I once flew from NY to Heathrow with Hemmings wife---she was nice!


----------



## Sid James

In hindsight (!), I made this thread topic probably too broad and should have maybe narrowed it down, but its been interesting reading people's comments (esp. if people can stick to relating this all to music/composers, that's the best thing to do).



mensch said:


> There are of course the stories of Benjamin Britten and his fondness for minors - actor David Hemmings being a famous example. I'm not sure what to think of this. Only one boy ever accused him of abuse and Britten acted like a boy trapped in a mature body throughout is life. This doesn't legitimize his pedophiliac tendencies of course, but puts it somewhat into perspective. From the biography I've read on Britten I that aspect of his personality comes across as rather non-prepedatorial, yet creepy, somewhat comparable to the gossip surrounding Michael Jackson and his alleged escapades on Neverland....


Re Britten his 'relationship' to children is controversial (as many of these sorts of things are, it seems) and I don't know anything more than average about that. But maybe his way with children can be compared to Tchaikovsky's with his nephew, which as evidence suggests, there was never anything between them physically. Indeed, Britten can be compared to Tchaikovsky in putting his feelings as an outsider into his music (esp. Britten's operas, a number of the main characters are outsiders). But moody is right, Britten's lifelong companion was Peter Pears, whose voice Britten had in mind when composing many of his works.

I do not want to bring homosexuality into this thread, as I don't see it as a 'weakness.' I was earlier not condoning paedophilia, I was just saying that views on it differ from culture to culture (& across history too). As I said in my opening post, Saint-Saens and Szymanowski did give me the 'yuck' factor earlier on, but I've largely been able to separate that from my listening to their music.

Of course (& this is a general comment to all), don't forget that if you where a parent of a child (or a former victim) of paedophilia, you might not have such a philosophical view of it as some posters above. But again, that's another issue best not discussed on this forum.

The other thing is that not long ago, homosexuality was virtually the same (as regards the criminal law) as paedophilia. In some places, if you where convicted of these things, the punishment was very severe (could even be death, or more likely a long term in prison). Recent research has shown that about 30 per cent of paedophiles are also homosexual, but that does not mean anyone should tar them with the same brush (and the law has been changed in most Western nations, homosexuality is no longer a crime).



Ramako said:


> Does it bother me that he was a murderer? Actually, on the contrary it probably makes me more fascinated, as I generally do have an interest for this sort of thing. Certainly this thread has brought him to my attention. I think I will get some when I start buying more Renaissance music.


Well that's my impression of where many (or most?) classical listeners are re Gesualdo and the murder. It has worked for his advantage, and if you ask a person into classical music (even a generalist like me), one of the first Italian Renaissance composer I got a cd of was Gesualdo (apart from the usual names like Palestrina and the 'borderline Baroque' Monteverdi). In some cases, it kind of draws people in to a composer. But of course, as TresPicos said earlier in this thread, Gesualdo spooks him out, so it can have the opposite effect. But Gesualdo's name is out there due partly to his notoreity, coupled with the fact that he did things technically that where not to appear much between him and Wagner.


----------



## Ramako

Ramako said:


> 3) Thank you Sid for pointing out that paedophilia is a cultural issue as well. I thought I might get burned for voicing the opinion that it might well be viewed differently in our society in 100 years if things continue as they do now. Actually, some people here are voicing the opinion that sex with minors with consent is ok...





Sid James said:


> Of course (& this is a general comment to all), don't forget that if you where a parent of a child (or a former victim) of paedophilia, you might not have such a philosophical view of it as some posters above. But again, that's another issue best not discussed on this forum.


I realised before I read your post Sid that my comment could be misinterpreted, assuming that is referring to me among others. All I meant was that from a cultural point of view various sexual behaviours have been becoming more and more accepted over the last couple of hundred years if not more. I don't see any reason why this should stop in what I would call 'mainstream morality'.

However, I do not buy into mainstream morality, which is highly changeable, and definitely think that it is a dreadful thing. Actually I am probably the person here who is furthest on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Sid James

^^Well, Ramako, I think that earlier I alluded to kind of 'borderline' issues with paedophilia. Like some girls look older than they are, and if say a 19 year old boy has sex with her, here there have been court cases where he is charged with paedophilia (a case like this occured in the Northern Territory, in the Aboriginal community there). Its complicated by things like there being 'real' child abuse in those communities, and the courts and government clamping down hard on it in the past decade or so. Its a hot topic here, also in terms of people finding out when paedophiles get out of prison and find they are living next to one (as a neighbour). Then there are these reports in the media with people getting very emotional. So that's what I'm saying. It's a highly emotive issue. There are many perspectives on how to deal with it.

But if you want to continue this conversation, please send me private message, as this thread is not about paedophilia (or murder, or history of dictatorships per se) but its relating those to music/composers.



regressivetransphobe said:


> I'll listen to any music I like regardless of the ethical fortitude of the composer, the players, of their dogs because I'm not a preening sanctimonious ***.
> 
> No offense to anyone intended.


Whether sanctimonius or not, I just think its alright to admit to these sorts of 'yuck' factor things, as some people have here. Too often we get a 'holier than thou' approach here, and if I've got any 'agenda,' its to say that people can openly admit their bias. They can be anything, they can be sanctimonius, they can be contradictory.

& I must stress that allegations of paedophilia are only alleged against Saint-Saens. In any case, he had some tragedies in life to deal with (death of two children at a young age, dealing with his sexuality, all that stuff). So I'm not casting stones at him (well, he's dead), just saying my former 'gut feelings' about these issues around him.

Same with R. Strauss, I'm 'softer' on him now. But I will not soften against true believers of Nazism and Stalinism like Schmidt and Khrennikov, sorry. If that's being sanctinmonious, so be it. Its my right, just as people have a right to enjoy them or anything else, and not worry about other 'political' factors.


----------



## Mephistopheles

Sid James said:


> Same with R. Strauss, I'm 'softer' on him now. But I will not soften against true believers of Nazism and Stalinism like Schmidt and Khrennikov, sorry. If that's being sanctinmonious, so be it. Its my right, just as people have a right to enjoy them or anything else, and not worry about other 'political' factors.


Exactly what is it that's the problem? Can I ask if you believe in free will? To me, however repugnant true Nazi sympathisers' political outlooks were, their ideas were the inevitable culmination of the interaction between their genes, environment, and life experiences. It would be against my view of human psychology to blame them for this as though they could have thought and behaved differently, and so it makes absolute sense for me to completely separate their artistic works from their morality.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should be held accountable for their actions (in a compassionate rather than condemnatory manner), but I would call it naive to think that they had the ability to be any different. They were no more in control of their repugnance than you are in control of your moderation - if, one day, you woke up and decided you wanted to try being a fascist, you just wouldn't be able to do it. So why should you expect them to have been able to flick their mental switches at whim?


----------



## Sid James

^^Well I think people serving such oppressive regimes made certain choices, same as those who where against those same regimes (eg. the anti-Nazi resistance by partisans that occured in many countries, principally in France and Yugoslavia). Of course many where just struggling with survival itself, they had no say either way. I see this as a defining moment in history, the battle between good and evil (even though thats a simplification to some degree, but it was a period when these two extemes clashed). Fascism had to be rooted out, basically. Same with Stalinism, it was just evil.

But the issue is that once the 'political winds' change, people change their tune. After the war, everyone in Vienna miraculously forgot how they welcomed Hitler along the Ringstrasse in 1938. I mean the thousands that went out to greet his invasion. Others where then packing their bags to leave, or had already left. & some people after the war, who had survived it, claimed they had been in the resistance (which again, was a lie, just to make them look good, its better than saying 'I welcomed the Fuhrer back in '38').

In relation to composers, its similar. The issue of 'whitewashing' and revisionism. Its went on before that for ages. Eg. Handel was most likely a homosexual, but it was covered up by historians shortly after his death. Female lovers where even invented to retrospectively make him hetero. Similar thing with Tchaikovsky, he's literally got an icon painted in his image in the big cathedral where his funeral was at. I mean homosexuality is not the topic of this thread, but I'm saying this just as an example of how history can be massaged and distorted. Often by family, friends, and fans of a composer, who obviously want to 'protect' his reputation (read: whitewash it, make him into a saint or icon made of stone).

So that's the real issue here. Its not a problem that these people made certain choices. Yes, I do judge them, many people judge them. I try not to, or not too much. In any case, I won't lose much from not listening to the music of Schmidt or Khrennikov. The issue for me is just being aware of the fact that composers where humans like us, not gods. & I think people on this forum know that, and as some have said, they've found things out on this thread that they did not know before.


----------



## tdc

I just think its silly to judge other people unless you've walked a mile in their shoes, whats the point? Isn't that reverse discrimination anyway? Hypocrisy? Judge not, lest you be judged. I find the longer in the past the person lived the more separated from any understanding we are of what that person was really like and the more ridiculous the judgements become.


----------



## Sid James

tdc said:


> I just think its silly to judge other people unless you've walked a mile in their shoes, whats the point? Isn't that reverse discrimination anyway? Hypocrisy? Judge not, lest you be judged. I find the longer in the past the composer lived the more separated from any understanding we are of what that person was really like and the more ridiculous the judgements become.


I emphasise judging less and history more. But we all have bias. As I said, its enough to just know a composer as a 'real' person. If a listener stops at just that and does not judge, that's fine. If they do judge, who am I to judge that they are judging?

I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately that position can also lead one to kind of whitewash what happened. So its just as biased, potentially (eg. depending on the person's agenda) as making a blatant judgement. I just like to put what I think on the table rather than do whitewash (as I did with one of my favourite composers, Beethoven, in my opening post).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> *So I'm asking you all, do any composers present to you as being 'problematic' due to these sorts of issues? I mean, in enjoying their music to the max.
> 
> Is it or has it been an issue for you?
> 
> Do you think about these sorts of things?
> 
> Is it hard to accept that a genius can be just a person, with all his character flaws?*


Me, none whatsoever.

