# People versus Art



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A poster in another thread said this re Wagner: "When you have to deal with people whose lives have been wrecked by infidelities then nothing can compensate for it. Not even a Ring cycle. People matter more than art."

Is this right? How do we balance the unhappiness a composer causes during his lifetime with the joy he brings through his music during that lifetime and for many years after? What do you think?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Music doesn't just spring from an individual, it's a tradition in which people have built on for centuries and have borrowed from each other. And as said in another thread it's part of a basic need for expression/communication, things which go beyond particular historical circumstances. So as much as it is tempting to make it about hero worship that doesn't really fit the subject I think.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

You could ask the same of other professions. Is the life enhancing surgery performed by an arrogant womanising surgeon devalued in some way. 
What a ridiculous assertion. 
People are multi faceted beings. There is good and evil in us all. Maybe Wagner's 'good' is reflected in his works rather than his lifestyle or his views.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Agreed. But does music reflect what is good or bad (if we even always agree on that anyway), maybe it just reflects what IS. How would you even define a particular chord or melody as reflecting less acceptable emotions or thoughts? Ultimately we take those notes and reflect ourselves in them far more than some (often historical) person who we don't know that much about.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Music as an abstract art form can reflect nothing but what is already in a person.
We can criticise Wagner on subtexts within his music dramas if we find them distasteful. But then if we do, surely that is what Art is for; As a challenge to our sensibilities as well as our senses.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

What about pieces about the atomic bomb being dropped or genocide somewhere for instance. They reflect the many bad things in humankind and create music which is terrible in a way, but it helps make us aware of such things, of the spectrum of what we have to experience within our kind.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Yes but only the titles give you a guide. Ultimately music can mean whatever you want it too. If it doesn't have words it is abstract. 
I don't think any particular chord or note can have any meaning beyond what the listener gives it. 
When you listen to Beethoven's pastoral - do you think of walks by the river or centaurs and fauns ala Disney.
I think once a composer relinquishes his music to the public he loses control over it. So despite what he might be thinking. Or the title he gives it, The listener will decide.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Normally people are presented with a title which can guide them, and I think there is a certain cultural conditioning about some aspects of music (such as minor keys). But certainly seeking specfic meanings goes against the universality of music, limits it in ways which restricts its power in an unnatural way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would prefer my remarks to be made in the context in which they were written rather than in the abstract.
The writer had been saying what a monster Wagner was, running up huge debts he never paid and breaking hearts with his womanising. He then said, so what? Aren't the operas worth it? Now it is very easy to agree with that sitting comfortably in our armchair years later listening to the music. But put yourself in the position of one of those people Wagner so shamelessly used. Was it worth it for them? A woman whose life had been wrecked by this man or someone he'd robbed of finances. To me is does matter. When the author of the article says 'it is a small price to pay for the art' it is because he did not have to pay it himself. The people who actually paid the price may very well have thought differently.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> You could ask the same of other professions. Is the life enhancing surgery performed by an arrogant womanising surgeon devalued in some way.
> What a ridiculous assertion.
> People are multi faceted beings. There is good and evil in us all. Maybe Wagner's 'good' is reflected in his works rather than his lifestyle or his views.


So if you we're one of the women who had been cheated on by this arrogant womanising surgeon would you say his treatment of you didn't matter because of the brilliance of his surgery.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Sorry DavidA what do you mean. Of course remarks aren't abstract. Music is abstract. No-one was suggesting otherwise.
Are you saying that you think Wagner is a monster and shouldn't be listened too. Perhaps I
should catch up in the other thread, I feel as though I've stumbled midway through your conversation


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Any bad things he actually did in his life may have had no affect whatsoever on his composing, they may have even hindered him at times. So if you want to look at it like that then it seems even more irrelevant to me. And whatever fame or riches he may have gained may have been at least partly earned by his musical ability, maybe more so than some others of their time whose fashion has waned.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> So if you we're one of the women who had been cheated on by this arrogant womanising surgeon would you say his treatment of you didn't matter because of the brilliance of his surgery.


Conversely would you not be thankful if your life had been saved because, your surgeon had been unfaithful?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> Sorry DavidA what do you mean. Of course remarks aren't abstract. Music is abstract. No-one was suggesting otherwise.
> Are you saying that you think Wagner is a monster and shouldn't be listened too. Perhaps I
> should catch up in the other thread, I feel as though I've stumbled midway through your conversation


Not at all. Else we would listen to very little music. Many great composers were not models of reasonable behaviour. What I was saying that to say (as did the article I quoted) that it somehow didn't matter how Wagner behaved because we have the music is OK for us because we are not one of the people Wagner who suffered as a result of Wagner's monstrous behaviour. Maybe if we had been one of those people Wagner abused we might think differently.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> Conversely would you not be thankful if your life had been saved because, your surgeon had been unfaithful?


I cannot see how a surgeon's skill is dependent on him being unfaithful.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the first post I made in this thread made my point clear on this, so it addressed this point. In liking some of Wagner's pieces somebody would like the music and not Wagner.

I'm sure you could find Beethoven was nasty to some people in his life, but that doesn't mean people have to make that a part of his music. Music doesn't necessarily reflect the humdrum day to day existence of a composer. If it did it would likely lack the universality that makes it popular. Now if a composer was simply ripping off a work by someone else...that would be a better correlation musically to the actual work.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I cannot see how a surgeon's skill is dependent on him being unfaithful.


Lol. Ok, So presumably this article was saying his behaviour was what made him a great artist.
Now I'm getting up to speed.

This argument then boils down to ends justifying means. 
I'm ambivalent. 
I can't get over excited about the sexual morals of a 200 year old. But I know I can't listen to Gary Glitter without feeling slightly sick.

You are right that people matter more than art but it is hard to be objective when the man has been dead for over 100 years and we'll never have a chance to meet him for ourselves.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Let's give a more extreme example: Gesualdo, who brutally murdered his wife and her lover.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People matter more than art, but what do the people who a composer wronged have to do with their art? Very very little most of the time I expect.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

It seems to me that there are several different questions involved.

1) Is the artwork that a composer composed _worth_ the suffering they may have caused in life? Would it have been better if composer X neither composed if it meant that they wouldn't do the bad things they did in life? In Wagner's case, would we be willing to give up his music for the sake of the women he maltreated etc.? Put most provocatively - would it have been better had composer X had never existed?
2) Should we not listen to the music simply for moral reasons - because composer X did what they did.
3) Do the actions/morality of the composer come out in their music - and if so should we not listen to it because they were an immoral person?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

starry said:


> People matter more than art, but what do the people who a composer wronged have to do with their art? Very very little most of the time I expect.


It doesn't seem likely that it is a coincidence that Gesualdo, the most infamous composer for what he did in his life, is also the most chromatic composer before Wagner. He's at least 250 years out of place in the story of music history. What's more, the chromatic music he wrote late in life was that which he wrote after his murders.

In other words, he made music out of the torment of regret which we know he suffered after his actions. We aren't listening to his murder in the music - but the regret of a murderer. This argument is extremely compelling. Artists write what they are inspired to write, to express what they are inspired to express.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> The writer had been saying what a monster Wagner was, running up huge debts he never paid and breaking hearts with his womanising. He then said, so what? Aren't the operas worth it? Now it is very easy to agree with that sitting comfortably in our armchair years later listening to the music. But put yourself in the position of one of those people Wagner so shamelessly used. Was it worth it for them? A woman whose life had been wrecked by this man or someone he'd robbed of finances. To me is does matter.


To me it does not. Of course, it is interesting to find out more about the lives of the great masters and all the good and bad things they did, but it is not _necessary_ for the enjoyment of the music. All those people Wagner owed debts to, all the women he loved, as well as Wagner himself, are long in the grave, and all their affairs are the stuff of a bygone time. Except that Wagner left a glorious heritage for us to enjoy, and that is the only thing that remains. And you can enjoy it without ever knowing a single thing about Wagner's private life. Whoever he loved, hated, slept with - all those things are secondary.

And besides, cheating/being a womanizer is not the worst thing anyone can do. It's bad, yes, but not criminal. Millions of people who have never contributed anything great and significant to the world, cheat on their spouses, surely we can forgive a genius like Wagner a few faults. These faults are after all, nothing but human nature.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> These faults are after all, nothing but human nature.


I suspect we can't find any evil (or good) that is not human nature.

But anyway, "I consider nothing human alien to myself." Which is why, like the original speaker of that great line, I'm so nosey.

More importantly, it is also why I don't consider many "monsters" so monstrous, nor many "saints" so saintly.

To me, the music and the moral person are separate matters. If Henry Kissinger turns out to be a great composer, he will still have been a radically evil man. If Sophie Scholl was a horrible composer, she was still a great saint. The sainthood is more important by far, of course, but less memorable because our interest in morality is mostly hypocritical, while at least some music affects us viscerally.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC hasn't been very helpful, by starting it off without the full context of the remarks.

This is specifically what DavidA is referring to.

The last few paragraphs:


> The name of this monster was Richard Wagner. Everything that I have said about him you can find on record -- in newspapers, in police reports, in the testimony of people who knew him, in his own letters, between the lines of his autobiography. And the curious thing about this record is that it doesn't matter in the least.
> 
> Because this undersized, sickly, disagreeable, fascinating little man was right all the time. The joke was on us. He was one of the world's greatest dramatists; he was a great thinker; he was one of the most stupendous musical geniuses that, up to now, the world has ever seen. The world did owe him a living.
> 
> ...


My response to Deems Taylor (for it is he) is "well, obviously Wagner never slept with _your_ wife". We have the luxury of being able to enjoy Wagner's music without having personally been hurt by the man. It's a _huge_ stretch to state that what some people who knew him had to put up with was "worth it" because of what others subsequently got from his music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

One of those people whom Wagner wronged was the famous conductor Hans von Bulow. While Cosima was still married to Hans, she fathered three children with Wagner. Shall we ask Hans his opinion on this matter? Do the wrongs done to him negate all the moral value of Wagner's art?

In reply to Cosima's letters asking for divorce he wrote:
"You have preferred to consecrate the treasures of your heart and mind to a higher being: far from censuring you for this step, I approve of it"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> One of those people whom Wagner wronged was the famous conductor Hans von Bulow. While Cosima was still married to Hans, she fathered three children with Wagner. Shall we ask Hans his opinion on this matter? Do the wrongs done to him negate all the moral value of Wagner's art?
> 
> In reply to Cosima's letters asking for divorce he wrote:
> "You have preferred to consecrate the treasures of your heart and mind to a higher being: far from censuring you for this step, I approve of it"


Tells me more about Hans von Bulow than about what I ought to think of Wagner.

Unless of course he was about to contrast the treasures of her heart and mind to other things.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> Yes but only the titles give you a guide. Ultimately music can mean whatever you want it too. If it doesn't have words it is abstract.
> I don't think any particular chord or note can have any meaning beyond what the listener gives it.
> When you listen to Beethoven's pastoral - do you think of walks by the river or centaurs and fauns ala Disney.
> I think once a composer relinquishes his music to the public he loses control over it. So despite what he might be thinking. Or the title he gives it, The listener will decide.


*or she :3


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> *or she :3


Indeed. But if people can use 'of' instead of have or even 've to save time. I can use he instead of he or she or even s/he ;-)

This is why the English language demands a non gender-specific pronoun.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> *or she :3


Does it matter all that much? Face it, most composers are guys  Most of the great ones, at least.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> One of those people whom Wagner wronged was the famous conductor Hans von Bulow. While Cosima was still married to Hans, she fathered three children with Wagner. Shall we ask Hans his opinion on this matter? Do the wrongs done to him negate all the moral value of Wagner's art?
> 
> In reply to Cosima's letters asking for divorce he wrote:
> "You have preferred to consecrate the treasures of your heart and mind to a higher being: far from censuring you for this step, I approve of it"


And if some lousy little rat does the same with your life partner your answer will be the same, no doubt?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> Indeed. But if people can use 'of' instead of have or even 've to save time. I can use he instead of he or she or even s/he ;-)
> 
> This is why the English language demands a non gender-specific pronoun.


