# Jewish Composers



## peeyaj

I'm curious, aside from Mendelssohn and Mahler, who are some of the popular and acclaimed Jewish or Jewish descent classical music composers. I'm into Mendelssohn right now, and I think his good.. Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?


----------



## starry

peeyaj said:


> Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?


No. Some people could use folk elements, but it's a matter of stylistic choice and not necessarily related to what ethnicity or nationality someone is. The only people who see it as important are those obsessed by ethnic/nationalist issues and who put this onto the music.


----------



## DavidA

Mendelssohn was a Jew by birth but a Christian. Mahler was also baptised as a Christian, I believe.
Wasn't Bloch a practising Jew?


----------



## Art Rock

Ernest Bloch and Leonard Bernstein come to mind - both also sometimes using Jewish themes in their compositions.


----------



## peeyaj

DavidA said:


> Mendelssohn was a Jew by birth but a Christian. Mahler was also baptised as a Christian, I believe.
> Wasn't Bloch a practising Jew?


Is being a Jew, related to religion or nationality? You mentioned Mendelssohn.. Is he considered Jew, even though he is a Christian, or not?


----------



## Petwhac

peeyaj said:


> . Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?


No but there is 'Yiddishness'. Mahler- slow movement of Symphony 1 come to mind.


----------



## Rapide

peeyaj said:


> I'm curious, aside from Mendelssohn and Mahler, who are some of the popular and acclaimed Jewish or Jewish descent classical music composers. I'm into Mendelssohn right now, and I think his good.. Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?


Richard Wagner


----------



## joen_cph

Paul Ben Haim is relatively known too. Wrote some solid works, including attractive instrumental music, such as the Violin Concerto, Concerto for Strings, Violin Solo Sonata, piano sonata http://claude.torres1.perso.sfr.fr/Ben-Haim/BenHaimDiscographie.html

Bloch is probably the most important however.

Jewish folklore has been promoted by various other composers as well - Prokofiev (Ouverture on Hebrew Themes), Mikhail Gnesin ("The Jewish Ball in Nothingtown"), Shostakovich (Songs from Jewish Poetry etc.), Copland (Piano Trio Vitebsk), etc.


----------



## DavidA

peeyaj said:


> Is being a Jew, related to religion or nationality? You mentioned Mendelssohn.. Is he considered Jew, even though he is a Christian, or not?


It is both, of course. But a Jew by race is not necessarily a Jew by religion or even culture. Even in Israel, most Jews are secular.
My wife is Jewish by birth but Christian with respect to faith.


----------



## quack

If there is Jewishness in music then along with Mahler, Mendelssohn, Bernstein and others already mentioned you would have to find a music link with composers as diverse as Aaron Copland, György Kurtág, Kurt Weill, Jacques Offenbach, Arnold Schoenberg, Erich Korngold, Philip Glass, George Gershwin, Giacomo Meyerbeer, Erwin Schulhoff, Morton Feldman, Mieczysław Weinberg or Gerald Finzi. And that doesn't even begin to mention people in popular music like Burt Bacharach, Phil Spector or Leonard Cohen.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Well, Jewish music has a typical sound to it, so I would say there is such a thing as folkloric Jewish music, but the whole Wagner article is a bunch of garbage.


----------



## Musician

Mendelssohn, Mahler, Dukas, Alkan, Fanny Mendelssohn, Solomone Rossi, Bloch, Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Hiller, Ferdinard David, schoenberg, Korngold, Kurt Weil, Oscar Hammerstein, Franz Scherker, Milhaud, Gershwin, Irvin Berlin, Copland, Ullman, Solomon Jadassohn, Pavel Hass, Ignaz Moscheles, Joseph Joachim, Karl Goldmark, William Schuman, Bernstein, Jacques Halevy, Babbit, Ligeti, Fritz Kreisler...


----------



## DavidA

quack said:


> If there is Jewishness in music then along with Mahler, Mendelssohn, Bernstein and others already mentioned you would have to find a music link with composers as diverse as Aaron Copland, György Kurtág, Kurt Weill, Jacques Offenbach, Arnold Schoenberg, Erich Korngold, Philip Glass, George Gershwin, Giacomo Meyerbeer, Erwin Schulhoff, Morton Feldman, Mieczysław Weinberg or Gerald Finzi. And that doesn't even begin to mention people in popular music like Burt Bacharach, Phil Spector or Leonard Cohen.


Irvin Berlin - interesting that 'white Christmas' was written by a Jew!


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> Mendelssohn, Mahler, Dukas, Alkan, Fanny Mendelssohn, Solomone Rossi, Bloch, Offenbach, Meyerbeer, Hiller, Ferdinard David, schoenberg, Korngold, Kurt Weil, Oscar Hammerstein, Franz Scherker, Milhaud, Gershwin, Irvin Berlin, Copland, Ullman, Solomon Jadassohn, Pavel Hass, Ignaz Moscheles, Joseph Joachim, Karl Goldmark, William Schuman, Bernstein, Jacques Halevy, Babbit, Ligeti, Fritz Kreisler...


If you're including popular music, Oy don't get mr started.

Bob Dylan
Paul Simon 
Harry Nilsson
Oscar Hammerstein...............


----------



## Ravndal

I believe Ligeti was a jew..


----------



## Musician

Ravndal said:


> I believe Ligeti was a jew..


I said that already...........


----------



## Ravndal

whatever.

Here is actually a whole wiki page dedicated to this subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_classical_musicians


----------



## Musician

DavidA said:


> Irvin Berlin - interesting that 'white Christmas' was written by a Jew!


He also composed 'God Bless America'


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Petwhac said:


> If you're including popular music, Oy don't get mr started.
> 
> Bob Dylan
> Paul Simon
> Harry Nilsson
> Oscar Hammerstein...............


and don't forget Billy Joel, hehe.


----------



## aleazk

Steve Reich is jew, if I remember well.


----------



## aleazk

Ravndal said:


> I believe Ligeti was a jew..


Yes, he was jew. His father and brother were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis and killed there. His mother survived Auschwitz. Ligeti himself also survived the labour camp to which he was sent.


----------



## Ravndal

Yes, and we must not forget Henryk Gorecki!


----------



## nikola

Leonard Cohen... 
It's actually weird question since all musicians are Jews. Those who are not jews are gays - Elton John, Tchaikovsky, etc.


----------



## Celloman

Ravndal said:


> Yes, and we must not forget Henryk Gorecki!


Unless I'm quite mistaken, I believe that Gorecki was Catholic.


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> Irvin Berlin - interesting that 'white Christmas' was written by a Jew!


And Mel Torme wrote the Christmas Song. And my girlfriend has a Christmas album by Neil Diamond. As that great Italian Frank Zappa once said, "We're Only In It For The Money".


----------



## Musician

Pink is a Jewess too, but that's already going into modern musicians, popular stuff...
Pink has some interesting melodies, too bad she went popular

But Regina Spektor, who is also Jewish did compose some serious popular music
Since she is a classically trained pianist, her folk/pop music has some real quality


----------



## Musician

Shlomo Artzi, one of the most popular composer/song writers in Israel.

He writes the lyrics, and music and performs as well...


----------



## Musician

Joe Dassin was one of the most famous Jewish French composers and song writers, and old time favorite of mine...


----------



## Musician

Israeli Daliah Lavi also very famous Israeli singer/song writer






English/French Song


----------



## TudorMihai

If you don't mind film score composers:

Max Steiner
Victor Young
Franz Waxman
Bernard Herrmann
Dmitri Tiomkin
Alfred Newman
Alan Menken
Jerry Goldsmith
Alex North
Elmer Bernstein
Lalo Schifrin
James Horner
Danny Elfman

For a list of Jewish classical composers: Jewish Songwriters and Composers


----------



## Musician

The Israeli Army showcasing their official Cantor performing a sacred Jewish Song


----------



## Sudonim

TudorMihai said:


> If you don't mind film score composers:
> [...] Alfred Newman


Of course, Alfred's nephew Randy is pretty well-known as both a pop-music and film-score music composer as well ...

_Edit:_ Hey, I just noticed I'm now a Senior Member here! When do I learn the secret handshake?


----------



## Ravndal

Celloman said:


> Unless I'm quite mistaken, I believe that Gorecki was Catholic.


You're probably right... Just assumed he was a jew, because of his third symphony.


----------



## PetrB

peeyaj said:


> Is being a Jew, related to religion or nationality? You mentioned Mendelssohn.. Is he considered Jew, even though he is a Christian, or not?


For both Mendelssohn and Mahler, conversion was at least initially a matter of convenience and survival. You just did not get appointed as the director / conductor of the Hungarian opera or any other such important post if you were Jewish. (THE exceptions seem to have been for individual performers in orchestras and soloist performers.) That nominal sort of conversion of Mendelssohn and Mahler was a commonplace occurrence in their lifetimes. (Schoenberg converted to Christianity too -- also a matter of survival -- he held to it for some while until later in the States, safe from the anti-Semitic hurricane of Hitler in the 1930's - 40's, he converted back.)

The Jewish genetic heritage stems from being Semitic, the Jewish faith having developed in the middle-east, the Jews being one clan / tribe of the Semitic peoples (which includes those still in the middle-east and further, many of whom are now adherents of Islam, Christianity, or other.)

After the diaspora, with so many Jews intermarrying with west European Caucasians over a period of over one thousand years leaves a great number of the Jewish people with their genetic history mixed to such a degree with those Europeans that many of them appear to be wholly Caucasian, and not Semitic at all. There is a distinction made: the European mixed gene pool group called Ashkenaz (plural, Ashkenazi) and Sephardic (Sephardim)
http://www.jewishgen.org/sefardsig/differ.HTM

Whatever else the origin of the terms distinguishing the difference, there is an accepted general usage: those who have more European genetics in their mix are the Ashkenazi, those who are more wholly Semitic are the Sephardim. _(Reminding any of this well known name: Vladimir Ashkenazy.)_

Jews from each group can and do claim "genetic" in relation to their faith. Those very strong on the existence of Israel, their historic place of origin, would say "Nationality" as well. (Christianity is innately a faith group comprised of nothing but converts - no claims of either genetics or nationality could possibly apply.)

Of course, sentiment over both people's religion and nationality is often beyond quaint. Both are "assigned." Many a nation's borders has wobbled throughout history -- Look at maps of pre world war I Poland to decide who gets to call themselves "Polish," and that dependent upon how far back in time you care to go to trace your 'nationality.'

Your nationality, like being a peasant or noble in Feudal Europe, is a matter of accident of birth: religion is assigned / designated by one's family or society.

Many people around the world reflexively grab at both nationality and religion (and native language) almost as if those were genetic: they are not 

Your gene pool -- skin, hair, eye color and other physical traits -- that _is_ genetic.