I simply do not see the need to be utterly confused between art enjoyment and the artist. This thread is more about people's _perception_ of the artist and the psychological connection or hindrance from enjoying the artist's works. If one has a problem with Wagner and Nazism, or whatever else, and that hinders one's enjoyment of the music, then it's one's loss. Folks impervious to the history of Wagner and Nazism for example, have both enjoyed and disliked the music, proving that it is of course possible to discern from artistic enjoyment irrespective of the artist and his/her broader historical context. _That_ is the true power of music, and those who are lucky enough to be "enlightened listeners" can separate out.


----------



## tdc

Sid James said:


> I emphasise judging less and history more. But we all have bias. As I said, its enough to just know a composer as a 'real' person. If a listener stops at just that and does not judge, that's fine. If they do judge, who am I to judge that they are judging?
> 
> I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately that position can also lead one to kind of whitewash what happened. So its just as biased, potentially (eg. depending on the person's agenda) as making a blatant judgement. I just like to put what I think on the table rather than do whitewash (as I did with one of my favourite composers, Beethoven, in my opening post).


Fair enough, and for the record I wasn't singling you out or any one person. But the recent posts about Wagner and how it always leads to a discussion about the Nazis - I just find its getting ridiculous. But you are right, we all have our biases, myself included. I've tried to keep out of this thread, but I feel strongly about this issue. But I've said all I will say on the topic. I really don't want to risk getting too sanctimonious here either. :lol:


----------



## Mephistopheles

Sid James, there is a considerable difference between whitewashing a composer's flaws, and choosing to ignore them. If I don't care that a composer was a Nazi, that doesn't mean I'm trying to convince people that the composer wasn't a Nazi at all. Is your motivation here basically to have everyone remember in perpetuity the crimes these people committed against progressive politics?


----------



## bigshot

What's the difference between recognizing a composer's flaws and gossiping like a washer woman on the back steps? That's the distinction I keep having trouble with in this thread.


----------



## PetrB

Do I find any composer 'problematic' due to these sorts of issues? I mean, in enjoying their music to the max. Is it or has it been an issue for you?

No... Never an issue with me, the art and who made it are separate things, and in retrospect it seems I've always thought that way.

Do you think about these sorts of things?
Better asked do I / did I ever think about these sorts of things?
NO.

Is it hard to accept that a genius can be just a person, with all his character flaws?
NOT AT ALL. Every genius known or recognized to date has, so far, been a person


----------



## moody

Mephistopheles said:


> Sid James, there is a considerable difference between whitewashing a composer's flaws, and choosing to ignore them. If I don't care that a composer was a Nazi, that doesn't mean I'm trying to convince people that the composer wasn't a Nazi at all. Is your motivation here basically to have everyone remember in perpetuity the crimes these people committed against progressive politics?


Probably not,but everyone should remember in perpetuity the crimes the Nazis committed.


----------



## Mephistopheles

moody said:


> Probably not,but everyone should remember in perpetuity the crimes the Nazis committed.


Indeed they should, but we must ask _why_ we need to remember it. The tone of this thread would suggest that we remember in order to wag our indignant fingers. Instead, we ought to remember to learn from terrible historical events that we would be wise to avoid a second time round. That isn't a consideration with these composers.


----------



## violadude

Re: Saint-Saens being a pedophile. I don't consider pedophile's disgusting. Actually, I kind of feel bad for them that their sexual desires are more than likely harmful to another human if acted upon. However, merely being a pedophile does not make you a bad person or anything. Most people are, for the most part, largely out of control of how their sexuality develops.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I wonder if folks who suffer from "yuck factor syndrome" in life might also be hindered in other similar aspects. Say one goes to a restaurant, and enjoys the ordered food. Later discovers the chef or owner of the restaurant is a neo-Nazi or a homosexual or whatever. Will one regurgitate the food out, and or stop going to the restaurant completely?

What about purchased items that were made in India or made in China where factory works were working in conditions similar to chicken farming being paid a small fraction of minimum wages compared with a western developed country? Does that stop one from buying the cheaper product?

"Yuck factor syndrome" can be suffered anywhere, not just music. Least of all, it should not be music.


----------



## violadude

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wonder if folks who suffer from "yuck factor syndrome" in life might also be hindered in other similar aspects. Say one goes to a restaurant, and enjoys the ordered food. Later discovers the chef or owner of the restaurant is a neo-Nazi or a homosexual or whatever. Will one regurgitate the food out, and or stop going to the restaurant completely?


That reminds me of a certain incident that just happened here in the states involving a certain chicken sandwich restaurant.


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> If I may voice my opinions...
> 
> 3) Thank you Sid for pointing out that pedophilia is a cultural issue as well. I thought I might get burned for voicing the opinion that it might well be viewed differently in our society in 100 years if things continue as they do now. Actually, some people here are voicing the opinion that sex with minors with consent is ok...


Nothing new about sex with minors a girl just down the road is doing it all the time first it was gold minors now she she is into coal minors, absolutely disgusting ..... I don,t stand a chance


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Re: Saint-Saens being a pedophile. I don't consider pedophile's disgusting. Actually, I kind of feel bad for them that their sexual desires are more than likely are harmful to another human if acted upon. However, merely being a pedophile does not make you a bad person or anything. Most people are, for the most part, largely out of control of how their sexuality develops.


Being a pedophile makes you a very bad person and the harmful sexual desires in some cases are aimed at babes in arms for God's sake!


----------



## violadude

moody said:


> Being a pedophile makes you a very bad person and the harmful sexual desires in some cases are aimed at babes in arms for God's sake!


I don't think it makes you a bad person to simply be a pedophile. When you act on those desires you are doing a thing that is harmful and I think that is where the line is drawn.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Re: Saint-Saens being a pedophile. I don't consider pedophile's disgusting. Actually, I kind of feel bad for them that their sexual desires are more than likely are harmful to another human if acted upon. However, merely being a pedophile does not make you a bad person or anything. Most people are, for the most part, largely out of control of how their sexuality develops.


A paedophile is completely disgusting and a criminal. Their harmful desires in many cases are aimed at toddlers and babes in arms for God's sake!


----------



## violadude

moody said:


> A paedophile is completely disgusting and a criminal. Their harmful desires in many cases are aimed at toddlers and babes in arms for God's sake!


That's only in the case of if they are acting on their harmful desires though. If they are a pedophile who never does anything about it who cares?


----------



## BurningDesire

moody said:


> A paedophile is completely disgusting and a criminal. Their harmful desires in many cases are aimed at toddlers and babes in arms for God's sake!


a pedophile is not the same thing as a child molester.


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> Re: Saint-Saens being a pedophile. I don't consider pedophile's disgusting. Actually, I kind of feel bad for them that their sexual desires are more than likely are harmful to another human if acted upon. However, merely being a pedophile does not make you a bad person or anything. Most people are, for the most part, largely out of control of how their sexuality develops.


I'm just emphasising that re Saint-Saens its an allegation against him only. I'm not sure how strong an allegation, but a number of sources I've come across mention it. North Africa was known to attract paedophiles from Europe, similar to a number of Asian countries attracting people from outside there to do this sort of thing today. & Saint-Saens made many visits to Algeria, incl. to do concerts, and he actually died there.

Re the broader issue of paedophilia, please don't make it too broad. I just go by what is a crime in our statute books. Its a crime in Australia just as murder is. I do have personal opinions on it but I think its good to be as neutral as possible. As I said in earlier posts, its a controversial issue, and if we 'fan out' with it too much, there will never be any consensus on it no matter if we argue till we're blue in the face.

Re the things Mephistopheles asked me I have to come back, maybe tommorrow, I'm out of time now. Bye till then.


----------



## moody

OK, Nepiophilia is used to describe preference for infants and toddlers ages 0-3.
Paedophilia is used for interest in children age 13 years and younger, and that interest certainly includes molestation.


----------



## Mephistopheles

Sid James said:


> Re the broader issue of paedophilia, please don't make it too broad. I just go by what is a crime in our statute books. Its a crime in Australia just as murder is. I do have personal opinions on it but I think its good to be as neutral as possible. As I said in earlier posts, its a controversial issue, and if we 'fan out' with it too much, there will never be any consensus on it no matter if we argue till we're blue in the face.


You're making the same error as others - Australia does _not_ have a thought crime in its legislation; it is a crime to molest a child, not to be attracted to one.


----------



## Crudblud

Everything you need to know about paedophilia in one easy video.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Everything you need to know about paedophilia in one easy video.


What the **** did I just watch?


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> Being a pedophile makes you a very bad person and the harmful sexual desires in some cases are aimed at babes in arms for God's sake!


No, it makes you a person with the potential to do harm, which is different from 'fundamentally bad.' 
Statistically, the majority of people with that pathological inclination never act upon it... which spares victims of their attentions, but I find the 'not acting on it' even more disturbing somehow.

Here is a perfect example, though, of how there is no hint of the personal pathology in any of the art the man produced, strengthening my thesis that the work and the creator are separate entities.


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> What the **** did I just watch?


A clip from Brass Eye, which was a satirical spoof news programme in the UK in the late 90s and came back for a special in 2001. The clip I posted is from the special, which deals with media sensationalism and hypocrisy surrounding paedophilia. Also, the show attracted a lot of negative press from tabloid newspapers, but printed in a manner that eerily resembled the stuff it was trying to draw attention to: "The Daily Star decried Morris and the show, placing the story next to a separate article about the 15-year-old singer Charlotte Church's breasts under the headline "She's a big girl now" and using the words "looking chest swell". The Daily Mail pictured Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who were 13 and 11, in their bikinis next to a headline describing Brass Eye as "Unspeakably Sick"." (Wikipedia, full article here.)


----------



## nikola

Crudblud said:


> Everything you need to know about paedophilia in one easy video.


lol... this makes me laugh


----------



## regnaDkciN

Ramako said:


> Also I think the anti-Hitler mentality will pass within 50 years, as society is still in shock from the horrors of the Nazi regime. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it might be for Wagner who continually suffers, whether justly or not (I would think not), from Naziist accuastions.