I like the idea of a gender neutral pronoun. I generally use "they" as a singlular pronoun for that purpose.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And besides, cheating/being a womanizer is not the worst thing anyone can do. It's bad, yes, but not criminal. Millions of people who have never contributed anything great and significant to the world, cheat on their spouses, surely we can forgive a genius like Wagner a few faults. These faults are after all, nothing but human nature.


So if a musician runs off with your wife you will shrug it off in the same way?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Does it matter all that much? Face it, most composers are guys  Most of the great ones, at least.


It matters to me. There are alot of female composers nowadays, and there have been many women who have written amazing music.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> I like the idea of a gender neutral pronoun. I generally use "they" as a singlular pronoun for that purpose.


I used to use 'they' in the same capacity until I was rightly told off by the grammar police. ;-)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ramako said:


> It doesn't seem likely that it is a coincidence that Gesualdo, the most infamous composer for what he did in his life, is also the most chromatic composer before Wagner. He's at least 250 years out of place in the story of music history. What's more, the chromatic music he wrote late in life was that which he wrote after his murders.
> 
> In other words, he made music out of the torment of regret which we know he suffered after his actions. We aren't listening to his murder in the music - but the regret of a murderer. This argument is extremely compelling. Artists write what they are inspired to write, to express what they are inspired to express.


That is complete speculation. We do not know why he wrote exactly how he did and about all the factors that inspired the music he worte from musical inspirations of others, religious, personal and any other factors. All we can do is really look at the music as music and how it speaks to us within this particular artform.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Let's give a more extreme example: Gesualdo, who brutally murdered his wife and her lover.


Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Wagner's life is that someone didn't murder him!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> So if a musician runs off with your wife you will shrug it off in the same way?


If a musician runs off with my husband, I will most likely be mad like hell. However, a human being is not a piece of property that someone can simply steal. There must be a desire on the part of the husband/wife to be "stolen". I takes two to tango, as they say. And it's not like Wagner simply kidnapped Hans von Bülow's wife. She loved him, and it was a conscious choice on her part to prefer Wagner to her husband. She must have seen something in him, that she believed, was indeed superior. Maybe operas were not the only thing that Wagner could make long 

Now, I remember you saying in another thread that you have been married for 42 years. I think that's great! Congratulations! And I undestand why someone else's marital unfaithfulness puts you off so much. Monogamy and faithfulness until the grave is the ideal, of course, but very often it does not work out this way. Just look at the divorce statistics of any country.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Wagner's life is that someone didn't murder him!


You didn't know him personally, you only know him by hearsay.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If we're going to do this, we might as well stop listening to the music of most composers, since they were flawed human beings ,prone to foolishness, prejidice, lust, selfishness, greed, nastiness, blind ambition ,etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The nineteenth century created the rise of a new middle class, and the creation of "bourgeoise subjectivity" or the idea of "fine art" as an object of sublime contemplation. This art was beyond time, space, and function. The inner world of emotions and feelings became celebrated and explored.

Music turned away from the world and changed its former utilitarian function. This was the age of Beethoven and Rossini. Beethoven's music spoke directly to the individual. Beethoven wrote the music he wanted to write, unlike the Bach cantatas which were contracted by the Church for use on specific occasions and then set aside. Indeed, Bach was forgotten for over 100 years. Thus, the composer became the "ultimate authority."

As to the question "When you have to deal with people whose lives have been wrecked by infidelities then nothing can compensate for it. Not even a Ring cycle. People matter more than art," this is irrelevant to the _traditional_ way we view music as a "permanent canon," but is becoming increasingly relevant in a politically-correct society of domesticated corporate zombies.



> Is this right? How do we balance the unhappiness a composer causes during his lifetime with the joy he brings through his music during that lifetime and for many years after? What do you think?


Since the composer became the ultimate authority in the early nineteenth century, the reputation of a composer is part of the "canon," if not the "repertory" of the Western high art tradition. In this sense, he is a mythological larger-than-life figure, in many ways an "archetype" who exists and exerts power from beyond the grave, mainly through his works, but also as an acknowledged master artist. With Richard Wagner, even now there are arguments about his unsavory ethnic and racial views.

The deterioration of the pillars of this nineteenth century attitude, and the lingering uncritically ethnocentric élitism of Westerners in today's pluralistic musical world only exaggerates and exacerbates the reputations and legacies of "geniuses" like Wagner (anti-semite, philanderer), Picasso (treated women badly), Thoreau (his mother did his laundry and brought him pies during his camp-out at Walden Pond), and Einstein (his first wife came up with relativity, and was treated badly).

As history (herstory) is being re-written by feminist historians who have their own agendas, history is, whenever possible, being "de-geniused" and the patriarchal power-base of "white male geniuses" is being devalued and slowly but surely eroded and castrated into submission to our brave, new, pluralistic society.

I hope this doesn't ruin anyone's appetite for Wagner. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A poster in another thread said this re Wagner: "When you have to deal with people whose lives have been wrecked by infidelities then nothing can compensate for it. Not even a Ring cycle. People matter more than art."
> 
> Is this right? How do we balance the unhappiness a composer causes during his lifetime with the joy he brings through his music during that lifetime and for many years after? What do you think?


I'm not sure I understand which question is being asked. Is 'music' more important than people? No. Is the music a composer makes enhanced or diminished by the extent to which s/he cared for people? Yes, though perhaps it shouldn't.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I understand which question is being asked. Is 'music' more important than people? No. Is the music a composer makes enhanced or diminished by the extent to which s/he cared for people? Yes, though perhaps it shouldn't.


Okay, what if you were faced with this hypothetical situation: The destruction of all of Beethoven's music, as if it never existed, or to kill this person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a mass murderer. What is more important, one flawed human life, or the entire Beethoven canon?


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, what if you were faced with this hypothetical situation: The destruction of all of Beethoven's music, as if it never existed, or to kill this person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a mass murderer. What is more important, one flawed human life, or the entire Beethoven canon?


Not quite the issue that I think Ken was raising...Ken?

But, given your hypothetical situation, I don't believe in capital punishment, so I'd opt for the destruction of the entire Beethoven's canon.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Not quite the issue that I think Ken was raising...Ken?
> 
> But, given your hypothetical situation, I don't believe in capital punishment, so I'd opt for the destruction of the entire Beethoven's canon.


Such a senseless waste of art...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Such a senseless waste of art...


Human life is more important. Perhaps that person could be turned to good, or we could learn better how to prevent the kinds of tragedies they caused. Besides, if Beethoven's work just didn't exist, then we wouldn't know about it to miss it, whereas the blood of that person would still be on our hands right?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

MagneticGhost said:


> I used to use 'they' in the same capacity until I was rightly told off by the grammar police. ;-)


The grammar police are lame. If everyone followed their rules, we'd have no poetry.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> As history (herstory) is being re-written by feminist historians who have their own agendas, history is, whenever possible, being "de-geniused" and the patriarchal power-base of "white male geniuses" is being devalued and slowly but surely eroded and castrated into submission to our brave, new, pluralistic society.


Or perhaps it's just that more people accept the notion that being a genius and being a self-centered prick aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Human life is more important. Perhaps that person could be turned to good, or we could learn better how to prevent the kinds of tragedies they caused. Besides, if Beethoven's work just didn't exist, then we wouldn't know about it to miss it, whereas the blood of that person would still be on our hands right?


I don't know...there are a lot of cats I've had whom I value more thann people.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Or perhaps it's just that more people accept the notion that being a genius and being a self-centered prick aren't mutually exclusive.


Ha ha haaa!:lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The nineteenth century created the rise of a new middle class, and the creation of "bourgeoise subjectivity" or the idea of "fine art" as an object of sublime contemplation. This art was beyond time, space, and function. The inner world of emotions and feelings became celebrated and explored.
> 
> Music turned away from the world and changed its former utilitarian function. This was the age of Beethoven and Rossini. Beethoven's music spoke directly to the individual. Beethoven wrote the music he wanted to write, unlike the Bach cantatas which were contracted by the Church for use on specific occasions and then set aside. Indeed, Bach was forgotten for over 100 years. Thus, the composer became the "ultimate authority."
> 
> ...


Review this theoretical prose in the practicalities of how you feel if someone runs off with your life partner.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Not quite the issue that I think Ken was raising...Ken? But, given your hypothetical situation, I don't believe in capital punishment, so I'd opt for the destruction of the entire Beethoven's canon.


I don't have a horse in this race either way. But I thought that DavidA's viewpoint was interesting and might be worth discussion in a separate thread. I didn't intend to misrepresent his views or unfairly quote him out of context and, in fact, I don't think I did.

Anyway, a more interesting question might be: Would you choose to destroy all the works of Beethoven or see an innocent and blameless man executed?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just to clarify the original point I made which Ken referred to. The guy was saying that Wagner was a monster, committed many infidelities, was unfaithful to his friends, etc.. But then added words to the effect - 'so what? The music is wonderful. Surely it is worth Wagner's misbehaviour. Now it is OK for us to say that all these years later But what if you were one of the people Wagner destroyed by his monstrous behaviour? Now this doesn't effect the music but it effects my regard for this man who some people view as a kind of 'Holy Grail' and the fount of wisdom. He was a musical genius. But that genius does not excuse his behaviour. Sadly Wagner thought it did and his sycophantic circle of admirers appeared to be prepared to take anything he chucked his way. Maybe if someone had given him a smack in the teeth or dear old Minna had clouted him with the rolling pin then he might have behaved better. Though I doubt it!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Or perhaps it's just that more people accept the notion that being a genius and being a self-centered prick aren't mutually exclusive.


I think many geniuses - musical and otherwise - come under that category. Just that Wagner tended to make an art form out of it!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Review this theoretical prose in the practicalities of how you feel if someone runs off with your life partner.


You mean a cat-napper? :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's the item referred to, Deems Taylor's "The Monster," quite a famous piece of music writing and often used in college courses when essays are covered.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/the-monster

I had never seen it or its conclusions criticized before, so DavidA's comments seemed very interesting.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

OK, here's a test!

You hold in your hand a lever switch. Throw it to the left, all of Beethoven's works are destroyed and lost forever. Throw it to the right and somewhere an innocent man dies. If you do nothing, the switch decides on its own in thirty seconds, but you don't know which it will choose.

Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, what if you were faced with this hypothetical situation: The destruction of all of Beethoven's music, as if it never existed, or to kill this person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a mass murderer. What is more important, one flawed human life, or the entire Beethoven canon?


I can't think of a single situation where that choice would actually exist, so it seems pointless. Beethoven's music or Wagner's music has never actually killed anyone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just to clarify the original point I made which Ken referred to. The guy was saying that Wagner was a monster, committed many infidelities, was unfaithful to his friends, etc.. But then added words to the effect - 'so what? The music is wonderful. Surely it is worth Wagner's misbehaviour. Now it is OK for us to say that all these years later But what if you were one of the people Wagner destroyed by his monstrous behaviour?


Wow, talk about holding a grudge! Let's give self-centered artists a little slack. When a certain amount of time has passed, and forgiveness is still not granted, it is no longer Wagner's problem, but the grudge-holder's.



> Now this doesn't effect the music but it effects my regard for this man who some people view as a kind of 'Holy Grail' and the fount of wisdom. He was a musical genius. But that genius does not excuse his behaviour. Sadly Wagner thought it did and his sycophantic circle of admirers appeared to be prepared to take anything he chucked his way. Maybe if someone had given him a smack in the teeth or dear old Minna had clouted him with the rolling pin then he might have behaved better. Though I doubt it!