The only "Jewishness" in music is when a composer, Jewish or other, uses some idiomatic folk tunes or scales in the piece, or writes something Jewish themed, say the Kaddish: 
Bernstein symphony of the same name, Bernstein -- Jewish*::* Ravel Kaddish, one of his Deux mélodies hébraïques, Ravel, nominally Catholic.
... or the composer uses folk tunes associated with the particular ethnic group:
Copland, Vtibsk, piano trio using Jewish musical themes, Copland - Jewish*::* Prokofiev, Overture on Hebrew themes, Prokofiev, Orthodox Christian, then as per state decree, officially atheist, then (learned this from a TC member's post) converted to Christian Science.

ADD:
Samuel Adler
Charles-Valentin Alkan
David Amram
Milton Babbitt
Robert Beaser
Paul Ben-Haim
Arthur Berger
Leonard Bernstein
Ernst Bloch
Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco
Aaron Copland
Louis-Claude Daquin (French; Baroque)
Mario Davidovsky
David Diamond
Jacob Druckman
Morton Feldman
Irving Fine
Lukas Foss
Philip Glass
Osvaldo Golijov
Morton Gould
Pavel Haas
Roy Harris
Mauricio Kagel
Aaron Jay Kernis
Fritz Kreisler
Meyer Kupferman
Giacomo Meyerbeer
Darius Milhaud
Douglas Moore (of the opera "Ballad of Baby Doe" fame)
Leo Ornstein
George Rochberg
Salomone (Solomon) Rossi (Italian, late renaissance / early baroque)
Harold Shapero
Arnold Schoenberg
William Schuman
Ralph Shapey
Elie Siegmeister
Nicolas Slonimsky
_There is still roaring controversy (for those to whom it matters) that Stravinsky was of Jewish heritage, going no further back than two or three generations in his family genealogy._
Morton Subotnick
Franz Shreker
Alexandre Tansman
André Tchaikowsky
Ernst Toch
Kurt Weill
Stefan Wolpe
Alexander von Zemlinsky
John Zorn


----------



## Kleinzeit

Petwhac said:


> If you're including popular music, Oy don't get mr started.
> 
> Bob Dylan
> Paul Simon
> Harry Nilsson
> Oscar Hammerstein...............











Been reading this fine bio of the great maudit.
Harry's paternal side was Brooklynese for at least two generations but presumably Norwegian originally (the book really doesn't say). They tend to be Lutheran. And his mother was Irish Catholic.


----------



## Petwhac

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 23838
> 
> 
> Been reading this fine bio of the great maudit.
> Harry's paternal side was Brooklynese for at least two generations but presumably Norwegian originally (the book really doesn't say). They tend to be Lutheran. And his mother was Irish Catholic.


Must have got confused over his album title Nilsson Schmilsson.:lol:


----------



## Celloman

I think this is probably my third time to tout the _Hebraic Rhapsody for Cello and Orchestra_ by Ernest Bloch. (subtitled "Schelomo") This gentleman was a master orchestrator, and it definitely shows here. In addition to some very Jewish-sounding inflections, Bloch paints an evocative picture using Debussian harmonics and chord clusters. Check it out here:


----------



## Musician

Most of Europe are also Semetic, because Esau Jacob's brother was the progenitor of Italy, and Germany, and many other European Nations. But all people are rooted in one person, Adam. So the whole world is really genetically unified.



PetrB said:


> For both Mendelssohn and Mahler, conversion was at least initially a matter of convenience and survival. You just did not get appointed as the director / conductor of the Hungarian opera or any other such important post if you were Jewish. (THE exceptions seem to have been for individual performers in orchestras and soloist performers.) That nominal sort of conversion of Mendelssohn and Mahler was a commonplace occurrence in their lifetimes (Schoenberg converted to Christianity too -- also a matter of survival -- he held to it for some while until later in the States, safe from the anti-Semitic hurricane of Hitler in the 1930's - 40's, he converted back.
> 
> The Jewish genetic heritage stems from being Semitic, the Jewish faith having developed in the middle-east, the Jews being one clan / tribe of the Semitic peoples (which includes those still in the middle-east and further, many of whom are now adherents of Islam, Christianity, or other.)
> 
> After the diaspora, with so many Jews intermarrying with west European Caucasians over a period of over one thousand years leaves a great number of the Jewish people with their genetic history mixed to such a degree with those Europeans that many of them appear to be wholly Caucasian, and not Semitic at all. There is a distinction made: the European mixed gene pool group called Ashkenaz (plural, Ashkenazi) and Sephardic (Sephardim)
> http://www.jewishgen.org/sefardsig/differ.HTM
> 
> Whatever else the origin of the terms distinguishing the difference, there is an accepted general usage: those who have more European genetics in their mix are the Ashkenazi, those who are more wholly Semitic are the Sephardim. _(Reminding any of this well known name: Vladimir Ashkenazy.)_
> 
> Jews from each group can and do claim "genetic" in relation to their faith. Those very strong on the existence of Israel, their historic place of origin, would say "Nationality" as well. (Christianity is innately a faith group comprised of nothing but converts - no claims of either genetics or nationality could possibly apply.)
> 
> Of course, sentiment over both people's religion and nationality is often beyond quaint. Both are "assigned." Many a nation's borders has wobbled throughout history -- Look at maps of pre world war I Poland to decide who gets to call themselves "Polish," and that dependent upon how far back in time you care to go to trace your 'nationality.'
> 
> Your nationality, like being a peasant or noble in Feudal Europe, is a matter of accident of birth: religion is assigned / designated by one's family or society.
> 
> Many people around the world reflexively grab at both nationality and religion (and native language) almost as if those were genetic: they are not
> 
> Your gene pool -- skin, hair, eye color and other physical traits -- that _is_ genetic.
> 
> The only "Jewishness" in music is when a composer, Jewish or other, uses some idiomatic folk tunes or scales in the piece, or writes something Jewish themed, say the Kaddish:
> Bernstein symphony of the same name, Bernstein -- Jewish*::* Ravel Kaddish, one of his Deux mélodies hébraïques, Ravel, nominally Catholic.
> ... or the composer uses folk tunes associated with the particular ethnic group:
> Copland, Vtibsk, piano trio using Jewish musical themes, Copland - Jewish*::* Prokofiev, Overture on Hebrew themes, Prokofiev, Orthodox Christian, then as per state decree, officially atheist, then (learned this from a TC member's post) converted to Christian Science.


----------



## elgar's ghost

peeyaj said:


> Is being a Jew, related to religion or nationality? You mentioned Mendelssohn.. Is he considered Jew, even though he is a Christian, or not?


He obviously wasn't considered Christian enough to have been included here...


----------



## Musician

Mendelssohn was a Jew, his conversion was a total bluff, they just wanted to have the freedoms that been a Christian offered, they never did it because they 'found the light' as they say. To use Heine's remarks "The conversion was a ticket to european culture'...



elgars ghost said:


> He obviously wasn't considered Christian enough to have been included here...


----------



## PetrB

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 23838
> 
> 
> Been reading this fine bio of the great maudit.
> Harry's paternal side was Brooklynese for at least two generations but presumably Norwegian originally (the book really doesn't say). They tend to be Lutheran. And his mother was Irish Catholic.


Don't forget Lou Reed !.......................


----------



## PetrB

Musician said:


> Most of Europe are also Semetic, because Esau Jacob's brother was the progenitor of Italy, and Germany, and many other European Nations. But all people are rooted in one person, Adam. So the whole world is really genetically unified.


Ahhh, we are all Jewish, then!

But really -- and... Alrighty, then.... not touching this one with a ten foot pole while wearing a HazMat suit.


----------



## PetrB

Celloman said:


> I think this is probably my third time to tout the _Hebraic Rhapsody for Cello and Orchestra_ by Ernest Bloch. (subtitled "Schelomo") This gentleman was a master orchestrator, and it definitely shows here. In addition to some very Jewish-sounding inflections, Bloch paints an evocative picture using Debussian harmonics and chord clusters. Check it out here:


This too, is Bloch, and I hear nothing remotely "Jewish" about it.
Symphony No. 1


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> But all people are rooted in one person, Adam. So the whole world is really genetically unified.


And Adam and Eve as the years pass become different individuals who lived later each time. Also, which ever two individuals currently are our MRCA (most resent common ancestor) they almost certainly did not live at the same time. See  Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam


----------



## Musician

Esau was the opposite of a Jew, so no, you're not a Jew.



PetrB said:


> Ahhh, we are all Jewish, then!
> 
> But really -- and... Alrighty, then.... not touching this one with a ten foot pole while wearing a HazMat suit.


----------



## Kleinzeit

Petwhac said:


> Must have got confused over his album title Nilsson Schmilsson.:lol:


Oedipus Schmoedipus! So long as he loves his mother.


----------



## Kleinzeit

PetrB said:


> Don't forget Lou Reed !.......................


So who's forgettin'?






--You dancin'?
--You askin'?
--I'm askin'.
--I'm dancin'.


----------



## Musician

Joss Stone, British Singer/Songwriter

Jewess


----------



## Musician

Art Garfunkel, American Singer/Songwriter
Barbra Streisand 
Elvis Presley


----------



## Musician

Dianne Agron, Jewish American, Singer Actress...


















Alona Tal, Israeli, Singer Actress


----------



## DavidA

Musician said:


> Esau was the opposite of a Jew, so no, you're not a Jew.


Esau the oppsite of a Jew? He was Israel's brother!


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> Art Garfunkel, American Singer/Songwriter
> Barbra Streisand
> Elvis Presley


I think we are beginning to stretch the definition of 'composer' and in Elvis's case, of 'Jewish' too.


----------



## DavidA

Petwhac said:


> I think we are beginning to stretch the definition of 'composer' and in Elvis's case, of 'Jewish' too.


Love me tender I think was Elvis' masterpiece. As to being Jewish, I haven't heard that before. Evidence?


----------



## Musician

Yea but was a wild man, resented his brother, and chose a different route that of a brutal warlord, while Jacob was a servant of God and a Scholar.



DavidA said:


> Esau the oppsite of a Jew? He was Israel's brother!


----------



## Musician

DavidA said:


> Love me tender I think was Elvis' masterpiece. As to being Jewish, I haven't heard that before. Evidence?


Walla
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/16/elvis-presleys-jewish-roots-highlighted-on-his-35th-yahrtzheit/


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> Walla
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/16/elvis-presleys-jewish-roots-highlighted-on-his-35th-yahrtzheit/


Oh dear, here we go again. In another thread you questioned the degree of Jewishness of secular Jews like Daniel Barenboim because he champions Wagner and does not live his life according to Jewish law. No you want to claim Elvis a Jew because his great-great maternal grand mother was Jewish,

But wait.......