Personally, I hope the "anti-Hitler mentality" never dies. I think we need a perpetual sense of horror at that kind of genocidal tyranny to keep from falling into it again.

OTOH, I don't think Wagner should be tarred with the Hitler brush. The fact is, Wagner lived and created his body of work decades before the Nazi movement, and it's an historical fallacy to read back into the past what happened well into the future. While it is true that Wagner, for at least most of his life, remained a rabid anti-Semitic bigot, such bigotry does not mean that he would have supported the extermination of millions of Jews in death camps -- as a matter of fact, considering he entrusted his work to several prominent Jewish conductors, and worked closely with them, there's just as much reason to believe that he would have been revolted by such a development, just as not every American who expressed a prejudice against African-Americans (however offensive such prejudice might be) donned a white sheet and hood and went out on lynching parties, or condoned those who did.

Anyway, the easy equation of "Wagner = anti-Semite" is a very simplistic way of looking at things. The fact is that, even if Wagner were a paragon of religious, racial, and ethnic inclusiveness, there would still be enough in his personal life to qualify him as, quite frankly, an utter *******...not that it has any effect on the greatness of his music, however.


----------



## Sid James

PetrB said:


> ...
> Here is a perfect example, though, of how there is no hint of the personal pathology in any of the art the man produced, strengthening my thesis that the work and the creator are separate entities.


I don't think they're completely separate, for example the autobiographical nature of many composers' works. But then again, some composers did not put themselves into their music, or put themselves or reference to the world surrounding them less into their music.

There is no clear dividing line between a composer and his music, that's what I'm saying. Whether a person cares about this or not is another issue. Many people it seems don't care about it here. They don't care about history, let alone music history. You know that's a sad thing, I think, the old saying 'those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.' But that's a very broad issue, too broad for this thread.

However there is a disjunct with how if a bad government promotes music we like, are we likely to turn a blind eye to their acts to do with human rights, and just say 'well it's so good they're promoting my favourite composer's music.' What I'm saying is that its a facade to cover the bad things they're doing. Cultural policy was used by these regimes to make them look good (a public relations excercise, more or less). & some people fall for it, but maybe they'll fall for anything (bread and circuses for the masses).



Mephistopheles said:


> You're making the same error as others - Australia does _not_ have a thought crime in its legislation; it is a crime to molest a child, not to be attracted to one.


Well that's the same as for example with any crime, you can think about it but if you don't carry it out, its not a crime, of course.



Mephistopheles said:


> Sid James, there is a considerable difference between whitewashing a composer's flaws, and choosing to ignore them. If I don't care that a composer was a Nazi, that doesn't mean I'm trying to convince people that the composer wasn't a Nazi at all. Is your motivation here basically to have everyone remember in perpetuity the crimes these people committed against progressive politics?


Well let's face it, I have anger towards those composers who benefited from Nazi and Stalinist patronage while others suffered. Eg. Berg died partly because he did not seek medical attention quickly enough for the insect bite that turned septic and eventually killed him. He was in very straightened financial circumstances, his royalties where taken away by the Nazis. So the Nazis elevated the composers they liked and then did this to composers they did not like.

Stalin of course did the same thing, for example Shostakovich (esp. after the political scandal surrounding his opera 'Lady Macberth of Mzensk' and added to that the Zhdanov decree of 1948) basically had to survive off film scores, which was the musical equivalent of being sent to the salt mines. People like Khrennikov and Ivan Dzerzhinsky who where Stalinists where given the plum commissions. It was not only until de-Stalinisation that Shostakovich got more opportunities (but even then, his most popular work was his operetta 'Moscow Cheryomushki,' funding for the film version was supported by Khrushchev himself).

So trying to separate music from politics, especially in those highly charged periods of history. Well you can try to do it, just like as with sport, but its near impossible. That's what I think anyway, and that's what I mean, I don't apply whitewash (as I said in my OP with Beethoven, one of my favourite composers), but I got to accept that other people do.


----------



## Mephistopheles

Sid James said:


> So trying to separate music from politics, especially in those highly charged periods of history. Well you can try to do it, just like as with sport, but its near impossible. That's what I think anyway, and that's what I mean, I don't apply whitewash (as I said in my OP with Beethoven, one of my favourite composers), but I got to accept that other people do.


I don't think it's fair to accuse listeners of whitewashing if they just happen to prefer the music to composers' political engagements. There are thousands of odious people from all walks of life throughout history who benefited from others' suffering - do we need to feel special enmity for those who happened to write music? And what exactly does anyone gain from this now that they're dead? I don't see what difference it makes whether you care about their political past or not - is it just for the sake of your own peace of mind? And to what extent can a composer's political allegiances diverge from yours before you're made uncomfortable with their music? It seems like a minefield to me, which is why it's better to separate the music and the person. We don't need to _forget_ about the person - we can have discussions exactly like this, and people who are interested in biographical history can join in - but it makes no difference to anyone whether or not we say to ourselves, "I'm not listening to Khrennikov's music because he was a naughty man."


----------



## Sid James

^^ I do take some of your points, eg. that these people are dead and that this is a minefield, of politics and emotion and all that. & maybe I did not set up my opening post as good as I could have, but I can't change that now. I may just have been a bit less judging. However, again, I think this thread has opened up these issues, and people can talk freely about these kinds of things on this forum (unless they break the rules of course). 

There are certain taboos on this forum which I think is not very good. & its funny, its often people of various quite rigid ideologies that come onto threads like this to kind of clamp down debate. Its about attitude, not about what music people listen to. I get pulled down for my bias, I get pulled down for not using the right words (semantics), I get pulled down for being sanctimonious or whatever. But let's face it, these people are just as biased as I am. Except I'm putting my backside on the line and saying what's my bias. Others have too, and that's good. I am against this 'holier than thou' attitude. Maybe that's why I so clumsily did this thread, it wasn't the best way. But I'm just letting people know that there should be no taboos, these things are often about our own biases, musical tastes and emotions more than anything else. What's the problem with that?

History is fraught with questions, and with different interpretations of the same facts. & of course the facts themselves can be disputed. & attitudes change over time, as people have noted with WW2. I'm saying its interesting to read what people say, its okay to have an opinion, sometimes even the 'experts' can't agree on a solid consensus. So I make decisions what I make, depending on various things (including EMOTION!).


----------



## Frag

Personally none of the mentioned things would put me off a composer's work (apart from the paedophila, perhaps. I still don't really enjoy watching e.g. Polanski movies..on the other hand, I still enjoy Michael Jackson, giving him the benefit of the doubt..and most of his good music was recorded before he developed a taste for boys, I believe).


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I think I would not be put off by a composer's political views (of course if I find his music appealing enough, that is). If anyone can be associated with Nazism, that is Richard Strauss, and I love his tone-poems. However, sexual perversions, such as paedophilia I find utterly disgusting for me and I would probably never listen to the works of a composer who is known for sure to have engaged in those kinds of things. In this case it is really a "yuck factor", a feeling of pure repulsion.


----------



## Larkenfield

Who’s to say how much the Darkside of these composers were necessary in order for their talent to come out that people love? Schubert and Schumann had syphilis that probably shortened their lives. What does that say about them and what we might love? With Guisaldo, he suffered the self-inflicted tortures of the damned for the rest of his life and was part of what he wrote. I doubt if anybody gets away with anything if one steps over the line, in this life or the next. Somehow the scales always get balanced and justice is served even if it takes 20 lifetimes.


----------



## mathisdermaler

*So I'm asking you all, do any composers present to you as being 'problematic' due to these sorts of issues? I mean, in enjoying their music to the max.
*
Absolutely not. I want to make it very clear that I don't think this is because of my superiority. I used to think that way when I was more immature... In a way I consider it a personal failing that I care so little about the morality of artists, or to be more general people, that I like. It's not even that I "separate the artist from the art" (an idea which I think is kind of silly). I want to be honest and say that I just do not care for some reason. I know Wagner was a racist and a jerk, but I still love Parsifal/Tristan and for that reason I can't help loving him. If anything, if a composer is a fascist/murderer/rapist/pedophile, it makes me more excited about their work because I know it's coming from someone with a supremely unique perspective and life experience. Consider this a confession. It's just my personality. I've always loved philosophy but have never been interested in Ethics, for instance. My favorite writers including Yukio Mishima rarely if ever touch on the moral quality of an action in liberal terms. (When they talk about the morality of an action it is in terms of its beauty, consistency with that person's beliefs, etc., but never in any way related to the categorical imperative or any derivative liberal moral standard).

I talk about my personal experience with issues because I don't think this is a question we can realistically answer. The "seperate art from the artist side" wants to do nothing about this dilemma. The other side doesn't know what they want to do. The only thing I could see them doing would be to prevent performances of works by immoral people like the Israeli govt did for Wagner or to make sure there is mandatory education about an immoral person's immorality before a work or when its sold or something along those lines. The former method I'm sure would lead to protests from most people and the latter method is just silly and infantilizing.

It's really a problem that people have to figure out for themselves, and I respect any conclusion anyone comes to.

*Is it or has it been an issue for you?
*
No

*Do you think about these sorts of things?
*
I should have read this question before I asnwered the first. I think about it a lot.

*Is it hard to accept that a genius can be just a person, with all his character flaws?
*
Not for me. For me the word "genius" almost implies perversity. I can't imagine a genius being "normal," to me that seems so boring, passe, and more importantly unrealistic. In my experience its usually weird people who make great art, and weird people are more often immoral than normal people (though not always)


----------



## Enthusiast

When the offending artist is still alive and active, that makes a difference. Also what they have done makes a difference - whether there were victims and how much damage was done to them. There are one or two conductors I avoid because of their behaviour.