I'd like to see Dr. Phil get Wagner on the hot-seat! You can't get anything past that guy! :lol: I suppose we can call this "tough historic love." But artists are narcissistic by nature, partly. As Jung said (paraphrase), "...Sometimes the things which allow us to fully realize the "self" into completion are at odds with the values we deem to be in "the best interest" of being a good father, husband, or citizen..." In other words, a fully-realized Man has a soul which contains quite a degree of darkness. If one chooses to be a "people-pleaser," he may end up with quite a degree of rancor and venomous bitterness.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
Okay, what if you were faced with this hypothetical situation: The destruction of all of Beethoven's music, as if it never existed, or to kill this person who has been proven beyond doubt to be a mass murderer. What is more important, one flawed human life, or the entire Beethoven canon?



starry said:


> I can't think of a single situation where that choice would actually exist, so it seems pointless. Beethoven's music or Wagner's music had never actually killed anyone.


So who posed the question? I just tried to get it answered.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *Nereffid* 
Or perhaps it's just that more people accept the notion that being a genius and being a self-centered prick aren't mutually exclusive.



DavidA said:


> I think many geniuses - musical and otherwise - come under that category. Just that Wagner tended to make an art form out of it!


Speaking generally, to no-one in particular, I think that's the crux of the biscuit...you can either spend your life being a "people-pleasing" conformist, or you can "shake up the world" out of its complacency by doing exactly what you are compelled to do as an artist. Of course, these days, it's easier for a woman or minority to get away with it than it is a white male. Whoops! Is my dark side showing? Have I offended anyone? God forbid! Now, turn up that Wagner to full volume if you so desire, and stop worrying about the people next door. I think this critical attitude towards Wagner is more indicative of "life on the internet" than anything. This seems to be a common tactic on-line, to play the "racist" card. Am I wrong?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> OK, here's a test!
> 
> You hold in your hand a lever switch. Throw it to the left, all of Beethoven's works are destroyed and lost forever. Throw it to the right and somewhere an innocent man dies. If you do nothing, the switch decides on its own in thirty seconds, but you don't know which it will choose.
> 
> Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?


This is the Trolley Problem all over again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Given that I didn't ask for this responsibility, I would quite happily "abdicate" it.

And do what I could to make sure the person who created the lever was brought to the International Criminal Court. :angel:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

So what is human life worth, in today's terms? Apparently very little. We still ship our expendable young men off to wars which were based in lies...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *Nereffid*
> Or perhaps it's just that more people accept the notion that being a genius and being a self-centered prick aren't mutually exclusive.
> 
> Speaking generally, to no-one in particular, I think that's the crux of the biscuit...you can either spend your life being a "people-pleasing" conformist, or you can "shake up the world" out of its complacency *by doing exactly what you are compelled to do as an artist*. Of course, these days, it's easier for a woman or minority to get away with it than it is a white male. Whoops! Is my dark side showing? Have I offended anyone? God forbid! Now, turn up that Wagner to full volume if you so desire, and stop worrying about the people next door. I think this critical attitude towards Wagner is more indicative of "life on the internet" than anything. This seems to be a common tactic on-line, to play the "racist" card. Am I wrong?


Did I say "self-centered prick"? I meant "psychopath".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Did I say "self-centered prick"? I meant "psychopath".


I think that's an exaggeration. Now the "mentally aberrant" card is being flashed...Hmmm...I think that simple "passive-aggressive pouting" as the new paradigm for appropriate male behavior would satisfy everyone on this thread, and any new guests who may arrive shortly...:lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

KenOC said:


> nyway, a more interesting question might be: Would you choose to destroy all the works of Beethoven or see an innocent and blameless man executed?


So, not quite the way million put it. Easy. Destroy the works of Beethoven.



DavidA said:


> Just to clarify the original point I made which Ken referred to. The guy was saying that Wagner was a monster, committed many infidelities, was unfaithful to his friends, etc.. But then added words to the effect - 'so what? The music is wonderful. Surely it is worth Wagner's misbehaviour. Now it is OK for us to say that all these years later But what if you were one of the people Wagner destroyed by his monstrous behaviour?


Quite. Music and man cannot be divorced from their context.



KenOC said:


> OK, here's a test!
> 
> You hold in your hand a lever switch. Throw it to the left, all of Beethoven's works are destroyed and lost forever. Throw it to the right and somewhere an innocent man dies. If you do nothing, the switch decides on its own in thirty seconds, but you don't know which it will choose.
> 
> Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?


Still easy. Ludwig's labours get annihilated.



> Now this doesn't effect the music but it effects my regard


Grammar police! Nee-naa! 'Affects' please!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> So what is human life worth, in today's terms? Apparently very little. We still ship our expendable young men off to wars which were based in lies...


That's precisely what I was thinking. People are persuaded so easily to die in war, and human sacrifice has a long tradition going back to prehistoric times.

But if you are asking one individual with no knowledge or sympathy for classical music this question it's still conceivable they could destroy the music. The actuality of course is that in our world as it stands it would be impossible to destroy the music, and equally impossible to stop innocent people dying every day somewhere for no good reason.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think that's an exaggeration. Now the "mentally aberrant" card is being flashed...Hmmm...I think that simple "passive-aggressive pouting" as the new paradigm for appropriate male behavior would satisfy everyone on this thread, and any new guests who may arrive shortly...:lol:


Well, obviously it's an exaggeration. But then again, your either/or "crux" was such an oversimplification I felt we might be in the same rhetorical boat...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, talk about holding a grudge! Let's give self-centered artists a little slack. When a certain amount of time has passed, and forgiveness is still not granted, it is no longer Wagner's problem, but the grudge-holder's.
> 
> .


I have no grudge against Wagner as you misguidedly imply. He did nothing to me.

Why should someone get some 'slack' just because he is an artist? Why shouldn't he behave decently like everyone else.

Now I have a friend whose childhood was ruined because her father - a musician - was a drunkard. Now should she have cut him some slack because he was an artist? Your whole argument s based on the reasoning that people do not matter.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Speaking generally, to no-one in particular, I think that's the crux of the biscuit...you can either spend your life being a "people-pleasing" conformist, or you can "shake up the world" out of its complacency by doing exactly what you are compelled to do as an artist. Of course, these days, it's easier for a woman or minority to get away with it than it is a white male. Whoops! Is my dark side showing? Have I offended anyone? God forbid! Now, turn up that Wagner to full volume if you so desire, and stop worrying about the people next door. I think this critical attitude towards Wagner is more indicative of "life on the internet" than anything. This seems to be a common tactic on-line, to play the "racist" card. Am I wrong?


Your 'either/or' is wrong. As for Wagner, meh!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Here's the item referred to, Deems Taylor's "The Monster," quite a famous piece of music writing and often used in college courses when essays are covered.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/the-monster
> 
> I had never seen it or its conclusions criticized before, so DavidA's comments seemed very interesting.


I cannot believe I am the first person to comment on how trite and superficial the conclusion was.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I asked, "Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?"

So far we have one vote to abdicate, one to wipe out Beethoven. I asked my wife and she instantly answered, "Let the blameless person die." Opinion seems split!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I cannot believe I am the first person to comment on how trite and superficial the conclusion was.


Others may well have agreed for all I know. Of course, it's also possible that others simply see it otherwise.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Why should someone get some 'slack' just because he is an artist? Why shouldn't he behave decently like everyone else?...


Because artists should not be held to "normal" standards. I want my artists to be ruthless scalliwags, my writers to be alienated drunks, and my composers to have tons of groupies.



> Now I have a friend whose childhood was ruined because her father - a musician - was a drunkard. Now should she have cut him some slack because he was an artist? Your whole argument is based on the reasoning that people do not matter.


Well if this "drunkard musician" had been Mussorgsky, Charlie Parker, Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend, or somebody who wrote music I really like, then one little girl's "ruined childhood" would be well worth it. I'll bet your friend is doing quite well, now. After all, Carol Burnette was raised by drunks, and did just fine. Having a drunk father is good, because you become a driven over-achieving workaholic.

In the larger scheme of things, what would Shostakovich have been without Stalin? To make pearls, you must have an irritant. Thus it is with art.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

You know, guys and gals, I believe the time you have spent on that highbrow, philosophical, existential discussion, you could have been spent much better, listening to Wagner. Or Beethoven for that matter


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Because artists should not be held to "normal" standards. I want my artists to be ruthless scalliwags, my writers to be alienated drunks, and my composers to have tons of groupies.
> 
> Well if this "drunkard musician" had been Mussorgsky, Charlie Parker, Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend, or somebody who wrote music I really like, then one little girl's "ruined childhood" would be well worth it. I'll bet your friend is doing quite well, now. After all, Carol Burnette was raised by drunks, and did just fine. Having a drunk father is good, because you become a driven over-achieving workaholic.
> 
> In the larger scheme of things, what would Shostakovich have been without Stalin? To make pearls, you must have an irritant. Thus it is with art.


Yes, it's great for artists to be 'ruthless scallywags' until their behaviour effects you personally. Many of the bankers who caused the financial crash were 'ruthless scallywags' but I didn't appreciate them. Why should artists be judged by a different standard?

And if it had been you whose father came in and beat up your mother? Oh, he's an artist so it doesn't matter? That's laughable!

Oh yes, just where would the 35 million people who Perished as a result of your 'irritant' be? And if you had been one of those sent to the Gulags to perish... Would you have gone giving thanks that the irritant that was about to kill you and your family was making a pearl? it's OK to say these things from the comfort of an armchair but you do tend to feel differently when you yourself are affected.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You know, guys and gals, I believe the time you have spent on that highbrow, philosophical, existential discussion, you could have been spent much better, listening to Wagner. Or Beethoven for that matter


I've actually just listened to Walkure in the shower and now I'm listening to Beethoven!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Well, obviously it's an exaggeration. But then again, your either/or "crux" was such an oversimplification I felt we might be in the same rhetorical boat...


No exaggeration, I assure you.

'Psychopathy is a personality disorder identified by characteristics such as a lack of empathy and remorse, criminality, antisocial behavior, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a parasitic lifestyle.'

Fits dear Richard quite well, don't you think?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I've actually just listened to Walkure in the shower and now I'm listening to Beethoven!


You've listened to the music of the parasitic psychopath and that other meanie and you feel no pangs of remorse?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Oh good Lord. You don't. Simples.

It is patently naive and somewhat prudish to expect of, say, Beethoven, that he was a nice guy.

Say anything similar about any other artist.

What they make and who they are can be, and most often are, not directly 'who they are.'

I think romanticism, the emphasis on the individual and self-expression, wildy misconceived and misunderstood more than a century later, is why we have such odd expectations of artists, and this prudish consideration.

Even the composer's 'politics' -- unless they wrote something to directly serve some political movement, event or agenda, should be dismissed when listening to a work.

None of that, btw. means 'ignore' that information about the artists as people, but it does mean one is in ridiculous territory trying to 'tie it in directly' with the actual works.

I can not begin to tell you how much this very sort of question about the artist / vs. the art appalls me. It is not only so off the mark, but makes me think near the brink of despair as to what the listener is actually hearing -- can't be 'just the music,' can it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sociopaths and psychopaths? Those didn't really exist until Dr. Phil, workplace drug testing, background checks, and no smoking cities. Oh, yeah, and acid-reflux disease and social anxiety disorder. 
If you're gonna blame Wagner, then blame violent video games, Pac-Man, Dungeons and Dragons, computers, and obese, spoiled kids with access to guns.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

let's not forget that there's no such thing as "saintly" or "pure evil". An artist might have done any number of despicable things, for which he should rightly be taken to task for, but if he came up with an important piece of art that should be acknowledged as well.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You've listened to the music of the parasitic psychopath and that other meanie and you feel no pangs of remorse?


No. Because I view it as entertainment, no more no less, not the holy German art!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

deggial said:


> let's not forget that there's no such thing as "saintly" or "pure evil". An artist might have done any number of despicable things, for which he should rightly be taken to task for, but if he came up with an important piece of art that should be acknowledged as well.


Just don't let him have access to guns, and always do a background check of the composer, especially with modern music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Sociopaths and psychopaths? Those didn't really exist until Dr. Phil, workplace drug testing, background checks, and no smoking cities. Oh, yeah, and acid-reflux disease and social anxiety disorder.
> If you're gonna blame Wagner, then blame violent video games, Pac-Man, Dungeons and Dragons, computers, and obese, spoiled kids with access to guns.