Talmudic law states that Jewishness is passed down through the maternal line. Although we know there is no biological/genetic factor. It's simple, if your mother is Jewish then you are Jewish. Presumably then, whether or not the daughter of a Jewish woman marries a non Jew and does not practice Judaism in any way, she is still Jewish. A son of a Jewish mother must equally be Jewish although he can't pass his Jewishness on if he marries a non-Jew.

Are you still with me?

Consider this then.

When the mantel of Mitochondrial 'Eve' passes to a Jewish woman, that woman will be the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of every female alive. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from the mother.
Therefore when this occurs, every female on planet earth will descend from a Jewish woman and will therefore be themselves Jewish. And all their sons too. The whole world will be Jewish.

That is the logical outcome of Talmudic law and genetics.


----------



## Musician

There is a difference between been Jewish because of genetics, and practicing Judaism. Barenboim is Jewish, no one can take his Jewishness from him, when it comes to ethnicity, but as far as forming a Jewish Position on vital things within Judaism, his is not a Jewish position, because he simply doesn't practice the religion...

And No, neither Adam or Eve were Jews. Abraham was not born a Jew as well. Judaism formed on the foot of Mount Sinai when the Israelites agreed to accept God's Torah publicly and willfully.

Abraham was born into an idol worshiping pagan family, he went against his family's ways and understood that their many gods were a total bluff, man made idols that cant see, hear, or speak. So he came to the conclusion that there is one God that has power over all things, and that he alone created everything, and he alone should be worshipped.

He then had a revelation from God, where God appeared to him, and commanded him to perform a circumcision. He fulfilled God's commandment and became God's Servant. But he didn't belong to any kind of a religion. When a person is alone in the world and worships God in truth, he doesn't belong to any kind of an organized religion, he simply was a saintly and righteous holy servant of God, and is considered one of the three patriarchs of the Jewish people, the other two are his Son Isaac and his Grandson Jacob, though Jacob is considered as the superior father from the three.

The Talmud says that the entire world was created for the sake of Jacob. He was a saint, in Judaism what does it mean to be a saint? There are many categories and requirements , but the most vital is the guarding of the seed, meaning not to spill the seed needlessly. It is a very difficult thing to achieve, and Jacob never spilled his seed needlessly, as the Bible recounts Jacob saying at the birth of his firstborn Reuben , " Reuben, thou art my first-born, *my might, and the first-fruits of my strength*; the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. " Genesis 48:3. Jacob had never had an improper thought enter his mind, thus he never sinned with this transgression. So in Judaism the most vital distinction between a sinner and a saint, is this, the complete safeguarding of one's self from this transgression, the needless spilling of the seed. In Genesis Joseph is also called a 'Tzadik' , a Saint, especially because of this, he had never sinned with this transgression, even while he was living, the only Jew in a land full of profanity and sorcery, Egypt. In the Kabbalah Table, where each attribution metaphorically corresponds to the human body, the attribute of 'Yesod' meaning 'foundation' is located at the organ of reproduction. You can see this in this illustration : http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/K/KAB/kabbalah-archetypal-man.jpg

The phenomenon in all of this is that when Jacob got married he was 60 years old, this means to say that he had never had a bad thought in his mind, and his first power and seed was literally Reuben, his firstborn. Jacob had many other great attributes, which drastically puts him apart from the sinners of his time, but this is the most vital one. For if a person who does all the greatest things in this world, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, gives charity, and does many other deeds of kindness, still can't be considered in Judaism as a Saint, without keeping the foundation, the pillar where all other things stand.

So to conclude, there are two dimensions to what a Jew means. Ethnicity, and actual religious practice. If you're Barenboim for example, then you are Jew because your mom is a Jew, period. But as we all know that's where Barenboim's Judaism ends, and his opinion has absolutely zero value when it comes to Judaism, or things that are of great importance for the Jewish people, in short his opinion can't be considered Jewish.

That is why in Rabbinical Judaism there is the concept of 'Daas Torah', meaning 'The Torah's Knowledge', this means to say that Orthodox Jews when they need to make major decisions in their lives, they go to a Great Rabbi, who has studied Torah for many years, and since this Rabbi was immersed in Torah Study for so many years, his mind has attuned itself to its wisdom, and thus he thinks in the parameters of the Torah. This is in some way tantamount to biblical times when every Jew had the chance to come in front of the High Priest and ask his concerns, and the Hebrew letters that were carved within the 12 precious stones that the High Priest wore on his chest, lighted up with an answer, and the person was able to directly communicate to God in this way, and he used to guide his life without second guessing, but with a full knowledge of what is expected from him, and which path to take.



Petwhac said:


> Oh dear, here we go again. In another thread you questioned the degree of Jewishness of secular Jews like Daniel Barenboim because he champions Wagner and does not live his life according to Jewish law. No you want to claim Elvis a Jew because his great-great maternal grand mother was Jewish,
> 
> But wait.......
> 
> Talmudic law states that Jewishness is passed down through the maternal line. Although we know there is no biological/genetic factor. It's simple, if your mother is Jewish then you are Jewish. Presumably then, whether or not the daughter of a Jewish woman marries a non Jew and does not practice Judaism in any way, she is still Jewish. A son of a Jewish mother must equally be Jewish although he can't pass his Jewishness on if he marries a non-Jew.
> 
> Are you still with me?
> 
> Consider this then.
> 
> When the mantel of Mitochondrial 'Eve' passes to a Jewish woman, that woman will be the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of every female alive. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from the mother.
> Therefore when this occurs, every female on planet earth will descend from a Jewish woman and will therefore be themselves Jewish. And all their sons too. The whole world will be Jewish.
> 
> That is the logical outcome of Talmudic law and genetics.


----------



## Celloman

Here, it might be worth mentioning the Milken Archive. According to their website, this is "the largest collection of American Jewish music ever assembled--more than 700 recorded works, including 500 world premiere recordings." Naxos has put together a set of 50 CDs based on this archive.

That's a lot of music.


----------



## peeyaj

Musician said:


> Dianne Agron, Jewish American, Singer Actress...


The nose. The nose.  That gives it.


----------



## Musician

peeyaj said:


> The nose. The nose.  That gives it.


What do you think about this? does her nose also give away her German ancestry?


----------



## Sid James

Some signficant Australian composers where of Jewish heritage.

There is *Arthur Benjamin *of Jamaican Rumba fame. He wrote more substantial works than that though, incorporating not only those rhythms he came across in the Caribbean, but also influences of Ravel, early Stravinsky and Richard Strauss. I reviewed the album below here.










Another one is *Isaac Nathan*, the first composer to have written an opera in Australia, called _Don John of Austria_. I've heard the overture to that opera, and its pretty good. Charles Mackerras did the first and I think only recording of it.










In terms of living Australian composers, *Larry Sitsky *is another one, but I know little about him or his music. The article I found here has details on him, as well as Isaac Nathan and others.


----------



## DavidA

Musician said:


> Yea but was a wild man, resented his brother, and chose a different route that of a brutal warlord, while Jacob was a servant of God and a Scholar.


I think you are mixing Esau and Ishmael (who Genesis describes as a 'wild man). Where is the evidence Jacob was a scholar - he was a sheep farmer!


----------



## DavidA

Musician said:


> Walla
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/16/elvis-presleys-jewish-roots-highlighted-on-his-35th-yahrtzheit/


Jewish roots then. Not Jewish. Elvis was raised a Christian.


----------



## DavidA

Musician said:


> The Talmud says that the entire world was created for the sake of Jacob. He was a saint, in Judaism what does it mean to be a saint? There are many categories and requirements , but the most vital is the guarding of the seed, meaning not to spill the seed needlessly. It is a very difficult thing to achieve, and Jacob never spilled his seed needlessly, as the Bible recounts Jacob saying at the birth of his firstborn Reuben , " Reuben, thou art my first-born, *my might, and the first-fruits of my strength*; the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power. " Genesis 48:3. Jacob had never had an improper thought enter his mind, thus he never sinned with this transgression. So in Judaism the most vital distinction between a sinner and a saint, is this, the complete safeguarding of one's self from this transgression, the needless spilling of the seed. In Genesis Joseph is also called a 'Tzadik' , a Saint, especially because of this, he had never sinned with this transgression, even while he was living, the only Jew in a land full of profanity and sorcery, Egypt. In the Kabbalah Table, where each attribution metaphorically corresponds to the human body, the attribute of 'Yesod' meaning 'foundation' is located at the organ of reproduction. You can see this in this illustration : http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/K/KAB/kabbalah-archetypal-man.jpg
> 
> The phenomenon in all of this is that when Jacob got married he was 60 years old, this means to say that he had never had a bad thought in his mind, and his first power and seed was literally Reuben, his firstborn. Jacob had many other great attributes, which drastically puts him apart from the sinners of his time, but this is the most vital one. For if a person who does all the greatest things in this world, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, gives charity, and does many other deeds of kindness, still can't be considered in Judaism as a Saint, without keeping the foundation, the pillar where all other things stand.


Sorry, mate, but the Old Testament shows Jacob as a flesh and blood man, capable of swindling his brother out of his birthright. He had a journey from being 'Jacob' which has connotations of 'Twister' to Israel' the prince with God but not till later on. There is absolutely nothing in the written history to support your claim. It is tradition that has been read into it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It is *tradition *that has been read into it.


"Tradition!! !"


----------



## moody

Musician said:


> Walla
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/16/elvis-presleys-jewish-roots-highlighted-on-his-35th-yahrtzheit/


I suppose there's no chance that you could possibly mean "voila"?


----------



## Musician

DavidA said:


> I think you are mixing Esau and Ishmael (who Genesis describes as a 'wild man). Where is the evidence Jacob was a scholar - he was a sheep farmer!


You are missing the vital parameters that define Judaism, that is why you come to the wrong conclusions. The main thing that is you need to understand is that Judaism since its very inception on Mount Sinai, couldn't function without the Oral Torah.

Pay close attention, non of the 613 commandments from the Torah can be observed without the Oral Torah, which is the commentary that was given to Moses together with the written Torah by God. For example, God says to keep the Sabbath Holy, and to rest on that day. Ask any of the 3 million Jews that accepted the Torah 3300 years ago, how to keep it holy and how to 'rest', and you'll get 3 million different answers. Another example, the Torah says that one should fast on Yom Kippur, ok, but does this include the infants who could die without food? what about, the sick and injured, or pregnant women? they also have to fast? , third example, the Torah commands, to put the Tephilin phylacteries which are are a set of small black leather boxes containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah, one on the arm and one on the head. The Torah never says even one word on how they should look like, what material they should be made with, their size, and many other details are missing. None of the commandments' commentaries and explanations on how to perform them are recorded in the Torah. So the simple obvious question is, how God expects Jews to follow Judaism without telling them how to perform the Commandments? major problem don't you agree?