----------



## Tchaikov6

I have no issues with anyone except Wagner- Because in all cases except him, I find it quite easy to separate the man and the music (Beethoven, Strauss, Gesualdo, etc.). The problem with Wagner is- I can hear it in his music. For instance, in Parsifal Klingsor the magician has been pointed out to have many Jewish stereotypes associated with him- But Parsifal is only a speculation. In Die Meistersinger von Nurnburg (which is all about German tradition and national pride) I can hear the German superiority in the music with a sort of Nazi-esque pride. It is hard to put into words but sometimes I get a little sick of Wagner. The problem is I love his music so much...


----------



## MarkW

Most people have character flaws -- some mlld, some horrendous. This certainly applies to artists as just one subset of the broad spectrum of humanity. There's no reason a great artist can't be a horrible person -- any more than a sports star or a banker or a politician. Although we have had to reassess Bill Cosby as a human being, he was no less funny.


----------



## Enthusiast

MarkW said:


> Most people have character flaws -- some mlld, some horrendous. ........ Although we have had to reassess Bill Cosby as a human being, he was no less funny.


I think he does become far less funny when you know he used his position to assault people. That behaviour is at the horrendous end of the spectrum, it was illegal and physical (not just ideas) and it had real victims. I wonder how I could laugh at him now.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Who's to say how much the Darkside of these composers were necessary in order for their talent to come out that people love? Schubert and Schumann had syphilis that probably shortened their lives. What does that say about them and what we might love? With Guisaldo, he suffered the self-inflicted tortures of the damned for the rest of his life and was part of what he wrote. *I doubt if anybody gets away with anything if one steps over the line, in this life or the next. Somehow the scales always get balanced and justice is served even if it takes 20 lifetimes.*


Justice deferred is justice denied. I just made that up and you can quote me on it.

Oh wait, I feel more inspiration coming: No one gets out alive - or, at least, no one has lived to tell about the next life.


----------



## Woodduck

Tchaikov6 said:


> I have no issues with anyone except Wagner- Because in all cases except him, I find it quite easy to separate the man and the music (Beethoven, Strauss, Gesualdo, etc.). *The problem with Wagner is- I can hear it in his music.* For instance, in Parsifal* Klingsor the magician has been pointed out to have many Jewish stereotypes *associated with him- But Parsifal is only a speculation. In Die Meistersinger von Nurnburg (*which is all about German tradition and national pride*) I can hear the *German superiority in the music with a sort of Nazi-esque pride*. It is hard to put into words but sometimes I get a little sick of Wagner. The problem is I love his music so much...


What, exactly, do you think you hear in Wagner's music? What aspects of Klingsor's music are stereotypically Jewish? How does Nazi-esque pride sound? How is Nazi-esque pride different from other kinds of pride?

In fact, _Die Meistersinger_ is _not_ "all about German tradition and national pride." It's about many things - the nature of art, the relationship of the artist to tradition, the reconciliation of the needs of the individual with those of society, the relationship of the young and the old, the need for a dispassionate acceptance of life's illusions - and the element of national pride is invoked only with regard to art. If you're really listening to the music you'll notice that Wagner pokes fun at the mastersingers, and even criticizes them sharply, as much as he celebrates their tradition; the gloriously pompous theme that opens the overture is caricatured a few minutes later as a grotesque scherzo, and it doesn't regain its dignity until it's combined in counterpoint with Walther's prize song at the end - an image of the fresh creative voice of the individualistic artist revitalizing a tradition which is otherwise always in danger of becoming a caricature of itself. The admonition of Hans Sachs to the people of Nuremberg to cherish their "sacred German art" has to be understood as Wagner's reconciliation with a tradition he's just spent four hours satirizing.

I recommend laying aside everything you've been told Wagner's works are about. I know that's hard when the culture is still obsessed with Nazi-hunting and Jew-spotting. Our little minds may never exorcize the ghosts of history, but we don't have to imagine those spooks haunting the music of a visionary 19th-century composer who had much more profound ambitions for his art.


----------



## Woodduck

MarkW said:


> Most people have character flaws -- some mlld, some horrendous. This certainly applies to artists as just one subset of the broad spectrum of humanity. There's no reason a great artist can't be a horrible person -- any more than a sports star or a banker or a politician. Although we have had to reassess Bill Cosby as a human being, he was no less funny.


He _was_...

A comedian is different from a composer, in that he stands physically before us and expects us to laugh at his person. I wouldn't be laughing at Cosby, but it affects me not at at all that Gesualdo was a murderer.


----------



## brianvds

Woodduck said:


> He _was_...
> 
> A comedian is different from a composer, in that he stands physically before us and expects us to laugh at his person. I wouldn't be laughing at Cosby, but it affects me not at at all that Gesualdo was a murderer.


The general rule that society seems to go by is that with living artists, their personal life is relevant, but once they're dead, only their art counts. The only exception seems to be Wagner, but that is perhaps simply because the Nazis liked him and they are still in living memory. Another century, and no one will care.


----------



## Woodduck

brianvds said:


> The general rule that society seems to go by is that with living artists, their personal life is relevant, but once they're dead, only their art counts. The only exception seems to be Wagner, but that is perhaps simply because the Nazis liked him and they are still in living memory. Another century, and no one will care.


In that case I would like to come back in a century and see whether people are still subjecting him to Godwin's Law.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> What, exactly, do you think you hear in Wagner's music? What aspects of Klingsor's music are stereotypically Jewish? How does Nazi-esque pride sound? How is Nazi-esque pride different from other kinds of pride?
> 
> In fact, _Die Meistersinger_ is _not_ "all about German tradition and national pride." It's about many things - the nature of art, the relationship of the artist to tradition, the reconciliation of the needs of the individual with those of society, the relationship of the young and the old, the need for a dispassionate acceptance of life's illusions - and the element of national pride is invoked only with regard to art. If you're really listening to the music you'll notice that Wagner pokes fun at the mastersingers, and even criticizes them sharply, as much as he celebrates their tradition; the gloriously pompous theme that opens the overture is caricatured a few minutes later as a grotesque scherzo, and it doesn't regain its dignity until it's combined in counterpoint with Walther's prize song at the end - an image of the fresh creative voice of the individualistic artist revitalizing a tradition which is otherwise always in danger of becoming a caricature of itself. The admonition of Hans Sachs to the people of Nuremberg to cherish their "sacred German art" has to be understood as Wagner's reconciliation with a tradition he's just spent four hours satirizing.
> 
> I recommend laying aside everything you've been told Wagner's works are about. I know that's hard when the culture is still obsessed with Nazi-hunting and Jew-spotting. Our little minds may never exorcize the ghosts of history, but we don't have to imagine those spooks haunting the music of a visionary 19th-century composer who had much more profound ambitions for his art.


Hm, Wagner wasn't just someone who had a dislike of Jews on the side. He was an active anti- semite and wanted to shut down jewish music. He also was strongly a German natonalist and believed German music was the only pure form of music and like I said it wasn't just a to the side thing. He himself believed his music to be closely connected with German politics.

And besides that, I honestly think its a mistake to overlook the seriousness of music and play it off as only the artist and the art. I know you are a major fan of Wagner's music and it would seem odd for me to just say cut it out but like people (not saying you) always look at history and say theres history and to the side there was art but I just can't come to grips at how people overlook the posibility that it is really the art that drives history.

I mean just take a look at this:






It's not wagner of course, but I just don't get how people watch this and think its only the artist thinking outside the box .

Sorry this venting is not directed to you, just in general


----------



## DeepR

I don't think I've listened to music of composers who are known to have been criminals, murderers, child molesters... and I'm not particularly interested in seeking it out. I'd still be able to enjoy the music, but it just doesn't deserve my attention. 
As to the rest of them: they can be as weird, eccentric, arrogant, difficult and insufferable as they come. The crazier the better. Gives me something amusing to read about. Such as how Scriabin tried to walk on water once, thinking he was some kind of messiah. Wonderful.


----------



## Woodduck

Aloevera said:


> Hm, Wagner wasn't just someone who had a dislike of Jews on the side. He was an *active anti- semite* and *wanted to shut down jewish music.* He also was strongly a German natonalist and *believed German music was the only pure form of music *and like I said it wasn't just a to the side thing. *He himself believed his music to be closely connected with German politics. *
> 
> And besides that, I honestly think its a mistake to overlook the seriousness of music and play it off as only the artist and the art. I know you are a major fan of Wagner's music and it would seem odd for me to just say cut it out but like people (not saying you) always look at history and say theres history and to the side there was art but I just can't come to grips at how people overlook the posibility that it is really the art that drives history.
> 
> I mean just take a look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not wagner of course, but I just don't get how people watch this and think its only the artist thinking outside the box .
> 
> Sorry this venting is not directed to you, just in general


None of the things I've put in bold above are quite correct. Wagner was an emotion-driven antisemite who said some repulsive things, but he took no action against Jews and did not advocate political action against them. He also had Jewish friends and associates who he valued, and who advocated for his art and didn't suffer much from his proximity. He expressed no wish to "shut down" Jewish music (what does that even mean?). He did not believe that German music was the only "pure" (again meaning?) music. He did not conceive of his operas as serving any "political" end beyond being an example of German art through which people might experience some rather vague and spiritual thing he called the "German spirit." He most definitely did not envision his music's adoption by a genocidal madman.

But what is the point of discussing all this? I really don't see what you're trying to show here (and I don't get the _Rite of Spring_ reference). What external associations do you think it obligatory to bring to our experience of art? I would say that no such associations are obligatory. I would say to you what I said to Tchaikov6 (and have said to many others): lay aside what you've been told about Wagner and his work and look closely at the work itself. But I would say this about many other artists as well. Art has to speak for itself, and trying to interpret it through what we think we know about its creator is as apt to be self-blinding as enlightening.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> None of the things I've put in bold above are quite correct. Wagner was an emotion-driven antisemite who said some repulsive things, but he took no action against Jews and did not advocate political action against them. He also had Jewish friends and associates who he valued, and who advocated for his art and didn't suffer much from his proximity. He expressed no wish to "shut down" Jewish music (what does that even mean?). He did not believe that German music was the only "pure" (again meaning?) music. He did not conceive of his operas as serving any "political" end beyond being an example of German art through which people might experience some rather vague and spiritual thing he called the "German spirit." He most definitely did not envision his music's adoption by a genocidal madman.
> 
> But what is the point of discussing all this? I really don't see what you're trying to show here (and I don't get the _Rite of Spring_ reference). What external associations do you think it obligatory to bring to our experience of art? I would say that no such associations are obligatory. I would say to you what I said to Tchaikov6 (and have said to many others): lay aside what you've been told about Wagner and his work and look closely at the work itself. But I would say this about many other artists as well. Art has to speak for itself, and trying to interpret it through what we think we know about its creator is as apt to be self-blinding as enlightening.