For crying out loud! Of course they existed. They have always existed. Just they weren't diagnosed as such. Video games, etc, have nothing to do with it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re Wagner and his sins, one can only think of Oscar Wilde:

"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> let's not forget that there's no such thing as "saintly" or "pure evil". An artist might have done any number of despicable things, for which he should rightly be taken to task for, but if he came up with an important piece of art that should be acknowledged as well.


But that is the point. Wagner for one believed his genius excused him everything. We are not decrying the art. But the art doesn't excuse the behaviour.

As Toscanini once said: ' to Richard Strauss the composer I take my hat off; to Strauss the man I put it back on again.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Re Wagner and his sins, one can only think of Oscar Wilde:
> 
> "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."


You would, of course, apply the same reasoning to Stalin, Mao, PolPot and Hitler?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> If you're gonna blame Wagner, then blame violent video games, Pac-Man, *Dungeons and Dragons*, computers, and obese, spoiled kids with access to guns.


I see why one would blame computers and video games, but what's the deal with Dungeons and Dragons?!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

starry said:


> That is complete speculation. We do not know why he wrote exactly how he did and about all the factors that inspired the music he worte from musical inspirations of others, religious, personal and any other factors. All we can do is really look at the music as music and how it speaks to us within this particular artform.


It is but so is much 'fact'.

The reason some people have such a resistance to the idea that something in a composer's life could have an influence on his music is as resistance to the absurdly simplistic and ideological formulations of such things in the 19th century and beyond.

But putting that aside, the best thing to do probably is to be open to the idea that events in a composer's life may or may not have influenced their music. We don't need to invent a 'Romantic crisis' such as was invented for Haydn's _Sturm und Drang_ period without the slightest shred of evidence beyond the music, however in the case of Gesualdo the evidence is extremely convincing (objectively weighed, that is) that he was most probably influenced by his obsessive torment of regret in his music. The facts line up, it is there in the music and in the text, and there is a feasible mechanism to support it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> You would, of course, apply the same reasoning to Stalin, Mao, PolPot and Hitler?


I was speaking of Wagner, as I said (I thought clearly...) Re the rest, you'd better ask Mr. Wilde!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DavidA said:


> But that is the point. Wagner for one believed his genius excused him everything. We are not decrying the art. But the art doesn't excuse the behaviour.'


most (if not all) of us agree he was a despicable man who took advantage of everybody around him who didn't know any better, but what are we supposed to do? If, say, a battered wife doesn't call the police on her abusive husband what's there to be done? btw, I don't think you can quite compare Wagner to Stalin et. all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Normally people are presented with a title which can guide them, and I think there is a certain cultural conditioning about some aspects of music (such as minor keys). But certainly seeking specfic meanings goes against the universality of music, limits it in ways which restricts its power in an unnatural way.


Normally? How many Symphonies have 'titles' as given by the composer? Very Few. The majority of classical music literature, common practice, anyway, is 'without title / untitled.'

Songs, pieces where there are vocals with text, the mere blip on the screen of late romanticism, yeah, 'titles.' before, and after... not so much. The composers intended us 'to be on our own,' and if there is 'a story' - which I doubt, then it is up to the listener to invent one. Basically, all absolute ('abstract') music acts like a Rorschach blot upon the listener. Whatever you find there is a projection of something within you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Let's give a more extreme example: Gesualdo, who brutally murdered his wife and her lover.


As was universally understood as a reasonable reaction in the times he lived, and 'allowed' by law - not without consequence; he was banished, but not tried and executed.

Even today, if a spouse walked into a situation like that and 'lost it, it might just end up with the perp being convicted of 'involuntary manslaughter,' it still considered 'normal' to be extraordinarily enraged -- i.e.'temporarily insane' by such a circumstance.

Next we'll be hearing about how we shouldn't be listening to Berlioz because he took opiates... or Boycott listening to Mozart, because prior his marriage, he was 'a player.'
or avoid Britten's works because he was a homosexual and an atheist.

Hope that short list shows how ridiculous this all is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SHE left YOU -- why blame the third party? (Unless you are thinking that women are poor helpless creatures who are so easily influenced because they do not know their own mind -- but if that is what you think, maybe that is why 'she' left


Besides, I am one of those musicians....


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

PetrB said:


> As was universally understood as a reasonable reaction in the times he lived, and 'allowed' by law - not without consequence; he was banished, but not tried and executed.
> 
> Even today, if a spouse walked into a situation like that and 'lost it, it might just end up the perp was convicted of 'involuntary manslaughter,' it still considered 'normal' to be extraordinarily enraged by such a circumstance.
> 
> Next we'll be hearing about how we shouldn't be listening to Berlioz because he took opiates...


Nevertheless, whether it was accepted or not, he had slaves beat him with chains, collected relics and generally seemed obsessed with repentance. This attitude does seem reflected in his music.

The idea that composers were sometimes expressing a mood can be surmised by literature from CPE Bach at the very least, who is at least at the table of the greats - but also perhaps personal experience (I hesitate to put that forward, and rely on the more meaningful CPE Bach point). It is mere dogmatism to suppose there is no possibility of hearing a composers emotions in their music. It doesn't mean we have to find it at every turn though, or care particularly. But still, one wonders why we should be opposed to caring, from a point of view of knowledge and interest rather than appreciation of the music.

Nor am I suggesting that we not listen to anybody on account of what might or might not be in their music. That is a totally different question altogether.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Nevertheless, whether it was accepted or not, he had slaves beat him with chains, collected relics and generally seemed obsessed with repentance. This attitude does seem reflected in his music.
> 
> The idea that composers were sometimes expressing a mood can be surmised by literature from CPE Bach at the very least, who is at least at the table of the greats - but also perhaps personal experience (I hesitate to put that forward, and rely on the more meaningful CPE Bach point). It is mere dogmatism to suppose there is no possibility of hearing a composers emotions in their music. It doesn't mean we have to find it at every turn though, or care particularly. But still, one wonders why we should be opposed to caring, from a point of view of knowledge and interest rather than appreciation of the music.
> 
> Nor am I suggesting that we not listen to anybody on account of what might or might not be in their music. That is a totally different question altogether.


On this issue, there is a convention in scholarship: unless there is a first-hand account by the artist, all else is either hearsay or conjecture. Parlor chat, then, not substantiated. Where it is substantiated, it should be accepted, coming as it were from the horse's mouth.... anything else...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> On this issue, there is a convention in scholarship: unless there is a first-hand account by the artist, all else is either hearsay or conjecture. Parlor chat, then...


Not sure I can agree with that. There's plenty of scholarship surrounding Beethoven, for instance, and a whole lot of it depends on the observations and anecdotes of others. We'd know nothing of Beethoven's behavior at Teplitz if it weren't for Goethe's account. Of course, sorting out the lies, fabrications, embellishments, and so forth can be uncertain (e.g., Schindler).

Beethoven wrote very little other than his letters, that 1802 document, and often lengthy documents for various custody hearings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sorry, stupid dupe slip.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Not sure I can agree with that. There's plenty of scholarship surrounding Beethoven, for instance, and a whole lot of it depends on the observations and anecdotes of others. We'd know nothing of Beethoven's behavior at Teplitz if it weren't for Goethe's account. Of course, sorting out the lies, fabrications, embellishments, and so forth can be uncertain (e.g., Schindler).
> 
> Beethoven wrote very little other than his letters, that 1802 document, and often lengthy documents for various custody hearings.


Just the point, someone embellishing because they are the center of attention after the composer has died -- how reliable is that? _"Not Scholarly."_ Which is why, in scholarship, all that sort is 'inadmissible.'

I'm of a mind that none of that gets you much closer to the works, or the composer, really. People do love to think 'knowing the artist' somehow makes their works more personal, or understandable -- I think that a falsehood, but that is me.

ADD P.s. "Beethoven wrote very little other than his letters, that 1802 document, and often lengthy documents for various custody hearings." 
... and that is all we have that is certain, other than much more written music from the same guy


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I see why one would blame computers and video games, but what's the deal with Dungeons and Dragons?!


In days gone by there was a huge furore among Christian conservatives in the United States (and possibly elsewhere, although I think it was mainly down to the prominent televangelists of the day) regarding D&D, the main allegation against it was that it was Satanic and/or encouraged interest in the occult (both of which were also levelled at children's cartoons ranging from _He-Man_ to the _Care Bears_). The whole thing reached ridiculous heights with a film called _Mazes & Monsters_, which starred Tom Hanks as a young man who plays the titular D&D clone with friends, eventually comes to believe that he is his character and, while embarking on a "holy quest" to New York City, kills someone who he believes to be a monster from the game.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> In days gone by there was a huge furore among Christian conservatives in the United States (and possibly elsewhere, although I think it was mainly down to the prominent televangelists of the day) regarding D&D, the main allegation against it was that it was Satanic and/or encouraged interest in the occult (both of which were also levelled at children's cartoons ranging from _He-Man_ to the _Care Bears_). The whole thing reached ridiculous heights with a film called _Mazes & Monsters_, which starred Tom Hanks as a young man who plays the titular D&D clone with friends, eventually comes to believe that he is his character and, while embarking on a "holy quest" to New York City, kills someone
> who he believes to be a monster from the game.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pritchard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Sociopaths and psychopaths? Those didn't really exist until Dr. Phil, workplace drug testing, background checks, and no smoking cities. Oh, yeah, and acid-reflux disease and social anxiety disorder.
> If you're gonna blame Wagner, then blame violent video games, Pac-Man, Dungeons and Dragons, computers, and obese, spoiled kids with access to guns.


Thats like saying diseases didn't exist until drug companies came into existence.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I was speaking of Wagner, as I said (I thought clearly...) Re the rest, you'd better ask Mr. Wilde!


Sorry, but Wilde was speaking of people in general!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> most (if not all) of us agree he was a despicable man who took advantage of everybody around him who didn't know any better, but what are we supposed to do? If, say, a battered wife doesn't call the police on her abusive husband what's there to be done? btw, I don't think you can quite compare Wagner to Stalin et. all.


In Wagner's day a battered wife could not call the police!

I was not comparing Wagner to Stalin - just showing the complete lack of logic in Wilde's trite comment,.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

deggial said:


> let's not forget that there's no such thing as "saintly" or "pure evil". An artist might have done any number of despicable things, for which he should rightly be taken to task for, but if he came up with an important piece of art that should be acknowledged as well.


What Deems Taylor was implying was that actually we shouldn't be taking the artist to task, not too much, not if the artist's art makes Deems Taylor feel all warm and fuzzy. I gather that's millionrainbows's argument too.
I agree with you, we should acknowledge both, but it's when the acknowledgement of "despicable things" slips towards tacit approval that I get alarmed.
I complained earlier about an "either/or" scenario, and come to think of it the Trolley Problem above is also an "either/or". People seem to love these (There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't) but "either/or" is rarely satisfactory. Actually from the start this discussion reminded me of what was being said about the late Margaret Thatcher's policies. I saw someone on TV describe what she did to the miners as "a necessary evil", meaning the ends were necessary but the means were "evil" (not literally so), the implication here being that the ends justified the means - but it also implied that doing this evil thing and doing nothing at all were the only possible options. So it seems to be with the argument that being raised by a drunk father, or terrorised by Stalin, is a small price to pay as long as we get "art" at the end of it. That the drunk father or Stalin were necessary evils.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but Wilde was speaking of people in general!


And I was speaking of Wagner. So...please address further correspondence to Mr. Wilde. I have no idea what he thinks of Pol Pot!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> And I was speaking of Wagner. So...please address further correspondence to Mr. Wilde. I have no idea what he thinks of Pol Pot!


"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is being killed as a result of a totally misguided policy of agrarian socialism", perhaps?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is being killed as a result of a totally misguided policy of agrarian socialism", perhaps?