Well, the fact is that he did provide all the details and commentary and information to Moses, orally, and this in Judaism is called 'The Oral Torah'. There was a prohibition to write the oral Torah, until the Great Talmudic Rabbi Yehuda The Prince, decided to write it down so Jews wouldn't forget it in their long awaited exile, after the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple. Thus the Oral Torah was first written in short statements of laws, called the Mishna, and then the further discussions of the Great Sages of Israel about the Mishna were also recorded and written, and that is called the Talmud. Therefore the Mishna, and the Talmud, and also the Hagada and Midrash, and also the Kabbalah were written down, and is known as the Oral Torah.

Even if one of these elements was missing, Judaism couldn't be practiced, not 3300 years ago and now today. So for us Jews, we don't only have the written Torah, we also have the explanation and the elaboration, and the depth that is needed to fully understand the entire picture, and not just read the bible like a five year old. Yes, you're rite there is no evidence that Jacob was a Scholar, just by reading the verses in the Torah, there is also no evidence that Moses was a Scholar, and there's not even one word that suggests that Abraham or Isaac or any other Jewish Leader was a scholar, simply because the bible doesn't say so.

The bible doesn't say many things, in fact there is more that the bible doesn't say or mention then what it does say or mention. So, just by reading the Torah like a five year old without context and commentary, you will have more then a billion questions, and without the Oral Torah its a total mystery, impossible to decipher. There was a cult that existed in Israel some 2200 years ago called the 'Karaites', they detached themselves from mainstream Judaism because they didn't believe in the authenticity of the Oral Torah, they only believed in the written Torah, thus every year when yom Kippur came, they have lost nearly half of their population, cause they made their infants fast, and they all died from hunger. But if they believed in the Oral Torah, God told Moses that only boys that are 13 years of age and older and girls 12 years and older need to fast, the children, and the infants, and the sickly and the pregnant women are exempt, because God gave the Torah so that humans would live and prosper from it, not that they should die from it, as the Torah is called , 'The Torah of Life'.

But those fools who rejected it, have died, and they have cut themselves from the rest of the Jewish people, and have disappeared from memory, and today the only people who are considered authentic Jews, are the ones that kept the Oral Torah together with the written, and all other sects and cults that decided to deviate from classical Judaism, have either became other religions, or disappeared all together. So when I tell you that Jacob was a Great Saint, and a Great Scholar, I'm explaining to you what the Oral Torah says about him, and you can rest assured that it is 100% true and is the word of God. And when I tell you that Esau was a wild brutal warlord, you can rest assured that that's exactly what he was, a rapist, a murderer, and an adulterer. For example the Talmud says that on the day that Esau came from hunting and his father Isaac had asked him to prepare some food for him so that he may eat and bless him, the Talmud counts the following crimes that he had committed, Murder, Theaft, and rape. Who did he murder? he had murdered Nimrod, why did he do that? Because Nimrod was wearing the clothes that God had created for Adam after Adam realized that he was naked. This was no ordinary clothing, and it came to Nimrod's hands, Esau ambushed him, and murdered him, and he took these clothing and came back, and this is how we are met with Esau coming from the hunt in the verse of Genesis:

"* and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to
Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am
faint: therefore was his name called Edom (red). And Jacob said,
Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the
point to die: and what profit this day: and he sold his birthright
unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles;
and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way,
Esau despised his birthright.*

So from reading these verse, does anyone know why Esau was so faint and tired? Does anyone know why the Torah went so far to even mention to us that Jacob prepared lentiles? Does anyone know what happened on that day? The Torah is extremely economical, and when it goes out of its way to say the word lentiles, it tries to give us a context that we should know, but still without the Oral Torah its one big mystery. On that day Abraham passed away, and Jewish law says that a person should eat certain things when he is mourning, one of those special foods is lentils, one of the reasons is because its a round food, and thus hints to the mourner the cycle of life, that everyone lives and dies, so it gives him some kind of consolation. There is way more to be said about this, but lets go on for now. Why did Esau come faint and tired from the field? again, to the one that reads it like a five year old story book, he couldn't care less of what is actually going on here, but every letter and word in the Torah is a diamond that holds within it deep explanations and secrets, and a Jew is given the chance to brighten these gems and see what is going on here with the help of the Oral Torah. But those who don't have this information, always ask 'so where's the evidence'? as if their lack of knowledge and ignorance is something to be proud of…well its not. The Torah is multilayered and extremely difficult to understand, that's why one needs to study it extremely seriously if he wants to really understand and know.


----------



## DavidA

You say:

So when I tell you that Jacob was a Great Saint, and a Great Scholar, I'm explaining to you what the Oral Torah says about him, and you can rest assured that it is 100% true and is the word of God. And when I tell you that Esau was a wild brutal warlord, you can rest assured that that's exactly what he was, a rapist, a murderer, and an adulterer. For example the Talmud says that on the day that Esau came from hunting and his father Isaac had asked him to prepare some food for him so that he may eat and bless him, the Talmud counts the following crimes that he had committed, Murder, Theaft, and rape. Who did he murder? he had murdered Nimrod, why did he do that? Because Nimrod was wearing the clothes that God had created for Adam after Adam realized that he was naked. This was no ordinary clothing, and it came to Nimrod's hands, Esau ambushed him, and murdered him, and he took these clothing and came back, and this is how we are met with Esau coming from the hunt in the verse of Genesis: 

This is made up much later. There is absolutely no evidence that Esau was a rapist, murderer and adulterer. The Bible actually says that he reconciled with his brother Jacob even after Jacob had cheated him. Esau was not a godly man but to paint him in such colours is seeing things that are not there.
As to this business with him having Adams clothes. Adam had long since died and they had been a flood on the earth. Do you think the clothes (they were skins actually) would have survived that lot and been wearable? This is all mythical stuff of which there is absolutely no evidence in the original writings.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> This is all mythical stuff of which there is absolutely no evidence in the original writings.


You mean it isn't _all _mythical stuff anyway?


----------



## Petwhac

Musician:
Your last post #67 makes interesting reading but as I have stated before, in order to accept any of it as fact takes a huge leap of faith. It is a leap that many Hindus, Buddhist and Pagans are not prepared to make. Indeed, why should they? All religions and belief systems have their own creation stories, histories, scriptures, traditions. You accept that God (your particular God) spoke to a human, Moses, giving him instructions but you do not accept (I presume) that God impregnated another human who gave birth to His son Jesus. I also presume you do not accept that over a millennia later God revealed his instructions to Mohammed. I presume you do not accept _as fact_ the Hindu, Pagan or Buddhist versions of creation. 
And lastly, can you square the story of Creation and Adam and Eve with modern cosmology, geology and evolutionary theory?

Before this thread is closed due to going way off topic perhaps you, I, DavidA and anyone else interested can explore these issues in the more appropriate 'groups' section the 'community' area of TC.

In the meantime, a short answer to any of my questions would be nice.


----------



## Petwhac

DavidA said:


> .... This is all mythical stuff of which there is absolutely no evidence in the original writings.


The original writings I would suggest are not in themselves evidence of anything factual anyway.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You mean it isn't _all _mythical stuff anyway?


No, I don't think I said that!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> No, I don't think I said that!


No, you didn't. I'm asking the question, since you appear to distinguish between some that is and some that isn't. So far as I know, it all seems mythical to me.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> No, you didn't. I'm asking the question, since you appear to distinguish between some that is and some that isn't. So far as I know, it all seems mythical to me.


The writings of the Old Testament are Jewish history. They have certainly remained unchanged for millennia. I don't see the reason to doubt them any more than any other ancient history. Things that have been added many centuries later I would question.


----------



## DavidA

Petwhac said:


> The original writings I would suggest are not in themselves evidence of anything factual anyway.


Why not? In that case we have to doubt every ancient history to be consistent.

However, as this thread is now wildly off topic I suggest we leave it there.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The writings of the Old Testament are Jewish history. [...] I don't see the reason to doubt them any more than any other ancient history.


That doesn't make them any less fictitious.


----------



## Musician

DavidA said:


> This is made up much later. There is absolutely no evidence that Esau was a rapist, murderer and adulterer. The Bible actually says that he reconciled with his brother Jacob even after Jacob had cheated him. Esau was not a godly man but to paint him in such colours is seeing things that are not there.
> As to this business with him having Adams clothes. Adam had long since died and they had been a flood on the earth. Do you think the clothes (they were skins actually) would have survived that lot and been wearable? This is all mythical stuff of which there is absolutely no evidence in the original writings.


David, what can I tell you, you missed the entire logic that I have presented to you. Don't worry, I don't blame you this is why you have Jews and non Jews. Those who believe in The Oral Torah and those who do not.

I have already explained that its impossible for Judaism to function without the Oral Torah, yet you call the main energy and component that moves Judaism as 'Made Up'...can't you see how illogical your statement sounds?

But again, I don't expect gentiles to believe what Jews believe. I can go a head and explain to you these things from different angels and observations, but I get the feeling that you have a profound difficulty accepting these things, and rejecting them easily by simply saying 'there is no evidence', but this is not a science lab, but discussions on philosophy and theology, yes most of these spiritual things can't be examined in the science lab, guess what? God also can't be examined in the science lab, there is no kind of evidence the kind that the scientific world expects and demands to prove the existence of god, so what would you suggest that God was also 'made up' or that 'there is no evidence' to suggest that he exists?

Where do you draw your line, with all the evidence that you're looking for, one has to be ready to make some thinking and logical calculations, connecting the dots, and yes a measure of faith is also needed. I personally don't need it, cause I know, not 'believe' in the existence of God, but those who lack the education and the information, do need some leap of faith. I personally can't see this world without God having created it, and care for it, and guide it to its destiny.

And as far as what you describe as 'made up' when it comes to Judaism, it is for us Jews the bread and butter of our religion.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> That doesn't make them any less fictitious.


And does not make any other written ancient history less fictitious.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Why not? In that case we have to doubt every ancient history to be consistent.
> 
> However, as this thread is now wildly off topic I suggest we leave it there.


No, we don't have to doubt _every _ancient history - though that depends on what you mean by 'ancient history' - just because some histories may be more story than fact.

Nor is the thread wildly off-topic. If a member posts at length, an explanation of why some composers are not Jewish, it's pertinent to analyse the explanation and expose its falsehoods. The problem is that the explanation seems itself to be wild, and wildly, over-assertive posts should be challenged.