I mean many composers prior had some pride in being German, I by no means am trying to dismiss the music for that. Maybe you are right about Wagner that he was not a consciously driven anti-semite but that isn't really the point I am trying to convey. My point is that someone brought about how they can hear the a nazi tone in music in some of Wagner's pieces and I hear it too. And not just Wagner you can even trace it back it to Mozart, and people are very well aware of this demonic force coming to being which many just seem to shrug off until you get to the point of rock and metal when people are literally spelling out they are possessed by it. I agree, it doesn't make sense when we try to give a biographical explanation to the music which is why a lot of biographical accounts of composers seem to bug me because they always seem to try to give off a practical and tangible explanations as to why people wrote the way they did. It doesnt mean they are bad people or that they themselves are any way sinister


----------



## Woodduck

Aloevera said:


> I mean many composers prior had some pride in being German, I by no means am trying to dismiss the music for that. Maybe you are right about Wagner that he was not a consciously driven anti-semite but that isn't really the point I am trying to convey. My point is that someone brought about how they can hear the a nazi tone in music in some of Wagner's pieces and I hear it too. And not just Wagner you can even trace it back it to Mozart, and people are very well aware of this demonic force coming to being which many just seem to shrug off until you get to the point of rock and metal when people are literally spelling out they are possessed by it. I agree, it doesn't make sense when we try to give a biographical explanation to the music which is why a lot of biographical accounts of composers seem to bug me because they always seem to try to give off a practical and tangible explanations as to why people wrote the way they did. It doesnt mean they are bad people or that they themselves are any way sinister


Well, if you think you hear a "Nazi tone" and "demonic forces" in music, no one can argue with you. I suspect Mozart would be too puzzled to argue! But do consider the possibility that these are merely elements of your own reality that you're projecting onto music. Ask yourself how you would describe the music if the Nazis had never existed, or if you had never heard of demons.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> Well, if you think you hear a "Nazi tone" and "demonic forces" in music, no one can argue with you. I suspect Mozart would be too puzzled to argue! But do consider the possibility that these are merely elements of your own reality that you're projecting onto music. Ask yourself how you would describe the music if the Nazis had never existed, or if you had never heard of demons.


Nietzsche predicted it and says the exact same thing. And even then, it would be like saying describe the music of Hendrix before Black sabbath. (I'm a fan of both)Like sure if you were blissfully unaware of how far the rabbit hole falls or will fall it appears to be nothing more than rebellious creative expression. We can however see the chain of events


----------



## San Antone

Woodduck said:


> He _was_...
> 
> ..., but it affects me not at at all that Gesualdo was a murderer.


According to the mores of his day, Gesualdo allegedly having his wife killed was acceptable and not unusual for a person of his social position.

TD - I try to separate the biography from the art as much as possible. If I don't enjoy listening to Wagner it is not because of his anti-Semitism. I just don't like his music.


----------



## Larkenfield

If I weren’t acutely aware of Gesualdo’s brutal murder and mutalation of his wife and her lover, whether it was considered a crime in his day or not, the authorities still had to be horrified at the blood and gore, I feel I would be missing out on something vital in understanding him as a person and the music that came out of him. There’s a way of looking at such horrible acts without trying to render a certain type of self-righteous judgment. I know I wouldn’t have wanted to do the same thing, and so his actions have always given me pause for reflection about my relationship with my own unconscious emotions. I believe that the lives of the composers can be instructive, as well as their music, after looking at the consequences of what they got caught up with in their minds that they just couldn’t let go of. I’m always aware that there was a terrible murder as part of the circumstances of Gesualdo’s life behind the music he created, that he suffered from the tortures of the damned, so to speak, and feel that it would be wrong or a mistake to casually ignore that he actually did these things. His dark side is part of the totality of this nature, and everyone has one.


----------



## Woodduck

Aloevera said:


> Nietzsche predicted it and says the exact same thing. And even then, it would be like saying describe the music of Hendrix before Black sabbath. (I'm a fan of both)Like sure if you were blissfully unaware of how far the rabbit hole falls or will fall it appears to be nothing more than rebellious creative expression. We can however see the chain of events


No work of art necessitates a "chain of events." Chains of events are caused by a complex of factors; retrospective interpretations of history, understandings of which events constitute a "chain" and how they relate, are just that - interpretations. You can construct whatever chains you wish and put whatever you like into a "rabbit hole," but that is _your_ chain and _your_ rabbit hole. Stop pretending objectivity. No good historian would.

Nietzsche said the same thing as who? As you? About what? Give us some quotes please. And realize that Nietzsche too was biased, particularly about Wagner.


----------



## San Antone

Larkenfield said:


> If I weren't acutely aware of Gesualdo's brutal murder and mutalation of his wife and her lover, whether it was considered a crime in his day or not, the authorities still had to be horrified at the blood and gore, I feel I would be missing out on something vital in understanding him as a person and the music that came out of him. There's a way of looking at such horrible acts without trying to render a certain type of self-righteous judgment. I know I wouldn't have wanted to do the same thing, and so his actions have always given me pause for reflection about my relationship with my own unconscious emotions. I believe that the lives of the composers can be instructive, as well as their music, after looking at the consequences of what they got caught up with in their minds that they just couldn't let go of. I'm always aware that there was a terrible murder as part of the circumstances of Gesualdo's life behind the music he created, that he suffered from the tortures of the damned, so to speak, and feel that it would be wrong or a mistake to casually ignore that he actually did these things. His dark side is still part of the totality of this nature, and everyone has one.


It is highly doubtful that Gesualdo himself killed his wife and lover. As a noble in Medieval Italy, he would have had many options for having it done. His wife, as an adulteress, would have enjoyed no sympathy and "blood and gore" was quite common during that time. Nobody would have been "horrified" about any aspect of this incident, however, had Gesualdo not done what he had, he would have lost standing and respect.

Your opinion is anachronistic.


----------



## Crawford Glissadevil

Some folks can separate an artist's atrocities from the their art and other folks can't. Me? I'm in the middle. Depends on the art form, the artist and his or her atrocities. Maybe our choices say more about us than the artist? My guess? 

I would hazard to guess "Feeling" oriented personality types have a difficult time separating artist from art. Meanwhile I believe "Thinking" oriented personality types more easily separate artist from art (If they so desire).


----------



## Woodduck

Crawford Glissadevil said:


> Some folks can separate an artist's atrocities from the their art and other folks can't. Me? I'm in the middle. Depends on the art form, the artist and his or her atrocities. Maybe our choices say more about us than the artist? My guess?
> 
> *I would hazard to guess "Feeling" oriented personality types have a difficult time separating artist from art. Meanwhile I believe "Thinking" oriented personality types more easily separate artist from art (If they so desire).*


That seems a reasonable guess. "Feeling" types, listening to another person speak, will tend to judge the value of the statement by their feelings about the speaker, whereas "thinking" types are more likely to judge the speaker by the value of what he's saying. As a thinking type, I find the former approach quite annoying.


----------



## Aloevera

Woodduck said:


> No work of art necessitates a "chain of events." Chains of events are caused by a complex of factors; retrospective interpretations of history, understandings of which events constitute a "chain" and how they relate, are just that - interpretations. You can construct whatever chains you wish and put whatever you like into a "rabbit hole," but that is _your_ chain and _your_ rabbit hole. Stop pretending objectivity. No good historian would.
> 
> Nietzsche said the same thing as who? As you? About what? Give us some quotes please. And realize that Nietzsche too was biased, particularly about Wagner.


Historians do it all the time, of course they admit there is room for error and uncertainty, but certainly when they speak they pull it out to be objective.

I agree Nietzsche was biased against Wagner later on in his life, but early on he was largely influenced by Wagner and thats where he talks about it. I've pulled the same passage many times, if you really want me to dig through and find it I can


----------



## Aloevera

Aloevera said:


> Historians do it all the time, of course they admit there is room for error and uncertainty, but certainly when they speak they pull it out to be objective.
> 
> I agree Nietzsche was biased against Wagner later on in his life, but early on he was largely influenced by Wagner and thats where he talks about it. I've pulled the same passage many times, if you really want me to dig through and find it I can


>No work of art necessitates a "chain of events."

Isn't that YOUR subjective interpretation? I'm not saying there is a single tick of action that all of a sudden starts a whole different sequence of history. I'm not saying by any means that Wagner caused Hitler that would be absurd, all I'm saying is you can identify a force of power coming into being prior


----------



## Guest

I find myself resistant to patronizing living artists who are involved in behavior I find abhorrent, since to do so would be to subsidize such behavior. I see little reason to boycott an artist who is dead and buried, unless the work of art itself is compromised, of course.


----------



## Enthusiast

Aloevera said:


> >No work of art necessitates a "chain of events."
> 
> Isn't that YOUR subjective interpretation? I'm not saying there is a single tick of action that all of a sudden starts a whole different sequence of history. I'm not saying by any means that Wagner caused Hitler that would be absurd, all I'm saying is you can identify a force of power coming into being prior


I don't think you ever answered Woodduck's suggestion that some music is working as a Rorschach test for you - that the things you are hearing in that music (perhaps music that would otherwise seem randomly generated to you?) are from your own mind. It is ridiculous to hear Nazism in Mozart and Beethoven even though many Nazis loved the music of both. With Wagner it _is _more difficult because of associations created by Hitler's propaganda machine but a little education should have enabled to to overcome that.