I like that! Although Wilde might have phrased it a bit more cleverly. It would be a challenge, certainly...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's sad most of humanity has yet to realize they exist solely to produce, nurture, and appreciate the rare, ocassional genius. The ones who _matter. _


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> SHE left YOU -- why blame the third party? (Unless you are thinking that women are poor helpless creatures who are so easily influenced because they do not know their own mind -- but if that is what you think, maybe that is why 'she' left
> 
> Besides, I am one of those musicians....


In your deams....!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> It's sad most of humanity has yet to realize they exist solely to produce, nurture, and appreciate the rare, ocassional genius. The ones who _matter. _


So it's OK with you that you don't matter? Or your partner and kids?

Actually Stalin believed that humanity just existed for his purposes too. It is a warped vision of life.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> And I was speaking of Wagner. So...please address further correspondence to Mr. Wilde. I have no idea what he thinks of Pol Pot!


So if you had been one of those people who Wagner cheated or misused, Ken, you would have been quite happy? I mean, if he'd have run off with your wife?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> So if you had been one of those people who Wagner cheated or misused, Ken, you would have been quite happy? I mean, if he'd have run off with your wife?


Reminds me of the Henny Youngman schtick, "Take my wife.... Please!"

But this is becoming an obsessive Idée fixe from you, making me think you have a recent experience where a girlfriend / wife left you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> In your deams....!


LOL. Your work must not be of the nature where strangers come up to you after a performance and pretty much throw themselves at you... because of the music you made, though they think 'that is you.' Career musician, performing and teaching, straight after conservatory, for decades. I'd probably think people made this stuff up if I hadn't been there myself.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

:lol: I lost 250 pounds of ugly fat...I got a divorce!

My new car has "dual air-bags." That's when my wife and my mother-in-law are both talking in the back seat.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Reminds me of the Henny Youngman schtick, "Take my wife.... Please!"
> 
> But this is becoming an obsessive Idée fixe from you, making me think you have a recent experience where a girlfriend / wife left you.


Frankly that just shows how little you know. Don't speculate from ignorance, please.

I just have counselled many people who have had that experience and I can assure you that it is nothing to be flippant about when it happens to you!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL. Your work must not be of the nature where strangers come up to you after a performance and pretty much throw themselves at you... because of the music you made, though they think 'that is you.' Career musician, performing and teaching, straight after conservatory, for decades. I'd probably think people made this stuff up if I hadn't been there myself.


If someone like that threw themselves at me I'd wonder how many others they'd been with. No, I do not go in for left overs.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Frankly that just shows how little you know. Don't speculate from ignorance, please.
> 
> I just have counselled many people who have had that experience and I can assure you that it is nothing to be flippant about when it happens to you!


Loss is loss, and nothing to joke about. But really, somewhere in there in every split, is a lack of interest or flaw within one or both parties, or it would not have happened. Due sympathy given, but harping on it, eh....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Loss is loss, and nothing to joke about. But really, somewhere in there in every split, is a lack of interest or flaw within one or both parties, or it would not have happened. Due sympathy given, but harping on it, eh....


Actually, you are the one equally harping on about it. But I'm glad you think it's nothing to joke about. It isn't!


----------



## lunchdress (Apr 20, 2013)

There is so much pain in life and art is my redemption, it connects me to humanity in a way that makes life worth living.
I think there are so many facets to humanity-- good, bad, in-between-- that we all have to deal with each other the best way we can; people will do bad things to each other no matter what, if some of them produce art along the way we may love the art and not the artist. Of course if a museum filled with people were on fire I would save the people first then try to save the art.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

lunchdress said:


> There is so much pain in life and art is my redemption, it connects me to humanity in a way that makes life worth living.


And I'm sure that's how _some_ composers, and performers, have felt too. Music being a way to feel they are freer and happier while their actual lives might be full of difficulties and setbacks.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> If someone like that threw themselves at me I'd wonder how many others they'd been with. No, I do not go in for left overs.


Men, Women, married, single. I was single, some tempting. But beyond your snide high dudgeon, smug comment (can we gather you are morally superior compared to many? Congratulations. The Prize is in the mail...) I didn't want them because they did not want me: they were associating the effect upon them of my playing as being me, which it is not.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> And I'm sure that's how _some_ composers, and performers, have felt too. Music being a way to feel they are freer and happier while their actual lives might be full of difficulties and setbacks.


My goodness, those saccharine romantic notions are still alive and well, it seems.

What you've said is more in the bailiwick of the listener, not the doer.

Once music is your career, you are pretty much beyond all that.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well I said *some* composers and performers, certainly not all. But for some music was their life. For others it was a business as much as anything, obviously they are all different.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Men, Women, married, single. I was single, some tempting. But beyond your snide high dudgeon, smug comment (can we gather you are morally superior compared to many? Congratulations. The Prize is in the mail...) I didn't want them because they did not want me: they were associating the effect upon them of my playing as being me, which it is not.


I can't see how my remark is 'snide high dudgeon, smug comment'. Please explain how it makes me morally superior? Just common sense and self-preservation I would think!


----------



## lunchdress (Apr 20, 2013)

I was writing as a lover of art (including music), not as an artist. The artist I've known in my life are just as human as the rest of us, and will be judged as human beings by the people around them, just like the rest of us; some suffer, some do not. We are all victims of each other's cruelty and praises, and the art is a valuable by-product of that intercourse.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Unless one insists on matching the character to art that person produces, it is best to 'disassociate' one from the other. 

History shows, often, that is the case. More than flawed individuals with a genius to move us, deeply, on what is thought of as a high plane, 'ennobling,' etc. being the sort of language used to describe the effects of their music upon us. The composers, painters, writers who produce such works are often anything but 'noble,' either by general character or action.

Many an artist has said similar, 'they don't really know where it comes from, etc.' Trying to link who that artist is to 'where it came from' is pretty futile.

Besides, if you listed every composer who ever had an extra-marital affair, or who was a womanizer, promiscuous, hetero, homo, or bi, and you were such a prig 'moralist' that the knowledge of those affairs colored your perception of the music, there would be little music left to like.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I can't see how my remark is 'snide high dudgeon, smug comment'. Please explain how it makes me morally superior? Just common sense and self-preservation I would think!


there is a string of entries by you, near literally screaming outrage over infidelity of one sort or another. That's why. And no, I have never been 'the other guy.'


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

lunchdress said:


> I was writing as a lover of art (including music)


That's what I thought.


----------



## lunchdress (Apr 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Unless one insists on matching the character to art that person produces, it is best to 'disassociate' one from the other.


Agree, if Wagner had been just a guy that worked at the bank and not this great composer we wouldn't even be aware of his personal life at this point.

eta: I'm still not interested in his personal life, just his music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Unless one insists on matching the character to art that person produces, it is best to 'disassociate' one from the other.


Yeh I've said that, the character of the actual music is just what it is, we can't know exactly why someone wrote a particular piece in most circumstances unless they said truthfully why.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Couchie said:


> It's sad most of humanity has yet to realize they exist solely to produce, nurture, and appreciate the rare, ocassional genius. The ones who _matter. _


This seems to have passed without comment, possibly because it's not such a popular philosophy these days. So I won't comment either... 



lunchdress said:


> Of course if a museum filled with people were on fire I would save the people first then try to save the art.


I'd want to know the artist before deciding...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> there is a string of entries by you, near literally screaming outrage over infidelity of one sort or another. That's why. And no, I have never been 'the other guy.'


Just why is it wrong to feel outraged by someone cheating on his / her life partner? Would you feel outraged if someone stole your life savings? Probably? Then surely infidelity is morally worse than this?
But apparently, according to you it doesn't matter? Fidelity counts for nothing?


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

David, it is not wrong to feel outraged by someone cheating on their partner, especially if the partner is you.

If the partner is someone else, we do start to wonder about your motives, though. Why are you getting outraged on someone else's behalf?

But even that is probably OK.

What is wrong in this situation is that your outrage does not contribute to the conversation. Each expression of it threatens to derail the conversation not keep it going. Not add to it.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just why is it wrong to feel outraged by someone cheating on his / her life partner? Would you feel outraged if someone stole your life savings? Probably? Then surely infidelity is morally worse than this?


In all seriousness, I would much rather face my wife being unfaithful than having someone steal my life savings. And, quite frankly, it's not even close. Losing one's life savings is a much worse calamity.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> In all seriousness, I would much rather face my wife being unfaithful than having someone steal my life savings. And, quite frankly, it's not even close. Losing one's life savings is a much worse calamity.


Not to mention, your life savings is your property. Your wife, at least in most societies, is not.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Every time I dip into this thread, I'm looking for the music.

I think everyone is bad. And sometimes we do some good. Or we're all trying to be good, but sometimes we do some bad. And life is a rough rotten ride for a lot of people, especially nowadays. And music is a diversion, and nothing more.

So out of the bad comes good. I wouldn't complain about it, it's just the way life is...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> In all seriousness, I would much rather face my wife being unfaithful than having someone steal my life savings. And, quite frankly, it's not even close. Losing one's life savings is a much worse calamity.


I would certainly then question your priorities. And frankly I would pity your wife!


----------



## lunchdress (Apr 20, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'd want to know the artist before deciding...


I know, right? And if the people inside were a bunch greedy adulterous bankers, all bets are off!


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

Kieran said:


> And music is a diversion, and nothing more.


Are you insane? A diversion?? Nothing more???


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

some guy said:


> David, it is not wrong to feel outraged by someone cheating on their partner, especially if the partner is you.
> 
> If the partner is someone else, we do start to wonder about your motives, though. Why are you getting outraged on someone else's behalf?
> 
> ...


The outrage comes because I have been in situations where I have had to counsel people who have been destroyed by being cheated on.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Are you insane? A diversion?? Nothing more???


Okay, it's a luxury too!


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I would certainly then question your priorities. And frankly I would pity your wife!


There is certainly no need to question my priorities. After all, it's a hypothetical, it's not like I'm encouraging my wife to cheat.

It's a simple fact, at the point I am in life right now, losing all my savings would be much more of a disaster than having my wife cheat on me. Either recovering the marriage after her infidelity or moving on without her would be much easier than replenishing my nest egg. Losing my nest egg now would mean never retiring, and living in a financially insecure state for the rest of my life. It's really not even debatable.

Stealing someone's life savings, particularly if they are over 40, is the much greater moral transgression than banging their wife.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> The outrage comes because I have been in situations where I have had to counsel people who have been destroyed by being cheated on.


And I'm sure we all think it's a serious business. But, like almost every other human experience, it can be the subject for levity in other, safer contexts. No-one's going to run round to any of those you've counselled and crack jokes to their faces, but here in the warm and loving arms of the TC membership...a little levity goes a long way...

("You won't say that when your good woman runs off with another!" "I daresay I won't, but I'd stand a better chance of keeping her if I don't refer to her as 'my good woman'").


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> My goodness, those saccharine romantic notions are still alive and well, it seems.
> 
> What you've said is more in the bailiwick of the listener, not the doer.
> 
> Once music is your career, you are pretty much beyond all that.


It is not romantic to suppose that composers & musicians find joy in music that compensates them for disappointments in real life. It doesn't mean they don't also write or play to earn money and stay alive. Many great musicians feel compelled to follow music, because it 'speaks' to them in a way that others cannot hear. Before the Romantic Era, the great baroque composer Handel defied his father to practise music on a clavichord hidden in the attic.

Many others have made the point that people matter more than music in a world catastrophe, but that one can enjoy great art, music and literature even when one disagrees with or loathes the maker of it. And yet, once we know about someone's obnoxious views or behaviour, it colours our opinion. I agree with this. And also with Ramako, that for everyone there is the chance of redemption. Caravaggio killed a man; it seems a bigoted attitude to refuse to look at his pictures. I enjoy the novels of Wilkie Collins; it doesn't mean that I condone the way he ran two women at the same time, or his habit of touring Parisian brothels with Dickens.

However, like David A, I view infidelity extremely seriously. And Taggart had better not forget it...