Unless, of course, we all agree that this thread has already run its course and Musician's latest posts deserve to be ignored?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> No, we don't have to doubt _every _ancient history - though that depends on what you mean by 'ancient history' - just because some histories may be more story than fact.
> 
> Nor is the thread wildly off-topic. If a member posts at length, an explanation of why some composers are not Jewish, it's pertinent to analyse the explanation and expose its falsehoods. The problem is that the explanation seems itself to be wild, and wildly, over-assertive posts should be challenged.
> 
> Unless, of course, we all agree that this thread has already run its course and Musician's latest posts deserve to be ignored?


And how do you decide what stories are fact?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> And how do you decide what stories are fact?


_I _don't. I leave that to the archaeologists and historians. If they offer evidence that suggests there is more fact than fiction in a story, I'll go with that...for now.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> _I _don't. I leave that to the archaeologists and historians. If they offer evidence that suggests there is more fact than fiction in a story, I'll go with that...for now.


I once had the privilege as a student of having dinner with the great archeologist Donald Wiseman. I asked him about this point wrt the Bible. He told me that there were no contradictions when things are rightly understood.


----------



## starthrower

Kleinzeit said:


> View attachment 23838
> 
> 
> Been reading this fine bio of the great maudit.
> Harry's paternal side was Brooklynese for at least two generations but presumably Norwegian originally (the book really doesn't say). They tend to be Lutheran. And his mother was Irish Catholic.


Nilsson was Swedish. And a crazy one at that! Partied himself to death by age 52.


----------



## Petwhac

DavidA said:


> And how do you decide what stories are fact?


It's to do with plausibility, corroborative materials from _independent_ sources and physical artefacts.

Hence: Dinosaurs roamed the earth before humans evolved. Evidence? Fossils, very sophisticated dating mechanisms using radioactive decay rates. Consensus among scientists. Reasons to doubt? Until new evidence is presented to refute the proposition, None.

Evidence for Noah's ArK? It was written in a book. By whom? When? Many reasons to doubt.

Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilisations are known to have existed. Evidence? Countless artefacts, writings (from numerous independent sources), art, coins and buildings etc. Highly plausible, no good reason to doubt.

King Arthur and the Knights Of There Round Table- Legend. Not enough evidence to think it is anything other than a story although some parts of it may be based on real people and events. However since it is not wholly plausible we would not expect ourselves to build our lives and philosophy around the story.

.....and so on.

How can one accept the Biblical creation story when there is real hard evidence, measurements, data that has been verified over and over again concerning the life cycle of stars, the expansion of the universe, the evolution of life forms.

And the most important thing is:

We only accept 'the story' of the big-band or black holes until new evidence suggest we are wrong. But the religions will never discard their belief in their stories and prefer to disregard any new evidence.


----------



## Musician

To trust your entire life and world outlook based on science, can give you some twisted results cause science has no means to prove the existence of many things, things like love, hate, emotional feelings, desire, conscience, life-force, and the list can go on and on, but this doesnt mean that just because science cant prove it that they don't exist. Many things exist without the approval mark of the science world. So unless you are ready to suggest that it is only science which has the authority to credit or discredit every single thing in this universe, then you can't use science as a universal medium to judge and measure everything in our world. Half ways, are just half ways, we need absolutes for that, and extrapolations based on studies made for hundreds of years cant be spread over to the billions of years, cause the world functioned entirely different back then, and one can get wrong conclusions based on limited extrapolations.

The bottom line is, that yes indeed the vast majority of the world demands and needs some kind of dependency on faith in order to believe the supernatural, but for Orthodox Jews, our history and traditions, and the sacred books that we posses shed intense rays of light that clarify to us without the slightest of doubt that everything that is said in the bible is the absolute and ultimate truth. Those that demand evidence lack all of these factors, that's why its no wonder that they use science as a mean to fill in the vacuum, but as I explained, science is limited to do this job, there is only a certain distance science can go, and from there you either accept or reject, and this is the entire point of choice. If God created the entire world with such overwhelming evidence that he exists, then we would be just like robots bereft of any choice to believe in him or not, so the whole idea of reward and punishment wouldn't exist. Angels don't have a choice because they are under the direct wing of God, they don't need any scientific evidence to prove them his existence. But for humans, some humans its necessary, but for the Jewish people who witnessed God directly on Mount Sinai, and didnt base their faith based on stories made by man, its a totally different situation. We were exposed to these truths, and that's why there is no power in the world that can force the Jews to relinquish their faith and commitment to God. Even after all the hardships, and persecutions, the Jews came out victorious and those enemies who tried to make the Jews forget their God, can only be found in the history books.



Petwhac said:


> It's to do with plausibility, corroborative materials from _independent_ sources and physical artefacts.
> 
> Hence: Dinosaurs roamed the earth before humans evolved. Evidence? Fossils, very sophisticated dating mechanisms using radioactive decay rates. Consensus among scientists. Reasons to doubt? Until new evidence is presented to refute the proposition, None.
> 
> Evidence for Noah's ArK? It was written in a book. By whom? When? Many reasons to doubt.
> 
> Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilisations are known to have existed. Evidence? Countless artefacts, writings (from numerous independent sources), art, coins and buildings etc. Highly plausible, no good reason to doubt.
> 
> King Arthur and the Knights Of There Round Table- Legend. Not enough evidence to think it is anything other than a story although some parts of it may be based on real people and events. However since it is not wholly plausible we would not expect ourselves to build our lives and philosophy around the story.
> 
> .....and so on.
> 
> How can one accept the Biblical creation story when there is real hard evidence, measurements, data that has been verified over and over again concerning the life cycle of stars, the expansion of the universe, the evolution of life forms.
> 
> And the most important thing is:
> 
> We only accept 'the story' of the big-band or black holes until new evidence suggest we are wrong. But the religions will never discard their belief in their stories and prefer to disregard any new evidence.


----------



## Kleinzeit

starthrower said:


> Nilsson was Swedish. And a crazy one at that! Partied himself to death by age 52.


Right you are! His paternal grandparents were Swedish circus performers and dancers, especially known for their "aerial ballet".

Missed that part. I tend to read biographies backwards, from the sordid end, to the triumphant comeback, to the hubristic downfall, to the salad days, to the early struggles. Finally I sweep up with the childhood, and the ancestors getting off the boat. Works for me.

Poor Harry, poor addictive extravert lacking the Keith Richards constitution. It seems that Lennon, by comparison, was a model of staunch work ethic & self-preservation.


----------



## Guest

Musician said:


> To trust your entire life and world outlook based on science, can give you some twisted results cause science has no means to prove the existence of many things, things like love, hate, emotional feelings, desire, conscience, life-force, and the list can go on and on, but this doesnt mean that just because science cant prove it that they don't exist. Many things exist without the approval mark of the science world.


That's quite a list. Suffice to say that 'science' can provide much information about what is on the list. Attractive as myths and legends are, they are much less reliable as a basis for understanding the material world. Of course, there is dispute about what belongs to the material world and what to the spiritual world (and even arcane disputes about whether either of these worlds really exist at all) but that's well off the point of this thread.


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> To trust your entire life and world outlook based on science, can give you some twisted results cause science has no means to prove the existence of many things, things like love, hate, emotional feelings, desire, conscience, life-force, and the list can go on and on, but this doesnt mean that just because science cant prove it that they don't exist. Many things exist without the approval mark of the science world. So unless you are ready to suggest that it is only science which has the authority to credit or discredit every single thing in this universe, then you can't use science as a universal medium to judge and measure everything in our world. Half ways, are just half ways, we need absolutes for that, and extrapolations based on studies made for hundreds of years cant be spread over to the billions of years, cause the world functioned entirely different back then, and one can get wrong conclusions based on limited extrapolations.
> 
> The bottom line is, that yes indeed the vast majority of the world demands and needs some kind of dependency on faith in order to believe the supernatural, but for Orthodox Jews, our history and traditions, and the sacred books that we posses shed intense rays of light that clarify to us without the slightest of doubt that everything that is said in the bible is the absolute and ultimate truth. Those that demand evidence lack all of these factors, that's why its no wonder that they use science as a mean to fill in the vacuum, but as I explained, science is limited to do this job, there is only a certain distance science can go, and from there you either accept or reject, and this is the entire point of choice. If God created the entire world with such overwhelming evidence that he exists, then we would be just like robots bereft of any choice to believe in him or not, so the whole idea of reward and punishment wouldn't exist. Angels don't have a choice because they are under the direct wing of God, they don't need any scientific evidence to prove them his existence. But for humans, some humans its necessary, but for the Jewish people who witnessed God directly on Mount Sinai, and didnt base their faith based on stories made by man, its a totally different situation. We were exposed to these truths, and that's why there is no power in the world that can force the Jews to relinquish their faith and commitment to God. Even after all the hardships, and persecutions, the Jews came out victorious and those enemies who tried to make the Jews forget their God, can only be found in the history books.


You never actually answer any direct questions. 
Here's a few very simple ones. A straight answer would help me get a handle on what you actually believe.
Do you believe that the earth is approx 4 billion years old?
Do you believe that The Flood as depicted in the bible was a real event in history and can you give an approximate date?
Was it before or after the dinosaurs? 
Do you believe Jesus was the son of God? Do you believe Mohammed received God's word?

I'd rather trust my life to science. I do and I bet you do too in the form of medical science? 
It's not _life_ you are trusting to your religion it is the fear of death and punishment and the hope of reward in an afterlife that may not exist (low probability)
Your religion requires you to busy yourself with ritual and symbolism and to obey unquestionable commands. Is that such a great way to live?


----------



## Garlic

Musician said:


> To trust your entire life and world outlook based on science, can give you some twisted results cause science has no means to prove the existence of many things, things like love, hate, emotional feelings, desire, conscience, life-force, and the list can go on and on, but this doesnt mean that just because science cant prove it that they don't exist.


"Life force" is superstitious claptrap, as a concept adds nothing to our understanding of living things and their behaviour. The other things you mention are poorly defined so in a very real sense they don't exist, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful concepts on a social level.



Musician said:


> Many things exist without the approval mark of the science world. So unless you are ready to suggest that it is only science which has the authority to credit or discredit every single thing in this universe, then you can't use science as a universal medium to judge and measure everything in our world. Half ways, are just half ways, we need absolutes for that, and extrapolations based on studies made for hundreds of years cant be spread over to the billions of years, cause the world functioned entirely different back then, and one can get wrong conclusions based on limited extrapolations.


What exactly are you referring to here? We have universal constants - c, G, h - these do not change over time.

It's true that there are some things science can't explain. Things that don't exist, for example.