I continue to read your posts on this subject as being about a story you are putting on the music. Or it may be a sort of anti-German racism? You seem to be saying that you can hear the growth of a Germanic desire to conquer the world in the music of German composers. But perhaps I have misunderstood you?


----------



## Eusebius12

Mahler is the most demonic composer, and Parsifal the most sinister of Wagner's works. But Wagner has a relationship with Nazism beyond Judenthum in Musik, or at least to my ears. Perhaps its just association, but the grinding metallic morbidity of Siegfried and the mindless Germanic self-esteem of Die Meistersinger seem to have Nazi associations to me, just as the repetitive humdrum banality of many mid-period Shostakovitch works always give the impression of Stalinism.


----------



## OperaChic

Eusebius12 said:


> Mahler is the most demonic composer, and Parsifal the most sinister of Wagner's works. But Wagner has a relationship with Nazism beyond Judenthum in Musik, or at least to my ears. Perhaps its just association, but the grinding metallic morbidity of Siegfried and the mindless Germanic self-esteem of Die Meistersinger seem to have Nazi associations to me, just as the repetitive humdrum banality of many mid-period Shostakovitch works always give the impression of Stalinism.


I suppose it's easy to read associations of this sort into the Wagner's music if one doesn't have much familiarity with the operas, or simply chooses to reduce these complex and rewarding works into facile abstractions. There is nothing "wicked" about Parsifal, although it of course contains wicked characters. Adjectives like "grinding metallic morbidity" is frankly a bizarre way of describing both the character and music of Siegfried, which is robust, impulsive, and at times reflective. What is grinding or morbid about the Forest Murmurs? And the Mastersingers may be a bit pedantic and unimaginative, but they are men dedicated to art and to preserving the best of their cultural heritage, not to espousing "mindless Germanic self-esteem".


----------



## Aloevera

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think you ever answered Woodduck's suggestion that some music is working as a Rorschach test for you - that the things you are hearing in that music (perhaps music that would otherwise seem randomly generated to you?) are from your own mind. It is ridiculous to hear Nazism in Mozart and Beethoven even though many Nazis loved the music of both. With Wagner it _is _more difficult because of associations created by Hitler's propaganda machine but a little education should have enabled to to overcome that.
> 
> I continue to read your posts on this subject as being about a story you are putting on the music. Or it may be a sort of anti-German racism? You seem to be saying that you can hear the growth of a Germanic desire to conquer the world in the music of German composers. But perhaps I have misunderstood you?


I didn't say Mozart was a Nazi, in fact in fact I think its the opposite. I think think you hear some rare hints of some darkness coming into being being in which Mozart was in particular trying to be above it.

I'm not anti-German in fact quite the contrary. It is my pro-Germany that makes me say this. If you study German philosophy, and even German librettos in particular Mozart's librettos which i'd imagine was produced by those pretty up there in the intellectual community, it's hard not to be astounded with the question of 'what happened?' In Amadeus, when Mozart boasts about German virtues, there is some truth to it.

For example, in k384 the piece appears to be on the surface anti Muslim in which Turkish pirates capture an english girl and so they have to have to rescue her from the pirates. The ending results in the pirates capturing those who tried rescuing her, and one of them (Pasha) decides to have mercy and set them free and the finale ends with everybody singing "hail pasha!." And that is pretty much the theme of that music

So no, it's not my anti - Germaneess speaking this, it is a matter how can such a great nation break within the span of two hundred years


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> I didn't say Mozart was a Nazi, in fact in fact I think its the opposite. I think think you hear some rare hints of some darkness coming into being being in which Mozart was in particular trying to be above it.
> 
> I'm not anti-German in fact quite the contrary. It is my pro-Germany that makes me say this. If you study German philosophy, and even German librettos in particular Mozart's librettos which i'd imagine was produced by those pretty up there in the intellectual community, it's hard not to be astounded with the question of 'what happened?' In Amadeus, when Mozart boasts about German virtues, there is some truth to it.
> 
> For example, in k384 the piece appears to be on the surface anti Muslim in which Turkish pirates capture an english girl and so they have to have to rescue her from the pirates. The ending results in the pirates capturing those who tried rescuing her, and one of them (Pasha) decides to have mercy and set them free and the finale ends with everybody singing "hail pasha!." And that is pretty much the theme of that music
> 
> So no, it's not my anti - Germaneess speaking this, it is a matter how can such a great nation break within the span of two hundred years


These things have to be taken in the context of the time.

I often wonder the Die Zauberflote's treatment of Monastos is not modified in modern productions as it really is overtly racist - quite clearly he believes the colour of his skin is the essence of his exclusion from human love and warmth. As for Die Entfurung - another work which has white europeans demonstrating their moral superiority over people with dark skins and teaching them how to be human.

Barenboim was asked why he promotes Wagner's music given the racist undertones. His reply: the music cant be ignored - it's too important.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Baron Scarpia said:


> I find myself resistant to patronizing living artists who are involved in behavior I find abhorrent, since to do so would be to subsidize such behavior. I see little reason to boycott an artist who is dead and buried, unless the work of art itself is compromised, of course.


This is eminently sensible. Once an artist of whatever medium is dead and gone, their art ceases to be their means to an end and becomes an end in itself. Artists who died before living memory are likely to attract all manner of debate and revisionism as to their good and bad points, attitudes and beliefs. Every generation gets the Wagner they need or deserve, but his music persists whether he is celebrated or condemned. I love the music of Sibelius, but had we ever met, his social conservatism would have offended me considerably. Doesn't matter: just enjoy the music.


----------



## Aloevera

stomanek said:


> These things have to be taken in the context of the time.
> 
> I often wonder the Die Zauberflote's treatment of Monastos is not modified in modern productions as it really is overtly racist - quite clearly he believes the colour of his skin is the essence of his exclusion from human love and warmth. As for Die Entfurung - another work which has white europeans demonstrating their moral superiority over people with dark skins and teaching them how to be human.


The Magic Flute has well crafted thesis and antithetical characters. The queen of the night is the feminine antithesis of Pamina The queen who represents the woman figure who seeks to destroy the "wisdom" of Sarastro. The bird catcher is the antithesis of Tamino, Tamino who is quite the lady's man, while Papageno at the beginning wants to capture all the girls. Monastos is the antithesis of the fact that the entire piece revolves around African deities.



> As for Die Entfurung - another work which has white europeans demonstrating their moral superiority over people with dark skins and teaching them how to be human.


The character let him go on his own accord


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> The Magic Flute has well crafted thesis and antithetical characters. The queen of the night is the feminine antithesis of Pamina The queen who represents the woman figure who seeks to destroy the "wisdom" of Sarastro. The bird catcher is the antithesis of Tamino, Tamino who is quite the lady's man, while Papageno at the beginning wants to capture all the girls. Monastos is the antithesis of the fact that the entire piece revolves around African deities.
> 
> *The character let him go on his own accord*


After observing the moral courage and virtue of his captives.


----------



## Aloevera

stomanek said:


> After observing the moral courage and virtue of his captives.


Can you point out as to where this is? You might be right.

And even if so, Pasha ends up being the hero and if anything brings the audience more accepting of other people even if it means stroking their ego a bit.

The recurring message here is that it is not about race or religon, but the ability to show mercy is the factor which exalts you.


----------



## Eusebius12

Yes of course, Siegfried isn't monotone because it has one passage of a few minutes that relieves the overwhelmingly morose nature of the work. My judgement about Parsifal is purely subjective, but inescapable. I can't help finding the atmosphere of Parsifal weird, heightened by its quasi-Christian mythic fabulum. There is something odd about it, I assume programmers and the opera-going public find something similar (not that sinister or odd precludes me from listening to it from time to time and finding something interesting in it). And Die Meistersinger (should be Mastersinger, not the plural) has a certain dose of Germanic jingoism. I've read some pretty nasty analyses of what many of these characters represent also, not that they haven't been denied, but the notion that Mime, Beckmesser (based on Hanslick the Jewish critic) and Kundry have anti-semitic connotations has been widely accepted in certain circles, just as Siegfried, Lohengrin and Walther represent the 'heroic spirit of the German nation'.


----------



## Mandryka

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes of course, Siegfried isn't monotone because it has one passage of a few minutes that relieves the overwhelmingly morose nature of the work. My judgement about Parsifal is purely subjective, but inescapable. I can't help finding the atmosphere of Parsifal weird, heightened by its quasi-Christian mythic fabulum. There is something odd about it, I assume programmers and the opera-going public find something similar (not that sinister or odd precludes me from listening to it from time to time and finding something interesting in it). And Die Meistersinger (should be Mastersinger, not the plural) has a certain dose of Germanic jingoism. I've read some pretty nasty analyses of what many of these characters represent also, not that they haven't been denied, but the notion that Mime, Beckmesser (based on Hanslick the Jewish critic) and Kundry have anti-semitic connotations has been widely accepted in certain circles, just as Siegfried, Lohengrin and Walther represent the 'heroic spirit of the German nation'.


That's a strange thing to say about Siegfried, I always thought it was a kind of fairy time at least in the first two acts -- nothing morose about it.

I have always thought that Wotan is a wondering jew.

I don't know if Parsifal is any more odd than The Matthew Passion. I mean, all religion is equally odd. What I find disconcerting about Parsifal is the way the characters all seem so trapped in their private little worlds, their private preoccupations, Guernamanz has his stories, Amfortas his pain, Klingsor his frustrated ambition, Kundry her desire to serve. No one really can hear anyone else. It's very similar to Pelleas I think. I like it very much.


----------



## les24preludes

Artists rarely have a totally integrated self, where their creativity is the same as their personal life. For a start there are so many cases of disordered, chaotic or questionable personal lives in those whose creative life was highly functional or genius level (Beethoven, Van Gogh...). 