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Now, since we are on that "putting yourself in others' shoes" thing, why not try and put yourself in Cosima's shoes? Imagine what would her life be like after meeting Wagner, falling in love with him, being ready to leave her husband for the sake of the Master... and never encountering any sign of interest on his side. And of course, she would never make the first step and let him know of her affection, because it is simply wrong for a woman to impose herself on a man who does not want her. Maybe he would even love her in secret too, but never show it, because he would just believe in the sanctity of marriage bonds, even if all the love within those marriage bonds is long dead and gone, like his own love for Minna and Cosima's love vor Hans von Bülow. Now, who would be better off in that kind of situation?

Cosima made a good wife for Wagner. They did argue, of course, but she stood by him and helped him in his endeavors: the building of the Festspielhaus and Wagner's financial affairs, in the good times and in the bad times - the best thing that a wife can possibly do for her man. And when Wagner died, she held him in her arms for 24 hours. Would you deny her the right to be with the man she loved like that?

Now, I am not the one to champion feminism or "girl power", but, as I said before, I believe your view of a woman almost as property to be "stolen" or "kept" by men to be very flawed. Of course we girls often make very stupid decisions in the choice of partners, but we do have freedom to choose, and it is not as if the men decided who their women would belong to among themselves. Even in the times when women had much less power to decide in that matter than in the 19th century, they still found ways to be with the men _they_ loved. Cosima had two men to choose from, and she made her choice in favor of Wagner. Would you deny her that right?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Not to mention, your life savings is your property. Your wife, at least in most societies, is not.


Actually, having made marriage vows my wife is mine and I am hers! Till death us do part!


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Composers are not experts on morality, and have no more knowledge of it than any of us do just because they know music. Music is something that can be divorced from morality and still be valuable. Don't look up to Wagner as a person, and you'll be fine. 

I don't think I have the right to take someone's life away for Beethoven, but I stand by the conviction that I would give up my own life for Beethoven, or Florence. These things are what make life so less like sound and fury, I'm not sure life would be worth living without them. There have been several times where these things have helped me at the very edge of despair. 

I think we may be, in general, too criticizing of historical figures. I am still very young, and if I looked back at my life, I would find many instances where I had acted like a total coward, or had acknowledged a position I would find repulsive, even inhuman, today. Even geniuses are human beings. Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest and gentlest men of the 20th century, cheated several times, and did some pretty horrible things. But he is a still a great man. I'm not saying this is the case for Wagner. I am only saying Wagner is human. I don't think we can speculate, nor am I very sure, that he would condone Hitler's inhumanity later on. 

And Oscar Wilde was basically right about everything. Art is useless like science (without technology) is useless, or like looking at a golden sunset is useless, or like holding and looking into your lover's eyes is useless. And it might be better if it stayed that way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now, since we are on that "putting yourself in others' shoes" thing, why not try and put yourself in Cosima's shoes? Imagine what would her life be like after meeting Wagner, falling in love with him, being ready to leave her husband for the sake of the Master... and never encountering any sign of interest on his side. And of course, she would never make the first step and let him know of her affection, because it is simply wrong for a woman to impose herself on a man who does not want her. Maybe he would even love her in secret too, but never show it, because he would just believe in the sanctity of marriage bonds, even if all the love within those marriage bonds is long dead and gone, like his own love for Minna and Cosima's love vor Hans von Bülow. Now, who would be better off in that kind of situation?
> 
> Cosima made a good wife for Wagner. They did argue, of course, but she stood by him and helped him in his endeavors: the building of the Festspielhaus and Wagner's financial affairs, in the good times and in the bad times - the best thing that a wife can possibly do for her man. And when Wagner died, she held him in her arms for 24 hours. Would you deny her the right to be with the man she loved like that?
> 
> Now, I am not the one to champion feminism or "girl power", but, as I said before, I believe your view of a woman almost as property to be "stolen" or "kept" by men to be very flawed. Of course we girls often make very stupid decisions in the choice of partners, but we do have freedom to choose, and it is not as if the men decided who their women would belong to among themselves. Even in the times when women had much less power to decide in that matter than in the 19th century, they still found ways to be with the men _they_ loved. Cosima had two men to choose from, and she made her choice in favor of Wagner. Would you deny her that right?


I do think that the Wagner and Cosima certainly deserved each other. Certainly in her he found a woman who reflected his own limitless self adoration. If you read the book 'the Wagner Clan' by Jonathan Carr it shows how they propagated a somewhat dysfunctional family which gathered a notorious circle around it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now, I am not the one to champion feminism or "girl power", but, as I said before, I believe your view of a woman almost as property to be "stolen" or "kept" by men to be very flawed. ?


You have a totally wrong idea of my view of women. I actually believe that you love your partner you do the very best for her.
As I said, I am hers and she is mine - till death us do part. I know that's not a view which goes down well in our present liberal society. But that's what we believe. We belong to each other!


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

DavidA said:


> As I said, I am hers and she is mine - till death us do part. I know that's not a view which goes down well in our present liberal society. But that's what we believe. We belong to each other!


Stop hogging all the virtues for the forces of valiant conservatism. It's quite possible to believe in the value of life-long partnership (in or out of marriage) and be 'liberal' at the same time.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

(PS. Anyone else fall asleep through the programme about Isaac Newton? I only mention it because I hadn't realised that 'levity' and 'gravity' are not just abstract synonyms for 'humorous' and 'serious' but technical terms in the vocabulary of the natural scientists.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rwgmw


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> Art is useless like science (without technology) is useless, or like looking at a golden sunset is useless, or like holding and looking into your lover's eyes is useless. And it might be better if it stayed that way.


A-flippin-men brother! Preach on!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Stop hogging all the virtues for the forces of valiant conservatism. It's quite possible to believe in the value of life-long partnership (in or out of marriage) and be 'liberal' at the same time.


I was meaning 'liberal' in terms of sexual relationships not politics.

It amazes me how you were equate marital faithfulness with valiant conservatism as if faithfulness were some vice. Still, maybe you think it is!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I was meaning 'liberal' in terms of sexual relationships not politics.
> 
> It amazes me how you were equate marital faithfulness with valiant conservatism as if faithfulness were some vice. Still, maybe you think it is!


Dude, come on. You know, we all know, we all can easily see that you made the equation, not MacLeod.

Take it to the politics forum, where I can freely comment on this... let's see... _sophistry_. Yeah. "Sophistry" will do for now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Every time I dip into this thread, I'm looking for the music.


You find any?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ahem. Mid-course correction here. The intent of this thread was to explore the relative value of music and people. If a composer damages people but creates wonderful music, is it worth it? Can a huge slice of deathless music be worth people's lives? Stuff like that...

For instance, the "trolley question" that only two people had the courage to answer:

You hold in your hand a lever switch. Throw it to the left, all of Beethoven's works are destroyed and lost forever. Throw it to the right and somewhere an innocent man dies. If you do nothing, the switch decides on its own in thirty seconds, but you don't know which it will choose.

Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I was meaning 'liberal' in terms of sexual relationships not politics.
> 
> It amazes me how you were equate marital faithfulness with valiant conservatism as if faithfulness were some vice. Still, maybe you think it is!


Sorry - who mentioned politics? I didn't.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This about sums up my reaction to the premise of the OP:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/3...es&browsingOrder=New&browsingTimeSpan=AllTime


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

All very nice, but you didn't answer, did you?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Violadude, "This about sums up my reaction to the premise of the OP:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/35...meSpan=AllTime
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another resounding urgently seconding "Amen" is yet again heard in this otherwise seriously tiresome thread.

You have enough going, and your partner too, and neither of you are flawed enough, that you can and do hang on to each other.

If someone pulls them away from you, there are AT LEAST TWO parties involved in that (three, really - all somehow 'creditable' towards the breakup, one way or the other: it is never just one blue meanie composer.

The whole premise that anyone could 'steal' your spouse is absurd. A flaw in them, or something about you, and the third party, all lined up to make it happen.

The rant about the vows sounds like a massively insecure person who seems to want the marriage certificate to be both a guarantee AND a certificate of ownership, which whether it is or is not, sounds fortississississimo like an arch right conservative Christian Male Chauvinist at their most despicable.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> All very nice, but you didn't answer, did you?


Wasn't meaning to belittle the thread. What I meant was that when I'm listening to Tristan Und Isolde I don't give a crap how Wagner treated anybody.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> All very nice, but you didn't answer, did you?


I'll take a stab at it:

The career of the person committing infidelity has nothing to do with the infidelity.

Is the "little rat" who lures your wife away, _who also happens to make nothing of consequence other than a living vs. an outstanding work of art,_ more or less 'bad' than the artist who lures a wife away?

Aha. The whole question is faulty, the art can not and should not be part of the question as relating to infidelity.

It is a high romantic notion to hold the artist to a higher 'moral' standard than the rest of the world, and in the more realistic, if not harsher, light of the less romantic 21st century the question, as posed, has no place.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> What I meant was that when I'm listening to Tristan Und Isolde I don't give a crap how Wagner treated anybody.


Fair enough! But since nobody's asked *me* how I'd answer the question, here goes. It's simple. Sacrifice the blameless man. Why?

1. If I chose to sacrifice Beethoven's music, then the 'blameless man" would be guilty, by simply continuing to live, of destroying a substantial part of our culture. No longer quite so blameless, huh? Let the guilty bugger get what he deserves!

2. Beethoven, being dead, has provided ample value. Who knows what this blameless guy is worth? Will he add one iota of value to our lives? The stats say --no! Vote the calculus of worth.

See? As I said, simple.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> the "trolley question" that only two people had the courage to answer:
> 
> You hold in your hand a lever switch. Throw it to the left, all of Beethoven's works are destroyed and lost forever. Throw it to the right and somewhere an innocent man dies. If you do nothing, the switch decides on its own in thirty seconds, but you don't know which it will choose.
> 
> Do you choose one, or the other? Or do you abdicate your responsibility to the switch in Pontius Pilate fashion?


Make that three: I'd leave it to fate. The switch, evidently, knows what to do. Who am I in the middle of that? Maybe the saved man *[[ADD*; or one of the descendents of that man, any generation later*]]* is the next even better 'Beethoven,' maybe he's a worthless shmoe. Maybe, really, Beethoven's music is a shmoe and there is mass delusion about it.

Leave it to the omniscient switch, or the caprice of 'how the universe works.' I say.

It is, after all, the same caprice which gave us Beethoven, perhaps we should 'get out of its way' and trust in it more.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Fair enough! But since nobody's asked *me* how I'd answer the question, here goes. It's simple. Sacrifice the blameless man. Why?
> 
> 1. If I chose to sacrifice Beethoven's music, then the 'blameless man" would be guilty, by simply continuing to live, of destroying a substantial part of our culture.


No, he wouldn't. The choice is yours, not his. But I suspect you know that?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod, I hear your argument but I don't hear your answer!


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

KenOC said:


> MacLeod, I hear your argument but I don't hear your answer!


I'll forgive you for overlooking my posts #43 and #65...you're just so busy with these polls!

http://www.talkclassical.com/25207-people-versus-art-3.html#post451594

http://www.talkclassical.com/25207-people-versus-art-5.html#post451678


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Apologies...it was so long ago! And appreciate your stepping up to the plate.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I have no grudge against Wagner as you misguidedly imply. He did nothing to me.
> 
> Why should someone get some 'slack' just because he is an artist? Why shouldn't he behave decently like everyone else.
> 
> Now I have a friend whose childhood was ruined because her father - a musician - was a drunkard. Now should she have cut him some slack because he was an artist? Your whole argument s based on the reasoning that people do not matter.


Beethoven's father was a nasty drunk and beat his family -- yet we get Beethoven. And whom, please, did Wagner actually 'destroy?'

Do you know how many people have drunkard parents, those parents not musicians, compared to people who have drunkard parents who are musicians?

Those with drunkard parents who are not musicians? Safe to guesstimate, at minimum, 98%.

So, why choose and single out 'artists.' then?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> If I chose to sacrifice Beethoven's music, then the 'blameless man" would be guilty, by simply continuing to live, of destroying a substantial part of our culture.


Not sure I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

^^ Exactly. He's still blameless...