----------



## Musician

Petwhac said:


> You never actually answer any direct questions.
> Here's a few very simple ones. A straight answer would help me get a handle on what you actually believe.
> Do you believe that the earth is approx 4 billion years old?
> Do you believe that The Flood as depicted in the bible was a real event in history and can you give an approximate date?
> Was it before or after the dinosaurs?
> Do you believe Jesus was the son of God? Do you believe Mohammed received God's word?
> 
> I'd rather trust my life to science. I do and I bet you do too in the form of medical science?
> It's not _life_ you are trusting to your religion it is the fear of death and punishment and the hope of reward in an afterlife that may not exist (low probability)
> Your religion requires you to busy yourself with ritual and symbolism and to obey unquestionable commands. Is that such a great way to live?


You're asking good questions, but all of these questions are old.

You and many like you have one major problem, and it is the limited understanding of the Torah. Again, you only posses a translated version of the Torah, which was given originally in Hebrew. The other further limitation is the fact that the Torah has four layers. What you have read until now is the simple narrative translation from Hebrew to English, but you are missing the other 3 layers that go one step deeper then the other to shed light on what is going on, and what the Torah is actually saying. If I was you, for example, I would ask the same questions, how can it be? science says that the world is 16 billion years old, while the Bible says its only 5700 years, so who do I believe? The major problem with this question is that the Bible never says that the universe is 5700 years. People think that that's what it says because again they are suffering from the 5 year old little kid's story reading approach. Had they knew what it really says, their question wouldn't even surface. So what does the Torah actually say about this seemingly glaring scientific question? The Torah says that on the 4th day God created the Sun, the Moon and the Stars. This means to say that on the 3rd day, when all these things were missing from existence, the concept of time as we humans know it, didn't exist. Cause we understand time in human terms when the sun goes down and appears back on the east, we count 24 hours, and this is a time that is relevance to our world as human beings. But from the first 'day' of creation until the Galaxies and Stars were created, the concept of time didn't exist as we humans understand it. From that gap between the 1st and 4th 'days' it could be that a certain time that which we can't explain in human terms has passed, and it could be anywhere from a billion to 20 billion years. Also, when it says 'days' in the Torah in Genesis it doesn't mean the 24 hour days that we are accustomed, they are rather more like Eras. But when the ignorant scientist opens up the bible and begins reading the bible as a story book, he says look how foolish are those who believe these things, while the truth is that the joke is on him, cause he absolutely missed the entire point.

And yes, when the Torah says the Great 'Taninim' it means dinosaurs. And one needs to also remember that God didn't create the world as an infant that needs to be developed. His utterances of creation have created complete and functioning realities. Adam was not created as an infant who evolved and became a grown up man, so too the animals, all other things such as trees mountains and so on. They all were created ready as if they were here living and existing for billions of years, so the whole evolution theory withers, for God doesn't need time to create these things, that is one of the attributes of God, that he is all powerful and can create things without any difficulties or limitations.

As for the flood, of course it happened, why would you discredit such an event. I believe they have found fossil records of fish and marine life on top of mountains, can you explain what is marine life doing on the mountains? just google it.

About Jesus and Mohammed. The Jewish position is clear to all, that we only accept the Prophets that are mentioned in our Tanach, the Jewish Bible. The Jews are the only people on earth who were given the authority to screen out prophets. We know what questions to ask from them, and the precise parameters were given to us on Mount Sinai. After the codification of the Jewish Bible, Prophecy has ended. The Torah says clearly in *Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent".* It also says so in Samuel *15:29 : "He (God) who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind."*

We also have a direct commandment from God that forbids us to offer human sacrifices before God, for its an abomination before him: *Leviticus 18:21 :"Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Moloch, nor defile the name of thy God. I am the Lord."*

It also says in the first and second commandment that its forbidden for Jews and non Jews alike to create any image that may be used as a medium or resemblance to God, any attributes of physicality when it comes to the essence of God are strongly rejected in the Torah.

As for Mohammed, or any other dreamer who decided to create a new religion, we reject them completely, because Judaism demands a national revelation to screen out any liars and false prophets. Actually it is the only religion that is based on National Revelation. We believe that if a person is required to believe in God, and follow his commandments, every single member should experience prophecy and witness God directly, and this shouldn't be the luxury of only a few. From the world's 10.000 religions, Judaism stands out as the only one that has experienced National Revelation. This is an astronomical difference.


----------



## Garlic

My eyes just glaze over when I see quotes from scripture. It pains me that in the 21st century we have people who take this nonsense seriously.


----------



## Musician

I think humans are basically the same today just like they were 5000 years ago, I mean no one has antennas coming out his head rite?



Garlic said:


> My eyes just glaze over when I see quotes from scripture. It pains me that in the 21st century we have people who take this nonsense seriously.


----------



## Garlic

Humans are basically the same as they were 100,000 years ago.
I'd rather live now than then though.


----------



## Musician

You can't live then, no one can...we can only live now. I don't know how anything I said contradicts that.



Garlic said:


> Humans are basically the same as they were 100,000 years ago.
> I'd rather live now than then though.


----------



## DavidA

Petwhac said:


> How can one accept the Biblical creation story when there is real hard evidence, measurements, data that has been verified over and over again concerning the life cycle of stars, the expansion of the universe, the evolution of life forms.
> 
> And the most important thing is:
> 
> We only accept 'the story' of the big-band or black holes until new evidence suggest we are wrong. But the religions will never discard their belief in their stories and prefer to disregard any new evidence.


We appear to accept unquestioningly that non-living forms put themselves together into complex living forms.
That unguided forces produced complex information.
That to me is credulity.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> My eyes just glaze over when I see quotes from scripture. It pains me that in the 21st century we have people who take this nonsense seriously.


Must pain you as it describes the human condition so accurately!


----------



## Petwhac

DavidA said:


> We appear to accept unquestioningly that non-living forms put themselves together into complex living forms.
> That unguided forces produced complex information.
> That to me is credulity.


Who accepts unquestioningly?


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> Humans are basically the same as they were 100,000 years ago.
> I'd rather live now than then though.


You lived then? Amazing! Hmmmm


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> We appear to accept unquestioningly that non-living forms put themselves together into complex living forms.


This is the old "argument from design". First off, there is no clear demarcation between living and non-living forms, no one set of chemical reactions that can be pointed to as the start of life.



DavidA said:


> That unguided forces produced complex information.
> That to me is credulity.


"Information" is a tricky word - this isn't the "DNA is a code" argument is it? Blind, mechanical processes can create structures of huge complexity and apparent design. There is no need for something to be in control.

What is credulity is believing that the universe came into existence because magic man said so.


----------



## Celloman

Must we always go off-topic? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> This is the old "argument from design". First off, there is no clear demarcation between living and non-living forms, no one set of chemical reactions that can be pointed to as the start of life.
> 
> "Information" is a tricky word - this isn't the "DNA is a code" argument is it? Blind, mechanical processes can create structures of huge complexity and apparent design. There is no need for something to be in control.
> 
> What is credulity is believing that the universe came into existence because magic man said so.


Yes but information based design requires specificity. I mean, what blind processes produce computer programs?

Because the argument from design is old it doesn't mean it's wrong. It is actually pretty obvious unless you shut your eyes to it!

To me it is strains credibility even more that the universe came into existence by itself. I mean, 'in the beginning nothing created something' - to me that is magic!


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> Yes but information based design requires specificity. I mean, what blind processes produce computer programs?
> 
> Because the argument from design is old it doesn't mean it's wrong. It is actually pretty obvious unless you shut your eyes to it!


What exactly do you mean by information?

The argument from design is an argument from incredulity, it demonstrates nothing but a lack of imagination in the person putting forward the argument. The fact of evolution by natural selection is pretty obvious unless you close your eyes to it.



DavidA said:


> To me it is strains credibility even more that the universe came into existence by itself. I mean, 'in the beginning nothing created something' - to me that is magic!


No physicist would talk in those terms - this is storytelling, not science. Religion appeals to our intuitive need for stories to make sense of the world, but these stories should not be taken as accurate accounts of reality. There are no goals, purposes or intentions in reality, just processes.


----------



## Petwhac

DavidA said:


> Yes but information based design requires specificity. I mean, what blind processes produce computer programs?
> 
> Because the argument from design is old it doesn't mean it's wrong. It is actually pretty obvious unless you shut your eyes to it!
> 
> To me it is strains credibility even more that the universe came into existence by itself. I mean, 'in the beginning nothing created something' - to me that is magic!


People produce computer programs.

The argument from design fails to address the problem of who designed the designer. This is the problem of infinite regress and having a designer throws up many more questions than not having one.

In the 1950s two scientists succeeded in creating organic material (amino acids which are the building blocks of protein) in a laboratory. They simulated the atmosphere of the early using chemicals and electricity.

Is it plausible that life can occur spontaneously from inanimate matter? Very plausible. No need for magic.

God is an hypothesis that is not necessary.


----------



## DavidA

Petwhac said:


> People produce computer programs.
> 
> The argument from design fails to address the problem of who designed the designer. This is the problem of infinite regress and having a designer throws up many more questions than not having one.
> 
> In the 1950s two scientists succeeded in creating organic material (amino acids which are the building blocks of protein) in a laboratory. They simulated the atmosphere of the early using chemicals and electricity.
> 
> Is it plausible that life can occur spontaneously from inanimate matter? Very plausible. No need for magic.
> 
> God is an hypothesis that is not necessary.


The Miller / Urey experiment caused a stir when it was first published. There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning it because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
On to your next hypothesis.


----------



## DavidA

Garlic said:


> What exactly do you mean by information?
> 
> The argument from design is an argument from incredulity, it demonstrates nothing but a lack of imagination in the person putting forward the argument. The fact of evolution by natural selection is pretty obvious unless you close your eyes to it.
> 
> No physicist would talk in those terms - this is storytelling, not science. Religion appeals to our intuitive need for stories to make sense of the world, but these stories should not be taken as accurate accounts of reality. There are no goals, purposes or intentions in reality, just processes.


You are making the classic mistake of the materialist that because you believe you have found the mechanism you can then dispense with the agency.


----------



## Petwhac

DavidA said:


> The Miller / Urey experiment caused a stir when it was first published. There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning it because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
> On to your next hypothesis.


I am talking about plausibility and probability. The experiment was a tiny step in the direction of a greater understanding of the universe. That's how science works. 
However incomplete these experiments are they open up the possibility for future work and understanding and are far more persuasive than tales of the supernatural.


----------



## Couchie

Gentlemen, I direct you to the Religious Discussion group to continue your religious debate. 

In the meantime let us discuss why none of these Jews are as great as Wagner.


----------



## Garlic

DavidA said:


> You are making the classic mistake of the materialist that because you believe you have found the mechanism you can then dispense with the agency.