This whole thread makes more sense if we start with the assumption that a highly functional creative artist has two separate selves. It then becomes possible to just assess their creative selves in isolation, since this is what interests posterity.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> Can you point out as to where this is? You might be right.
> 
> And even if so, Pasha ends up being the hero and if anything brings the audience more accepting of other people even if it means stroking their ego a bit.
> 
> The recurring message here is that it is not about race or religon, but the ability to show mercy is the factor which exalts you.


No particular passage - but if you consider that Pasha Selim buys Constanze and Blonde from pirates - not for any noble purpose. He subsequently falls in love with Constanze and demands love in return - if not by her free will then he threatens to take it by force - he is clearly the stereotypical pasha that contemporary audiences expect. He is no doubt impressed with her strength of will to bear torture rather than submit - in contrast no doubt to every other (non white) woman who ever set foot in his seraglio.
He hands over Blonde to the barborous oaf Osmin to do with as he pleases. She soon accomplishes superiority over him.

Credit then to his european captives who prove their superiorty of culture and move Selim to free the quartet.

That's how I read it.

But I dont care - it's s super piece.


----------



## Enthusiast

Aloevera said:


> I didn't say Mozart was a Nazi, in fact in fact I think its the opposite. I think think you hear some rare hints of some darkness coming into being being in which Mozart was in particular trying to be above it.
> 
> I'm not anti-German in fact quite the contrary. It is my pro-Germany that makes me say this. If you study German philosophy, and even German librettos in particular Mozart's librettos which i'd imagine was produced by those pretty up there in the intellectual community, it's hard not to be astounded with the question of 'what happened?' In Amadeus, when Mozart boasts about German virtues, there is some truth to it.
> 
> For example, in k384 the piece appears to be on the surface anti Muslim in which Turkish pirates capture an english girl and so they have to have to rescue her from the pirates. The ending results in the pirates capturing those who tried rescuing her, and one of them (Pasha) decides to have mercy and set them free and the finale ends with everybody singing "hail pasha!." And that is pretty much the theme of that music
> 
> So no, it's not my anti - Germaneess speaking this, it is a matter how can such a great nation break within the span of two hundred years


I think there is an element of anachronism in thinking of these things in this way. What matters, perhaps, is not the story but whether people are portrayed as humans with recognisable feelings, whether the action is morally acceptable. Great art from all cultures will tend to satisfy these requirements.

I also don't think there is something distinctively German in xenophobia or racism or in the rise of Nazism. Nazism appealed to German myths, sure, but every movement needs an advertising strategy. The rise of Nazism had much more complex causes than these, though. The trouble with thinking that fascism is a German phenomenon is that it allows us to believe that "it can't happen here".


----------



## OperaChic

Eusebius12 said:


> Yes of course, Siegfried isn't monotone because it has one passage of a few minutes that relieves the overwhelmingly morose nature of the work. My judgement about Parsifal is purely subjective, but inescapable. I can't help finding the atmosphere of Parsifal weird, heightened by its quasi-Christian mythic fabulum. There is something odd about it, I assume programmers and the opera-going public find something similar (not that sinister or odd precludes me from listening to it from time to time and finding something interesting in it). And Die Meistersinger (should be Mastersinger, not the plural) has a certain dose of Germanic jingoism. I've read some pretty nasty analyses of what many of these characters represent also, not that they haven't been denied, but the notion that Mime, Beckmesser (based on Hanslick the Jewish critic) and Kundry have anti-semitic connotations has been widely accepted in certain circles, just as Siegfried, Lohengrin and Walther represent the 'heroic spirit of the German nation'.


I strongly disagree that Siegfried is monotone in any way, shape or form, and the Forest Murmurs was simply one of many, many counterexamples I chose to provide. I mean, for goodness sake, far from a sulky or gloomy ending, the work comes to a close with a jubilant half-hour long love duet where the characters are laughing at their mortality and reveling in their life and their love for one another. You seem to want to paint his operas with these broad strokes, but your characterizations simply don't correlate to a vast majority of the music. So while Mime's music _is_ moody and repetitive, therefore doing an excellent job at portraying his demented obsession at acquiring the ring, or the music for Fafner the dragon _is_ lumbering and oppressive, it's worlds apart from the glowing music for the Wanderer, the cheerfulness of the Woodbird's melodic tunes, or the vitality and energetic drive of Siegfried's forging song.

In any case, you said that there was a deeper connection between Wagner and Nazism to your ears, and nothing you're describing has anything to do with Nazism. I don't disagree with you that Parsifal is mysterious, ambiguous, and that there are certain elements of it that are unsettling! It's a challenging and profound masterpiece. But that doesn't link it to fascism. I'm glad that Debussy's Pelleas und Melisande was brought up...that too is a strange work full of symbolism and uncertainty. But there are no extra-musical, socio-policital associations dumped on Pelleas. The only portion of Die Meistersinger that I can see being construed as Germanic jingoism is Hans Sach's 5 minute speech at the end of the very end of the opera prompting Walter to recognize the virtues of his illustrious German musical heritage. The Germany celebrated in Die Meistersinger is a nation renewing its confidence, not in chauvinistic nationalism, but in the enduring value of art, love and faith. It is a affirmation of the triumph of beauty and humanity over irrationality and self-destruction, and it is hardly alone in great works of art at displaying a sense of national pride. It's no more threatening or sinister than the nationalistic ties of the music of Grieg of Sibelius to their countries, unless one is picturing certain displays of German nationalism in the 20th century and making the mistake of thinking one must inevitably lead to the other, or perhaps simply finding _any_ displays of German national pride as off-putting after witnessing Nazism.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes the woodbird, that is one of the high points of opera in general, especially when it comes back again in Gotterdammerung. I'd completely forgotten about it, it's about 10 years since I last went to heard a Ring cycle.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> Mahler is the most demonic composer, and Parsifal the most sinister of Wagner's works. But Wagner has a relationship with Nazism beyond Judenthum in Musik, or at least to my ears. Perhaps its just association, but the grinding metallic morbidity of Siegfried and the mindless Germanic self-esteem of Die Meistersinger seem to have Nazi associations to me, just as the repetitive humdrum banality of many mid-period Shostakovitch works always give the impression of Stalinism.


I must agree with others here in finding these perceptions of music long familiar to me to be extremely strange. I believe your "perhaps" is correct: it _is_ association. Associations are an unfair burden we force artists to carry, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to reflect on the sources of our feelings and not convert those feelings too precipitously into judgments. In many cases, I think, we have already formed, for whatever reason, judgments which dictate our feelings - the opposite of the way art asks to be approached.

For what it's worth, I don't find Mahler demonic, Parsifal sinister, Siegfried morbid (quite the contrary!), Meistersinger mindlessly Germanic, or Shostakovich Stalinist. Perhaps that's a blessing of discovering music early in life: by the time I learned what Nazis were and read that some heard in Wagner's music the spirit of Nazism, I could see immediately that that was those hearers' mental affliction, and thankfully neither Wagner's problem nor mine.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I must agree with others here in finding these perceptions of music long familiar to me to be extremely strange. I believe your "perhaps" is correct: it _is_ association. Associations are an unfair burden we force artists to carry, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to reflect on the sources of our feelings and not convert those feelings too precipitously into judgments. In many cases, I think, we have already formed, for whatever reason, judgments which dictate our feelings - the opposite of the way art asks to be approached.


We carry these associations with us. A few years ago I had become quite a fan of Shostakovich's 10th Symphony, and I played it for a friend. He was a few years older than I was and quite a political liberal. But he hated the piece. He said it sounded "Communist" and obviously the associations were, for him, very bad. They were probably from his formative years, early in the cold war.

I doubt there's any cure other than the passage of time and people dying off.


----------



## Eusebius12

It's odd that you say 
"I strongly disagree that Siegfried is monotone in any way, shape or form", whilst admitting that
"Mime's music is moody and repetitive, therefore doing an excellent job at portraying his demented obsession at acquiring the ring, or the music for Fafner the dragon is lumbering and oppressive"
Do you know, I completely agree! Whilst we might disagree about
"the glowing music for the Wanderer", I do enjoy by contrast the lovely little Waldweben, which was more or less repeated when 'the little bird tells him' (pace Anna Russell). And even the Nothung song, which is hardly marvellous by general operatic standards, even by the standards of Wagner opera, which Wagner obviously realized was a highlight since he recycles it in slightly altered form. That Siegfried was the grimmest of the Ring cycle by some distance was always my view. It isn't redeemed in my view by the 'love music' at the end when 2 fat people shout at each other for half an hour. But I don't expect any dyed in the wool Wagnerians accepting any of this. The rest of humanity might.

Also the '5 minute speech' of Hans Sachs must have had an impact on Hitler, because he later chose Nuernberg as the cultural hub of his Reich. There were critics even before WWI who named Wagnerism as a factor in nascent German jingoism. He played a personal role in promoting anti-semitism within Germany. He even tried to make Levi the conductor renounce Judaism before conducting Parsifal.


----------



## Eusebius12

KenOC said:


> We carry these associations with us. A few years ago I had become quite a fan of Shostakovich's 10th Symphony, and I played it for a friend. He was a few years older than I was and quite a political liberal. But he hated the piece. He said it sounded "Communist" and obviously the associations were, for him, very bad. They were probably from his formative years, early in the cold war.


But the 11th is far more Stalinist! 

Actually what about all those apologists who claim that so much of Shotakovitch is in fact parodying Stalin? Whereas for the most part he was content to be a party functionary, allowing colleagues to go to the gulag without a word of protest



> I doubt there's any cure other than the passage of time and people dying off.


Thank you


----------



## Larkenfield

Shostakovich was not a Stalinist. He hated Stalin! 