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Apologies...it was so long ago! And appreciate *your *stepping up to the plate.


Double plus good!


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Not sure I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou.


On the other hand, throwing him in the woodchipper is a completely different scenario! You could goFar as a detective Marge!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I have a strong marriage & I feel lucky & blessed. It does give me a horror of people who heartlessly leave their spouses after years of marriage & go off with a best friend or colleague, arguing that 'life is short & I deserve a little happiness... it's not as if I killed someone.' It's all part of the 'me' culture, but as Hamlet said, 'Give each of us our deserts & who would scape whipping?' (Quoted from memory; may be inaccurate.)
However, I fight against this tendency in myself. Nobody human knows the truth of anyone's marriage. Though it may put me off composers to know they were faithless and mean, I see this as my limitation. Great art of any kind should be enjoyed for itself; judgement of the makers of great art should be left to God - and biographers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Violadude, "This about sums up my reaction to the premise of the OP:
> 
> http://memegenerator.net/instance/35...meSpan=AllTime
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ...


You do amuse me with your absurdities. How can belief in marital faithfulness be construed as male chauvinism? You need to realise thar name calling does not make for logical argument. Neither does it cover up the insecurities you yourself appear to feel about this matter.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven's father was a nasty drunk and beat his family -- yet we get Beethoven. And whom, please, did Wagner actually 'destroy?'
> 
> Do you know how many people have drunkard parents, those parents not musicians, compared to people who have drunkard parents who are musicians?
> 
> ...


For Wagner I would refer you to Deems Taylor's original article posted by Ken.

For Beethoven, I'm glad of the music but I'm so thankful my father was not like his.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just why is it wrong to feel outraged by someone cheating on his / her life partner? Would you feel outraged if someone stole your life savings? Probably? Then surely infidelity is morally worse than this?
> But apparently, according to you it doesn't matter? Fidelity counts for nothing?


Why all the "projecting" of all this moral outrage? What's behind it? This must be indicative of the present trend, to get all in other people's business. Is it a resurgence of religion?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> You have a totally wrong idea of my view of women. I actually believe that you love your partner you do the very best for her.
> As I said, I am hers and she is mine - till death us do part. I know that's not a view which goes down well in our present liberal society. But that's what we believe. We belong to each other!


My views of family are as conservative as yours, and I absolutely do not believe that desire to keep the marriage vows is male chauvinism. It is rather the other way around: desire to use women without taking any responsibility for them is chauvinistic. In fact it is the women who suffer more often and deeper than men, when these vows are broken and who more often try to protect the family at all costs.

However, I also believe that one should have a way out of a loveless or unsuccessful marriage. The "I am her and she is mine" is the ideal, but it does not always work. Maybe you woul call it the "me" philosophy, but we really do have only one life and it's not worth it to sacrifice it for a loveless relationship and reject the man you really love and care for. I think no one would deny that Cosima von Buelow did love Wagner.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The whole premise that anyone could 'steal' your spouse is absurd.


unless the spouse is inflatable...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Why all the "projecting" of all this moral outrage? What's behind it? This must be indicative of the present trend, to get all in other people's business. Is it a resurgence of religion?


What on earth are you using the term 'projecting'? In the way psychologists do? Then you are using it in the wrong way. I hardly see how saying that marital fidelity is a good thing is getting into other people's business. And is it just the religious who are maritally faithful? I don't think so.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I would certainly then question your priorities. And frankly I would pity your wife!


This thread has gone down the drain.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

I'd just like to revisit an exchange which somehow seems incomplete.



DavidA said:


> I actually believe that you love your partner you do the very best for her. As I said, I am hers and she is mine - till death us do part. I know that's not a view which goes down well in our present liberal society. But that's what we believe. We belong to each other!


I agree with the first two sentences. What puzzled me was the implication that our 'present liberal society' is not in favour of such levels of commitment. I wouldn't agree with that. Please clarify David, that that is the implication.

I previously said,


> Stop hogging all the virtues for the forces of valiant conservatism. It's quite possible to believe in
> the value of life-long partnership (in or out of marriage) and be 'liberal' at the same time.


 to which you replied



DavidA said:


> I was meaning 'liberal' in terms of sexual relationships not politics. It amazes me how you were equate marital faithfulness with valiant conservatism as if faithfulness were some vice. Still, maybe you think it is!


Clearly, I don't think it's a vice: I've just said so. But whether I do or not, you seem keen to distance yourself from 'present liberal society' which I took to mean that you instead allied yourself with conservatism. If my inference was wrong, please put me right and I'll apologise for making a false assumption. Then you can make an apology for assuming my position on marital fidelity, which should not need to be part of the debate.

Finally, in response to your comment about politics, I said,



MacLeod said:


> Sorry - who mentioned politics? I didn't.


Silence. No comment. Not even a "Sorry, I misread you there."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'd just like to revisit an exchange which somehow seems incomplete.
> 
> I agree with the first two sentences. What puzzled me was the implication that our 'present liberal society' is not in favour of such levels of commitment. I wouldn't agree with that. Please clarify David, that that is the implication.
> 
> ...


I think the divorce rate in our society indicates that an increasing number of people are not in favour of lifetime commitments. I may have misused the word 'liberal' in your eyes. It is a term that can be taken in different ways.

I did not assume your position on marital fidelity - I just went by what you said. If I got the wrong end of the stick, apologies!

You seem to be assuming my conservatism. I cannot see what belief in marital fidelity has to do with conservatism.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Getting back to the topic originally at hand. I read in Korda's biography of Lawrence of Arabia that both Lawrence and Horatio Nelson were superb warriors and became heroes to many people. That in spite of private lives that were deemed to be less than ideal. In a similar way we can enjoy the music of Beethoven and Wagner while noting that their private lives may have been certainly less than ideal a lot of the time. But their genius certainly does not excuse the hurt they caused to others nor their extreme failings in many points.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think the divorce rate in our society indicates that an increasing number of people are not in favour of lifetime commitments. I may have misused the word 'liberal' in your eyes. It is a term that can be taken in different ways.
> 
> I did not assume your position on marital fidelity - I just went by what you said. If I got the wrong end of the stick, apologies!
> 
> You seem to be assuming my conservatism. I cannot see what belief in marital fidelity has to do with conservatism.


Thanks for the apologies.

I was assuming your conservatism (on this issue, let's be clear) because you put yourself at a distance from liberalism (on this issue). Where does one go from liberalism if not toward conservatism?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Getting back to the topic originally at hand. I read in Korda's biography of Lawrence of Arabia that both Lawrence and Horatio Nelson were superb warriors and became heroes to many people. That in spite of private lives that were deemed to be less than ideal. In a similar way we can enjoy the music of Beethoven and Wagner while noting that their private lives may have been certainly less than ideal a lot of the time. But their genius certainly does not excuse the hurt they caused to others nor their extreme failings in many points.


With that attitude you can't buy a pretzel at the corner. What if the baker cheated on his wife? "Is your enjoyment of that pretzel worth her suffering?"

I think you're obsessed with this topic, and not in a good way.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> With that attitude you can't buy a pretzel at the corner. What if the baker cheated on his wife? "Is your enjoyment of that pretzel worth her suffering?"
> 
> I think you're obsessed with this topic, and not in a good way.


While I don't disagree with the latter, especially towards the beginning of this thread, I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick in the former statement.

All DavidA is saying, from what I read of the actual words, that the fact that great-person-X doing great thing A does not excuse him/her doing bad thing K. It doesn't mean that we don't have to benefit from A. It just means we don't have to be blind to K.

What he is further perhaps saying is that it would have been better had X neither done A nor K. However he is not saying that we should refuse to benefit from A simply because X did K and A. We are not God - we can't change what happened. What happened happened, and we might as well benefit from A because it did happen, even though K happened as a result as well.

Really I think that's all anyone's saying, and instead everyone has been shouting at thin air for the last ten pages mostly because everyone's essentially in agreement about the main topic at hand.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I've known people who live in loveless marriages. They turn ugly. They whine and complain all the time and think the whole world should either pity or admire them for their patience, while in reality it is nothing but cowardice and inability to free themselves from a spouse who could not give a damn about them. These people poison their lives and the lives of others, and their children suffer from such life more than they would from a divorce. Now, this has really nothing to do with Wagner, just saying...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd be surprised if any saint survives scrutiny. At some point we have to forgive ourselves and each other. Not too soon, of course - there's a role for indignation and moral disgust - but we also have to say, heck, humanity is a messy thing. 

As Kant said (though I of course got it from the blog): "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." 

(Like most Kant, it looks better in English than in German. "Aus so krummem Holze, als woraus der Mensch gemacht ist, kann nichts ganz Gerades gezimmert werden." The heck is that? Come on Kant. Never heard of a second draft? Next time some snarky English prof sniffs about Poe being better in translation, mention Kant.)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Art ultimately lives for it's artistic merit which can be universally appreciated, those who want to bog it down in political and moral issues limit it's purpose and discussion.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

science said:


> (Like most Kant, it looks better in English than in German. "Aus so krummem Holze, als woraus der Mensch gemacht ist, kann nichts ganz Gerades gezimmert werden." The heck is that? Come on Kant. Never heard of a second draft? Next time some snarky English prof sniffs about Poe being better in translation, mention Kant.)


You should try reading Hegel in German. Never again....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think the divorce rate in our society indicates that an increasing number of people are not in favour of lifetime commitments.


I suspect it has to do a lot more with the divorced state being more economically possible for women, and a lessening of society's censure of divorce.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I would certainly then question your priorities. And frankly I would pity your wife!


Hey, one can readily find another spouse.... Just sayin'.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> You should try reading Hegel in German. Never again....


I spent five semesters as a philosophy major, and literally was just 3 classes short of earning the double major, but I just... could... not... do... it.

As far as I'm concerned, "Never again" applies to everything between Bacon and Hegel, regardless of language or translation, with the _partial_ exceptions of Locke, Hume, and Adam Smith. At their very best.

In the first place, it's practically irrelevant to everything except its own self, and in the second place, it's so darned _hard_.

Take, say, Leibniz. Now has Leibniz's philosophy come up in any conversation that you've ever had about anything except Leibniz and the philosophy of Leibniz's time?

I'm not asking you that, it's a rhetorical question. So why, in the era of quantum physics, in a world of beaches and sunsets and puppies, would we spend thousands of calories and dozens of hours trying to figure out whether Leibniz's theory of monads offers a consistent, rational explanation of dynamic force?

I'm not asking you that, it's another rhetorical question. If you have a persuasive answer, and you post it, and I begin to read that post and realize what it is in it, I will stop reading that post for safety's and sanity's sake.

Of course it would help if those dirty punks tried to write as well as, say, Samuel Johnson. Okay, that's asking too much.

By the way, Kierkegaard does a great parody of Hegel in the first paragraphs of _The Sickness Unto Death_ (Hannay translation):



> The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates to itself, or that in the relation which is its relating to itself. The self is not the relation but the relation's relating to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity. In short a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two terms. Looked at in this way a human being is not yet a self.
> 
> In a relation between two things the relation is the third term in the form of a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation, and in the relation to that relation; this is what it is from the point of view of soul for soul and body to be in relation. If, on the other hand, the relation relates to itself, then this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.
> 
> ...


Beautiful. And what's more, when you unpack it, it makes perfect sense: it's essentially a translation of Augustinian trinitarian thought - the two are the Father and Son, the third is the Spirit: the human being is "in the image of" that - into Hegelian terminology, though worked out with an anthropological (in the theological sense) completeness that to the best of my knowledge Augustine never attempted. Kierkegaard was too good for Augustine, I'd say. Maximus the Confessor deserved Kierkegaard, but didn't get him. Of course he got Palamas, and that's quite a bit better than getting Aquinas, but these days, who knows Palamas?

And in short, that is why I didn't finish my philosophy major.

QED.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Ramako said:


> ....Really I think that's all anyone's saying, and instead everyone has been shouting at thin air for the last *ten pages* mostly because everyone's essentially in agreement about the main topic at hand.