What explanatory power does the concept of agency add? If we understand the mechanism, that's all we need to explain the phenomenon. If agency (or god, or whatever) has no physical properties that can be measured, and adds nothing to the explanation, then maybe it's redundant as a concept.


----------



## cwarchc

I think we need to instill some






here as we appear to have gone rather


----------



## Petwhac

cwarchc said:


> I think we need to instill some
> View attachment 23918
> here as we appear to have gone rather
> View attachment 23919


 See y'all there!
'Jewish composers' is not a particularly stimulating topic for discussion anyhow


----------



## Musician

Its like saying let us discuss why the earth is up and the sky is down...
Good luck...



Couchie said:


> Gentlemen, I direct you to the Religious Discussion group to continue your religious debate.
> 
> In the meantime let us discuss why none of these Jews are as great as Wagner.


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> Its like saying let us discuss why the earth is up and the sky is down...
> Good luck...


I started a thread in the religious discussion group and if you would like to join me there I have many questions regarding Jewish law.


----------



## Musician

Petwhac said:


> I started a thread in the religious discussion group and if you would like to join me there I have many questions regarding Jewish law.


Where is the link to your group?


----------



## Petwhac

Musician said:


> Where is the link to your group?


http://www.talkclassical.com/groups...ious-doctrine-judaism-christ-science-all.html


----------



## Musician

I got it, yes, already posted something


----------



## mmsbls

The suggestion to take these religious arguments and discussions to the groups is a great one. At any rate please refrain from further posts that discuss religion without a connection to music or composers. Such posts tend to create an environment that leads to infractions and closed threads.


----------



## Celloman

I have a question. Do you think that the fact of a conductor being "Jewish" actually affects the performance of music by Jewish composers? To what extent is this a factor, if any? (eg., Leonard Bernstein conducting Mahler)


----------



## peeyaj

Did Lenny conduct any Wagner?


----------



## Sid James

Celloman said:


> I have a question. Do you think that the fact of a conductor being "Jewish" actually affects the performance of music by Jewish composers? To what extent is this a factor, if any? (eg., Leonard Bernstein conducting Mahler)


I don't know about that, but it certainly would be a factor with vocal music, eg. sung in Hebrew. I got the Jan Peerce album of Hebrew melodies below. He was of Jewish heritage, as well as another thing I have, Milhaud's Sacred Service, the singer on that named Yaron Windmueller is of this background too:


----------



## DavidA

peeyaj said:


> Did Lenny conduct any Wagner?


He made a recording of Tristan.


----------



## Guest

Musician said:


> Joss Stone, British Singer/Songwriter
> 
> Jewess


Really? A quick internet search casts doubt on this.

Anyway, I think the first part of the OP - who are the composers who are Jewish - has been more than amply answered: no need to argue over the ethnic inheritance of one or two!


----------



## Musician

You'll find her here:
http://jewishness.bellevueholidayrentals.com/list_of_famous_jews.html



MacLeod said:


> Really? A quick internet search casts doubt on this.
> 
> Anyway, I think the first part of the OP - who are the composers who are Jewish - has been more than amply answered: no need to argue over the ethnic inheritance of one or two!


----------



## Guest

Musician said:


> You'll find her here:
> http://jewishness.bellevueholidayrentals.com/list_of_famous_jews.html


But here....

http://hollowverse.com/joss-stone/



> Stone is not at all religious-or if she is, she doesn't let on at all. There is much speculation that she is Jewish, and even a few websites seem to be rather confident of that.12 But I can't seem to find anything very convincing to support that claim.


----------



## Musician

http://guesswhosjewish.com/Joss_Stone.htm


----------



## Orfeo

PetrB said:


> For both Mendelssohn and Mahler, conversion was at least initially a matter of convenience and survival. You just did not get appointed as the director / conductor of the Hungarian opera or any other such important post if you were Jewish. (THE exceptions seem to have been for individual performers in orchestras and soloist performers.) That nominal sort of conversion of Mendelssohn and Mahler was a commonplace occurrence in their lifetimes. (Schoenberg converted to Christianity too -- also a matter of survival -- he held to it for some while until later in the States, safe from the anti-Semitic hurricane of Hitler in the 1930's - 40's, he converted back.)


Which what made Leonard Bernstein even more admirable, because during the Red Scare (McCarthyism) when Bernstein was among those who were blacklisted, he stood his ground. Please remember folks that it was even more dangerous to be Jewish and, let alone, Black during that time (Paul Robeson was mobbed during a concert slated to commence in Upstate New York around the late 1940s). At one point, Bernstein was asked to change his name (which many Jewish performers, actors, actresses did so for practical reasons, like, for instances Arthur Leonard Rosenberg a/k/a Tony Randall and Jacob Joachim Klugman a/k/a Jack Klugman), and after deliberation, he refused. My respect and admiration towards this great person of guts grew immeasurably.


----------



## hpowders

Mahler counts even though he converted. The test is if Mahler lived to around 1940, would Hitler have killed him for being Jewish and the answer would have to be "YES"!!


----------



## QuietGuy

Copland was Jewish


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. Jacob Klugman to Jack Klugman. How could he live with such a radical name change.

Either way, he and Tony Randall were simply fabulous together in the Odd Couple series and I dearly miss them both.

My dad changed his name in the 1940's. He owned a pharmacy on Madison Avenue, upper east side, in Manhattan that catered to wealthy WASPs residing on Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue.


----------



## quack

hpowders said:


> Mahler counts even though he converted. The test is if Mahler lived to around 1940, would Hitler have killed him for being Jewish and the answer would have to be "YES"!!


I was reading about Manfred Gurlitt a composer who wrote _Wozzeck_ another opera based on the same play Alban Berg used. Gurlitt joined the Nazi party in 1933 but was thrown out a few years later due to the question of his grandmother's jewishness. He managed to move to Japan where worked with the Tokyo Philharmonic Orchestra during the war and afterwards.


----------



## hpowders

quack said:


> I was reading about Manfred Gurlitt a composer who wrote _Wozzeck_ another opera based on the same play Alban Berg used. Gurlitt joined the Nazi party in 1933 but was thrown out a few years later due to the question of his grandmother's jewishness. He managed to move to Japan where worked with the Tokyo Philharmonic Orchestra during the war and afterwards.


It didn't matter if you converted and attended church regularly. The blood was considered "tainted". I'm sure Mahler would have been in serious trouble had he lived into the late 1930's, unless he had the good fortune to get out.


----------



## Orfeo

hpowders said:


> Yeah. Jacob Klugman to Jack Klugman. How could he live with such a radical name change.
> 
> Either way, he and Tony Randall were simply fabulous together in the Odd Couple series and I dearly miss them both.
> 
> My dad changed his name in the 1940's. He owned a pharmacy on Madison Avenue, upper east side, in Manhattan that catered to wealthy WASPs residing on Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue.


I do not mean to pry, but how do you feel about your father's decision, and the overall issue, which is in some ways a viable one today.


----------



## Benny

I didn't have he time to read the whole thread. Did you mention Offenbach, Copland, Alkan, Achron, and Schoenberg?

I saw you mentioned Israeli non-classical composers, so let me tell you that the best and most sophisticated among them is Matti Caspi. Here re some of his best songs:

Makom LiDeagah (approx.: "A Room for Concern")
Capsi with the Israel Philharmonic: 




Mishehu ("Somebody"):
Caspi's own performance: 



Yehudit Ravitz's better one: 




Od Yavo Hayom ("The Day Will Once Come")





Hineh-Hineh ("Here-here")
With the IPO:


----------



## hpowders

dholling said:


> I do not mean to pry, but how do you feel about your father's decision, and the overall issue, which is in some ways a viable one today.


Well, instead of an ethnic last name, I have a surname equivalent to "Johnson", even though I am as far removed from being a WASP as can possibly be.

I understand the times though. Not only my father, but some uncles too changed their last names.

You realize in the 1920''s-1940's, right here in the good old USA, land of the free, there were signs for renting apartments that read "no dogs or Jews allowed".


----------



## hpowders

Meanwhile I am proud of my ethnic background, counting Gustav Mahler, Felix Mendelssohn, Irving Berlin, George Gershwin, Aaron Copland, William Schuman and Leonard Bernstein as Jewish composers of note. Whether any of them converted away from Judaism makes no difference. The map of Israel was written all over their faces.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

hpowders said:


> *proud* of my ethnic background


That use of proud causes a noticeable twitch in my consciousness.


----------



## DavidA

Richannes Wrahms said:


> That use of proud causes a noticeable twitch in my consciousness.


Why on earth............??


----------



## hpowders

Richannes Wrahms said:


> That use of proud causes a noticeable twitch in my consciousness.


Sorry. I meant very proud. :lol:


----------



## Orfeo

hpowders said:


> Well, instead of an ethnic last name, I have a surname equivalent to "Johnson", even though I am as far removed from being a WASP as can possibly be.
> 
> I understand the times though. Not only my father, but some uncles too changed their last names.
> 
> You realize in the 1920''s-1940's, right here in the good old USA, land of the free, there were signs for renting apartments that read "no dogs or Jews allowed".


Yes, I do know that. One of the many unfortunate chapters (or instances) in our country's history.


----------



## hpowders

dholling said:


> Yes, I do know that. One of the many unfortunate chapters (or instances) in our country's history.


My father and uncles lived through it. They would never think of converting but they did change their last names.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> The suggestion to take these religious arguments and discussions to the groups is a great one. At any rate please refrain from further posts that discuss religion without a connection to music or composers. Such posts tend to create an environment that leads to infractions and closed threads.


Music is not being discussed here. I will not attempt to define what is being discussed, since it seems to involve social issues as well as 'religion.'


----------



## samurai

Richannes Wrahms said:


> That use of proud causes a noticeable twitch in my consciousness.


Why? We all should be proud of our individual ethnic backgrounds, without any *twitching *or guilt.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> I'm curious, aside from Mendelssohn and Mahler, who are some of the popular and acclaimed Jewish or Jewish *descent* classical music composers. I'm into Mendelssohn right now, and I think his good..





peeyaj said:


> Is being a Jew, related to religion or nationality? You mentioned Mendelssohn.. Is he considered Jew, even though he is a Christian, or not?


Well, that question seems to have been cleared up, as the recent un-censored posts seem to treat it an ethnic issue now, with no protest from moderation; and the opening poster's use of the term *'descent'* assumes that it is more than a simply religious issue. Is he correct?



peeyaj said:


> Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?





starry said:


> No. Some people could use folk elements, but it's a matter of stylistic choice and not necessarily related to what ethnicity or nationality someone is. * The only people who see it as important are those obsessed by ethnic/nationalist issues and who put this onto the music.*


I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question. Even the answer is qualified by the term 'not necessarily,' and is then contradicted by saying that this quality is from _'obsessed composers...who put this into the music.'_ If the answer is* no,* then what is _'put onto the music'?_ What quality are you referring to?