“More widely, 1936 marked the beginning of the Great Terror, in which many of the composer's friends and relatives were imprisoned or killed. These included Marshal Tukhachevsky (shot months after his arrest); his brother-in-law Vsevolod Frederiks (a distinguished physicist, who was eventually released but died before he got home); his close friend Nikolai Zhilyayev (a musicologist who had taught Tukhachevsky; shot shortly after his arrest); his mother-in-law, the astronomer Sofiya Mikhaylovna Varzar (sent to a camp in Karaganda); his friend the Marxist writer Galina Serebryakova (20 years in camps); his uncle Maxim Kostrykin (died); and his colleagues Boris Kornilov and Adrian Piotrovsky (executed).” 

Shostakovich was not a Stalinist! He hated Stalin and lived in mortal fear of him, despite the cavalier way that some of Shostakovich’a critics consider him who can’t ever imagine being in his shoes from the safe comfort of their easy chairs. He never joined the Communist party until 1960. Until after Stalin died.


----------



## Buntobox

mensch said:


> The same could be said about Shostakovich, who played a similarly ambivalent role in Stalin's Sovjet Union. I believe Shostakovich even went a little further by functioning like an official, albeit reluctant spokesperson for the regime in his capacity of deputy to the Supreme Soviet of RSFSR. .


Agreed. I'm mystified as to why people like Richard Strauss are lambasted for their "support" of the Nazi regime and yet Shostakovich gets a free pass for doing arguably more to support Stalin's tyranny which I would argue was potentially worse that Hitler's in that it lasted a lot longer. In totalitarian regimes like these, people in the public eye have to either support the system, tacitly or otherwise, if they want to have any sort of working life or they keep their heads down and ride it out. Active resistance is a death sentence although Furtwangler seems to have managed something very close to it while miraculously staying out of the hands of the Gestapo. It's all very well people today condemning what they see as approval of the Nazis on the part of Strauss and others, but if these same people were in similar conditions today, how high and mighty would _they_be if mere survival of themselves and their families was the name of the game?


----------



## Eusebius12

He was meant to be parodying Stalin in his music, therefore the music has reference to Stalin even from the apologists point of view. But I was wrong to call him a Stalinist, really, however Shostakovitch did play a role (either in omission or commission) in the later persecution of artists under Stalin's successors. That is what I had in mind.


----------



## Eusebius12

Read this for a critique of specifically anti-semitic resonances in the Ring, and more specifically with regard to Siegfried and the character of Mime.

https://www.laits.utexas.edu/wagner/selectedessays/pdf/brach.pdf

The name Mime intrigues me, as it is an invention of Wagner and not mythological. He uses the term mimic quite a lot in relation to Jews in his tract about Judenthum, his view being that they are mimics not real artists or even people. He specifically describes (once) Mime as a Jewish dwarf, and Mahler and Adorno thought of the character as being Jewish. He was working on a revision of Judenthum in Musik at the same time he was working on Siegfried, so the thoughts were definitely in his mind.


----------



## WildThing

Eusebius12 said:


> He specifically describes (once) Mime as a Jewish dwarf


"He" being Wagner? Then no, he didn't. Cite the source, please.


----------



## Eusebius12

WildThing said:


> "He" being Wagner? Then no, he didn't. Cite the source, please.


Cambridge Companion to Wagner. I double checked it, its a long quote to type in full, however in re-reading it it isn't clear as to whether Wagner was referring to the character or the singer (Julius Lieban) or both. The work seems to understand it as the singer without discounting the possibility that he was referring to both.


----------



## WildThing

Eusebius12 said:


> Cambridge Companion to Wagner. I double checked it, its a long quote to type in full, however in re-reading it it isn't clear as to whether Wagner was referring to the character or the singer (Julius Lieban) or both. The work seems to understand it as the singer without discounting the possibility that he was referring to both.


Ah, well you might have mentioned that :lol:

I have the same book, and like you said, taken in context its clear it's about the singer. The that in all of his prose writings, analyses, and letters Wagner never referred to any of characters as Jewish representations only goes to corroborate this.


----------



## Woodduck

WildThing said:


> Ah, well you might have mentioned that :lol:
> 
> I have the same book, and like you said, taken in context its clear it's about the singer. The that in all of his prose writings, analyses, and letters Wagner never referred to any of characters as Jewish representations only goes to corroborate this.


Indeed. This business of anti-semitic characters or references in Wagner's operas comes up again and again, but evidence for it is almost infinitesimally small and doubtful. It's really inconceivable that Wagner, who held forth incessantly and wrote voluminously to the point where people wished he'd shut up, never said anything about this, apparently not even to Cosima, who faithfully recorded his every nose-blow in her worshipful diaries.


----------



## Sid James

Larkenfield said:


> ...
> 
> Shostakovich was not a Stalinist! He hated Stalin and lived in mortal fear of him, despite the cavalier way that some of Shostakovich'a critics consider him who can't ever imagine being in his shoes from the safe comfort of their easy chairs. He never joined the Communist party until 1960. Until after Stalin died.


Wow, one of my ancient threads necro posted!

Anyway, that's correct, Shostakovich wasn't a Stalinist or even a Communist. He was in effect forced to join the party. They invited him to chair a meeting, but to do that he had to become a member. He initially avoided by calling in sick, but of course they simply rescheduled, and he was forced to join. His String Quartet No. 8 written during this time reflects this, he dedicated it to himself after his own suicide. This did not happen, but today the bogus dedication he used as a front (to the victims of war and fascism) still stands.

There are many such situations, living under the Soviet regime was a web of compromises. Once during the purges, Shostakovich was invited to a hearing, basically for the purpose of giving false evidence against a colleague. He was determined to refuse, whatever the consequences. The prosecutor gave him a day to change his mind, but once Shostakovich went back to the court, he waited many hours in the lobby and a janitor walking past told him that the hearing had been cancelled. The prosecutor had himself been taken in for interrogation on charges of undermining the Soviet state, and most likely sent to the gulags. Shostakovich was saved by sheer chance.

Although Stalin wasn't deeply involved in music, he had others he trusted at the reigns like Zhdanov and Khrennikov. These where cultivated men, the latter a distinguished composer and party true believer, but history judges them as minions compared to Shostakovich not only in terms of their importance in music but also their lack of integrity and lack of human compassion.


----------



## Luchesi

MaestroViolinist said:


> I think you just ruined Beethoven and Saint-Saens for me.
> 
> Joking, I will still enjoy their music.
> 
> I had never really thought about this before, I mean, I knew that composers were definitely not "saints" and they often had terrible personalities. Take Bach for example, he was imprisoned for something he said/did to a duke or something. But I never really gave a stuff, after all why stop listening to their beautiful music just because they were bad themselves?


Read about Beethoven's sister-in-law in the wiki article;

Embezzlement and framing an innocent maid...

"In the same year that she lost her legal struggle, Johanna gave birth to an illegitimate daughter, who was named Ludovika Johanna, born 12 June 1820. A wealthy bell-founder named Johann Kaspar Hofbauer (c. 1771-1839) acknowledged himself as the father and provided some financial support.[9]

In 1824, Johanna asked Beethoven for financial help. The composer did not dig into his own pocket, but he agreed to return to Johanna the half of her widow's pension that had been devoted to the education of Karl.[14]

Beethoven died in 1827. Karl, who was the composer's sole heir, had not yet reached majority and came under the guardianship of Johanna's relative Jakob Hotschevar, who had served as her legal counsel in the custody case.

Johanna van Beethoven long outlived her brother-in-law and died in 1869, also outliving her son, who died earlier in 1858."


----------



## Eusebius12

Bach wasn't 'bad', he merely was too free in seeking alternative employment in the view of one of his employers, who happened to be the ruler of Weimar (the principality he was living in at the time)


----------



## Tchaikov6

Woodduck said:


> What, exactly, do you think you hear in Wagner's music? What aspects of Klingsor's music are stereotypically Jewish? How does Nazi-esque pride sound? How is Nazi-esque pride different from other kinds of pride?
> 
> In fact, _Die Meistersinger_ is _not_ "all about German tradition and national pride." It's about many things - the nature of art, the relationship of the artist to tradition, the reconciliation of the needs of the individual with those of society, the relationship of the young and the old, the need for a dispassionate acceptance of life's illusions - and the element of national pride is invoked only with regard to art. If you're really listening to the music you'll notice that Wagner pokes fun at the mastersingers, and even criticizes them sharply, as much as he celebrates their tradition; the gloriously pompous theme that opens the overture is caricatured a few minutes later as a grotesque scherzo, and it doesn't regain its dignity until it's combined in counterpoint with Walther's prize song at the end - an image of the fresh creative voice of the individualistic artist revitalizing a tradition which is otherwise always in danger of becoming a caricature of itself. The admonition of Hans Sachs to the people of Nuremberg to cherish their "sacred German art" has to be understood as Wagner's reconciliation with a tradition he's just spent four hours satirizing.
> 
> I recommend laying aside everything you've been told Wagner's works are about. I know that's hard when the culture is still obsessed with Nazi-hunting and Jew-spotting. Our little minds may never exorcize the ghosts of history, but we don't have to imagine those spooks haunting the music of a visionary 19th-century composer who had much more profound ambitions for his art.


It's been a couple months since this response, but I will say I've definitely more than come to terms with Wagner. His music now does so much more for me, and I can't get enough of him. I always loved his music, but I guess I'd agree now that most of the speculations about what Wagner inserted in his art about Jews or Nazis is speculation, and nothing more. What is not speculation, and is a fact (for me at least), is that his works have profound messages and beautiful moments.


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> It's been a couple months since this response, but I will say I've definitely more than come to terms with Wagner. His music now does so much more for me, and I can't get enough of him. I always loved his music, but I guess I'd agree now that most of the speculations about what Wagner inserted in his art about Jews or Nazis is speculation, and nothing more. What is not speculation, and is a fact (for me at least), is that his works have profound messages and beautiful moments.


Yes, when we're talking about many decades of a man's creative life, it's never as simple as the political propagandists will try to insinuate. In fact it's endlessly complicated. But we should realize that from dealings with all kinds of people in our own lives.

..It's curious that we will even seek out some juicy agit-prop.


----------