I was astonished (well, not really) to see this has accumulated* thirteen pages*...thus far! Pondering, shall I (one happy marriage) add to?

Adding to OP KenOC's #193 thought, "I suspect it has to do a lot more with the divorced state being more economically possible for women, and a lessening of society's censure of divorce."

Societal nosiness change. (Somewhat)
Ignoring church doctrine. (Somewhat)
Legal change. (Largely)
Income change. (Largely)
Birth control. (Steady)


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Ramako said:


> All DavidA is saying, from what I read of the actual words, that the fact that great-person-X doing great thing A does not excuse him/her doing bad thing K. It doesn't mean that we don't have to benefit from A. It just means we don't have to be blind to K.


But I'm _fine_ with that. _Everybody_ here is fine with that (as far as I can see); that's the problem.

What I won't accept is that DavidA captures each and every remotely Wagner-related thread with that same broken record of his and won't let go, and he seems happiest when the discussion escalates until the administrators lock down the thread (I've had it happen twice without even being involved in "that" sub-discussion). It's frustrating because I try to make an effort giving words to a totally unrelated thought, and the thread quickly gets locked down by that ever same-o.

Free speech? Or a clever way to suppress discussion on a specific composer altogether?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> *It is not romantic to suppose that composers & musicians find joy in music that compensates them for disappointments in real life.* It doesn't mean they don't also write or play to earn money and stay alive. Many great musicians feel compelled to follow music, because it 'speaks' to them in a way that others cannot hear. Before the Romantic Era, the great baroque composer Handel defied his father to practise music on a clavichord hidden in the attic.


Actually, it is hyper romantic, and incorrect. Musicians become musicians, primarily, because they do _love_ music, and they still _love it_ when they become professionals. They do it... because, as you did say, they feel compelled to do it, just as many others in many another career do the same -- not as a romantic escape from life's harsher realities.

It is a standard 'projection' on artists that you've made, and it is a driveling conceit which comes from the height of the arch-sentimental ethos of the late romantic era, post Beethoven, whose bio has been lionized and romanticized, I believe, to the detriment of his works.

It actually belittles artists to say they have 'gone to art' to escape the miseries of life. That artist's are 'escapists' is not at all true, or flattering.

The listening public, conversely, often use music as a temporary balm, solace, escape, upon which the wise composer has no comment -- what people make of / use a composer's music for is completely outside the composer's control.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> But I'm _fine_ with that. _Everybody_ here is fine with that (as far as I can see); that's the problem.
> 
> What I won't accept is that DavidA captures each and every remotely Wagner-related thread with that same broken record of his and won't let go, and he seems happiest when the discussion escalates until the administrators lock down the thread (I've had it happen twice without even being involved in "that" sub-discussion). It's frustrating because I try to make an effort giving words to a totally unrelated thought, and the thread quickly gets locked down by that ever same-o.
> 
> Free speech? Or a clever way to suppress discussion on a specific composer altogether?


We've seen it before, and there are others prone to do it, 'Hijacking the thread' to their own purpose, not to mention the attention-mongering and the attention gained by so doing.... bleh.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ebab said:


> But I'm _fine_ with that. _Everybody_ here is fine with that (as far as I can see); that's the problem.
> 
> What I won't accept is that DavidA captures each and every remotely Wagner-related thread with that same broken record of his and won't let go, and he seems happiest when the discussion escalates until the administrators lock down the thread (I've had it happen twice without even being involved in "that" sub-discussion). It's frustrating because I try to make an effort giving words to a totally unrelated thought, and the thread quickly gets locked down by that ever same-o.
> 
> Free speech? Or a clever way to suppress discussion on a specific composer altogether?


I think your observation is absolutelly correct, friend. I'll rather go post some more on _Tristan und Isolde_ and the beauty of German. Count me out of this thread.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Actually, it is hyper romantic, and incorrect. Musicians become musicians, primarily, because they do _love_ music, and they still _love it_ when they become professionals. They do it... because, as you did say, they feel compelled to do it, just as many others in many another career do the same -- not as a romantic escape from life's harsher realities.
> 
> It is a standard 'projection' on artists that you've made, and it is a driveling conceit which comes from the height of the arch-sentimental ethos of the late romantic era, post Beethoven, whose bio has been lionized and romanticized, I believe, to the detriment of his works.
> 
> ...


PetrB, I think you're right on this, but I just want to point out that Ingenue's post allows that great musicians might not _always_ have to turn from disappointments to music. Not that they HAD to do that. Just that it is possible that they (sometimes) do. Starry made a point of saying "some."



starry said:


> Well I said *some* composers and performers, certainly not all.


You guys can probably find a decent middle-ground there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Please note: This was not intended to be a "Wagner-related thread," and most have in fact not taken it that way.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Please note: This was not intended to be a "Wagner-related thread," and most have in fact not taken it that way.


Wonder what Kierkegaard would've said about Wagner. With Mozart, he was an ace. With Wagner, I don't know.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> You do amuse me with your absurdities. How can belief in marital faithfulness be construed as male chauvinism? You need to realise thar name calling does not make for logical argument. Neither does it cover up the insecurities you yourself appear to feel about this matter.


Well, someone here has to amuse, certain parties, obsessed and humorless, not carrying that part of the social duty.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Actually, it is hyper romantic, and incorrect. Musicians become musicians, primarily, because they do _love_ music, and they still _love it_ when they become professionals. They do it... because, as you did say, they feel compelled to do it, just as many others in many another career do the same -- not as a romantic escape from life's harsher realities.
> 
> It is a standard 'projection' on artists that you've made, and it is a driveling conceit which comes from the height of the arch-sentimental ethos of the late romantic era, post Beethoven, whose bio has been lionized and romanticized, I believe, to the detriment of his works.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not subscribing to the Romantic joys-of-the-soul-broken-life-starving-in-garret-true-to-one's-art theory of the artist or musician.

I'm saying that as well as earning money & making a living, musicians can find joy in music, and if they have a disappointing life, that joy may also provide solace. Hardly 'drivelling conceit', though as a Scot I always enjoy the Flyting Tradition.

So the rest of your strictures don't apply. I didn't say that musicians have gone to art to escape the miseries of life, so I'm not belittling artists. I didn't say artists were escapists either.

And I entirely agree that a composer has no control over what the public make of his music.

I am not a Romantic, in fact. In music, I like the Baroque; in literature & art, the Augustan. In terms of conducting a debate, I go for the pre-Romantic virtues of good sense, reason and decorum.

Still, I hope you enjoyed your canter over the moor. Enjoy the rest of your evening.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> I view infidelity extremely seriously. And Taggart had better not forget it...


Wait, what's this? Taggart?

**stuffs a bouquet of flowers into a bin, leaves the room, swearing at the floor**


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Please note: This was not intended to be a "Wagner-related thread," and most have in fact not taken it that way.


I realize that, and I really appreciate that you had created a separate thread in the first place! Sorry for bringing this baggage to "your" thread now; this has been bothering me for too long.

Please carry on with what is in fact a separate issue; this will be the last posting of mine in this thread.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> Wait, what's this? Taggart?
> 
> **stuffs a bouquet of flowers into a bin, leaves the room, swearing at the floor**


??????????????
Watch it, Science!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> ??????????????
> Watch it, Science!


In Italy, six hundred forty.
In Germany, two hundred thirty nine. 
A hundred in France, ninety-one in Turkey.
But in Scotland, nae e'en a body.

Sigh. It's ok.

Pardon me. Somethin' in my eye.

____

Of course I'm just being silly, and you two must be a very happy couple!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As much as the "majority" would like the issue of personality to be irrelevant, the fact is that the pillars of the nineteenth century attitude of a canon of "high art", and the lingering uncritically ethnocentric élitism of Westerners in today's pluralistic musical world are represented by figures like Wagner; and this only exaggerates and exacerbates the reputations and legacies of "geniuses" like Wagner (anti-semite, philanderer), Picasso (treated women badly), Thoreau (his mother did his laundry and brought him pies during his camp-out at Walden Pond), and Einstein (his first wife came up with relativity, and was treated badly). 

As post-modern history (herstory) is being re-written by feminist historians who have their own agendas, history is, whenever possible, being "de-geniused" and the patriarchal power-base of "white male geniuses" is being devalued and slowly but surely eroded and castrated into submission to our brave, new, pluralistic society.

I hope this doesn't ruin anyone's appetite for Wagner, or ""wilt" anyone's "canon."

The composer is no longer a mythical hero, and the Western canon is slipping away, eroded by a world which wants its rightful share of the pie. Do you believe in Santa Claus? It's your parents, man! Here, take a hit off this...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ok, i'm a move this


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Just been catching up on this thread.

Blow it!!! I'm throwing that lever and off to listen to some Beethoven


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> PetrB, I think you're right on this, but I just want to point out that Ingenue's post allows that great musicians might not _always_ have to turn from disappointments to music. Not that they HAD to do that. Just that it is possible that they (sometimes) do. Starry made a point of saying "some."
> 
> You guys can probably find a decent middle-ground there.


I agree, and owe a sort of apology -- I sometimes 'address the board,' once something has been said which I believe deserves some clarification -- because it may be read by many, and that sort of post is often not meant to fully controvert all of what Ingenue or Starry did write.

Many working artists hear this romantic conceit coming from others -- as applied to the artist -- extremely frequently, and it gets more than tiresome when you know you've worked, since childhood, longer than a physician and at least as hard to make even a passable journeyman career possible.

Once, a neighbor's guest had been lingering in the hall, to listen, I guess, to my playing some Chopin. I stopped, and then walked out, and he asked me if 'that was me playing.' I said yes. That guest then said, after some such like 'fabulous.' 
"Oh, I see! You had a horrible childhood, and you got into music to escape the misery / unhappiness." 
I let out a hearty and truly spontaneous laugh and said, 
"Wow! You are a true romantic."

Thanks for reminding me that both Ingenue's and Starry's post is not all black and white (I saw that, but did overlook it, my fault.)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think you might apologise to me too, PetrB, for not reading my post properly...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Wait, what's this? Taggart?
> 
> **stuffs a bouquet of flowers into a bin, leaves the room, swearing at the floor**


It is ALWAYS the bouquet which gets so abused, isn't it?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> I think you might apologise to me too, PetrB, for not reading my post properly...


http://www.talkclassical.com/25207-people-versus-art-14.html

please accept it as a given (No. 213) .... and Starry, too.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Sorry - I jumped the gun. Thanks for your apology. Accepted. I'm sure you do get fed up of people making clichéd remarks to you, & of Romantics in general. It's just that I'm not one of them. 

Live long & prosper!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> Sorry - I jumped the gun. Thanks for your apology. Accepted. I'm sure you do get fed up of people making clichéd remarks to you, & of Romantics in general. It's just that I'm not one of them.
> 
> Live long & prosper!


Thanks. It is not 'just me' but musicians, composers, artists in general who, em masse, are HIGHLY ROMANTIZED by the general public. Beethoven was lionized, romanticized to the level of "Collective Urban Myth" to a degree where I wonder how many actually hear his music for what it is, vs. the "Hollywood sob sob isn't that tragic / sad Bio" now near permanently attached to this great composer's works.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Thanks. It is not 'just me' but musicians, composers, artists in general who, em masse, are HIGHLY ROMANTIZED by the general public. Beethoven was lionized, romanticized to the level of "Collective Urban Myth" to a degree where I wonder how many actually hear his music for what it is, vs. the "Hollywood sob sob isn't that tragic / sad Bio" now near permanently attached to this great composer's works.


Fine. I didn't suppose that it was 'just you' who got fed up of romantic notions.

The general public have a lot to answer for, but maybe that needs a different thread?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> Fine. I didn't suppose that it was 'just you' who got fed up of romantic notions.
> 
> The general public have a lot to answer for, but maybe that needs a different thread?


It was just an explanation, really. The general public, wishing more fact, have a wealth to go to for those facts. I've seen often that disabusing people of their notions does not make either converts or friends.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

if they break the law but them in jail. i don't really mind their personal life.


----------