To say that this series of discs (pictured below) does not represent any 'quality of Jewishness' would seem to somehow invalidate it. I would feel compelled to ask what this series of music CDs is representing.

It seems that a deep ambivalence to this issue is being revealed.










If this is true, if there is an ambivalence at play here, then it proves the point that nobody likes to be identified or 'identity-branded' unless it is of their own free will, and used as their own identifier, for their own self-identity. Only then does it have any validity.

Otherwise, it would seem that this type of 'identity branding' is proprietary, to be used only by members of that particular group. Even benign or positive uses of such identity-brands (by non-members)seems to make everyone nervous, or present some sort of 'danger.'


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm getting a bit scared about this thread now - I don't want people to fall out over misconceptions/misinterpretations or whatever else. Aren't we here to unite rather than divide?


----------



## hpowders

Even though I am Jewish, when I listen to Copland or Bernstein or Schuman or Mendelssohn or Mahler, the fact that they were ethnically Jewish doesn't enter my consciousness. I simply respond to the music. I think that's a typically normal reaction.


----------



## millionrainbows

elgars ghost said:


> *I'm getting a bit scared about this thread now *- I don't want people to fall out over misconceptions/misinterpretations or whatever else. Aren't we here to unite rather than divide?


You're correct to be nervous; we are walking on eggshells here. There is always the chance that something you say will be misconstrued, and that you will be attacked for it. This is proprietary territory. I think the policy of many people here would be "don't ask, don't tell." Whoops! Is that analogy offensive?


----------



## samurai

hpowders said:


> Even though I am Jewish, when I listen to Copland or Bernstein or Schuman or Mendelssohn or Mahler, the fact that they were ethnically Jewish doesn't enter my consciousness. I simply respond to the music. I think that's a typically normal reaction.


Same here!.....


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Even though I am Jewish, when I listen to Copland or Bernstein or Schuman or Mendelssohn or Mahler, the fact that they were ethnically Jewish doesn't enter my consciousness. I simply respond to the music. I think that's a typically normal reaction.


When I listen to Ernest Bloch or Leon Kirchner, I have become more convinced that their use of the octatonic scale is somehow related to Jewish chant, if only in a general way. The use of a minor and major third, the flatted fifth, somehow sound like the Sephardic chants I've heard. You know, this chant is older than Gregorian, and shows Moorish influence...Spain and its music have a definite 'Eastern' influence.

Leonard Bernstein did "Kaddish."







So, apparently, you are saying that I shouldn't think about his identity when I listen to it, unless he "okays it" by stating the connection himself or making it obvious. This makes it a "proprietary area" of thought, then. Members only are allowed to think about this.

Likewise, with Mahler, I like to consider his situation when I assess his music and its possible meanings. I got confused when I read the liner notes to a symphony No. 1 recording, and it stated that the public was 'shocked' at his use of 'street tunes.' Was this shock simply the reaction to secular, mundane music, or were there 'elements' in the tunes which exacerbated this?


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> When I listen to Ernest Bloch or Leon Kirchner, I have become more convinced that their use of the octatonic scale is somehow related to Jewish chant, if only in a general way. The use of a minor and major third, the flatted fifth, somehow sound like the Sephardic chants I've heard. You know, this chant is older than Gregorian, and shows Moorish influence...Spain and its music have a definite 'Eastern' influence.
> 
> Leonard Bernstein did "Kaddish."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, apparently, you are saying that I shouldn't think about his identity when I listen to it, unless he "okays it" by stating the connection himself or making it obvious. This makes it a "proprietary area" of thought, then. Members only are allowed to think about this.


You are right. Also Mahler's First Symphony, third movement, Mahler uses what sounds like a klezmer band, which tends to sound a bit Jewish.

I rarely listen to Bloch and when I hear the Mahler First, tears of pride do not roll down my cheeks at that point in the third movement. I've never heard Bernstein's Kaddish Symphony, nor do I have any compulsion to do so.

Music is music. I'm glad folks like Copland and Mahler were Jewish, but it is of passing significance.
This thread is one of the rare instances when I've been reminded of their ethnicity.
I really don't care about any composer's ethnicity as long as the music's good.


----------



## samurai

elgars ghost said:


> I'm getting a bit scared about this thread now - I don't want people to fall out over misconceptions/misinterpretations or whatever else. Aren't we here to unite rather than divide?


I, for one, truly believe that most of us are here for precisely that reason, as well as to share with and learn from each other in an atmosphere of respect and tolerance. Unfortunately, however--as with any other human endeavor--there always seem
to be others who are working from a quite different script, so as to achieve more nefarious goals.


----------



## hpowders

peeyaj said:


> I'm curious, aside from Mendelssohn and Mahler, who are some of the popular and acclaimed Jewish or Jewish descent classical music composers. I'm into Mendelssohn right now, and I think his good.. Also, Is there what you called "Jewishness in Music"?


There's also Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein George Gershwin, William Schuman.

I perceive absolutely nothing inherently Jewish in their musical compositions, although Bernstein did write a Kaddish Symphony which supposedly has Jewish roots.

I play Copland's Appalachian Spring, Bernstein's West Side Story, Mahler's 9th Symphony, Mendelssohn's Piano Trio #1, Gershwin's An American in Paris and Schuman's 3rd Symphony and I don't hear Jewish music.

What I hear is simply great music.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

samurai said:


> Why? We all should be proud of our individual ethnic backgrounds, without any *twitching *or guilt.


 I support reason as the basis of behaviour. I have a longer, tiresome explanation and argument but I have reduced it to that premise.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> There's also Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein George Gershwin, William Schuman.
> 
> I perceive absolutely nothing inherently Jewish in their musical compositions, although Bernstein did write a Kaddish Symphony which supposedly has Jewish roots.
> 
> I play Copland's Appalachian Spring, Bernstein's West Side Story, Mahler's 9th Symphony, Mendelssohn's Piano Trio #1, Gershwin's An American in Paris and Schuman's 3rd Symphony and I don't hear Jewish music.
> 
> What I hear is simply great music.


I think it depends on what the composer wants to put into it, and for what reasons. If a "quality" comes through in the music, it is because the composer's identity is the impetus. 
Since Copland is an American, and I think he would have self-defined his identity that way, and subsequently, his music sounds American, not Jewish. 
Bernstein seems to have accepted his heritage by openly composing Kaddish and keeping his name intact.

There may be other, less obvious 'meta-factors' at play here. For example, George Gershwin's music may not sound "Jewish" (except for maybe that opening clarinet in "Rhapsody in Blue" which rings of klezmer), but it does sound like jazz, which is essentially black music, invented by blacks. So there is an element of Gershwin feeling like 'the outsider,' and also the desire to identify with a cultural, social element, such as black jazz, in order to assimilate into the prevailing culture.

This would be an example of the Romantic ethos, the attitude that "becoming" is better than "being."_ 'Being' _is static, and represents the established order, while 'becoming' can be accomplished by anyone, and is self-defining. This is how the Romantics viewed history, as transcending the established order of the past, where social hierarchy was strictly defined (being) and was already set in stone.

Mahler's identification in his 8th symphony, with Beethoven's Ninth "everyman" spirituality, transcending Christianity, shows how the Romantic view of the world, with its rejection of the past established order, was so appealing to all the proletariat, especially those marginalized by poverty or other reasons.

That reminds me of F.Scott Fitzgerald saying, "The wealthy _really are _different than us," to which Ernest Hemingway replied, "Yes, they have more money."

So "being" in the static sense has been replaced in our supposedly democratic era with "becoming," or the potential of everyman to excel. That's why nobody in their right mind wants to be stuck in an "identity" that they have been handed, as a result of a static set of qualities, be they genetic, ethnic, or cultural. Hopefully, the internet will go further in reinforcing this, with its delicious quality of being able to remain relatively anonymous, and to "assimilate" into various places of interaction without being charged with any past "baggage" that they may possess, either by "being" something, or having "become" something, both of which are targets for Human aggression, in the form of "identity branding," social rejection, and other sorts of dirty primate in-crowd behavior and bullying.


----------



## samurai

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I support reason as the basis of behaviour. I have a longer, tiresome explanation and argument but I have reduced it to that premise.


As do most of us here, I'm sure. However, I am still unclear as to how this premise is in any way applicable to the original question posed by the op, and its subsequent responses.


----------



## millionrainbows

Thank you, ptr, for the "like." It's about time somebody liked it when I talk about social perceptions and other things related to music. I was beginning to think I was being encouraged to "just shut up and talk about music you're listening to" on the current listening thread; or maybe they're just trying to keep me out of the mine field.


----------



## Blancrocher

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you, ptr, for the "like." It's about time somebody liked it when I talk about social perceptions and other things related to music. I was beginning to think I was being encouraged to "just shut up and talk about music you're listening to" on the current listening thread; or maybe they're just trying to keep me out of the mine field.


I've been going pretty deeply in the red by "liking" so many of your posts lately, millionrainbows. I'm concerned I may have to take out a mortgage or something.


----------



## ptr

Most often I think that the discussions that involve semi musical socio-cultural topics are the most interesting ones! 

/ptr


----------



## Morimur

Speaking of Jewish composers, what you all think of John Zorn's output?


----------



## ptr

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Speaking of Jewish composers, what you all think of John Zorn's output?


..didn't know he was Jewish (not that it matters for one second!), like his music a lot, even in its smallest scale it makes my imagination travel in an outerwordly manner!

/ptr


----------



## bigshot

ptr said:


> Most often I think that the discussions that involve semi musical socio-cultural topics are the most interesting ones!


I guess I find music to be a lot more interesting than socio-cultural topics. I know I'm in the minority around here.


----------



## ptr

bigshot said:


> I guess I find music to be a lot more interesting than socio-cultural topics. I know I'm in the minority around here.


I'm not so sure You are, I think that discussions and interests in socio-cultural issues of the arts is much more of a limited interest for the "general music lover"! (I usually don't engage very deeply in these discussions, as the language barrier often makes it way to time consuming for me to write lengthy posts...)

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows

One of my biggest surprises in this area was Leon Russell (under that beard he looks a lot like Jeff Goldblum). I am from a remote area of West Texas, and was raised in total ignorance of this whole issue. I kind of wish I had never found out. Of course, this probably reflects my overall denial and ignorance of many other things, including aspects of myself that I'd rather not have to deal with. So, please, give me some slack, and I'll do the same...
)))))))))))))))


----------

